xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of
Water
(42044/1)
EPA-832-R-01-003a
March 2001
        Development Selection and
        Pilot Demonstration of
        Preliminary Environmental
        Indicators for the
        Clean Water State
        Revolving Loan Program
       Volume 2: Technical Appendices

-------

-------
Table of Contents

Volume I

Executive Summary	  i

Chapter 1. Introduction	1-1
Background	1-1
The Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF) Program	1-2
Funding Summary	1-2
CWSRF Indicator Development and Implementation	1-6

Chapter 2. Identification of Environmental Indicators for Pilot Testing	  2-1

Chapter 3. State Pilot Projects to Test the CWSRF Environmental Indicators ......  3-1
Selection of States	3-1
Analysis Type...:	3-1
State Pilot Project Summaries	3-2
Other States	3-5

Chapter 4. Evolution of Environmental Indicators  	4-1

Chapter 5. Observations and Recommendations  	4-1
Observations Related to Data	4-1
Observations Related to Programmatic Issues	4-2
Recommendations Related to Data			4-3
Recommendations Related to Programmatic Issues	4-4

-------
 List of Tables

 Table 2-1. Evolution of CWSRP Indicators from Draft 1998 Report to Pilot Testing  	2-1
 Table 3-1. Partial Summary of State Pilot Projects	3-1
 Table 3-2. Partial Summary of California Analysis	3-2
 Table 3-3. Partial Summary of Ohio Analysis	3-3
 Table 3-4. Partial Summary of Texas Analysis 	,	3-3
 Table 3-5. Partial Summary of New Jersey Analysis	3-4
 Table 3-6. Partial Summary of Utah Analysis 	3-5
 Table 3-7. Partial Summary of Maryland Analysis  	3-6
 Table 4-1. Evolution of CWSRF Indicators from Draft 1998 Report Through Pilot Testing
           Process and Final Proposed Indicators	4-1


 List of Figures

 Figure 1.  Percent of $26.1 Billion Total CWSRF Assistance (1988-1999) by Category	1-4
 Figure 2.  Percent of Yearly Total CWSRF Funding for Eight Categories of Wastewater
          Treatment	1_5
 Figure 3.  Percent of Yearly Total CWSRF Assistance Funding for Collection and Treatment
          Projects	 1-5
Volume II

Introduction
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Appendix E.
Appendix F.
Appendix G.
Appendix H.
Task Force Membership
Generic Scope of Work for Pilot Project
Pilot Project Data Entry Questionnaire
Pilot Project Data Summary
State Reports on Pilot Project Experience
Ohio Pilot Project Specific Examples
Ohio EPA Biological Indicators
Ohio EPA Sampling Fact Sheet

-------
 Introduction

 Environmental indicators have been under development at the U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA) for more than a decade. EPA conducted a feasibility analysis, developed a
 methodology, and identified available resources for developing environmental indicators and
 applying them to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program in 1998. EPA's
 Office of Wastewater Management established a Task Force to propose and oversee the pilot
 feasibility testing of a series of environmental indicators specific to the CWSRF program. The
 Task Force included 15 to 20 participants (listed in Appendix A) who have worked on this
 assignment one or two days per month since January 1999. Members were drawn from states,
 EPA regions, and EPA headquarters.

 States received a generic scope of work (Appendix B), which was intended to help establish
 consistency among the pilot projects and allow the results to be compared more consistently.
 The scope of work should be viewed in a historical context as the starting point from which the
 states began the pilot indicator project.

 After states identified the type and scope of projects to evaluate, they focused on data collection.
 One tool used for managing collected project data was a questionnaire, which was available to
 states online and in hard copy (Appendix C). The web-based questionnaire was presented in
 three successive pages entitled Project Information, Indicator Information, and Data Information.

 Each state prepared and submitted a written report on its findings.  Recommendations about how
 to best incorporate data requirements and identification of any barriers to using or accessing data
 were included in the narrative. Appendix D provides a detailed summary of states' projects and
 the full state reports are presented in Appendix E and F.

 The Task Force acknowledged that various types of physical habitat measures, such as the
 Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) and Zig-Zag Pebble Count, might be useful with
 Indicator 4 — Physical changes to the terrestrial, riparian, or aquatic habitat and hydrology as a
 result of CWSRF-funded projects.  States are encouraged to further investigate the techniques
 (field surveys, Zig-Zag Pebble Count Method), tools (QHEI, geographic information systems),
 and units (acres, river miles, degree of embeddedness) used to measure progress under this
 indicator (See Appendix G and H).

 The environmental indicators identified in this report represent the start of an evolutionary
process. As the states gain experience in trying to measure environmental progress by using
those indicators, additional or revised indicators are likely to surface, and use of geographic
information systems to detect progress is expected to be expanded. Because of the diversity
among the states, the environmental indicators are presented as a "suite" of indicators to be used
at each state's discretion according to its individual needs.

-------

-------
Appendix A. Environmental Indicator
      Task Force Membership

-------

-------
                                                                          November 2,1999

                 Environmental Indicator Task Force Membership

The Task Force should total from 15 to 20 participants working from 1-2 days per month over about a
two-year period.  Members will be drawn from states, EPA regions and headquarters. The objective is to
develop, select, pilot test, and implement a set of environmental indicators for the CWSRF program.
Addresses for EPA Headquarter members is: USEPA Waterside Mall,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460 unless noted by *

CWSRF:
Rich Deringer 260-2874, e-mail: deringer.richard{o).epa.gov. Mail Code 4204
Kong Chiu 260-1722, e-mail: chiu.kong@epa.gov. Mail Code 4204

EPA Headquarters:
Needs Survey:
Lisa Christ 260-7382, e-mail: christ.lisa@epa.gov, Mail Code 4204

Office of Planning. Analysis, and Accountability:
Anita Streets260-3626, e-mai 1 :street.anita@.epa.gov. Mail Code 2722
Arden Calvert (alternate) 260-7813, e-maii:calvert.arden@.epa.gov. Mail Code 2723

Index of Watershed Indicators:
Karen Klima 260-7087, e-mail: klima.karen@epa.gov. Mail Code 4503F*
Susan Holdsworth (alternate) 260-4743. e-mail:holdswoith.susan@,epa.gov.Mail Code 4503F*
Margarete Heber (alternate) 260-7144, e-mail: hebei-.margarete@.epa.gov Mail Code 4503*

Office of Wetlands. Oceans, and Watersheds:
Chuck Spooner 260-1314, e-mail: spooner.charles@epa.gov. Mail Code 4503F*
Otto Gutenson 260-4909, e-mail: gutenson.otto@.epa.gov. Mail Code 4503F*

AA/Water, Policy and Resource Management Office
Anne Treash (info) 260-5034, e-mail: treash.ann(o),epa.gov. Mail Code 4102

Office of Science and Technology
Mahesh Podar (info) 260-5378, e-mail: podar.mahesh@epa.gov. Mail Code 4301
       fax:9-401-0009

Office of Sustainable Ecosystems. Policy Coordination Division
Michael Mason (info) 260-5362, e-mail: mason.michael@epa.gov Mail Code 2182
Office of Wastewater Management. Permits Division
Kelley Volak 260-0307, e-mail: volak.kellev@epa.gov. Mail Code 4203

EPA Regions:

Region VIII:
Brian Friel (303)-312-6277. e-mail:friel.brian@epa.gov. U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18 TH Street, Suite 500, Mail Code: 8P-W-MS, Denver, CO 80202-2466

-------
  Region IX:
  Juanita Licata (415V744-1948. e-mail:licata.iuanita@epa.gov. U.S.EPA. Region 9
  75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

  Region V:
  Lula Spruill (312)-886-2281. e-mail:sDruill.lula@.epa.gov. U.S. EPA,
  Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507

  Region IV:
  Betty Barton (404)-562-9381, fax:: 404-562-8692. e-mail:barton.bettv@.eDa.gov. U.S. EPA, Region 4,
  USEPA, 15 Floor, Atlanta Federal Center, Water Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street S W&
  Atlanta, GA, 30303    .                                                         "  "   "'

  States:
  Ohio:
 Greg Smith (614)-644-3640   ,
 Bob Monsarrat (614)-644-3655
 Theresa Gordon (614)-644-3 664

 California:
 Bryan Brock (916)-227-4574

 Texas:
 Mark Hall (512)-463-8489 (CWSRF)
 George Green (512)-463-8489, (Mark Hal! on assignment for 60-90 days)
 CIydeBohmfalk(512)-239-1315 (Program/Regulatory)

 New Jersey:
 Theresa Fenton (6Q9)-292-3859
 Karen Schaffer (609)-633-l 127
 Scott Shymon (609)-633-l 127

 Michigan:
 Chip Heckathorn (517)-373-4725

 Utah:
 Walter Baker (801)-538-6088
 Bryan Atwood (801 )-53 8-6174
1EPA address is: USEPA Fairchild Building, 499 South Capitol Street S W
Washington, DC 20003

-------
Appendix B. Generic Scope of Work for Pilot Project

-------

-------
             CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND
             ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR PILOT PROJECTS

                               Generic Scope of Work

 The purpose of this generic scope of work is to present the major tasks applicable to each state
 environmental indicator pilot demonstration project. California, Ohio, and Texas have been
 selected to conduct environmental indicator pilot projects. Each state will review a subset of
 their projects funded through the use of Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan' funds
 and apply environmental indicators to measure environmental improvement as a result of the
 implementation of these projects. The environmental indicators to be pilot tested for the CWSRF
 program are as follows:

 1.  Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through CWSRF-funded
    projects. (Point source oriented)
 2.  Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment through CWSRF-
    funded projects.
 3.  Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by changing land use
    practices, and resource harvesting and extraction practices through CWSRF-funded projects.
 4.  Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square miles, and
    wetland acres, previously impaired,  now meeting designated uses, as a result of CWSRF-
    funded projects.
 5.  Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square miles, and
    wetland acres, protected, or improved as a result of CWSRF-funded projects.
 6.  Benefits of reduced health risks and/or increased recreational use attributable to CWSRF-
    funded projects.

 The objective of this pilot phase is to examine more closely the feasibility of measuring
 environmental outcomes and making linkages back to the CWSRF program activity with the
 proposed environmental indicators. These pilots will investigate and report on the availability of
 data and the mechanisms (systems) to provide that data. Each pilot can be conducted to perform
 a program-wide analysis, a project-specific analysis, or a watershed- or subwatershed-level
 analysis. Following this generic scope of work will ensure consistency between each pilot
 project and will help obtain a level of comparability between pilots and their results. Due to
 variations between pilots on the type, available data, and number of projects to be evaluated, it is
 expected that alterations and refinements will be required by each pilot project when developing
 and conducting their projects.

 The following five major tasks are required to conduct an environmental indicator pilot project.

Task 1: Identify Type and Scope of Projects to Evaluate
Under this task, states will determine the type and number of CWSRF projects that will be
evaluated. This identification of projects can be selected for program-wide, project-specific,  or
                                                                                  B-l

-------
  watershed or subwatershed level analysis. For example, California is proposing to evaluate a
  randomly selected number of projects (approximately 20-30) that were completed during the
  period 1992-1993.  Ohio is proposing to identify all projects funded through the CWSRF and
  then select for evaluation those projects that have collected water quality and other project
  specific data that can be applied to the six environmental indicators. Texas will employ a
  subwatershed or stream segment approach and evaluate all projects completed within each
  subwatershed.

  Task 2: Data Collection
  Under this task, states will search electronic and manual databases and project files to collect
  baseline data on each CSWRF project. The purpose of this task is not only to collect the
  necessary data which will be used to apply each indicator, but also to document the ease or
  difficultly in collecting the data.  Data collected of each selected project will encompass project
  specific information as well as the environmental data related to the project. Water quality
  conditions prior to and post project implementation are critical environmental data sets.

  The data collected will be documented using data source criteria including:

  •   Availability/accessibility of data (ease of acquiring information; were data out there?)
  •   Temporal coverage (period of time, e.g., one year; more or less?)
  •   Spatial coverage (latitude/longitude; watershed; stream length)
  •   Technical credibility (quantity, diversity, robustness, etc.; how comfortable are you with the
     data?)

 Task 3: Data Synthesis and Analysis
 Under this task, all data collected will be synthesized in tabular or other format for display and
 analysis. Types of CWSRF-funded projects will be tallied along with water quality and
 environmental condition data. The analysis of the results will be presented in a brief written
 description with discussions on validity/accuracy, data comparability, and scope/applicability.

 Task 4: Indicator Evaluation
 Under this task, an evaluation of each environmental indicator applied in that state will be
 conducted. A brief narrative discussion will be prepared about the application of each
 environmental indicator against the following evaluation criteria:

 •  Data sources
 •  Data quality/quantity
 •  Data availability (how available; how long did it take to evaluate and compile?)
 •  Data-accessibility        .
 •  Representativeness
 •  Comparability
 •  Cost-effectiveness
 •  Ease of implementation
B-2

-------
Recommendations about how to best incorporate data requirements and identification of any
barriers to using or accessing data should be included in the narrative. Identify specific ideas
about the use, implementation, and/or needed changes to the indicators.

Task 5: Report Findings
Under this task, a written report on the pilot project approach and findings from tasks 1-4 above
will be prepared. It is anticipated that this report will consist of 10-20 pages of text and tables.
Each report will include a one-page executive summary that could be used at a briefing level.
                                                                                   B-3

-------

-------
Appendix C. Pilot Project Data Entry Questionnaire

-------

-------
CWSRF Indicators - Questionnaire for Project Managers
Characterizing Environmental Benefits to Support Indicator Development

Project Information

"     Project name and unique identifier (e.g., parent number)	
      Project type and comments (listed by Clean Water Needs Survey category)
                   Secondary Treatment
                   Advanced Treatment	
                   Infiltration/Inflow Correction	
                   Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
                   New Collector Sewers	
                   New Interceptor Sewers	
                   Combined Sewer Overflows	
                   Storm Water
DCATI
DCATE
nCATmA
o CAT HIS
n CAT IVA
DCATTVB
DCATV
o CAT VI    .	.	
D CAT VILA Nonpoint Source - Agriculture (crop, pasture, and rangelands)
D CAT VHB Nonpoint Source - Agriculture (animals)	
a CAT VHC Nonpoint Source - Silviculture	
a CAT VIED Nonpoint Source - Urban
      n CAT VTTE  Nonpoint Source - Ground Water
      n CAT VIIF  Nonpoint Source - Estuaries	
      D CAT VIIG  Nonpoint Source - Wetlands	
      Project description (detailed engineering and construction aspects)
      Locational information (lat./long.); include waterbody affected (8 digit CU; plus reach
      and river mile)	
      Project stated objective/goal
      Project funding information - Total project cost and CWSRF share
      $   	
•     Time frame of project and subsequent monitoring or assessment

Indicator Information
      Identify indicators used in this project
      Indicator Information (continued)
                                                                               C-l

-------
        Any existing documentation to characterize expected environmental benefit
                     Yes n  No n Describe
        Any specifically stated water quality objective to reduce or prevent loading
               Load reduction point source
                     Yes n  No n Describe	
               Load prevented point source
                     Yes n  No n Describe	
               Load reduction NFS
                     Yes n  No n Describe	
               Load prevention NFS
                     Yes n  No n Describe	
        Any specifically stated water quality objective to improve resource conditions
              Existing impairment
                     Yes n No n  Describe
              Expected impairment (threatened)
                    Yes n No a  Describe
       Any specifically stated water quality objective to address public health concerns
              Existing fish advisories                  v
                    Yes n No n  Describe
              Existing recreational impairments
                    Yes n No n  Describe
              Other existing health concerns (bacterial contamination, drinking water threats)
                    Yes n No n Describe                           *
              Expected public health concerns (threatened)
                    Yes n  No n  Describe
 Data Source Information (summed for each indicator)

 •     Which indicator?	

 •     Describe the data source (fill out once and then reference)
             system name  	
             system type  	'
             where located	
             owner        	
             what program was the system originally designed to support?

 "     How current are the data?
C-2

-------
Data Source Information (continued)

•      Are there historical trend data available?

•      What affects the data availability?	
       What affects the data source accessibility?
       Describe accessibility barriers to using data source (provide narrative, if necessary)
              Administrative (e.g., interagency accessibility)     	
              Jurisdictional (e.g., data owner issues)            	
              Resources (e.g;, budget of personnel constraints)   	
              Programmatic (e.g., regulatory authority)          	

       Describe technical barriers to using data source
              LackofQA/QC	
              Reliability	
              Accuracy	
              Completeness	
Space below is provided for additional comments:
                                                                                      C-3

-------

-------
Appendix D. Pilot Project Data Summary

-------

-------
o
ja> UL
•)3U
o
.§„
^i
§ 2
s11-
CO
Data Source for
Evaluation

g|
111
0. I o
o

•o -o
o o>
•SIS
** it
i.<
31


S
S
S
ro
u
TJ
_c
1

llfii
«5zto «

.0
a.
u
i
u
0)
I1
a



•5
t
a.
!
<






































to
S
i
J

u_
ir
1 1 § £

u
CO
Q.
ro
S.
CM
li
CO !_
• = CO
ro Q.



Z


c
2
O
c

11 ll-
§ CB §"•§ 5
£•1 =£ g
iflP

CD > m 13 S
§,c-
-o
1^1 § s
CB '
Z

§
o>
^
S2 § i S»
2 2 ^ D. 3
lltsEJ
? °as «s
2 g-co b^-w
fllS IE
O .£ £1 ro o CL
8|



II
If
Eco
-

Igu.
E ° K.
-:g|
CM T— >

•c z
t^«
| 8§
• T. « i
^ "c "g =
™ S)°-8 —
fisll
o '£ Q _- co
5izl!
c^ *-
o jj
ro 5
0) — C= 5
m ESp g-.
tiilil
>- o .a o T3 £



1
o
c
'









in

=

J| "5 E 1
CD Q. -o S -S3 "ft g»

J R **~ CN QJ O J^1 ~ jS CD TO C ,
,--
o
Z 03

5 S 5 51
liii
S ro ro £
Z CO O £
CM

i-s
CM CO S
CD r- m,
o,®-^:
S co CS.
«> ^j- T-

a>
|||
•e
o
a. Jo
1^1 |
|l|l|l



Z

11

"ro »
S D
o
•g _>. -a
oeEi§« f§
QtogE~3>.|-§ . |>i ra Jg .
ro f* yF co o 2 J-S ® ® ^~
£ ^ ® --c — OJ^Q^c^
o ^ T5 ^~ W* m T~ CD O *-


^_



1
O}
§•
1
o.
c:
o
to
1
Q.


•
_co
!•§
11
CO
Q

-------

-------
•s
tO n
O •*-> Q£ "o"
J— to tn »-
Q. O S w
— O > -C
SO.OT
•"
0)

t ff
3 t»
CO

3 5
o 2
co re
I1"
o-
O £ £
3 0) r-
Q.X §
O

s»
•0 T3
II
£ £
5 <

-1 5

5
S
1
u
T»
•o
C
C u. (0 >.£*
oSzJj'S
W0
_o

"S.
•c
u
m
o
Q
t>
•2,
i
*J
ti
0)
2"
Q.






(DO
CM 0
co_ o
co" o"
i^. in
•* c CM
CM 5 CM"
tr* J2 f»

CM"
^ 03
"if
llll
S]
i*I
co|S
Hi





Z

§"u
c - x. m -5
E m" ™ •§ I
«?§ -S •§ o
CO O CC. I— Q?
O
c
° g
£ T3 O>CO O.
8 to to ^~ •
"> e- ~ •«
_, OJ E JH ^
IfSli
|f| ||

T-


2 Q -g

~C ^(2 JJ 3
= CO CM C *t
C O CO c CD
O S
CO


o
o
0
0~U-
CO f£
o.to
So
>i¥
CD
C
||
^ §.'"
.E <2 o
U- .c CO
I
III





Z

C (D "^
^Ijl^
§ W- 2 •§ ^

- «5"Ti igssl ^S Lfe s ^ ^ D> CD Q. C *D 0) O5 p Q (0 W T- £ ® *° P CO "*•* « g'js-o £ ilifl CM m i- »_ £ CD §O 'm •— Q. ® ® C* ^ f i 1^-3 llfll Sllll , ~ CD 5 "5 o >>o og en Q


-------
t>
"p"*; OH "o"
sjil
*3 O w
£ ~
o
Si
g s
"8 "•
CO
•5«
S o
O - _
XL 33
*™ ^JJ
3 ro

co "ra
m ^
n
a
c-

J3 "(5 o
£?I 0
O
f-g

Q) ^O
|<
§|


S
a
a
1
u
1
•p
mil
0 Wc5
n
JO
S3
^Q.
*C
U
to
Q>
O
<4-l
U
O
IF
&.
Q.


fj
0)
°o*
EL


















































>n
a>
(A
i.
O
1


IN
§£
co CO
s'B
I
•go05
5 ^S "«~
al£





ti
Di
i
i™*
co

~ -a
S ra — §
§ gg S |
>'lE.sl
e 1

2 . = ?
E .* TT: js
p a> 5 T5
ro S ! =
•T* o ry n
CO
Qc T3S- S
111 1 s ° e i « - !!
Ill 1 li |i
Hi 1 e II i & § Ml






^ o
lill-

Q) «S3 j^ '*•' J5z
1.1 1 |1

iE §5 tg
S
C
P
E
CO
*Q
I&
1— CO
^

B
T^U.
".CO
0 g
\
•g g S
s s r~
S ?: ("^
Q i T-





fc
cc
p
CO
k.
»- "to TJ ~ CD ro
1 S TO §) s- » ^
1 i? g ?5 •§"§ 1^ J
£l 1 ill llf.=
co
CO gj yj CM
S 32 5 :- o
lli.lB°
CC O Q Q: X o
1

CO
1
co — :
1T> ^
^= Q.
w {S
a. is
LU co
Q =5



o S 5 c c „
5 § Q 5 § S i

3 CO ^s| ^» 2; O > __ ^^


3 **~ ^^ **^ ^5 uj° Tl5 ^t
[•S£:CD|w.§t5<-; .

: 2j^ «? § §5 o = g




D.
CO
1
Q
CM

-------
"o
.2, u. ^
S*-» Q£ Q)
tf) 0J ^-
•5"o»
2 ~
o
11
8)
t.
3 "«
0 3
U) (0
CO
*•* tu
Q
o
2 n g
3 o n
Q.X o
o
•0 TJ
||
s ^
^
s =

-1


£
(Q
o.
i
at
^o
c




•o
lillf
o
|
o
(0
o
Q

So

a.
0)
CO
•sj'I
a> co '-
sia


is
fV
o
fe
CD 13 	
(^ C CO
JS _^ S
(j CD ^D c5 CD
C
S co
& CO °
CO t 3 .. O
™ CD " " O ^
ro.> ror>S
rr fy rn T* f~i

CO
CD

_CD
TO
§
> ,
11
•S o
gl
1 s
l!c5 •<-
3IS


Is
cc
o
fe



• o
CD
CO
CO

CO
S,
•g >. z s, s. § "S
I 1 i i ^ '» 1
+ + 1" T-; "S
O ^
^p o '
> fe *" 0 S 0 §3

S CD CO
CD i! "c
P CO
2 •? E „ OT
CD C3 c E ^D o ^5 c/3



a.5 - co S
mB-i-S ^ cO§
OCJoj-g O "2^-cliSS
"I^Jco^ff §,2<§J
™O'cSco'j:(;J^ "c"cor°m

llilltlllll


CL
_
CO
™

2
»
73
8
5
in
IT)
Q

-------
o
OJ u.
•jr*, (£. '5T

u. O ^ JS
!§ O.OT
i2
u
!«
t E
J3 2
(H
U)
£
O Q
5f «5
3 2
o 2
w 15
-2i5
C8
Q

P-
.«£ E
A 75 S
3 ffl c
Q.X o
0

•o -a
.§•§
jl
§1



1
te v
Q §
&- v
5 1
re >-•
« g.
I 11
*^
i:
•c
^~
mil
c
JO
"S3
.0.
u
(0
0
1

1"
o.



"o
1





Tj-

^~1 U_
If w
So

c
CD
—i
"6 JoS
.CD ."CD ^
Sim




UJ
0:
•e
13)

is
ill
•** 03 ,S>
•• it;
>- J5 en
•C i^>
• 1 §
11
3 ~
O CD
03 o:
CO

,§ o o 5 § 5 «

J5 in 'o
7 0 Z ,
O O)
| 5 5s ^ ?-g
1* " " ° ^ ° ° fl
11 11 p
i E "E ° ^li
lloildTaogil
-D- U- ^3
CD
1
. CD
CD
1





"S x:
•o §
c. g
1 ffi
CD =

2 S
^ g §
0)  O

o>
3
o i i i
^J CD "*"
Q =?

CD
B
CD
1
CD
g

g
IT §S
fill
°- C b 8 S S

1
S
CD
CD
CO




"o
1
1
1
C >»
ll


<
^0
o *-
Q)

|le gl S
~ 8 £ CD § -f"
CD (0 C S. CO 2

|li|ll
1
•= "co
•S >•
g 03
II
>< CD
CD =
15
CD <





CO U-
cp_a:
IB

Q.
CD
03
•5 g in
_g ^ c


CD
B
CD
None avail




^
S
1
CD
1


^.

CD
3
3"
5
9
n
= ~°
o -S
f a.
z g




3 
o o
jlx
SSI
"V 'V
i "o CD
r Q) T3
?1 2
5 "« §
••f
< i *
3)
Z3
2
)
L
1
o


-------
1 fe-oT
i" W CO L-
Q. O S *3

S $£.*"
£
0)
E m
El
~i 2
«"-
CO
If
k* *•
3 2
o 2
co n
13
Q

O
.«£ E
•5 — a
J3 (0 u
3 Q) E
Q.X 0
O
•o -o
11
p
31
_J


j3
IB
Q
s
a
c




TJ

= fe-g 5*0
— 5 S § £
° > 2 co ^
_o
0
0)
u
O
"8
'c7

a.




0
O
r
a.



































station. The
id Mercer Street
ions were also
ed or replaced.
mm SS SS
*~ CO =
a._8 0.5
: •£ c co
co § x:
S o.£
































































n
.0)
IE
u
S

CO
D)OJ_
"CD o>
T3 a
it
- "O "O
C CD
-"5
1-1
*— *
f J
o "v-1
TO D)
11
-° CD
« S-
fl> C
il
^2 o
ca a.
ro o
U- T-
W -2
5 a.
O ^
"CD co "E"

!il
_eo 5
5 O §
"8 1 1
2 £ o>
o c to

Q- CD £
Em |
S Ii
^ g o
CO Q> ^
C?" ^
lit
>. . E
S a> § §

^ o 3
5 o c

^
c
•2 '
CO
1
jE
•§
1
a.
£
D>
E
1
o
B
3
I
13
o
fZ
O
*
_o
"S
o
a.
2
UJ
C-"
f
c
K.
Q
|
i
•a
o
->Q
•S-
I
2~
0-
Q-,
3
^i
*c
£
ot
0
CO
F
a.
-«
CO
S>
.£
JO
'S

£
CO
CM
•a
c
CD
r- CO

0 "=
^5 £

|j CD
~ T3
C)
CO 3
ro "a
Q £


-------
o
O  It

"p"*; JE'

£8g
— . o S -
         •K C>   O

         Is   §
         £ o" u. _ o"
         0.10 Q; £?o
         — m en .£= 0
Is    s
S -*
0.00 r
  §
 0}
                              5 0  S g n



                             l^llJli

                             co ^3 '-H o o> 9- °-
Data Source fo

Evaluation
                                                    •D
                            CO

                            XJ
                              CD    o-o'B.S

                              J3 c S ttlf g 8 S
                              2=|! S^s IS-S

                              =
Sre


££§

   0
silllliflliiilili
       fssgf

 O Q)

 •So

                      ll
                                                       o

                                                lctiillli

                            S.
Da
ndica
                           =

                        0 g § S Q


                        s1^1 1 § S s.
                              fllfitlf
                        = 2! <° 0 0> T3

                        |S||«2l

                        S co § o cfl °

                               «
  •o

on
Desc
oje
 O
 
-------
fl>  11
'51** ce *5T
£- « En E.
a. o S <°
— o > -c
JS  O W
o  ^~
          1§    §
          Q 0_ u_ . . 0
          0.0 Q; °>o

          s§giS

          .2 Sol 8
                 "   §
                 '

          §    §
        g O u_   O
        o. co ce ™ oo"
  o
  i.
  t E
                                                        fl  i

  I
                 0 co
                 = "-
               "- o
               •*
                                     Q. CM
                               : -
                                £
  £
  3 g
  o 2
  V) a

  SSm

  £
                                                                  •g
                                                                  CD
jii
•Q (0 o
 3 O C
Q. I O
    O
  CD

e S>
O £
O C-
 £%
              CO
              1
            II
  CO
  o


ll
CO
o
                                                       31
                     JL
cator Data
                                 _0_£
                                                        in

                                                        5 J?
                                                        h£ a>
                                                        co §£

                                                        iSl £
                                                        ^".g
                                            ^ s c °> e
                                           1 £ CO CD ^ CO
                            Q-'f E

                           gt|

                            >^i
                           In
environment 263 Ib/d BOD;

321lb/dTSSand27lb/d
                                                                               CTs
  •o

                                                       m
  o
  ••a
  s
  s
  Q
Proj
       fiuli

       ^ E =§ ^ fe m i

       g c ro ^ lu I w
       ° CO 4= D- CO (O t.
       ^ b. i_ .J ^m w. ^
                 O.
kener

etter

olids.

e old
       llfilll
       Q £ g 5 g =i 1
           ^   EQ-°
                                                  ill-illll
g

y

e

ll,
                     •E3
                   -^ 
-------
o
O
— o
   O OT
  CD


  ll
  jg «B
  0)
•2 e


ll
s S
o .2
CO co



I1"
                                    c
                                    JO

                                    D-
                                    s
  S
  ts
  O


  3
  16


  T3
                                c"-l

                                ° P c .-

                               0 "n s "s Q
                               * — *i 73 O
                                0-S^ .CM
                                •p "5 ~o -3 o

                                | § | 9 cVr


                                = 1 ell
  O
  1
         itlSi
      «S31||S
                   II
                   CO I*-
c-t£ =
.S TO O to
o o>* £ g-g
^ C O m .0 a. .,

•¥"3S. § |f |
oo ••• m «B « > TI

•Ss^-Sts-S

«« §5!^.§
o-2^S
 T3

• C

 CO






-------
                             §
                             °.
                       D.CN Q; o
                          -
                       ,
                       1- «» O
  o
  I
  It
  5>
                        •O .£.

                        15 '5
  3 «
  o =
 CO (0

 "«
 Q
 £5 eo
 *•* o>
 g?
 "co o -2
 Q fc D.
    C-
0 JC £
111
Q.I §
    O


co
th
 •o-o
 II
                          o

                        O £
 .3
  1
  I
  _o
  T3
 -
  O
 |
  O
  £
 Q
 •s
  »
  2
 Q.
 •5
 
-------
u
O U.,
]S ° O,w
o
*~
o
E
Si
§ 2
•S! "-
.2
CO
fi
*— t!
3 fu
O ™
CO co
JS m
CO
O
C-
o jc £
•3T ""- O
J2 CD O
3 CD c
n. i o
0

f-g
l<
§1


CO
Q
to
I

•n
i«!l!
° wo
c
_o
**•*
a.
*c
u
CO
o
a
•8
O)
"3*
o
k.
a.
*J
O
.°
w
o.



















































t3
c
JS
cs
S



1L. ^ co ^ ^
i •«— ^ ^. SCX^^j O)"
§f=2t:S 2^-"^ o°2'oc\i
5 «#- ^> >-^ CO w W ^.^^ W- >^^H" &}

c a. c S
s g S = '•§ ^
1 1*-.! Era
o .'i ? o 8 <


,
LU
a:
co






z
III
0 to °
111
CO

"5 CM
J2|«

•o o ^~
ifs
i>=l Op
co i m
CN
,=
_
i? ^ c w ^8


_ "x  *n •



^Sl-i.sl'Sllci-ig>? = t:il'£l:iS>
^
a
^_
1
=
m
•<-
CO
^"* c~
±i CO .— ^
c-l 1 i
!§•§ o
1 1 a 8
— J CD CO CO
^
TO
t3 2

•5 0.1™.
IT .<= 8 t^"




S"
CD
^2






Z
Hill
liiii

o






j5
"co
I
> CQ












.c
u
c
s
CO
f
5
CM

-------
u
0) II
'cT-M o: "ST
i- C/) (/) >-
"m ° o W
"o *~
1-
0)
s fl,
ge
« CO
^B **"
35

**™ «
8 §
S ••&
3 «B
O 3
co m
Q
.£»£ E
S^ 8
3 0) c
O. X o
O

•o -o
II
•S £
!<
s,^
3 o
5
TO
_O
.c
.-•o
c fe-o 5" 0
z wej
Project Description
•s
•£.
o
a.























h~
CD
CO J=
CD to p)
a>{£  a>
lE^oS




































h. O O> t_ _ s a

O> 	 i
^ CO
So
to"
>'•&


3?
-i.












































































































0

CO
<
The sewage collection
system consists of small-
diameter gravity sewers
with clarifier tanks (similar
to septic tanks) installed
at each household to







provide primary







treatment. Clarified







2 5 ill'|if IlSlfl
.
m
w
= —
to a>
•S s"
LLJ D.
system, to a 13.5-acre







ridge and furrow land







treatment area, where the
effluent is treated







through continued natural
aeration, absorption,
transpiration, and
evaporation. Grassed
furrows and treed ridges
assist in the transpiration







and treatment of the







1
1







CO

-------
8
"cT-4J vc. "aT
S° O.W
|2 ""*
 c
0.1 o
o

>.
o o>
•B-S


>

S,£
Jj




-2

o
3
CO
j=

*
T3
_C
Jj|lf
O

1
jS.
*ZI
u
(0
CD
Q
•8
<1>
s"
a.

U
Q)
1"
a.




£
O TO O
O .C O
0 CO O
cfu. cf
o Q; o ^^
i° s B ^ i.

c c
= ~ ~ =
•If^iil if

Q o Q O .£ -3 O u



g
O

03





o>
j)
>

Z







z-
CO CD
§ «
J^ (1)
CO Q.
°- •--§"

!3 Q£ O CO





CO
CD

O t-i
D" 0 ° co
mo S^^

•^ § .a § to£
1=1 S^-Hc?
•^ 0-5 2 UJ ^
QJ ^^ O it <*^
s ^ + "^ OT
iiiiiii
Z CO Z 01- c-oSS<'o>»iSC3'J
£8§si§-8s!£g£i.sii8

1
"S
a.
§

0 TO | TO ~£ S
Jllljl |

I •? S— m -o co
= | o "5 3 1 | g
liiiliil





^r

a
TO 0)
U
ro t5
&"9.
g §
? D)
& 2
||
x "c
00
•o c
S E
•!<
« i
"X
O" 5:
D S>

1?
w <5
3 Q
*^
a 2
°H
CO" VJ
(O m
1- 0)
*i
CD *?
ES
•§ 2
c **
o ^
g~
<£..
co to
O 13
1 jj
r- O.
0 JO
.2

95
rn ••-'
iroT
^H
te'i
»!
r- CO
C J3
li
== ^
Erl
5 u.

-------
Appendix E. State Reports on Pilot Project Experience

-------

-------
 Pilot Projects

 This section contains reports written by the pilot states and represents their findings and
 recommendations in relation to this pilot indicator effort.

 California's Pilot Project Experience

 California participated in the indicator study as a pilot state and provided data on four previously
 funded CWSRF projects. The projects were randomly selected from a database of projects
 constructed in 1995. CWSRF project managers who had experience with the projects were
 trained by the Indicator study representative on the indicator topics and examples of the types of
 data that exist. The project managers were directed to investigate the different data sources that
 pertain to the indicators identified. The project managers and the indicator study representative
 determined the following from this exercise:

 Data Availability
 •       There are data for Indicators 1 and 2 as long as end-of-pipe data are adequate.
 •      No data were found for Indicator 3.
 •       Only qualitative data were found for Indicators 4, 5, and 6, but there is no correlation to
       CWSRF projects.
 •      There is no single point of contact for the data; many different entities house information,
       which is not easily located.

Data Quality
None of the data were specifically developed for the indicators. Data were mainly developed as
monitoring data intended to satisfy requirements for discharge permits; therefore, the data are not
necessarily a good fit for the indicators.
                                                                                      E-l

-------
 Ohio's Pilot Project Experience

 SUMMARY

 This pilot study was undertaken as part of an EPA/state work group effort over the last year to
 develop and test environmental indicators that could be used to measure environmental
 improvements resulting from the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF)
 program. Ohio chose to assess all the potential indicators developed by the group in order to
 gauge their individual and combined effectiveness in evaluating funded actions. The following
 are the six indicators that were evaluated in Ohio's pilot study.

 Indicator 1.   Number of pounds of pollutants removed by point sources from the environment
              through CWSRF-funded projects.

 Indicator 2.   Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment through
              CWSRF-funded projects.

 Indicator 3.   Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by changing
              land use practices and resource harvesting and extraction practices through
              CWSRF-funded projects.

 Indicator 4.   Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square
              miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a
              result of CWSRF-funded projects.

 Indicator 5.   Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square
              miles, and wetland acres, protected, improved, or restored as a result of CWSRF-
              funded projects.

 Indicator 6.   Benefits of reduced health risks and/or increased recreational use attributable to
              CWSRF-funded projects.

 After interpreting and evaluating each indicator for applicability to Ohio's program, the
 indicators were tested by using them to evaluate 15 of Ohio's State Revolving Loan Fund (Ohio
 CWSRF) projects. Recommendations regarding use of the indicators, as well as recommended
 changes to the indicators are based on the results of the pilot testing. The following is a
 summary of the recommendations.

 Indicator 1.    Ohio EPA recommends using this indicator in  conjunction with biologically
              based indicators to see whether CWSRF-financed projects have resulted in
              reductions of pollutants, and whether these reductions are related to improvements
              in water quality as measured by improved attainment of aquatic life use stream
              standards. If used alone as a measure of CWSRF project accomplishments, this
              indicator will not show whether any improvement occurred in the receiving
              water's aquatic biota or any reduction in public health risks.
E-2

-------
 Indicator 2.
 Indicator 3.
Indicator 4.
Indicator 5.
               Because of the difficulty of reliably estimating prevention of pollution, further
               investigation of this indicator is recommended.

               Ohio recommends exploring use of this indicator when the effect of the project is
               to change land use practices, such as converting farming practices from
               conventional to conservation tillage, or the restoration of land areas to natural
               vegetation. This indicator would be especially useful for these types of projects
               when there is no associated water quality monitoring of the benefitted water
               resources.

               This is an easily used indicator which measures the desired endpoint of the
               CWSRF activity, that is, progress toward meeting the Clean Water Act goals.
               Ohio EPA believes, however, that this indicator is covered by Indicator 5, and
              hence, should be dropped as a separate indicator.

              This indicator should be used because it measures the desired endpoint of the
              CWSRF activity, which is progress toward the Clean Water Act goals. To
              effectively use this indicator, it will be important to ensure that Agency water
              quality monitoring planning includes monitoring of both projects already funded
              through the CWSRF program, and projects anticipated to be funded hi the future.

              Water quality data as it relates to human health issues needs to be aggregated by
              the respective agencies and laboratories so that a complete picture of the human
              health impacts can be viewed quickly and easily. The indicator is important
              because  it monitors a Clean Water Act objective.

Ohio also suggested the inclusion of the two additional indicators below:

Indicator A.   Actions  funded by CWSRF programs. (Response by the regulated
              community)  Ohio recommends using this indicator as an initial indicator of the
              contribution state CWSRF programs make to achieving Clean Water Act
              objectives. This indicator would be useful in situations where there is an absence
              of any other information regarding CWSRF-financed projects.

Indicator B.   Changes in habitat of a waterbody as a result of an CWSRF-funded project
              (Changes in ambient habitat)
              This would allow measurement of CWSRF project accomplishments in terms of
              habitat improvement. This would be particularly useful for those projects (mainly
              nonpoint source) whose main benefit is to provide habitat restoration.  In the
              absence of biological data, this would be the sole indicator available for these
             types of projects. We recommend exploring the use of both Qualitative Habitat
             Evaluation Index (QHEI) and Zig-Zag Pebble Count data for use with  this
             indicator.
Indicator 6.
                                                                                   E-3

-------
 The modifications to the indicators recommended above would serve several purposes. First,
 they would allow all states to measure the accomplishments of their CWSRF programs.  This is
 because the indicators range from purely administrative indicators (types of projects financed) to
 indicators which rely upon collection of biological data.  Second, the proposed modifications
 would make the CWSRF indicators consistent with other water quality indicators previously
 developed by U.S. EPA, particularly the 1990 integrated framework (described later in this
 report), in that the CWSRF indicators would cover all six levels of indicators in the framework.

 Taken together, the proposed CWSRF indicators cover the following SRF-related parameters:

       •      Loadings reductions to the environment
       •      Loadings prevented from entering the environment
       •      Project affect on land use
       •      Project affect on the aquatic life
       •      Project affect on human health risk
              CWSRF projects funded
       •      Project effect on habitat

 The most effective way of using the indicators to measure progress toward accomplishment of
 Clean Water Act objectives is by using them in combination. Combining the indicators enables
 positive links to be made between CWSRF activities and changes to water resources, particularly
 if biological indicators (see Appendix E) are included as part of the combination. However, in
 the absence of sufficient data to use the indicators in combination, the individual indicators will
 still give a view of how states' CWSRF programs are contributing to improving water quality.

 THE OHIO EPA WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

 For 20 years, Ohio EPA has assessed the quality of Ohio's surface waters using chemical,
.physical, and biological data. The resulting database is one of the most extensive examples in
 the country for the use of an integrated approach to environmental monitoring and assessment.
 Some of our recommendations and methods for using the indicators may not be directly
 applicable to states that do not have the same quantity or quality of water quality data. However,
 all states should be able to use portions of Ohio's analysis and recommendations to develop their
 own ways to use the indicators.

 A study completed by the Ohio EPA monitoring group in 19971 recommended making better use
 of environmental indicators to establish priorities for enforcement and for awarding grant and
 loan funds. CWSRF programs should take this a step further and evaluate what types of funded
 activities, under what conditions, have provided the greatest water quality improvements and
 human and environmental health benefits. This approach will provide CWSRF programs with
       ^Demonstrating the Linkages between Ambient Indicators of Surface Water Quality and Indicators of
Water Program Performance in Two Ohio Watersheds. Central Scioto River and Ottawa River Basins.
Environmental Indicators Pilot Projects: Volume I: Summary and Conclusions. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin
DSW/1977-9-1, September 26, 1997. 347pp.
E-4

-------
 the information needed to enable states to focus their loan programs on activities that provide the
 greatest benefit per dollar spent.

 DEVELOPMENT OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS BY USEPA

 It is important to relate the Clean Water SRF Indicators to other water quality indicators that
 have been developed previously by U.S. EPA, namely: (1) the U.S. EPA (1990)2 integrated
 framework, which provides a hierarchy of six levels of environmental indicators; and (2) the U.S.
 EPA (1991)3 concept of stressor, exposure, and response indicators, which was also utilized in
 the 1997 recommendations made by the Ohio EPA monitoring group referenced above.

 The U.S. EPA 1990 integrated framework uses the following six levels of indicators:

        Level 1 - actions taken by regulatory agencies (e.g., permitting, enforcement, grants);
        Level 2 - responses by the regulated community (e.g., construction of treatment works,
               pollution prevention);
        Level 3 - changes in discharged quantities (e.g., pollutant loadings);
        Level 4 - changes in ambient conditions (e.g., water quality, habitat);
        Level 5 - changes in uptake and /or assimilation (e.g., tissue contamination, biomarkers,
                assimilative capacity);
        Level 6 - changes in health, ecology, or other effects  (e.g., ecological condition,
 pathogenicity)

 The U.S. EPA 1991 concept of stressor, exposure, and response indicators relates to four of the
 six indicators listed above. Stressor indicators include activities that have the potential to
 degrade the aquatic environment, such as pollutant discharges, land use effects, and habitat
 modifications (Level 3 indicators from the integrated framework). Exposure indicators are those
 that measure the apparent effects of stressors and can include chemical water quality criteria,
 whole effluent toxicity tests, tissue residues, and biomarkers, each of which provides evidence of
 biological exposure to a stressor or bioaccumulative agent (Level 4 and 5  indicators from the
 integrated framework). Response indicators are generally composite measures of the cumulative
 effects of stress and exposure and include the more direct measures of biological community and
 population response that are quantified by the biological indices used by Ohio EPA (Level 6).
 Other response indicators include target assemblages ( e.g., rare, threatened, endangered, special
 status, and declining species), or bacterial levels which serve as surrogates for recreational use
 designations. All of these indicators provide essential technical elements  for watershed-based
 management approaches.
       2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Feasibility Report on Environmental Indicators for Surface
Water Programs. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation,
Washington, D.C.

       3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
EMAP - surface waters monitoring and research strategy - fiscal year 1991. EPA/600/3-91/022. Office of Research
and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 184pp.
                                                                                       E-5

-------
  All of the CWSRF-funded projects can be classified using the Level 1 or 2 indicators because
  they represent both actions taken by regulatory agencies and the subsequent responses by the
  regulated community (financing of projects and implementation of projects).  These initial
  actions result in changes in pollutant loadings and ambient water quality (represented by Level 3,
  4, and 5 indicators). The changes in pollutant loadings and ambient water quality may also
  provide measurable environmental "results" which would be within the Level 6 indicator.  The
  Level 6 Indicator is the one indicator that provides feedback on whether the Clean Water Act
  objective of "restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity" of state waters is being
  met.

  Since  CWSRF projects usually do not address all sources of impairment in a stream, project
  success needs to be measured in terms of contribution to meeting the goal of improved water
  quality. This measurement of progress can then be used to guide future funding decisions and
  priorities. The purpose of this pilot study was to see if this can be done and under what
  circumstances.
 CLEAN WATER SRF INDICATORS

 The six indicators developed by the EPA/state work group, plus the two additional indicators
 proposed by Ohio EPA are evaluated below regarding ease of use and level of confidence.
 Recommendations are made, based in part on the use of the indicators to evaluate pilot projects,
 regarding their use by state CWSRF programs. Reference is also made as to which of the U.S.
 EPA 1990 indicators each indicator falls within.
E-6

-------
  Indicator A. Actions funded by the CWSRF program.

  U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type
  This is a Level 1 and/or 2 Indicator: actions taken by regulatory agencies (Level 1) and responses
  by the regulated community (Level 2).

  Ease of Use/Difficulties
  This indicator identifies the types of projects that receive CWSRF financing. It also indicates
  why the financing was requested (e.g. enforcement action, treatment works expansion,
  maintenance/repair, etc.) This information should be easily obtained from project records.

  Confidence in the Indicator
  This indicator will provide information about the types of projects that receive CWSRF funding.
  Information about these projects can be obtained from priority list ranking documentation,
  facility planning documents, enforcement documents, environmental assessments, detailed plans
  and specifications and financial records. This information is accurate, complete and readily
  available to the state CWSRF programs.

  Recommendation
  Ohio recommends using this indicator as an initial indicator of the contribution state CWSRF
 programs make to achieving Clean Water Act objectives.
 Indicator 1. Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through
 CWSRF-funded projects.
 U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type
 This is a Level 3 Indicator - Changes in Discharge Quantities - and a Stressor Indicator.

 Ease of Use/Difficulties

 Ohio determined the number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through
 CWSRF-funded projects using data from Ohio EPA's LEAPS (Liquid Effluent Analysis Process
 System), SWIMS (Surface Water Information Management System), and PCS (Permit
 Compliance System) databases. STORET and community-generated data were also used along
 with the other databases to establish influent, effluent, and ambient upstream and downstream
 conditions for a one year period prior to loan award, and a one-year period commencing in the
 second year after project completion. With each source of data Ohio encountered different
problems.

We presumed that SWIMS, a recently constructed, personal computer-driven database, could
provide all the data we would need to evaluate the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) projects.
We soon learned, however, that SWIMS is limited to post-1994 data.  This finding led us to
                                                                                 E-7

-------
greater reliance on the pre-SWIMS programs known as LEAPS and PCS for data on pre-1995
projects.

To obtain pre-1995 sampling information, the LEAPS and PCS databases were combined
electronically in DBASE/FOXPRO data files to include specific chemical parameter and station
data from the Monthly Operating Reports (MORs) of the 12 wastewater treatment plants
evaluated in this pilot study. A major constraint of the LEAPS and PCS databases are that this
material can only be accessed through a trained operator and must be transferred into a DBASE/
FOXPRO data file format.

The data were sorted using codes for individual monitoring stations and chemical parameters. In
addition, we frequently had to convert the database format files into more easily manipulated
(spreadsheet) format files. This conversion then provided the flexibility needed to calculate daily
averages for specific parameters on a month-by-month basis. Getting this data in an easily read
and organized format required a considerable amount of time and effort.

The SWIMS database was more usable than LEAPS primarily because an electronic link could
be established directly to the central computer housing this material. However, a main drawback
with the use of this data source is that the calculated averages in SWIMS do not transfer with the
raw data, hence requiring the use of another program to recalculate and permanently store the
averages in a data file. Further complications involved the non-numerical values used in SWIMS
such as  "AA" which denotes "below detectable limits." Upon the recommendation of Ohio
EPA's Division of Surface Water staff, the "AA" scores were converted to a score of zero, while
all other non-numerical values were excluded from calculations of averages because they
represented data gaps or other errors in record keeping that could not be resolved for this study.

In. conducting our evaluation of MOR data from the 12 selected WWTP projects, data was
recorded and analyzed for seven standard parameters: dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids,
ammonia-nitrogen, fecal coliform, flow, total residual chlorine, and five-day carbonaceous
oxygen demand.  We also used all or a number of these parameters to ascertain changes over
time in both the in-stream, influent, and effluent conditions and to assure consistency with what
we were observing in pollutant removal rates.

One of the more important uses of the total  suspended solids, flows, and five-day carbonaceous
oxygen demand (CBOD5) data was to determine the pounds of pollutants removed from the
waste stream by each WWTP prior to discharge.  To calculate these removal rates, the influent
and effluent values were entered into spreadsheets and the flow data were used to transform the
chemical concentrations for these two parameters into pounds of pollutants using the following
equation:

   Pounds of Pollutant = Concentration in milligrams per liter (mg/L) * 8.34 pounds per mg/L
                            * Flow in million gallons per day

Simple addition and subtraction were used to calculate net removals: In a few cases, such as
Akron and Columbus, the presence of monitored overflows at the WWTPs required greater
E-8

-------
  consideration of the effects of the overflows on the receiving streams. In these two examples, the
  pounds of pollutants released into the environment during storm events were calculated and
  added to the other pollutant loadings released following complete treatment. These combined
  effluent totals for both total suspended solids and 5-day carbonaceous oxygen demand were then
  compared to the influent values and a percentage removal figure was determined. A similar, but
  simplified, approach was used when bypasses and overflows are absent from a wastewater
  treatment system. These summary values are included in this text.

  In addition to the LEAPS and SWIMS databases, STORET data and analyses from technical and
  permit support documents provided background information on water quality conditions.  In
  some cases, the STORET data were not available for the time periods and locations to document
  the success or failure of CWSRF-funded projects from a chemical pollutant standpoint.

  Confidence in the Indicator

  This indicator can provide valuable information about the WWTP function before and after
  CWSRF project completion. In many cases, large increases in one or more of the pollutant(s)
 removed can be demonstrated.  This information, taken along with the WWTP pollutant removal
 efficiencies, can demonstrate a direct and measurable benefit of a CWSRF-funded project to the
 receiving water.                                                            '

 It is important, however, to link this information back to the pollutant(s) that impacted the
 biology of the receiving stream. We do not recommend focusing on any one or two of the
 chemical parameters as indicators of the others, as the causes of impairments to receiving waters
 are highly variable and a decrease in one chemical parameter does not always translate to a
 reduction in the other parameters.  As an example, a decrease in ammonia-nitrogen levels does
 not necessarily translate to a reduction in chlorine or copper levels.  If an impairment to the
 biology of a stream segment was due to toxic exposure to copper, then reductions of other
 chemical parameters would have no effect on the recovery of this stream segment.

 In general, we must not presume that the number of pounds of one or more pollutants removed
 from the environment can give a direct measure of how a stream is achieving Clean Water Act
 objectives. Focusing on the reduction of one or several pollutants in a waterbody without
 consideration of the other potential causes or sources of impairment and pollutant interactions
 provides only a small amount of information on what is going on in a stream. There are multiple
 factors in addition to  chemical water quality that are responsible for the condition of a surface
 water resource. Hence, this indicator will provide only one piece of the information needed to
 evaluate the effectiveness of a CWSRF project. Because the biological integrity of a waterbody
 is influenced and determined by multiple chemical, physical,  and biological factors, a singular
 strategy emphasizing the control of chemicals alone does not  assure  the restoration of biological
 integrity.4
          r, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermier, P.R. Yant, and IJ. Scfalosser. 1986. Assessing biological
integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5.28 pp.
                                                                                    E-9

-------
 The main benefit of this indicator is that it shows whether SKF-financed projects resulted in
 pollutant reductions.

 Recommendation

 This indicator provides valuable information when comparing the before and after project
 pollutant removal amounts, or in looking at the percentage of influent pollution removed by
 treatment. This indicator is important when a stream segment has the same cause of impairment
 coming from multiple sources. An example of this would be a stream segment impaired by
 organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen. The source could be a WWTP, a CSO, failing on-lot
 systems, or some combination of these sources. If it can be shown that a wastewater treatment
 plant has reduced its loadings of oxygen-demanding pollutants to a stream in such a situation,
 then it can be concluded that this plant has become less of a source of the problem.

 The issue of multiple sources of stream impairment is likely to be prominent in highly impaired
 watersheds. As the agency begins to address these watersheds through the Total Maximum
 Daily Load (TMDL) process, this type of information will be. valuable in identifying the various
 sources of impairment to a waterbody so links can be made between impairment and pollution
 sources that need to be remediated to achieve restoration.

 Ohio EPA recommends using this indicator in conjunction with biologically based indicators to
 see whether SRF-financed projects have resulted in reductions of pollutants, and whether these
 reductions are related to improvements in water quality as measured by improved attainment of
 aquatic life use stream standards.  If used alone as a measure of CWSRF project
 accomplishments, this indicator will not necessarily show whether any improvement occurred in
 the receiving water's aquatic biota or any reduction of public  health risks occurred.
 Indicator 2. Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment
 through CWSRF-funded projects.
U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

This is a Level 3 Indicator - Changes in Discharge Quantities - and a Stressor Indicator

Ease of Use/Difficulties

This indicator can be interpreted quite broadly and from a number of perspectives. Ohio EPA
excluded most projects serving developing areas because intended environmental benefits
(pollutants prevented) may not have resulted in improved surface water quality. For example,
funding sewers in a developing area could be considered as preventing pollutants from entering
the environment. Alternatively, the project could be viewed as enabling development of the
watershed, resulting in a "hardening" of the watershed with a consequent decline in water
quality.

E-10

-------
 In other cases,  the CWSRF involvement made a difference in the way an area was being
 developed by preserving riparian areas, wetlands, woodlands, etc., or by installing
 environmentally friendly storm water controls, or even going so far as to fund an
 "environmentally friendly development" (e.g., Hidden Creek project5). In those cases, the funded
 activities could be considered as preventing pollutants from entering the waterbodies.  The
 problem becomes calculating the amount of prevention in a way that will be comparable. We
 suggest looking at the other indicators to demonstrate that the funded action did protect water
 quality, aquatic life and associated habitat.

 For CWSRF-funded wastewater treatment plant improvement projects, we recommend using this
 indicator only for those projects that involve maintenance or repair activities necessary for the
 plant to stay in compliance, and only for WWTP projects not under enforcement action. In these
 cases, pollution is being prevented from entering the environment through forethought and
 preventative action. The question remains as to how to quantify the resulting  pollution
 reduction.

 One method is to record the number and magnitude of 30-day violations during one year before
 and one year after a project is completed.  The difference would provide an estimate of pollution
 reduction to a waterbody. The information on the Akron WWTP presented later in this report is
 an example of how this indicator might work (even though Akron was under enforcement action
 at the time). This indicator was not examined for any other project in the study.

 Another method is to compare before and after Annual Maintenance Performance Evaluation
 Report (AMPER) scores (described below). Since these scores reflect the effectiveness,
 condition and operation of each WWTP component and procedure, they should be good stressor
 indicators. This method will only work with communities that participate in the Municipal
 Compliance Maintenance Program (MCMP).

 The MCMP is a voluntary program that assists in the protection, maintenance, renewal,
 expansion or enhancement of the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure  hi order to meet
 effluent limitations. This program is designed to assist municipalities in planning for the future.
 Participants in the MCMP conduct:

 •      Annual facility performance evaluations that will indicate when planning for new
       construction must be undertaken to continue to meet effluent limitations and water
       quality standards;
 •      Proper maintenance and management of existing facilities that will assist communities in
       meeting their discharge limitations while deferring capital investments.
       5Hidden Creek at the Darby is a housing development in central Ohio that used CWSRF funding to finance
storm water management and run-off control measures, as well as vegetation of a wetland. The development was
comprehensively planned and designed to prevent any impacts to Little Darby Creek, which runs through the
development, and is a designated State and National Scenic Paver. The project won a National Wetlands award in
1998 from the Environmental Law Institute.
                                                                                    E-ll

-------
  The performance evaluation looks at the following factors and generates an AMPER score on a
  scale of 0 to 300:

  •     WWTP Hydraulics (design average flow, current average flow, design peak flow, peak
        flow exceedances).
  •     WWTP Influent Loadings (design, actual).
  •     Biosolids/Sludge Handling (disposal method, level and type of treatment, design
        capacity, actual volume generated).
  •     WWTP Effluent Performance (design, actual, violations).
  •     WWTP Maintenance (equipment failures, availability of back up equipment, failures that
        affected compliance).
  •     WWTP Laboratory (QA/QC program in place, process control used).
  •     Collection System (equipment failures, dry weather overflows, wet weather overflows).
  •     Administration (budget, staffing, pretreatment, growth and planning).

  The MCMP performance evaluation may be a useful indicator, as long as the following criteria
  are met:

  •      There is complete performance evaluation data for both before and after the project
        improvements.
  •      The project involves some work that changes one or more of the factors evaluated in the
        performance evaluation.
  •      There is complete knowledge of other, non-project-related changes in the WWTP and
        collection system so that any influence from these factors on the performance evaluation
        score can be separated from the influence of the CWSRF-funded project on the
        performance evaluation score (this is the indicator value).
        The project was initiated as a result of existing stress factors on the WWTP and not done
        in response to an anticipated (future) stressor such as a new development.

 Columbus Southerly WWTP was the only project in Ohio's pilot study that was not under
 enforcement action and was also a participant in the MCMP program.  However, we did not look
 at the AMPER scores for this project because it did not satisfy the above criteria.

 Confidence in the Indicator

 Preventing increases in pollution or other impacts to water resources is an important use of the
 CWSRF program. As such, it needs to be recognized as a program accomplishment and
 appropriate measures of environmental accomplishment need to be developed. Using AMPER
 scores from the MCMP program may provide a means to do this for municipal wastewater
 treatment systems. A method appropriate for nonpoint sources of pollution needs to be
 developed.
E-12

-------
  Recommendation

  Because of the difficulty of reliably estimating prevention of pollution, further investigation of
  this indicator is recommended as outlined above.
  Indicator 3.  Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by
  changing land use practices and resource harvesting and extraction practices through
  CWSRF-funded projects.
  U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

  This is a Level 2 indicator - Response by the regulated community - and a Stressor Indicator.

  Ease of Use/Difficulties

  We assume this indicator measures changes hi land use (such as a change in agricultural tillage
  practices or restoration of riparian stream corridor) or other attributes of the physical
  environment that could affect the aquatic community. This benefit has not been tracked in Ohio,
  although Ohio has funded such projects.6 It is conceivable that such documentation could be
 provided.

 Confidence in the Indicator

 The 305(b) report and monitoring data include physical causes and sources of impairments such
 as dredging, hydromodification, habitat alterations, siltation, removal of riparian vegetation, etc.
 Therefore, the results of changing land use practices are generally covered under Indicators 4 and
 5, but not quantified in terms of number of river miles impaired or acres altered. This latter
 information would be useful to link changes in Indicators 4 and 5 back to the actions measured
 by this indicator. The current set of pilot projects is not appropriate for testing this indicator, and
 so no direct testing was possible to establish confidence in the indicator.

 Recommendation

 We recommend exploring use of this indicator when the effect of the project is to change land
 use practices, such as converting farming practices from conventional to conservation tillage, or
 the restoration of land areas to natural vegetation. This indicator would be especially useful for
       ^The Nature Conservancy received CWSRF loans totaling $266,000 to purchase conservation easements
and property located immediately adjacent to Ohio Brush Creek, near a Wilderness Preserve. Purchase of this
easement will permanently protect this property from future development and will likewise maintain a permanent
high-quality riparian corridor along the creek. Thus, the water quality benefits realized from this easement will
remain in perpetuity.
                                                                                     E-13

-------
 these types of projects when there is no associated water quality monitoring of the benefitted
 water resources.
 Indicator 4. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square
 miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a result of
 CWSRF-funded projects.
I
 U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Tvoe

 This is a Level 6 Indicator, if the designated water resource uses are based on aquatic biota. If
 the designations are not based upon aquatic biota, then this is a Level 4 Indicator - Changes in
 Health and Ecology and other Effects. It is also a Response Indicator.

 Ease of Use/Difficulties

 This indicator was easy to use because this information is reported in Ohio's 305(b) database and
 in electronic database (Foxpro) format. It took some time to locate the "Waterbody Identification
 Numbers" (WBID) for the impacted stream segments because, prior to 1998, this was not
 routinely done for CWSRF projects. WBIDs are a necessary reference number for our Integrated
 Priority System7 ranking procedure and are routinely assigned now.  Therefore, this problem will
 be moot for analyses of projects funded after 1997.

 Difficulties were encountered in locating and linking appropriate 305(b) databases. The Ohio
 EPA has not devoted personnel or resources to making this information easily accessible to
 external users. The database was not designed for extensive use outside of this group and recent
 staff reductions have made communications and technical assistance from the group difficult
 because the remaining staff members have multiple commitments and tasks.

 Ambient chemical data taken in conjunction with the biological monitoring are not in a database,
 but housed with the individuals writing the Technical Support Documents or contained within
 the completed documents. We had originally thought that we could obtain this information from
 STORET retrievals. However, with the information spread out among the monitoring staff, in
 hard copy or electronic copies of reports, it was time-consuming and difficult to obtain and
 manipulate the data.

 Confidence in the Indicator

 Water quality improvement in a stream segment is sometimes very hard to attribute solely to an
 SRF- funded project. However, overall trends, along with identification of the funded activities,
 the 305(b) monitoring comments, and information from Indicator 1 (for point source projects) do
       7The Integrated Priority System was developed in 1998 by the Ohio EPA to rank projects, activities, or
actions addressing both point and nonpoint sources of impacts on water resources. Development of the Integrated
Priority System was partially funded through a Funding Framework grant from U.S. EPA., and the system is
currently used to prioritize all CWSRF projects.
E-14

-------
  give enough information to draw conclusions as to the effect a CWSRF project has had on its
  receiving stream segment.

  Recommendation

  This is an easily used indicator which measures the desired endpoint of the CWSRF activity, that
  is, progress toward meeting the Clean Water Act goals.  Ohio EPA believes, however, that this
  indicator is covered by Indicator 5, and hence, it should be dropped as a separate indicator.
 Indicator 5. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square
 miles, and wetland acres, protected, improved, or restored as a result of CWSRF-funded
 projects.

 This is a Level 6 Indicator - Changes in Health and Ecology and other Effects - provided it refers
 to protecting, improving or restoring a designated use that was based upon the biology of the
 stream.  Otherwise, this is a Level 4 Indicator - changes in ambient conditions. It is also a
 Response Indicator.

 Ease of Use/Difficulties

 Improvements in a waterbody segment are easy to determine by looking at the 305(b) data before
 and after an CWSRF-funded project.

 Confidence in the Indicator

 To evaluate this indicator, we relied upon the 305(b) cause/source data for the appropriate,
 impacted waterbody that was reported before project funding and one year following the
 construction completion date for the project.  For this pilot study, we included only CWSRF
 projects that affected waterbodies with both before and after data. Because there were not many
 projects with data that met this criterion, we ended up choosing some projects that had very old
 pre-project data and a few projects where the post-project monitoring data was collected not
 quite a full year after the end of construction.

 Data prior to  1988 were not reported in the same format and manner as the more recent 305(b)
 data. These old data sets were converted into the new format by the 305(b) coordinator some
 years ago. The data can be easily compared, but the older data were not collected with this type
 of reporting in mind and therefore are unlikely to carry the same degree of precision and
 resolution as the newer data sets. However, the data quality was good enough to permit use of the
 data in this study.

 As was discussed above under Indicator 1, it can sometimes be difficult to see the effect of an
 CWSRF-funded project on stream segments impaired by multiple sources. Sources other than
those addressed by CWSRF financing can contribute to the same cause of degradation, making
the SRF-financed improvements appear somewhat insignificant in restoring a stream segment.
                                                                                   E-15

-------
  Over time, however, the SRF-financed improvements can be important as a part of continued
  improvements in degraded stream segments, eventually leading to recovery of those segments.

  Recommendation

  This indicator should be used because it measures the desired endpoint of the CWSRF activity,
  which is progress toward the Clean Water Act goals.
        /

  To effectively use this indicator, it will be important to  ensure that Agency water quality
  monitoring planning includes monitoring of both projects already funded through the CWSRF
  program, and projects anticipated to be funded in the future.  Ohio's CWSRF program staff is
  working with Ohio EPA monitoring staff to ensure that this will now occur annually, as a part of
  the Agency's 5-year basin monitoring strategy.
 Indicator 6. Benefits of reduced health risks and/or increased recreational use attributable
 to CWSKF-funded projects.
J
 U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

 This is a Level 6 Indicator - Changes hi Health and Ecology and other Effects. It is also a
 Response Indicator.

 Ease of Use/Difficulties

 Human health information is not readily accessible in a single database, but is in many different
 forms and locations.  The available information appears to not be consistently or systematically
 gathered or reported.

 Confidence in the Indicator

 For some projects, these data are insufficient for drawing conclusions. The data that have been
 collected were subjected to quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) criteria, and should be
 accurate and reliable. Adequate sampling to draw conclusions for the various projects is often
 lacking because samples need to be taken during various seasonal flows and at strategic
 locations. Although sampling upstream and downstream of a WWTP effluent can provide
 information regarding the plant operation, it may be more appropriate for some CWSRF projects
 to have a record of bacteriological violations in pools, ditches, water wells, etc. to document
 effects of failing on-lot systems. Such locations may not be considered an official
 waterway/body, but would nonetheless pose a threat to human health and warrant attention.
 These data are not in any known database or report, but are often gathered on an individual
 project basis from local health departments.
E-16

-------
 Recommendation

 The human health data needs to be aggregated by the respective agencies and laboratories so that
 a complete picture of the human health impacts can be viewed quickly and easily. The indicator
 is an important one because it monitors a Clean Water Act objective.
 Indicator B.  Changes in the habitat of a waterfoody as a result of a CWSRF project
1
 U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

 This is a Level 4 Indicator - changes in ambient conditions (e.g., water quality, habitat). It is also
 a Response Indicator.

 Ease of Use/Difficulties

 The 1998 305(b) Report states that habitat destruction is now the leading cause of aquatic life
 impairment in Ohio streams and rivers, overtaking organic enrichment and dissolved oxygen
 impacts. Hydromodification has overtaken point sources as the chief source of impairment to
 streams and rivers. As SRFs fund a wide variety of nonpoint source, restoration and preservation
 projects, this indicator will provide an appropriate measure when coupled with the biological
 information in Indicators 4 and 5. Another method of assessing impacts of land use (nonpoint
 sources) on the physical stream habitat may be to look at trends in the Qualitative Habitat
 Evaluation Index (QHEI) of a location over time. Ohio EPA uses the QHEI to evaluate the
 characteristics of a stream segment based on the overall importance of a number of metrics
 related to the maintenance of viable, diverse, and functional aquatic faunas. The types and
 quality of substrates; amount and quality of in-stream cover; channel morphology; extent and
 quality of riparian vegetation; pool, run, and riffle development and quality; and gradient are
 some of the metrics used to determine the QHEI score; which generally ranges from 20 to 100.
 Since the QHEI factors in a large amount of diverse information, the monitoring group has
 recommended looking at the trends of just one component of the QHEI, bottom substrate
 characterization. The composition of stream bottom substrates can be used to measure nonpoint
 source stressors like fine sediment.

 The median particle size in an unimpacted stream in Ohio is typically coarse (gravel, cobble,
 sometimes boulders). These sizes of bottom sediment are typically associated with high-quality
 biota and stream habitats. As erosion increases in a watershed, either from surface runoff and/or
 bank erosion, the percent of fine materials in the stream bottom can increase, fill pools, and
 embed the larger-diameter substrates. Our data show that increased substrate embeddedness is
 associated with lower Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores (lower ecological condition of the
 stream).

An easy procedure that can be used to evaluate substrate condition of rivers and streams is called
the Zig-Zag Pebble Count Method, explained in Ohio EPA draft Fact Sheet 3: Field-l-MAS-99
(see Appendix F). The procedure involves starting at the downstream end of the sampling zone
                                                                                  E-17

-------
and picking a point up and across the stream (e.g., tree) at an acute angle.  The data collector then
starts walking and on every third pace or so, bends down and without looking picks up the first
particle that he/she touches. The items are recorded and the procedure is repeated so that a little
more than 100 pieces are collected within the zone. The results are classified into 16 possible
categories ranging from silt < 2mm to artificial (concrete or riprap) >1024mm.  Such tools could
be used to establish targets and measure incremental progress after the establishment of best
management practices or to detect deviation from reference conditions of streams in rapidly
developing areas.

One project (West Milton WWTP improvement project) in this report will demonstrate the use of
the QHEI (in absence of the pebble count data) for this indicator.  Funded projects that focus on
nonpoint source issues lacked sufficient data to make a valid before-versus-after project
comparison.

Confidence in the Indicator

Changes in land use practices, or channel modifications will be reflected in some degree in
Indicators 4 and 5.  Tracking Zig-Zag Pebble Counts for stream segments where either nonpoint
source projects or WWTP projects to eliminate solids discharges are implemented should provide
insight into the effectiveness of various types of activities/best management practices.

Recommendation

We recommend using this factor to capture those projects providing ambient habitat restoration.
Also, further investigation should be done regarding the use of both QHEI and Zig-Zag Pebble
Count data from appropriate project locations.

Overall Recommendations and Conclusions

The following are our recommendations regarding development and use of CWSRF indicators,
based on our analysis of the six draft indicators, and our experience using the indicators to
evaluate a select group of CWSRF-financed projects.

We recommend that Indicator 4 be eliminated, because it is covered by Indicator 5, and  that the
two new indicators be added to the list of CWSRF indicators.  This will provide a robust set of
indicators that will provide states with a wide range of choices for measuring the results obtained
from their CWSRF programs.  However, to provide the best picture of the effect of CWSRF-
financed projects on water quality, Indicators 1-3 and the two new recommended indicators
should be combined with Indicators 5 and/or  6. This will allow causal connections to be made
between CWSRF-financed projects and changes seen in the environment.

The indicator study performed by Ohio EPA's biological monitoring group shows that linking
management actions to real environmental results is most successful when direct measures (as
opposed to surrogates) are used. In evaluating the individual indicators for the CWSRF program,
it is important to keep in mind the nature and type of information that each environmental
E-18

-------
 indicator provides, and to be careful not to use stressor and exposure indicators as substitutes for
 response indicators.  States lacking well-developed biological indicators still must report on the
 status of their waters to U.S. EPA. Unfortunately, the most readily available information usually
 consists of stressor or exposure indicators, which necessarily leads to their use as surrogates for
 biological indicators.  Response (biological) indicators are inherently better at evaluating
 attainment of designated uses, which are the basis of state water quality standards. More
 accurately portraying the condition of the nation's aquatic resources depends on the wider
 development and use of response indicators.  These are important concepts to keep in mind in
 evaluating the nature of the information that each CWSRF indicator requires, and the resulting
 conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of CWSRF projects in meeting Clean
 Water Act objectives.

 Preparation of this report has pointed out the importance of having monitoring data accessible
 and in an easy, usable format. Ohio has information on the various permits, projects, chemical
 data, biological data, bacteriological data, etc. stored in different databases or paper files, making
 the information time-consuming and difficult to access. We recommend that agencies hi Ohio
 that are doing water quality monitoring and assessment consolidate the body of information on
 state water resources into one, or a very few, user-friendly, electronically accessible databases to
 allow for a more complete picture of our water resources and a wider use of the data.

 This study has also pointed out the need to include CWSRF programs in state monitoring
 strategies so that data collected can be used to give CWSRF programs needed information to
 evaluate the impacts of funded projects on the influenced waterbodies. Some such benefitted
 waterbodies may not be monitored otherwise. This is especially the case for nonpoint source
 projects, wastewater treatment plant elimination projects, or riparian protection projects where a
 permit (or likely enforcement action) is not involved. To get an idea of the effectiveness of these
 various types of projects, monitoring data on such projects needs to be collected and evaluated.

 Finally, CWSRF programs should get involved in the Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL)
 efforts.  In order to be most effective in this process, the CWSRF program will need to be able to
predict what types of projects, under what conditions, will provide the greatest benefit to aquatic
 life and human health in a watershed.  The CWSRF program may play a prominent role in
TMDL implementation as watershed groups look for financing to  support water quality
improvement activities.
                                                                                   E-19

-------
 Texas's Pilot Project Experience

 EPA proposed the following indicators as a means to measure the benefit derived from CWSRF
 funding on the environment. Texas was selected as a pilot state to help evaluate these proposed
 indicators.

 The following comments represent initial feedback to EPA regarding the efficacy of the proposed
 indicators.

        Indicator 1 - Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through
        CWSRF-funded projects. (Point source oriented)

        Indicator 2 - Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment
        through CWSRF funded projects. (Nonpoint source and no discharge)

        Indicator 3 - Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by
        changing land use practices, and resource harvesting and extraction practices through
        CWSRF-funded projects.

        Indicator 4 -Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary
        square miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a
        result of CWSRF-funded projects.

        Indicator 5 -Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary
        square miles, and wetland acres, protected, improved, or restored as a result of CWSRF-
        funded projects.

        Indicator 6 -Benefits of reduced health risks or increased recreational use attributable to
        CWSRF-funded projects.

 Of the six proposed indicators, the first two indicators appear to be the most developed and,
 therefore, most useful for measuring the performance of specific Clean Water State Revolving
 Fund (CWSRF) projects. Texas continues to have a large funding demand for Section 212
 projects (i.e., wastewater). Indicators 1 and 2 seem best suited to measuring 212 projects.
 Regarding Indicator 3, Texas has no experience in funding projects through the CWSRF for
 protective zoning, watershed management planning, stream restoration, changes in agricultural
 practices, riparian buffers, and other BMPs that could have biophysical benefits. Since Indicator
 3 is intended to measure this type of activity, Texas cannot comment on the adequacy of
 Indicator 3 at this time. Indicators 4 and 5 appear to be measures of stream conditions against set
 ambient standards. Indicator 4 would be a comparison to the 303(d) list while Indicator 5 would
 be a "more comprehensive" measure of ambient water quality against a standard which,
 heretofore, has not been established. It appears that Indicator 5 is particularly undeveloped.
 Because of this, Texas has no comments regarding Indicator 5 at this time. Indicator 4, however,
 appears to be in keeping with the approach that Texas has chosen to pursue. That is, for the
 purposes of the pilot study, Texas has attempted to select specific CWSRF projects which best
 correlate to the stream conditions  as monitored through 305(b) reports and listed in the 303(d)
 list.  Finally, Indicator 6 appears to be very undeveloped as well.
E-20

-------
 Evaluation of Indicators 1,2, and 4
 As indicated above, Indicators 3, 5, and 6 were not evaluated. These indicators need to be
 developed further in order to provide a framework for an evaluation. Indicators 1,2, and 4 were
 considered to be the most viable of the six. Indicators 1 and 2 lend themselves to a loading
 analysis and Indicator 4 relates well to the approach that Texas has elected to take to correlate
 CWSRF projects with existing 305(b) and 303(d) reports.

 Texas first identified six stream segments that represent the following before and after stream
 conditions:

       Two IMPAIRED segments in 1983-1987 that are now NOT IMPAIRED.
       Two NOT IMPAIRED segments in 1983-1987 that are now NOT IMPAIRED.
       Two IMPAIRED segments in 1983-1987 that are now IMPAIRED.

 Stream impairment for the before and after conditions were determined by evaluating 305(b)
 reports prepared between 1983 and 1987 and the current 303(d) list of impaired streams. Once
 the six stream segments were identified, then specific CWSRF projects in these stream segments
 were identified for analysis.  The intent was to get as close as possible to a cause and effect
relationship between individual CWSRF projects and their specific impact on the stream. The
 following projects were selected for evaluation:

Table A-l. CWSRF Projects/stream segments selected for evaluation.
SEGMENT

0505 Sabine River above
Toledo Bend Reservoir






061 1 Angelina River above
Sam Rayburn Reservoir







1202 Brazos River below
Navasota

,;

CWSRF PROJECT
Carthage
Hallsville
Longview
Marshall



Canada St.
(Jacksonville)
Double Creek
(Jacksonville)
Nacagdoches
Whitehouse





Sugarland Regional
(BRA)
Richmond North Second

Street
Richmond Regional

1983-1987 305(b)
REPORT
Depressed DO, nutrients,
WWTP effluent contribution
problems
IMPAIRED
DO violation
Problems have been due to
the assimilation of
wastewater effluent.
1985 waste load evaluation
recommended
Nacagdoches #2a and Tyler
Southside
WWTPs attain advanced
Treatment levels in order to
achieve DO standards
IMPAIRED

No significant water quality
problems
Effluent Limited



NOT IMPAIRED
CURRENT 303(d)
LIST
Selenium, Pb
No mention of municipal
waste related problems
NOT IMPAIRED
Not Listed









NOT IMPAIRED
Not Listed





NOT IMPAIRED
                                                                                E-21

-------
SEGMENT
1217 Lampasas River
above Stillhouse Hollow
Lake
0810 West Fork Trinity
River below Bridgeport
Reservoir
2202 Arroyo Colorado
above tidal
CWSKF PROJECT
Copperas Cove South
Lampasas Henderson
Alvord
Bowie
Bridgeport"
Sunset
Donna
McAllen
Mission
Pharr
Weslaco
1983-1987 305(b)
REPORT
No significant water quality
problems
Effluent Limited
NOT IMPAIRED
Coliform exceeds contact
recreation standards
Water Quality Limited
IMPAIRED
Low DO levels below 4
mg/L downstream major
municipal discharges
Bacteria levels exceed
contact recreation levels in
portions of the segment
IMPAIRED
CURRENT 303(d)
LIST
Not Listed
NOT IMPAIRED
Lower 25 miles, bacteria
levels exceed contact
recreation standards
IMPAIRED
Chlordane, Toxaphene,
DDE
Bacteria levels exceed
contact recreation levels
in lower 40 miles
IMPAIRED
 The projects listed involved plant expansions, plant upgrades, major sewer rehabilitation, point
 repairs, removal and replacement of lines, and the construction of new interceptors and
 collectors. The project categories used by Texas are as follows:

 A. Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion - The capacity of a Waste Water Treatment Plant
 (WWTP) is being expanded or additional facilities are needed for more stringent effluent limits.

 B. Bio-solids Treatment Capacity Expansion -  The project is primarily to expand the solids
 treatment and handling portion of a treatment facility.

 C. Facilities Rehab - The project is primarily to rehabilitate (not expand) equipment at an
 existing wastewater treatment facility, both wet and dry processes, or rehab/replace (not expand)
 an existing lift station.

 D. Collection System Rehab/Overflow Control - The project is primarily to manage excessive
 I/I flows or exfiltration and includes any of the following: collection system rehabilitation, relief
 lines, expansion of lift stations or construction of new lift stations, and expansion of the
 hydraulic capacity at a WWTP.

 E. Unserved Areas - Projects that involve extending service to populated areas of an existing
 developed community that are not served by a centralized collection system.  Project is primarily
 collector sewers as opposed to trunk sewers.
       (1) For an isolated community that has no centralized system, the principal project may
       include the cost of the collection system, transmission lines, and construction of a
       wastewater treatment plant.
E-22

-------
        (2) For an area adjacent to an existing community with centralized wastewater
        collection and treatment service the principal project may include the cost of construction
        of the collection system and the transmission lines required to convey flow to treatment.

 F. Trunk Sewer, Diversion - Projects where all or a portion of flow is diverted from an existing
 facility to an existing or new WWTP. The project could include diversion sewers, lift stations
 and expansions or construction of new WWTP. In these cases the project will be scored on the
 basis of the WWTP that is being removed or relieved of flow.

 G. Trunk Sewer, Developing Area - Project primarily involves extension of trunk lines and lift
 stations to areas of a community that are developing.

 H. Reuse - Projects to construct facilities to reuse wastewater for irrigation or other purposes.

 I. Nonpoint Source Pollution Project - A project for managing nonpoint source pollution that is
 in accordance with the State of Texas 319 plan or the State of Texas 320 plan (Estuary
 Management Plan). Items 3-8 on the SRF-6 form need not be completed for a nonpoint project.
. These projects are not rated.

 Indicator 1- Pounds of pollutants removed

 Indicator 1 was conceptualized to apply to point discharge projects. As such, it appears that this
 indicator can easily be applied to plant expansion projects.  Plant expansion projects include the
 construction of new treatment plants, expansion of existing plants to .accommodate additional
 flows, and plant improvements to enable more stringent discharge limits. All of these scenarios
 involve the development of facilities for the "removal" of pollutants. Pollutants removed can be
 estimated by comparing plant loadings to discharge parameters. For example, if the influent
 strength is 200 mg/L BOD at 5 MOD and the discharge limits are 10 mg/L BOD at 5 MOD, then
 the pounds removed would be the difference at 7,923 Ib BOD/day.  This calculation can easily be
 made by using theoretical numbers or actual measured numbers at the influent and the effluent
 once the plant is in operation.  Discharge information is reported to the state for each wastewater
 treatment permit.  This information is maintained by the state and is easily accessed. However, it
 is currently not mandatory for plants to measure influent loadings at each plant. This would need
to be made mandatory hi order to get the accurate before and after information needed if
calculations are to be made on real, not estimated, data.  This could present a barrier to applying
the Indicator. But, we consider a measure of discharge information against design influent
(estimated) information an easy, consistent, and credible method of determining pounds of
pollutants removed from the stream for plant expansion projects.

Plant upgrades include improvements that are not directly related to the treatment train and
hydraulic discharge.  Items of this type would include such things as plant buildings, plant site
improvements, electrical improvements, equipment repair and replacement, and treatment
facilities that don't contribute to liquid treatment such as sludge facilities and methane recovery
facilities. The CWSRF might fund these types of improvements without yielding a change in
pounds loading to the stream. As a result, Indicator 1 would not be able to measure these types
                                                                                   E-23

-------
   of improvements. Indicator 1, therefore, cannot measure all projects funded for treatment plant
   work. Another indicator should probably be developed to measure plant upgrades.

   Improvements to the collection system made through major sewer rehabilitation, point repairs,
   removal and replacement of lines, and lift station rehabilitation and construction are designed to
   reduce infiltration/inflow (I/I), to eliminate overflows and bypasses, and to increase collection
   system capacity. A direct measure of pounds removed in Indicator 1 does not seem feasible for
   these types of improvements. Likewise, the construction of new collectors and interceptors do
   not appear to be measurable through Indicator 1.

   Indicator 2 - Pounds of pollutants prevented
  Indicator 2 was conceptualized to apply to nonpoint source projects. Although they are not
  necessarily directly related to nonpoint source pollution, improvements to the collection system
  appear to be better measured through Indicator 2. It is possible to estimate pounds "prevented"
  in cases where I/I is being reduced, and where overflows and bypasses are being eliminated.
  Estimates developed in documents such as I/I analyses or Sewer System Evaluation Surveys
  (SSES) could be used as "measures" of pounds prevented. However, the vast majority of
  collection system improvement projects funded in Texas are for major sewer rehabilitation and
  replacement. Formal I/I analyses or SSES are not required. In addition to the fact that this
  method is not a direct measure of pounds prevented, another drawback is that it would represent
  an extra requirement that we would need to impose upon our applicants.

  The proper collection/transportation of sewer flows does represent a significant means of
  "preventing" pollution. Collectors, interceptors, and lift stations are used to transport and
  transfer flows in a sewer system to prevent pollution.  As such, the construction of these types of
  improvements appears to be best measured under Indicator 2. Design calculations identifying
  line capacity and lift station capacity can be used as estimates of the pounds prevented for these
  systems. This information is easily obtained and is part of the information that we currently
  gather routinely from our applicants. Again, this method does not provide a direct measure.  We
  consider this method of estimating pounds prevented to be consistent and credible for these types
  of improvements. As a final note, the extension of collectors and interceptors into unsewered
  areas often involves taking septic systems out of service. This can be viewed as a nonpoint
  source project.  The pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment for this type
  of project would, likewise, be estimated by the applicant through design calculations.

 Indicator 4 - Waterbodies previously impaired, now meeting designated uses
~**i^a*^***^**^*ii^^aaami^mmm^mm^mmmmmmmimm^
 Indicator 4 is intended to enable a comparison of waterbodies to a set standard. The standard
 which seems to be the most logical and convenient to use would be the 303(d) list since the list
 and the procedures for its development are already in place. In our evaluation, we attempted to
 determine a cause  and effect relationship between CWSRF improvements and the stream
 conditions listed in the 305(b) report and the 303(d) list.  The 305(b) and 303(d) information was
 easily obtained through printed reports provided to us by our  sister agency, the Texas Natural
 Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). We were able to make conclusions about the
 E-24

-------
  before and after conditions of select stream segments.  For example, (Table A-l) for the Sabine
  River above Toledo Bend Reservoir (Segment 0505), the 305(b) report stated that there was
  depressed dissolved oxygen (DO) and nutrients in the stream. It specifically stated that
  wastewater effluent contributed to problems. The 303(d) list made no mention of municipal
  waste problems. By virtue of this omission and for wastewater purposes, we concluded that the
  segment was previously impaired and now is not impaired.

  We then identified four communities in Segment 0505 that received funding from the CWSRF.
  It appeared that we could infer that the wastewater improvements in these four communities
  remedied the stream deficiencies listed in the 305(b) report.  However, it became immediately
  obvious that we could not determine a clear cause and effect relationship. First, we identified
  only the projects that we funded. We, by no means, fund all of the wastewater improvements
  statewide. This means that we are not aware of all of the improvements that were made in
  facilities that might impact any one segment. Hence, we could never conclude that it was the
  CWSRF improvements that remedied the problem.

  When comparing to a set standard as is proposed by Indicator 4, a means of collecting
  comprehensive information regarding what was built and when, including any nonpoint source
 projects, would be necessary to enable us to give credit where credit is due.  Second,  once the
 stream achieves the set ambient standards, a method of measuring the beneficial impact of
 subsequent wastewater projects would need to be developed. The method that we attempted was
 limited because once a segment is removed from the 303(d) list, there would be no way to
 determine the impact of subsequent improvements on the stream since the stream was already
 meeting standards.

 Texas currently has a basic statewide ambient water quality monitoring system.  The  question,
 however, is whether it is fined tuned enough to determine whether a single CWSRF project can
 make a difference in the stream.  The system as it is designed now measures stream segment
 conditions and is not targeted toward monitoring the impact of specific CWSRF projects. To
 obtain information on the impact of specific plants, the monitoring system would need to be
 modified to include monitoring stations around specific wastewater treatment plant discharge
 points. Care would need to be taken to avoid the placement of these new stations in mixing
 zones to avoid false readings of the stream itself. Maintenance monitoring of this type would be
 necessary for every wastewater project that is funded by the CWSRF in order to draw a direct
 relationship between the funding and the stream conditions. In addition, the monitoring system
 would need to be modified to correlate the stream conditions to specific nonpoint source projects.
 The placement of additional monitoring stations would, of course, demand a corresponding
 increase in resources.

 Data Availability

For Indicators 1  and 2, data appears to be readily available from project information collected
from applicants as we process applications. This information would be maintained in our
fileroom. However, in the case of Indicator 2, a drawback is found in that we would need to
                                                                                 E-25

-------
  impose an extra requirement on applicants to get the necessary information. This would be
  considered burdensome and undesirable.

  Databases containing relevant information are maintained by our agency (the Texas Water
  Development Board) and the TNRCC. Sharing of this information would be necessary and easy
  to do.  The TNRCC TRACS database maintains 305(b) and 303(d) information.  We maintain
  the FNMIS for facility needs and project information purposes.
E-26

-------
Michigan's Pilot Project Experience

Michigan's participation in EPA's Environmental Indicator Task Force has been an interesting
experience, but has reaffirmed that the state has very limited hard data to support an indicator
effort. Coupled with a need to aggregate data nationally from states with differing philosophies,
resources and funding priorities, the Task Force has been left with a very difficult charge. Before
discussing the various indicators and Michigan's experience attempting to implement them, it
would be appropriate to briefly describe a number of issues that directly bear on the state's
efforts:
       (1)  Historically, Michigan maintained an extensive ambient monitoring network on its
       lakes and streams. Over the last 15 years, however, nearly all of these ambient monitoring
       efforts have been abandoned as budgets have been cut. Although there has been a flurry
       of discussion regarding the planned expenditure of the newly approved Clean Michigan
       Initiative funds for water quality monitoring, efforts have not yet gotten off the ground.
       (2)  Michigan does maintain the PCS system, collecting and storing discharge data filed
       by dischargers on monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). These reports are
       filed by NPDES permit holders and cover primarily treatment facilities with continuous
       or seasonal discharges.
       (3)  Nearly one-half of Michigan's CWSRF funds to date have been utilized for the
       control or elimination of combined sewer overflows. Although the  overflows in most
       cases are permitted discharges, due to the difficulty of sampling intermittent events and
       the absence of firm monitoring requirements in CSO discharge permits, there is little or
       no reliable discharge quantity/quality information available.
       (4)  Michigan has not provided any CWSRF assistance to date to nonpoint source
       projects.
       (5)  Michigan does maintain a project priority ranking process that  attempts to "estimate"
       the amount of in-stream water quality improvement that would result from a CWSRF
       project. Using a modified Streeter-Phelps equation and mass balance computations, the
       system awards points in five categories: dissolved oxygen, nutrients (phosphorus), toxic
       substances (un-ionized ammonia and residual chlorine), microorganisms, and
       groundwater improvement (contaminated wells). The process relies only partially on hard
       data from the DMRs while using a series of default values and estimates to complete
       assessments of the in-stream improvements that could be expected  from a CWSRF
       investment.

These realities made it nearly impossible for Michigan to complete indicator questionnaires on
any meaningful cross  section of CWSRF projects in the state. In most cases reliable pre and post
project data simply does not exist. As Michigan evaluated each indicator against the 165 projects
funded to date in the CWSRF we found the folio-whig:
                                                                                  E-27

-------
 1. Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through SRF-funded
 projects. (Point source oriented)

 •      For existing treatment facilities DMR data could provide accurate pre-prqject load data,
       while post-project load data could be derived from basis of design information.
       Unfortunately, a significant number of our CWSRF funded treatment plants were
       primarily for expansion rather than upgrade, rendering the post-project load larger than
       the pre- project load.
 •      For CSO projects, since actual discharge data is not available, pre-project loads would
       have to be estimated from default data used in our priority ranking system. Post-project
       loads would have to come from basis of design data for treatment facilities and post-
       project assumptions for residual storm water in separation projects.
 •      Collection sewer projects would have to be assessed using estimated data on loading to
       the groundwater in most cases.
2. Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment through
SRF-funded projects. (NPS or non discharge oriented)               	

•      This indicator was difficult to use in Michigan because it seems to "assume" that when a
       facility is expanded the additional load it is capable of removing would have gone to the
       environment without the expansion. Here Michigan would have to use some assigned
       "per capita" load and credit the project for loading prevention based on the new
       population to be served.
•      Since we have not funded any nonpoint projects to date we were unable to fully test this
       indicator.
                                                                                        1
                                                                                         I
3. Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by changing land
use practices, and resource harvesting and extraction practices through SRF-funded.
projects.	__^

•      Michigan found it was unable to properly assess this indicator without having nonpoint
       source projects funded.
4. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square miles,
and wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a result of
SRF-funded projects.

•      This indicator proved very difficult to utilize even though Michigan maintains an
       extensive involvement hi the 303(d) process and is well on its way to completing
       TMDLs. The fact that the vast majority of our impaired waters result from numerous
       influences will make it difficult to assign the improvement, or a specific share of the
E-28

-------
        improvement, to any CWSRF project. Work outside the CWSRF program, contaminated
        sediment removal, storm water control and nonpoint source reductions in many areas
        "overlap" the zone of influence of CWSRF work.

 •      Any assessment of designated uses would necessitate having in-stream water quality data
        available, which would be problematic in Michigan.

 5.  Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square miles,
 and wetland acres, protected, improved or restored as a result of SRF-funded projects.

 •      Conceptually this indicator seems to get at the kind of "cross program" improvements that
        might be realized by the CWSRF and the other federal programs striving to the same
        "fishable and swimmable" goal. This broadness, however, also reveals the weakness that
        will inherently exist with data availability and consistency. When evaluating this indicator
        Michigan ran into much of the same problem encountered in No. 4 above.
 6. Benefits of reduced health risks or increased recreational use attributable to
 SRF-funded projects.

       Clearly much of Michigan's CWSRF investment (particularly in CSO elimination) is
       being driven by the public health concerns of untreated overflows. With that said,
       however, it is nearly impossible to directly link CWSRF projects to the elimination of any
       disease outbreaks. Many county health departments in Michigan are diligently issuing
       health advisories following rain-induced overflows from CSOs, and this could be used as
       an approximate reflection of reduced risks assuming advisories become less frequent after
       project completion.

 •      The only recreational use attainment indicator available would be the designated use for
       partial/full body contact recreation (fecal coliform concentrations), but this again would
       necessitate the availability of in-stream data, which is not consistently available in
       Michigan.
In summary, Michigan found that with the exception of modify ing our project priority ranking
process to accommodate Indicator No. 1, we would be hard pressed to provide accurate,
reproducible data for the other suggested indicators, primarily due to a lack of the necessary in
stream water quality information.
                                                                                  E-29

-------
New Jersey's Pilot Project Experience

Results Summary: The information obtained from these indicators could be beneficial to Clean
Water Act program management. However, New Jersey currently collects data that directly
supports only one of the six pilot indicators. In addition, indicator development guidelines are
needed to facilitate consistent state reporting for national indicators and state or regional
comparisons. Additional effort would also be needed to integrate the pilot indicators into New
Jersey's goal and indicators system.

Due to the integrated nature of water programs, NJDEP has attributed improvements hi water
quality to the combined efforts of permitting, enforcement and finance programs which have
acted hi concert to address point sources and now are being used to address nonpoint sources.
Clearly attributing improvements in water quality specifically to the CWSRF, as suggested by
the pilot indicators, may overemphasize one aspect of an integrated approach.

As states analyze the environmental effect of the treatment upgrades, project-specific information
may not be readily comparable. Project sponsors come hi for financing hi order to do upgrades
for a variety of reasons. The facility may provide only primary treatment (note that none are left
hi NJ), marginally secondary treatment, secondary with compliance issues, or upgrade to
advanced levels. New Jersey's compliance indicator shows a downward trend hi permit
violations, and there are significant penalties for permit violations under New Jersey's Clean
Water Enforcement Act. Thus, actual or potential compliance issues are an important impetus
for upgrades.

In general, the cost of upgrading increases as higher treatment levels are required. Required
treatment levels are also, influenced by the size and variability of the receiving waterbody.  Thus,
the unit cost per pound of pollutant removed may vary significantly. Based upon this, we do not
believe that it is appropriate to establish national priorities for the use of CWSRF funds (i.e.,
projects that reduce BOD are a higher priority than projects that reduce SS, for example), or to
make generalizations regarding the most cost-effective use of CWSRF dollars. Project priority
decisions, as is the current precedent of the CWA, are intended to be made by the states. While
the intent of the environmental indicator effort to attempt to quantify environmental benefits
achieved through the expenditure of CWSRF funds is appropriate, the use of such information to
set federal priorities for the use of these funds is not.

Background: New Jersey is the seventh smallest state hi the United States (7,600 square miles)
and one of the most densely populated (7.9 million people hi 1990). Population, industrial and
shipping centers occur hi the northeast and southwest portions  of the state and most other areas
are becoming suburbanized. The Pinelands in the southeast and Highlands in the northwest are
relatively less developed. Surface waters hi New Jersey are intensely used for potable and
industrial supplies, recreation and wastewater disposal. The 300 publicly owned treatment works
treat domestic waste and 90% of the state's industrial waste. There are also 1200 industrial
treatment plants and 300 CSOs. Stream headwaters are typically forested; larger watersheds
typically receive stormwater and runoff from residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural
land and direct discharges of domestic and industrial effluents.
E-30

-------
 Indicator 1: Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through
 CWSRF-funded projects.
 Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) data include specific pollutants that are routinely
 monitored nationally (i.e., BOD, Suspended Solids) could be used for CWSRF POTW projects to
 calculate the pounds of each pollutant removed at the POTW.  This approach appears to be
 workable; however, testing identified questions about the validity of the numbers generated, as
 explained below.

 In New Jersey, no new POTWs have been funded from CWSRF dollars.  All of the POTW
 projects in NJ have involved upgrades, expansions, improvements to maintain current operational
 reliability or combinations of these items. Therefore, since the existing facilities were already
 removing a certain number of pounds of pollutants, and upgrades are usually done in combination
 with expansions together with tying in new flows, it is difficult to identify the additional pounds
 of pollutants removed due to CWSRF funding.

 For example, improvements to one POTW were funded to construct four new final clarifiers to
 improve operational reliability.  Several approaches could be taken to calculate the indicator
 which yield very different results. One approach would be to calculate the removal capabilities of
 the new units financed with CWSRF funds by comparing DMR loadings data before and after
 addition of the new clarifiers. However, gains in treatment may be offset by additional influent
 flows. Another approach would be to use current influent and  effluent data to calculate the total
pounds of pollutants removed by the POTW.  This approach gives the CWSRF credit for all
pollutant removal at the POTW.

DMR data to calculate this indicator are readily available through the PCS system.  This indicator
could provide useful data regarding pollutant load reductions from regulated facilities. New
Jersey has reported statewide BOD loadings between  1985 and 1998, which show a statewide
decreasing trend despite increases in population served by sewers. As discussed above, this trend
was attributed to the combined efforts of permitting, enforcement and finance. This pilot
indicator is currently limited by a need for clear guidelines for  indicator calculations that address
the variety of POTW projects financed by states so that information is comparable between states.
                                                                                  E-31

-------
Indicator 2:  Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment
through CWSRF funded projects.
This indicator is designed to address NFS and no-discharge oriented projects.  In New Jersey, the
number of these projects is quite substantial and includes sewer rehabilitation, inflow/infiltration
correction, drinking water sludge management, wastewater sludge management, treatment plant
expansions, lakes management projects and others. Typically, there are no "before" or "after"
data.  Thus, to develop this pilot indicator, substantial modeling for each individual project type
that the states have financed with CWSKF funds would need to be developed; a very costly,
controversial and time consuming endeavor. Alternatively, nationally accepted estimates may
suffice, but this needs to be further evaluated.
Indicator 3:  Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by
changing land use practices, resource harvesting and extraction practices through CWSRF
funded projects.

The specific types of projects associated with this indicator are unclear. For example, would land
acquisition and conservation be included under this indicator.  While "riparian buffers" buffers are
listed, what is meant?  Thus we cannot ascertain whether this indicator is likely to be associated
with a substantial number of projects in New Jersey. The national applicability of this indicator
should be reconfirmed. The units to measure biophysical benefits and stress reduction for this
indicator are also unclear.

Indicator 4:  Waterbodies previously impaired and now meeting designated uses as a result!
of CWSRF projects.	_____	                      •

In order to evaluate this indicator, ambient stream monitoring stations downstream of CWSRF
projects were evaluated for water quality improvements subsequent to CWSRF project
implementation.  Stream monitoring network stations are typically selected for a variety of
reasons and are often not in close proximity to a specific discharge. As discussed above in the
background section, a variety of land uses and point sources often contributed pollutant load
between the upgraded facility and the monitoring point. Although improvements in water quality
were observed (i.e., increasing DO, decreasing total phosphorus), it was not possible to attribute
these improvements to one or more specific CWSRF projects.

Data are not readily available in New Jersey for this indicator at this time. However, through
several efforts, data to support this indicator may become available in the future. Development of
watershed-based TMDLs is expected to lead to issuance of permits for all facilities in a watershed.
CWSRF assistance to implement these watershed-based permits could be measured in terms of
pollutant load reductions to watersheds (Indicator 1) and improvements to designated use
attainment (Indicator 4). Again, concerns regarding specifically attributing CWSRF with
improvements associated with permitting, enforcement, and finance should be noted.
E-32

-------
 Additional data collection to support TMDL development and implementation as well as the
 recently redesigned Ambient Stream Monitoring Network could provide data needed to support
 this indicator. In addition, NJDEP's CWSRF program and Water Assessment Team are working
 to exchange data regarding CWSRF projects and ambient water quality. This data exchange is the
 first step to evaluating CWSRF contributions to improved designated use attainment.
 Indicator 5: Waterbodies protected or improved as a result of CWSRF funded projects.
 In NJ, land acquisition projects would be reflected in this indicator. New Jersey is extending
 eligibility to land acquisition projects in FY 2001. In addition, New Jersey's land acquisition
 programs utilize several funding sources confounding specific identification of protection or
 improvements related to CWSRF. The data concerns identified above for Indicator 4 also apply
 to this indicator.
                                 *
 As noted above, TMDL development, improvements in data collection and exchange may provide
 information to support this indicator in the future.  In addition, watershed management efforts
 focused on land acquisition and pollution prevention may provide data in the future.
 Indicator 6: Benefits of reduced health risks and/ or increased recreational use attributable
 to CWSRF funded projects.

 Links between CWSRF funding and specific reduced health risk, as measured by disease
 outbreaks prevented, would be difficult, if not impossible, to confirm. CWSRF projects were
 conceptually reviewed and clear links to projects for which reductions in disease outbreaks could
 not be made. Recent disease outbreaks in bathing areas were associated with wildlife.  Recent
 studies of cryptosporidium and giardia hi water supplies indicate that NJ supplies are not
 significantly affected by these pathogens, given limitations of the study design and test methods.

 A review of enforcement data showed that facilities rarely exceed permit limits for fecal coliform.
 Pathogen contamination, as indicated by fecal coliform pollution, has been attributed primarily to
 CSOs, storm water and runoff in New Jersey. Pollution from storm water and municipal runoff
 contributes to beach closings and shellfish harvest restrictions.  However, given the intensity of
 development, it is difficult to identify specific pipes. For example, over 7000 municipal storm
 water pipes discharge to Bamegat Bay. Through watershed management,  CWSRF needs
 associated with management of these sources are expected to be identified and addressed in the
 future.

 In New Jersey, CSO discharges occur primarily in urban areas away from shellfish beds and
 bathing beaches. (Note that significant sums were provided under the construction grants program
 to accomplish this.)  Management of pathogens from CSO sources will be very difficult to
 accomplish and designated use improvements may be confounded by other pollution sources,
 including storm water and runoff.  Additional issues associated with the use of the fecal coliform
 indicator need to be addressed on a national level. As above, a survey of the other states should
be made to see if information on more than just a handful of situations can be confirmed.
                                                                                   E-33

-------
 New Jersey's Goal and Indicator System

 New Jersey was one of six states to pilot the National Environmental Performance Partnership
 System (NEPPS) in 1995. Under NEPPS, water program representatives and external advisory
 groups developed the Goal and Indicator System. New Jersey's water goal reflects the Clean
 Water Act goal. Milestones (measurable targets) that reflect designated uses were developed if
 sufficient data were available (e.g., By 2005,50 percent of assessed, nontidal river miles will
 support healthy aquatic life.). If sufficient data were not available, objectives were developed
 (e.g., Maintain and enhance aquatic life in assessed tidal waters).

 Environmental indicators are being used to measure progress toward each milestone and objective
 using three types of indicators in a feedback model. Cause indicators show pollutant loads from
 point and nonpoint sources and other environmental stressors (e.g., BOD loads). Condition
 indicators show ambient environmental conditions (e.g., stream water quality). Response
 indicators show management measures implemented by NJDEP, regulated entities and watershed
 partners (e.g., CWSRF investment, permit compliance, BMP implementation).

 New Jersey reported "Infrastructure Investment By County"  (state and CWSRF funds) as one of
 several response indicators measuring progress toward the aquatic life milestone (see following
 section from "Environmental Indicators Technical Report," NJDEP, June 1998). To reflect the
 integrated nature of water programs, permit compliance and industrial storm water pollution
 prevention plan implementation were also reported.
 Milestone: By 2005,50% of assessed river miles will support healthy sustainable
 biological communities.

 Indicator:  Infrastructure investment to improve water quality

 Type of Indicator: Response
From 1987 (the first year of the loan program) through 1995, approximately $1.2 billion has been
awarded in the state for various types of-wastewater projects.

What does this indicator tell us?

This indicator conveys the total amount of funding awarded through the Wastewater Treatment
Financing Program in the state. "Loan awards" has been selected as an indirect indicator of
potential water quality improvement. Water quality improvements specifically related to
infrastructure investment are difficult to identify, particularly on a project-specific basis, because
water quality is subject to significant other point and nonpoint source impacts at the same time.
Notwithstanding, surface water quality improvements in specific areas of the state have been
noted and are coincident with areas in which substantial loan funding has been provided.
E-34

-------
 From 1987 (the first year of the loan program) through 1995, approximately $1.2 billion has been
 awarded in the state for various types of wastewater projects. This includes upgrade of sewage
 treatment facilities, abatement of combined sewer overflows, repair or replacement of overflowing
 and overloaded sewer systems, construction of sludge management facilities, and provision of
 collection systems hi areas experiencing on-site system failures.

 Data Characteristics

 Information on loan awards in the state is maintained by NJDEP within EPA's Grants Information
 and Control System (GICS). In addition, detailed annual reports on loan awards in accordance
 with the New Jersey Wastewater Treatment Trust's authorizing legislation are prepared by the
 NJDEP and the Trust, which are jointly submitted to the Legislature. NJDEP and the Trust also
 prepare and submit to EPA annual reports which summarize the use of State Revolving Fund
 (CWSRF) monies in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. These
 reports are available to the public upon request. Requests may be made by calling the Municipal
 Finance and Construction Element in the Division of Water Quality, NJDEP, at (609) 292-8961.

 Data Strengths and Limitations

 Loans are awarded through the Wastewater Treatment Financing Program on an annual basis.
 Project priorities are established based upon a combination of project type, water quality/water
 use, State Development and Redevelopment Plan aspects and population served by the project. In
 addition, a new provision of the ranking methodology provides additional points for projects
 within an area in which watershed management planning has been completed, intended to serve as
 an incentive to complete needed planning activities and construction of priority projects within the
 watershed.

 The loan amounts are fixed at the time of loan execution in November of the fiscal year.
 NJDEP's zero-interest loan represents approximately half the principal amount needed, based on
 engineering estimates, to construct the project, as well as an allowance to cover costs for planning
 and design; the Trust's loan covers the remaining  allowable costs for the project and  may be
 somewhat higher, based upon the interest rate of the bonds sold by the Trust to finance the project
 as well as the financing terms desired by the project sponsor. Subsequent loan adjustments,
 including the award of supplemental loans, are made if actual construction costs are higher (or
 lower) than as included in the initial loan awards.

As indicated above, "loan awards" represent an indirect indicator of potential water quality
improvement. The award of loans does not quantify the specific water quality benefits realized.
Each of the different types of projects have widely variable water quality benefits that would be
associated, which are further influenced by the specific project conditions involved.  Treatment
plant upgrades and combined sewer overflow projects will impact receiving water quality.
Collection system upgrades and/or elimination of failing septic systems will affect ground water
quality and quantity, and surface water effects may also be involved. Sludge management
systems are important to assure environmentally acceptable treatment and disposal practices, thus
                                                                                   E-35

-------
 avoiding impacts as a result of inadequate systems or disposal practices.

 Significant water quality improvements are not typically apparent as a result of construction of a
 single project.  Improvements are more likely to be apparent through the cumulative
 improvements as a result of construction of a number of point and nonpoint source management
 projects.

 The loan awards information presented below represents a portion of the total wastewater
 infrastructure investments made in the state. Not included in this summary are construction grant
 awards made in the state (the financing program administered by the state prior to implementation
 of the Wastewater Treatment Financing (loan) Program); municipal projects financed at the local
 level; and water quality improvement projects undertaken by the industrial sector (which are not
 eligible under the financing program).

 Discussion

 Historically, municipalities have been hesitant to construct needed wastewater treatment facilities
 because of the significant costs involved. The 1996 National Needs Survey indicates that $4.75
 billion is needed in order to address the wastewater needs that currently exist in the State.
 Notwithstanding, external forces, such as permitting and enforcement activities, or concerns with
 the structural integrity of sewers (i.e., fear of pipe collapse and related water quality concerns), are
 frequently involved in providing the impetus for a municipality to pursue a project. By providing
 low interest financing through the program, the state administers a program to provide
 municipalities with the financial means to address their water quality infrastructure needs.

 The breakdown of loan awards provided through the Wastewater Treatment Financing Program,
jointly administered by the Municipal Wastewater Assistance program in the NJDEP and by the
 New Jersey Wastewater Treatment Trust, to finance types of wastewater treatment facilities
 throughout the state included the following:
E-36

-------
                             Loan Awards by Type (1987-1995)
Type of Improvement
Sewage treatment plant upgrades
Sewage treatment plant tie-ins (to abandon inadequate treatment facilities)
Sludge management facilities
Collection system construction and rehabilitation
Combined sewer overflow abatement
Total
Investment
Amount
$659.1 million
$111.6 million
S199.0 million
$180.6 million
$ 49.7 million
$ 1.2 billion
 The map below summarizes cumulative loan awards made by the Wastewater Treatment
 Financing Program on a county basis. (Note that the cumulative loan awards represent the
 location of the project sponsor, although in some cases, the service area may involve
 municipalities beyond the county boundaries.) This map demonstrates that a number of areas in
 the state have received significant amounts through the Financing Program. This includes, in
 particular, the counties of Morris, Camden and Burlington.

 The Water Quality chapter of the Self-Assessment cites a number of areas in the state in which
 water quality improvements have been noted, including the Whippany Watershed in Morris
 County and in the Big Timber Creek Watershed in Camden County.  The significant wastewater
 treatment system upgrades financed by the state are, in large part, responsible for these noted
 water quality improvements. As cited in Water Quality section of the Self-Assessment document,
 these improvements represent the combined efforts of planning, permitting and enforcement
 programs, in addition to that of the financing program. Significant financing has also been
 awarded in Burlington County, both for wastewater treatment system upgrades at a number of
 treatment plants and for a regional sludge composting facility to accommodate the sludge
 generated within the county.

 It should be noted that the recent inclusion of eligibility for storm water/nonpoint source projects
 under the Financing Program, as well as regional watershed management planning efforts (for
which projects will receive additional project ranking points as previously discussed), will be a
major tool for implementation of water quality improvements, to address both point and nonpoint
 source priorities in the state, on a watershed basis.
                                                                                  E-37

-------
           NJ  WASTEWATER TREATMENT  FINANCING  PROGRAM

               (Loan Amounts in Millions)
                  TOTAL LOAN AMOUNTS (1987-1995):  $1.2 BILLION


                          NJ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                             MENTALREGUU
                             MUNICIPAL WA
E-38

-------
 Utah's Pilot Project Experience

 A brief narrative on the nature of the wastewater treatment facilities in Utah will help explain the
 difficulty we had in applying many of the environmental indicators.  There are 93 publicly-owned
 treatment facilities in Utah of which only 26 are mechanical plants. Most of the mechanical
 plants lie along the more densely populated Wasatch Front range.  The remaining treatment
 facilities are lagoon systems, either facultative or aerobic. Generally, the lagoon systems serve
 smaller, more rural communities where sufficient and lower cost land is available for wastewater
 treatment and disposal. Most of the lagoon systems are either total containment facilities or
 employ land application of the effluent. In either of these cases the facilities are not issued an
 NPDES permit. Additionally, approximately 15% of the state's residents, generally those residing
 in unincorporated areas, are served by individual on-site disposal systems.

 For our study we selected eight CWSRF projects based largely on their varied nature.  Utah has
 funded only traditional Section 212 projects. The projects we selected are as follows:
Project
Aurora Town
Orem City
Mapleton City
Jordanelle SSD
St. George City
Cedar City
Grantsville City
Santaquin City
Description
New collection system and total containment
lagoon
Interceptor sewer, Gravity thickener and belt
filter press
New collection system and interceptor sewer
New interceptor sewer, lift stations, force main
7.5 mgd WWTP expansion
New WWTP with land application of effluent
Upgrade and expand existing lagoon facility,
new interceptor, lift stations
New collection system, aerated lagoon with land
application of effluent, lift stations
Total Cost
$2.694 M
$4.0 M
$10.3 M
$6.49 M
$27.5 M
$12.4 M
$3.4 M
$5.98 M
CWSRF
$0.841 M
$3.5 M
$9.4M
$2.74 M
$12.0 M
$12.0 M
$3.3 M
$1.307 M
All eight projects studied were for the initiation or expansion of treatment service.  None were
simply for upgrading existing services.  Of the eight projects we studied, only four of the projects
(Orem, St. George City, Cedar City, and Grantsville) were at facilities where NPDES permits are
required.  However, the Cedar City WWTP land applies its effluent without discharging to a
receiving stream. Of the other three NPDES-permitted facilities, only the St. George and
Grantsville projects involved construction of treatment train processes. Orem's project was for
solids dewatering/handling. The remaining four projects evaluated were either at a facility with
no effluent discharge (Aurora); or a facility that land applies effluent (Santaquin); or with
communities which contract for treatment services at a regionalized treatment facility (Jordanelle
                                                                                      E-39

-------
  and Mapleton).

  Our experience applying the environmental indicators to these eight projects follows.
  Indicator 1 - Actions funded by CWSRF programs.
                                                                     1
  We feel this is a viable indicator which states are tracking already. The premise is that all
  CWSRF projects provide to varying degrees a needed environmental benefit and serve a
  worthwhile public purpose. This indicator, which does not rely on empirical data for its support,
  is one which is readily available and can easily be applied. This indicator will particularly be
  important for those states which have limited water quality data to substantiate environmental
  improvements but wish to nevertheless claim "credit" for what has been accomplished through the
  CWSRF. This indicator also has general application to all CWSRF projects, whereas the
  environmental benefits of some CWSRF-funded projects, e.g., pump stations, bio-solids
  thickening, and replacement projects, may not be quantifiable.
 Data availability:
High. Utah has a current data base which allows ready access to the data,
including the number of projects funded, the amount of CWSRF loans,
funds leveraged, etc.
 Data accessibility:    High
 Data applicability:
Questionable. Application of this indicator assumes that all CWSRF
projects are created equal and that none provides any more of an
environmental benefit than another except that those projects receiving
higher amounts of funds presumably provide a greater environmental
improvement.
 Recommendation:    Let this indicator stand as is.
 Indicator 2 - Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through SRF-
 funded projects.
                                                                      1
 We considered this indicator to apply to generally point source discharges where, as a result of a
 CWSRF project, the pollutant load to the receiving stream was removed or reduced. For most
 point source projects me application of this indicator is probably limited, unless the project is
 simply for the upgrade of the treatment facility to enhance the level of treatment. For projects
 which increase the capacity of a treatment facility this indicator would likely not apply because
 the loading to the receiving stream would also be expected to increase. Although none of the
 projects we evaluated were strictly "upgrades", to which Indicator 2 would not necessarily  apply,
 we nevertheless evaluated this indicator.]
E-40

-------
 Data availability:
 Data accessibility:
 Data applicability:
 High for point source projects.  DMR data is available from all NPDES-
 permitted facilities. For improvements associated with NFS CWSRF
 projects, data may be limited or nonextant. To demonstrate improvements
 associated with NFS  CWSRF projects, before-project and after-project
 sampling would be needed. Absent project-specific sampling data there
 would need to be reliance on ambient water quality monitoring data both
 upstream and downstream of the project in order to demonstrate
 improvement.

 High for point source projects.  The PCS data base allows ready access to
 the data. For NFS projects, if data were generated or already available, it
 could be accessed in our surface water database.

 For point source projects the data would most certainly apply. For NFS
projects the applicability is questionable. For NFS projects it may be
 difficult to confidently ascribe improvements in the receiving stream
completely or even partially to the CWSRF project.  There may be too
many variables affecting the receiving stream to show improvements
directly attributable to a project.
 Indicator 3 - Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment
 through CWSRF-funded projects.
 We considered this indicator to apply to the following types of projects: 1) point source projects
 where either the hydraulic or organic capacity of a facility to treat wastewater is increased; 2)
 point source projects where on-site disposal systems (septic tank systems) are abandoned and
 wastewater is instead diverted to a centralized wastewater treatment facility; and 3) NFS projects
 where pollutants are prevented from entering into a receiving stream.

 We reasoned that there is an environmental benefit derived from removing more pollutants from
 the waste stream at a treatment facility even though effluent loadings to the receiving stream may
 actually increase due to higher flows resulting from growth. Pollutant removal can be easily
 calculated utilizing effluent information (i.e., flow, BOD, TSS, ammonia, phosphorous) gathered
 from DMRs and either actual influent information on the same parameters or estimates which can
 be made based on text book values.

 Since 1992 Utah has operated a voluntary program called the Municipal Wastewater Planning
 Program (MWPP).  The purpose of this program is to provide a mechanism for communities to
perform a self-assessment of their wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure to determine
the "health"  of these facilities. Areas evaluated include: influent/effluent flows and quality;
facility capacity; operator certification; bypasses; maintenance; facility age; solids handling;
anticipated capital improvements; user charge system; debt coverage; viability of the enterprise
fund; and a subjective evaluation. On average approximately 65% of Utah communities
                                                                                    E-41

-------
 participate in the annual evaluations. All past recipients of CWSRF loans are required to
 participate as a condition of receiving funding.  Over the last five years 92% of all POTWs in the
 state have participated in the MWPP at least once.
 Data availability:
 Data accessibility:
Data applicability:
Recommendation:
 High. DMR data is available for all facilities which have an NPDES
 permit. Monthly operating reports (MORs) are available from all non-
 NPDES facilities in the state. MWPP reports generally provide influent and
 effluent flow and water quality information for both discharging and non-
 discharging facilities.

 Since Utah has not funded any NPS projects, we didn't extensively pursue
 an assessment of data which may be available for them. We feel it will be
 much more difficult estimating correctly the pollution prevented from
 entering the environment as a result of a NPS project. Either monitoring of
 the completed NPS project would need to occur or a method of estimating
 the pollutants devised.

 High. While no data base exists for MORs, the five most recent year's
 worth of data is kept in hard copy form and is readily accessible. MWPP
 reports are also available in hard copy. DMR data is readily accessible
 from PCS.

 For point source projects which expand the capacity of a POTW or for NPS
 projects which prevent pollution from occurring, this indicator is
 applicable. For CWSRF projects which are for the abandonment of on-site
 disposal systems, the indicator would still seem applicable, but more
 questionable. It may not be correct to receive "credit" for a CWSRF
 project which results in loadings formerly being treated hi on-site disposal
 systems but now being diverted to a POTW. To do so would presume that
 there is no remaining ability of the on-site disposal systems to continue to
 adequately treat wastewater. This may not be the case unless the on-site
 systems were at the point of failure or the density of additional systems
would have exceeded the ability of the soils to  assimilate more pollutants.

Let this indicator stand with the understanding that the estimation of
pollutants removed may be based on modeling or engineering estimates
rather than empirical data. Also, clarification should be made as to what
kinds of projects this indicator applies to and how the application is
different than that of Indicator 2.
E-42

-------
  Indicator 4 - Physical changes to the terrestrial, riparian, or aquatic habitat and hydrology
  resulting from CWSRF-funded projects.
  We feel this indicator generally has application to only NFS projects.  We have not yet utilized the
  CWSRF to fund NFS projects although we recently received legislative authority to do so.
  Therefore, this indicator was not tested. Had this indicator been tested we feel some tools are
  available to help measure improvement to water quality and habitat. On a limited basis, Utah
  does perform an inventory of macroinvertebrates in certain streams. Using a Winget-Modified
  Surber-Net, samples are collected, counted, weighed, and the species diversity recorded. Together
  with an evaluation of the physical habitat and water quality the presence and diversity of
  macroinvertebrates help identify the ecosystem integrity and health. Following the assay, the
  Biotic Condition Index (BCI), developed by the USDA Forest Service, is used to evaluate the
  conditions in the aquatic ecosystem.

 The BCI system:

        •       measures a stream against its own potential, not that of another stream;
        •       is sensitive to most forms of environmental stress;
               is applicable to various types and sizes of streams;
        •       provides a basis for assessment of unstressed to stressed conditions;
               is independent of sample size, if the samples are representative;
        •       is based on easily acquired data;
        •       meshes with and supports stream habitat and water quality data;
        •       provides an easily understood "score";
        •       is particularly useful for monitoring trends;
        •       is based mainly upon tolerance levels of the invertebrates

  Several other indices are also used to assess diversity and richness.

For a few streams where Section 319 watershed restoration projects have been implemented, a
multi-agency work group has complimented Utah DEQ's chemical water quality data by
monitoring for  channel morphology, riparian vegetation recovery,  fish population/productivity,
and habit quality. Tools have included: pebble counts;  assessments of riparian shade and
temperature; riparian vegetation surveys; fish population surveys; channel geomorphology
surveys; and a habitat  quality index.

When CWSRF  non-point source projects are undertaken in Utah, an effort will be made to
incorporate selected quantitative assessment measures into the project budget so that water quality
and habitat improvements can be identified.

We feel Indicator 4 will be a useful tool and should remain as is. It is unclear to us how these
"physical changes" will be meaningfully report.
                                                                                    E-43

-------
 Indicator 5 - Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square
 miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired, now improved or meeting designated uses, as a
 result of CWSRF-funded projects.
 Only a mild attempt was made to apply this indicator to the projects which we studied. Four of .
 the eight projects evaluated are facilities which have NPDES permits but only one of these (St.
 George City) discharges to an impaired stream which appears on the FY2000 303(d) list. In this
 case the impaired receiving stream (the Virgin River) is so designated due to a total dissolved
 solids (TDS) loading which is not a standard which is traditionally governed by an NPDES
 permit.  The same receiving stream appeared on the FY1986 303(d) list (pre-SRF) for TDS and
 total phosphorus.

 POTWs in Utah have no TDS standard in their NPDES permits and currently only one POTW has
 a phosphorus standard. This standard was imposed because the facility caused a phosphorus
 loading to a receiving stream which was impaired largely due to that loading. Until TMDL work
 is completed on all discharging POTWs, no discharge standards beyond the conventional ones
 (TSS, BOD, pH, coliform bacteria and DO) and the toxic ones (ammonia and chlorine) will be
 imposed in NPDES permits. Without the TMDLs it would be difficult to quantify the impaired
 streams or waterbodies which have been improved as a result of CWSRF-funded projects. Even
 when the TMDLs are completed, it may still be difficult for stream  segments to be "de-listed" or
 show measurable water quality improvement as a result of an CWSRF-funded project because of
 the impacts of other contributing sources of pollutants.

 We feel this indicator should remain as is, but we recognize there likely will be difficulty in
 applying it to CWSRF projects.
 Indicator 6 - Waterbodies expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square
 miles, and wetland acres, protected as a result of CWSRF-funded projects.
1
This indicator focuses on the protection of unimpaired resources. We firmly believe that the
Construction Grants and CWSRF programs have "protected" many of our water resources from
being listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. We were unable to apply this indicator to our
CWSRF projects to validate that theory because of the level of modeling and TMDL work which
would be necessary. We feel Indicator 6 can be a useful indicator which can be tested using the
monitoring data which is used to compile the 305(b) report. The difficulty will be for an CWSRF-
funded project to assume full credit for "protecting" a water resource when there may be several
other contributors to the stream or lake not being listed on the 303(d) list.

We feel this indicator should remain as is, but we recognize there likely will be difficulty in
applying it to CWSRF projects.
E-44

-------
 Indicator 7 -Benefits of reduced health risks and/or increased recreational use attributable
 to CWSRF-funded projects.
This indicator did not apply to the CWSRF-funded projects we studied. We feel it can be a useful
indicator but one which may be the most difficult of all to apply to projects.' Utah's Project
Priority List accords the highest priority to projects which will eliminate a substantial health
hazard including those caused by the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater to an area of
immediate public occupancy or those which remedy the failure of subsurface disposal systems
which result in surfacing sewage.  Water samples which identify the presence of pathogenic
organisms or "indicators" such as coliform organisms are used to help validate the health hazard
designation.  This designation has never been applied to treatment facilities but only to areas
which demonstrate extensive failures of on-site disposal systems.  The designation is rarely
accorded because of the strict documentation which is necessary. Without obtaining significant
water samples and performing the necessary lab work it is nearly impossible to substantiate health
risks caused by inadequately treated or non-treated sewage on the basis of influenza-like
symptoms. How the measurement of this indicator would be quantified is also a question we
have.

We feel this indicator should remain as is, but we recognize there likely will be difficulty hi
applying it to CWSRF projects.
                                                                                     E-45

-------

-------
Appendix F. Ohio Pilot Project Specific Examples

-------

-------
 OHIO'S PILOT STUDY-SPECIFIC EXAMPLES

 The following section summarizes our pilot study results and details the basis for our recommendations
 and conclusions. In general, the projects reflect a reduction of one or more chemical or bacteriological
 pollutants to the receiving streams and a corresponding response in the biological communities. In some
 cases, however, the magnitude of the response did not always result in full attainment of the Aquatic Life
 Use designation. In other cases, the CWSRF project did not go far enough to see an adequate reduction
 of pollutants to the receiving stream, and consequently, there was no positive change in the biological
 community.

 The information compiled below has been taken from Ohio's Water Quality Inventories, technical and
 permit support documents, Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (Ohio's CWSRF) environmental
 assessments and project records, Water Quality Standards and field notes from the monitoring staff. The
 rigorous methods and formulas behind the results listed below are not described in this document, but can
 be provided.

 Each project is described, along with information about the waterbody that is influenced by the CWSRF-
 funded entity. The aquatic life use attainment status in river miles are given for periods both  before and
 after construction of SRF-financed improvements.

 Use attainment is a term which describes the degree to which environmental indicators are either above or
 below criteria specified by the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS, Ohio Administrative Code 3745-1).
 Assessing use attainment status for aquatic life use involves a primary reliance on the Ohio EPA biological
 criteria (OAC 3745-1-07; Table 7-17).  These are confined to ambient assessments and apply to rivers and
 streams outside of mixing zones. Numerical biological criteria are based on multi-metric biological indices
 which include the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and modified Index of Weil-Being (Mlwb), which indicate the
 response of the fish community, and the Invertebrate Community  Index (ICI), which indicates the response
 of the macroinvertebrate community. Numerical endpoints are stratified by ecoregion, use designation, and
 stream or river size.

 Four attainment status results are possible in each monitored stream segment - full, threatened, partial, or
 non-attainment. Full attainment means that all of the applicable indices meet the biocriteria. Threatened
 attainment means that the indices are meeting the biocriteria, but  are close to falling below the line of
 acceptance.  Partial attainment means that one or more of the applicable indices fail to meet the
 biocriteria. Non-attainment means that none of the applicable indices meet the biocriteria or one of the
 organism groups reflects poor or very poor performance. It is also possible that some river miles in a
 segment were not assessed and therefore are not categorized.

 Information and descriptions of the causes and sources associated with observed impairments rely on
 interpretation of multiple lines of evidence including the water chemistry data, sediment data, habitat data,
 effluent data, biomonitoring results, land use data, and biological response signatures within the biological
 data itself. Thus, the assignment of principal causes and sources of impairment represents the association
 of impairments (defined by response indicators) with stressor and exposure indicators. This information
 was taken from Ohio's Water Quality Inventory (305(b)) database or reports.


 1. FAIRBORN WWTP (Completion Date June 18, 1994)
 Location:  Greene County, latitude 39*50' 45" N, longitude 84'03' 15" W

The Fairborn Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) outfall is located on the Mad River at river mile 9.62.
The Mad River is in the Great Miami River Basin and is identified by USEPA River Reach number
05080001-001.

The facility was constructed in 1958 with improvements made in 1974, 1986 and again in 1992-1993 (with
CWSRF funds). It is an advanced treatment plant with an average design flow of 5.5 million gallons per
day (MGD). Wet stream processes include screening, grit removal, oxidation ditches, secondary settling,
                                                                                            F-l

-------
  and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Solids stream processes include sludge stabilization using aerobic
  digestion, sludge thickening, dewatering by filter press, and sludge disposal by land application. The
  collection system is 100% separated and nearly all of the service area is sewered.

  Indicator A
  Fairborn VWVTP had been unable to comply with its NPDES permit limitations during peak flow events for
  three years prior to this project.  The result was the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater to the
  Mad River.
                                                              f

  The solution was to do the following improvements:  a) install two new clarifiers; b) install ultra-violet
  disinfection; c) construct a new sampling building; d) relocate and redesign grit removal equipment; and e)
  excavate and dispose of buried sludge. Cost for Phase I was $2,519,600 and funded entirely throuqh
  CWSRF funds.

  Indicator 1
  Pounds of pollutants removed increased by 2,321 pounds forTSS and by 1897 pounds for CBODS while
  the WWTP percent removal efficiency increased by 1% for TSS and remained static for CBODS.
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT FAIRBORN VWVTP
SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 4/91)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 7/95)
CHANGE ^, s\
POUNDS OF
CBOD5
REMOVED
(daily average)
3915
5812
, 1,89?"
% CBOD5
REMOVED
97
97
0
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
5,445
7,766
2,321 :
% TSS
REMOVED
95
96
1
 According to Ohio EPA's 1996 water quality permit support document, the Fairbom WWTP contributed
 approximately 16% of the total wastewater volume annually discharged by the four major Mad River
 mainstem WWTPs in 1994.  Based on an annual mean flow of 3.8 MGD in 1994, the plant operated at
 approximately 69 percent of the 5.5 MGD design capacity. Annual mean flows from 1976 through 1994
 ranged from 2.7 MGD in 1988 to 4.7 MGD in 1990. Annual 50th and 95th percentile flows ranged from
 lows in 1988 of 2.8 MGD and 3.4 MGD, respectively, to highs of 4.4 MGD and 7.6 MGD in 1990. Third
 quarter 50th percentile values ranged from 2.8 MGD in 1976 to 5.2 MGD in 1980 while 95th percentile
 values ranged from 3.6 MGD in 1977 to 7.6 MGD in 1990.

 Ammonia-N loadings have been significantly reduced in recent years, particularly so after 1991.  Annual
 and third quarter 50th and 95th percentile values recorded since 1991 have generally remained well below
 10 kg/day. In comparison, 50th and 95th percentile loadings prior to 1988 were rarely below 150 and 200
 kg/day, respectively. Median loadings declined markedly after 1988, but 95th percentile values exceeded
 75 kg/day through 1991.  Nitrate-N loadings increased significantly in 1991 (due to increased nitrification)
 with median levels reaching 88 kg/day, a nearly 400% increase above 1990. Nitrate-N loadings increased
 to even higher levels in 1992 to over 200 kg/day and remained at these levels through 1994.

 Ambient water quality sampling in 1994, after completion of the SRF-financed improvements, downstream
 from the Fairborn WWTP revealed no indications of problems with parameters commonly associated with
 WWTPs.  D.O. concentrations were well above levels considered compatible with Warmwater Habitat (
 WWH) aquatic communities. Mean total phosphorus values were similar upstream and downstream from
 the discharge, well below the water quality  guideline of 1.0 mg/L.  Ammonia-N levels were at or below the
 minimum detection limit of 0.05 mg/L, both  upstream and downstream of the discharge. One
F-2

-------
 organochlorine pesticide (dieldrin) in exceedence of the 30-day average human health criterion was
 detected downstream from the discharge and was likely a residual of past usage in the basin.  We would
 expect the reductions of pollutant concentrations to be reflected by an improvement in the biological
 condition of the receiving water.

 Indicators 4& 5
FAIRBORN WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 9.62
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
MAD RIVER OH58 1
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABTAT
RESTORABILITY
HIGH
ECOREGION
EASTERN CORN
BELT PLAIN
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1984
1992
1994 .
FULLY
ATTAINED
0.40
5.00
7.55
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
9.00
4.00
2.52
NOT
SUPPORTING
0.67
1.00
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
0.00
0.07
0.00
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
Source                      1984
Municipal Point Sources        H
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(NPS) S
Channelization                M
Source Unknown
Magnitude                               Magnitude
1992  1994   Cause               1984   1992   1994
  H       -    Organic enrichment/DO  H      S      -
  S       -    Unionized Ammonia      M     S      -
  H       -    Other habitat alterations   M      H
         H    Cause Unknown          -      -       H
Monitoring comments identified the Fairborn WWTP as being a major source of impairment in 1984 and
in 1992. After CWSRF project completion, "Municipal Point Sources" are no longer listed as a source of
impairment. Comments also indicate that the channelization was beginning to return to a more natural
form in 1992. The improvement in habitat and the improved WWTP effluent resulted in more river miles
fully attaining the aquatic life use and a reduction of the causes and sources of impairment in this
segment.  We can conclude that the CWSRF project had a positive effect on the aquatic biota.

Indicator 6
Mad River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation.  The standard for fecal coliform content is not
to exceed 1,000 per 100 milliliters(ML) on no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period, or 2,000 per 100 ML
in more than 10% of samples per month.
                                                                                          F-3

-------
MAD RIVER
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 4/91)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 7/95)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
291
701
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
113
203
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
225
739
 Monthly data was looked at over the pre- and post-project periods and there does not seem to be a
 problem with fecal coliform that relates to this project. The WWTP is in compliance.
 2.  BEALLSVILLE WWTP (completion date 8/3/95)
 location: Monroe County, latitude 39'50' 40" N, longitude 8r02' 20" W

 The Beallsville WWTP is situated on Mulat Run which empties into the East Fork, Piney Fork at river mile
 4.72. These streams are located in the Sunfish Creek Basin and this section is identified by USEPA River
 Reach number 05030201-096.

 Indicator A
 Prior to the CWSRF project, the Beallsville WWTP was hydraulically overloaded during periods of rainfall;
 large quantities of wastewater received inadequate treatment before being discharged to Mulat Run. The
 existing WWTP was aging and the collection system had infiltration and inflow problems. The Village was
 under a consent decree for failing to meet its NPDES permit limitations.

 The Village constructed a new WWTP with an equalization basin at the head of the treatment process.
 The plant included two aeration tanks, two clarifiers, two sludge holding chambers, chlorination, and
 synthetic media filter bed system.  Total cost of the project was approximately $594,000. Funding in the
 amount of $338,450 was obtained from the Ohio CWSRF with the remainder coming from the Ohio Public
 Works Commission.

 Indicator 1
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT BEALLSVILLE WWTP
SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(1993)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 9/96)
CHANGE '
POUNDS OF
CBODS
REMOVED
(daily average)
35
50
15
% CBODS
REMOVED
94
95
1
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
36
39
3
% TSS
REMOVED
89
84
-5%
Although the pounds of TSS removed increased by 3 pounds per day following the improvement project,
the plant efficiency dropped by 5% for TSS removal.  The CBODS removal increased 15 pounds per day
and the plant efficiency increased by 1% for CBOD5 removal per day on average.  Changes in the
biological community cannot be predicted on the basis of these parameters alone.
F-4

-------
 Dissolved oxygen and ammonia-N concentrations in the effluent went from average monthly
 concentrations of 5.7mg/L and 1.31 mg/L, pre-proj'ect to 8.8 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L, post-project, respectively.
 These parameters show considerable .improvement which we would expect to be reflected in the biological
 community.

 There are no technical or permit support documents for this location.

 Indicators 4& 5
BEALLSVILLE WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 4.72
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
EAST FORK PINEY
FORK, OH 7 7
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
HIGH-VERY HIGH
ECOREGION
WESTERN
ALLEGHENY
PLATEAU
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1983
1996
FULLY
ATTAINED
0.00
4.00
THREATENED
0.00
0.80
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
NOT
SUPPORTING
4.40
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
0.40
0.00
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
Source
Municipal Point Sources
Natural
     Magnitude
1983          1996
H             T
M
Cause
Organic enrichment/DO
Other habitat alterations
  Magnitude
1983   1996
  H      T
  M
Monitoring comments from 1983 indicate that Beallsville WWTP discharges to this segment and municipal
point sources are listed as a high source of impairment. Monitoring after completion of the new Beallsville
WWTP indicated that the new plant operates very well. The municipal point source of pollution dropped
from being a high cause of impairment to being a threat to full attainment. We can conclude that the
CWSRF project made a positive difference. Steam restorability is high-very high.

Indicator 6
East Fork Piney Fork has a Secondary Contact Recreational use designation. The standard for fecal
coliform content is not to exceed 5,000 per 100ML in no more than 10% of the samples taken in a 30 day
period.
EAST FORK PINEY FORK
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT(1993)
POST-PROJECT
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
no data
3314.3
EFFLUENT .
(#/100ML)
no data
256
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
930
869
                                                                                          F-5

-------
 The recreational use standard is being met in this stream and the WWTP effluent seems to be diluting the
 background fecal coliform concentrations.  The plant appears to be performing well in this regard.


 3. AKRON WWTP IMPROVEMENTS (completion date 5/22/96)
 location: Summit County, latitude 4T09' 00" N, longitude 81*33' 45" W

 The Akron WWTP discharges to the Cuyahoga River mainstem (Cuyahoga River Basin)at RM 37.45 via
 outfall 001. This section is identified by USEPA River Reach number 04110002-001.

 Indicator A
 The City of Akron was the subject of a federal enforcement action requiring a series of wastewater
 treatment improvements at the city's existing WWTP plant. This project dealt with one component of the
 required improvements called the Distributive Control System which involved the installation of automated
 controls at the WWTP.  The project included the installation of all necessary conduits (optical cables), the
 design, manufacture, and installation of the computer system, related control panels, and minor
 rehabilitation of some building interiors to house the computer system. In  addition, the city also constructed
 a new generator building and new flow metering chamber.

 With the installation of the Distributive  Control System, data from monitoring instruments can be transferred
 directly to computers where they are stored and made instantly available  to the operators. The system can
 be programmed to control major processes, responding immediately to changes in the flow and equipment
 problems as they develop. The system improved plant operations and monitoring capabilities by replacing
 manual data gathering and entering. The installation of these automated controls at the plant should have
 resulted in  more reliable plant operations and allowed the city to more effectively use its plant staff.

 This project was completed on 5/22/95 and was fully operational a year later. The total project cost was
 $15,328,600. Ohio's CWSRF was the sole lender.

 Indicator 1
 Comparisons between the 1994-96 historical loadings are difficult due to past differences in permit
 reporting requirements for the various  outfalls and bypasses. A study done by the Ohio EPA Monitoring
 Group in 1991 showed that drastic reductions in raw bypasses and secondary bypasses (not chlorinated)
 occurred through the 1980s.  However, chlorinated secondary bypasses were not specifically monitored
 until after the 1994 permit modifications.  For this reason, the most recent data are probably closest in
 estimating the BOD and TSS load discharged to the Cuyahoga  River mainstem.
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT AKRON WWTP
SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(1994)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 6/97)
CHANGE '/ ' * j
POUNDS OF
CBODg
REMOVED
(daily average)
51,683
52,419
10,736
% CBOD5
REMOVED
92
95
3
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
75,509
89,948
13,439
% TSS
REMOVED
89
93
' ,4
When available, the figures above reflect the occurrences of bypasses at Akron's WWTP.  In 1994, only
four months of data are available which fully document the effect of the by-passes effluent quality.  By
contrast, the June 1997 to June 1998 data includes material on bypasses from a full twelve months.  Thus,
F-6

-------
  the latter data set appears to more fully represent the situation at this facility. Keeping this in mind the
  removal of TSS increased by 13,439 pounds, a 4 % increase in WWTP efficiency, and 10,736 pounds of
  CBODS, a 3% increase in WWTP efficiency.                                             HUHH.UI

  According to Ohio EPA's Cuyahoga River Technical Support Document (MAS/1997-12-4 1999) one
  hundred and eighteen bypass events were recorded during 1996, an average of nearly one every three
  days. Despite much lower mean annual flows, the bypass contributed a higher loading of BOD and TSS
  than the outfall during each reporting year.

  The yearly average of daily values for dissolved oxygen and ammonia-nitrogen downstream from the
  effluent are 8.5 and 0.34, pre-project, and 8.8 and  0.15, post-project. Both of these parameters improved.

 The 1996 monitoring survey also indicated that nutrient enrichment in the form of phosphorus and nitrate
  nitrogen may be a significant cause of non-attainment of the fish community between the Akron and
 NEORSD Southerly WWTPs. Predicting the response in the biological condition of the stream due to
 improvements at the WWTP is complicated by the bypass events and other pollution sources and is not
 reliably based on chemical information alone.

 Indicator 2
 The method used to determine the effectiveness of the Distributive Control System project with assisting
 the Akron WWTP in preventing pollutants from entering the aquatic environment was simply a comparison
 of the pre- and post-project monthly operating report effluent data for violations of NPDES permit limits
 The results indicate that there were 55 violations of NPDES discharge limits in 1995 (the  pre-project time
 period), 4 violations in 1997, and 2 violations in 1998 (the latter two years corresponding, in part to the
 post-project time period). Overall, the frequency of permit violations declined by 96.3% from 1995 to 1998
 Most significantly, daily dissolved oxygen violations decreased from 31 in 1995 to 0 in 1997-1998  Daily
 chlorine  residual violations also declined significantly from 21 in 1995 to 3 in 1997-1998   Monthly fecal
 coliform violations continued to occur with 3 in 1995,1 in 1997, and 2 in 1998. On this basis the data
 suggests that there were significant and positive effects resulting from the construction of the WPCLF
 funded improvements at Akron's WWTP.

 From these comparisons, it appears that installation of these automated controls at the plant contributed to
 more reliable plant operations and reducing the number of violations. Without knowledge of other
 operational factors that may have also change at the WWTP over the study period it is impossible to
 definitively attribute the reduction in violations solely to the Distributive Control System project  However
without the additional flexibility that the new automated controls provided to the WWTP operators it is likely
that frequent violations would have continued and worsened, especially if no changes were implemented  at
the WWTP.

Indicators 4& 5

AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
CUYAHOGA RIVER
OH8927
AKRON WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 37.45
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
MODERATE-HIGH
ECOREGION
ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE
PLAIN
                                                                                           F-7

-------
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1988
1992
1996
FULLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
0.00
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
0.00
NOT
SUPPORTING
5.10
5.10
5.10
NOT
ASSESSED
0.00
0.00
0.00
                            SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
 Source                      1988
 Municipal Point Sources
 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(NPS)  M
 Combined Sewer Overflow      H
 Non-industrial Permitted        M
 Spills
 Other
Magnitude
1992  1996
  H
  S
  H
H
M
H
H
M
M
 Cause
Organic enrichment/DO
Unknown Toxicity
Priority Organics
Zinc
                               Magnitude
                          1988   1992  1996
H
M
H
S
S
H
H
S
M
 The Akron WWTP has been named as a high source of impairment in this segment for years. No real
 significant change in the aquatic life use attainment has been noted as a result of this project. The
 Cuyahoga River has shown considerable improvement in recent decades, but stresses from multiple
 pollution sources (beginning well upstream of the Akron area) continue to impact fish communities
 downstream to Cleveland.  The chronic impairment of the fish community and elevated high background
 nutrient levels suggest chronic toxic influences and an exceedence of the assimilative capacity of the
 stream.  Surveys in the 1990s detected incremental improvements in biological community health and a
 lessening of the severely toxic conditions encountered during the 1980s.  However, there has been little
 change,  positive or negative, downstream from Akron since 1991. The magnitude of impairment to this
 stream segment due to municipal point sources is still high, indicating that the WWTP problems have not
 been completely addressed by this project. Additional WWTP improvements/bypass elimination may be
 necessary for attainment of the aquatic life use designation, along with elimination of the CSOs, and
 minimization of pollutants from other permitted non-industrial and nonpoint sources.

 Area of Degradation Values (ADVs) are available for this stream segment for three sampling periods and
 are shown in the table below. Descriptions of the various indices can be found in Appendix A.
F-8

-------
Area of Degradation Values (ADV) statistics for the lower Cuyahoga River. Values were calculated
using Erie Ontario Lake Plain WWH biocriteria as the baseline for community performance.
Stream (Year)

Index
Reach
Upper
RM
Lower
RM
Biolc
Index
Mini-
mum
xjical
Values
Maxi-
mum
ADV Statistics
Positive
ADV
ADV/
Mile
Negative
ADV
ADV/
Mile
Attainment Status
miles
Full
Partial
Non
Lower Cuyahoga River (1 996)
IBI
Mlwb
ICI
42.9
7.0
13
3.9
24
38
7.4
46
11
0
2581
0.3
0.0
71.9
5931
4796
262
165.2
133.5
7.3
0.2
3.3
32.4
Lower Cuyahoga River (1991)
IBI
Mlwb
ICI
42.9
7.0
17
5.8
26
33
8.1
42
0
2
2114
0.0
0.0
58.9
4682
2350
78
130.4
65.4
2.1
0.0
2.9
33.0
Lower Cuyahoga River (1984)
IBI
Mlwb
ICI
42.9

7.0

12
0.1
10
27
7.4
32
0
0
10
0.0
0.0
0.2
7707
8985
4863
214.7
250.2
135.4
0.0
0.8
35.1
 Although the segment is still in a state of non-attainment, a major improvement can be seen from the
 1984 values in each of the indices that Ohio EPA utilized to assess the condition of the aquatic biota.

 Indicator 6,
 The Cuyahoga River has a Primary Contact Recreation Designation. The standard for fecal coliform
 content is not to exceed 1,000 colonies per 100ML in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period or 2 000
 colonies per 10OML in more than 10% of samples per month.
CUYAHOGA RIVER
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT(1994)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 6/97)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
4,691.67
4,621
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
No data
2,352
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
3,692.75
3,556
Fecal coliform concentrations in this stream segment do not appear to have changed significantly in pre-
versus post-project periods. Colony numbers continue to exceed the 1000/100 ML Primary Contact
Recreation criterion.  The most significant sources of fecal coliform are likely from the bypass at the
WWTP, urban runoff/storm sewers and CSOs.
                                                                                           F-9

-------
 4. PIQUA WWTP (completion date 12/23/93)
 location: Miami County, latitude 40"07'49" N, longitude 84' 14' 06" W

 The Piqua WWTP discharges to the Great Miami River. This segment is identified by USEPA River Reach
 number 05080001-027. The Piqua WWTP is a secondary treatment facility consisting of primary settling,
 activated sludge, secondary settling, chlorination, and post aeration.  The collection system consists of
 separate sewers, with 100% of the service area sewered. Significant industrial contributors are Hartzell
 Fan, Metal Cleaning , and Harzel Prop-Cyanide bath.

 Indicator A
 The Piqua WWTP had continually exceeded its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
 permit limits for ammonia, and consequently, was issued  Findings and Orders by the Environmental
 Protection Agency (EPA) in 1985. In addition to changes  required to meet the NPDES permit
 requirements, the Piqua WWTP improvement project also included other upgrades to plant processes and
 equipment to ensure proper treatment

 Because the Piqua WWTP pre-dated ammonia-N permit limits, it had no provisions for reduction of
 ammonia nitrogen because there were no permit requirements for it at that time. When the revised
 NPDES permit was implemented, the Piqua WWTP could not meet the specified ammonia limits, resulting
 in constant violations of the NPDES permit

 Before completion of the Piqua WWTP improvement project, operational problems existed in at least five
 locations throughout the plant. Operational problems at the secondary settling tanks, due to the original
 orientation of the influent piping and sludge draw-off, resulted in excessive mixing, poor sludge
 concentration, and loss of solids over the effluent weir.

 The Piqua WWTP improvement project began in the late 1980s and was completed in December 1992. An
 anoxic MASS system was installed  for ammonia nitrogen removal at the Piqua WWTP.  Modification of the
 existing aeration tanks and construction of four new aeration tanks was required to implement the anoxic
 MASS system. All other work completed during the Piqua WWTP improvement project involved those
 items identified necessary to optimize use of original equipment at the Piqua WWTP.

 Replacement of some original units has increased plant efficiency, reduced energy use and associated
 operating costs, and provided for a higher level of treatment.  Back up electrical support, better sludge
 handling and flood controls were also installed.

 Indicator 1
 Median effluent flows fluctuated between 2.4 MGD and 44.3 MGD with 95th percentile values exceeding the
 4.5 MGD design flow several times during the period 1976-1994. No obvious trends are evident for this
 time period. The Piqua WWTP contributed approximately 13% (2.62 MGD) of the total wastewater volume
 discharged by five major WWTPs .to the Upper Great Miami River mainstem in 1994.

 A dramatic decline occurred for the median and 95th percentile ammonia-nitrogen loadings in 1989.
 Median values which consistently exceeded 150-200 kg/day prior to 1989 declined to less that  5-10 kg/day
 afterwards. Ninety-fifth percentile values showed a similar decline to less than 20-30 kg/day during 1992-
 94. The Piqua WWTP contributed 11% (9.73 kg/day) of the ammonia-nitrogen loading discharged by five
 major WWTPs to the Upper Great Miami River mainstem in 1994.

 The BOD data available through the period of record is comprised of two parameters, BOD5(1976 through
 1985) and CBOD5(1986 through 1994). Median and 95 percentile loadings of BOD during the 1976-1994
 period showed some fluctuations, but demonstrated an overall decline through the period . Annual TSS
 loads displayed a similar trend as that of BOD.

 Eighty-nine violations were reported during 1989-94.  Heavy metals dominated the NPDES violations from
 1989-93. After the CWSRF-funded WWTP upgrade in 1994, the reported number of permit violations were
F-10

-------
  significantly reduced, and appeared more typical of the constituents of treated domestic wastewater (e q
  TSS, residual chlorine, and fecal coliform).                                                v  a"

SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(1988)
POST-PROJECT
(1995)
CHANGE I
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT PIQUA WWTP
POUNDS OF
CBODS
REMOVED
(daily average)
3,695
2,985
- 710
% CBOD5
REMOVED
93
96
3
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
2,543
2,574
31
% TSS
REMOVED
91
95
X-
4
  Pounds of pollutants removed increased by 710 pounds for CBOD5 and 31 pounds for TSS  The WWTP
  efficiency increased by 3% for CBOD5 and by 4% for TSS.
 Indicators 4& 5
PIQUA WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 1 14.05 & 1 14.13
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
GREAT MIAMI RIVER
OH56 12
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT (before 1997)
EXCEPTIONAL
WARMWATER
HABITAT(after1997)
RESTORABILITY
HIGH-VERY HIGH
ECOREGION
EASTERN CORN
BELT PLAIN
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1982
1994
FULLY
ATTAINED
6.30
9.90
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
3.21
0.70
NOT
SUPPORTING
1.10
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
0.00
0.01
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                  (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
Source
Municipal Point Sources
Dam construction
Industrial Point Sources
Other Urban Runoff
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(nps)
Flow regulation/modification
Upstream Impoundment
      Magnitude
1982          1994
H
S
H
M
M
              H
              H
.Cause
 Organic enrichment/DO H
 Other habitat alterations
 Unionized ammonia
 Metals
  Magnitude
1982   1994

S
H
H
                                                                                      F-ll

-------
 Monitoring comments from 1982 indicate that there was a large fish kill in 1986 from the Piqua WWTP.

 Monitoring comments from 1994 attribute impairments to sources other than the Piqua WWTP. Partial
 attainment of a portion of this stream segment is due to habitat alteration from a dam.

 Municipal Point Sources went from a high source of impairment in 1992 to not being a source of
 impairment in 1994. The cause data reflect the disappearence of metals and unionized ammonia as
 impairments. We can conclude that the CWSRF project made a significant positive contribution to water
 quality and aquatic life improvement in this stream segment. This portion of the Great Miami River
 recovered to such an extent that the aquatic life use designation was upgraded from Warmwater Habitat to
 Exceptional Warmwater Habitat.

 Indicator 6
 Great Miami River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content
 in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100ML or 2,000 per 100 ML in
 more than 10% of samples per month.
GREAT MIAMI RIVER
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT(1988)
POST-PROJECT (1995)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
no data
503
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
20
385
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
346
618
It does not appear that fecal coliform was a major problem even in the pre-project phase.

5. URBANA WWTP (completion date 12/23/93)
location: Champaign County, latitude 40'05'46" N, longitude 83"47'50" W

The Urbana WWTP discharges to the Mad River, just south of Dugan Run. This segment is identified by
USEPA River Reach number 05080001-009.  The Ohio EPA has identified the Mad River, from its
headwaters to Buck Creek (located at Springfield, Ohio), as a State Resource Water and has given it a
Cold Water Aquatic Life Habitat use designation. According to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, populations of the Tonguetied Minnow (Exoqlossum laurae). a
state endangered species, have been identified within the Mad River upstream and downstream of Dugan
Run. The Mad River is used extensively for recreation(e.g., trout fishing). Much of Champaign County,
including land in proximity to the Urbana WWTP, is underlain by the Great Miami/Little Miami Buried Valley
Aquifer System. The Great Miami/Little Miami Buried Valley Aquifer System was designated a "Sole
Source Aquifer" by U.S. EPA in April 1988.  The Mad River is significantly fed by groundwater, leading to
the Cold Water Habitat designation.

Indicator A
The Urbana WWTP began to experience operational problems in the late-1980's, resulting in violations of
the plant's NPDES permit Consequently, a series of upgrades were made to the plant in order to maintain
compliance. Construction activities for the first WWTP upgrades began in the Spring of 1991 and were
completed by the Spring of 1992.

Major elements of the 1991-92 WWTP upgrade included replacement of aging and worn components,
installation of a belt filter press to dewater sludge, construction of a maintenance garage, and WWTP ,
laboratory improvements.  Upon project completion, the Urbana WWTP continued to have difficulty
meeting NPDES discharge permit limits. In 1993, the city of Urbana undertook a Comprehensive
Performance Evaluation (CPE) of the WWTP as the first step in a Composite Correction Program (CCP)
designed at bringing the plant into compliance. This led to phase 2 improvements in 1995.
F-12

-------
 The 1995 upgrade included installation of cfilorination, dechlorination, and post aeration tanks and
 equipment to ensure compliance with final effluent chlorine residual and dissolved oxygen limits; installation
 of a trickling filter bypass pump station; replacement of trickling filter media and distributors, providing
 forced air ventilation in trickling filters; replacement of withdrawal draft tubes and other secondary clarifier
 improvements; and conversion of anaerobic digesters to aerobic digesters for the stabilization of primary
 sludge.

 The loan amount for phase 1 was $2,600,000.  In 1995, phase 2 also received partial CWSRF funding, but
 these improvements were not captured by the available data.

 Indicator 1

SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(1990)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 8/93)
•based upon 1 1 months of
flow data
CHANGE' i
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT URBANA WWTP
POUNDS OF
CBOD5
REMOVED
(daily average)
5,739
5,025*
-714
% CBOD5
REMOVED
97
9(3
-t
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
4,745
4,515*
' -230 * i
% TSS
REMOVED
96
94
-2 "
The loadings of these two parameters and WWTP removal efficiencies did not improve with the first phase
of improvements.

Indicators 4& 5
URBANA WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 39.1 5
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
MAD RIVER OH58 43
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
COLDWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
VERY HIGH
ECOREGION
EASTERN CORN
BELT PLAIN
                                                                                            F-13

-------
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1986
1994
FULLY
ATTAINED.
0.00
0.00
THREATENED
6.64
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
6.64
NOT
SUPPORTING
0.00
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
0.00
0.00
                            SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
 Source
 Removal of riparian vegetation
 Channelization
 Agriculture
     Magnitude
1986          1994
T
T             H
              M
Cause
Other habitat alterations
Nutrients
Noxious aquatic plants
 Magnitude
1986   1994
T      H
       M
       M
 Monitoring comments indicate that in 1986, the Mad River was attaining Cold Water Habitat, but the fish
 indices were low due to channel modification. The 1986 comments also indicate a potential destruction
 or alteration of riparian buffer or channel due to agricultural practices.

 The Mad River showed only partial attainment in 1994 due to channelization and agriculture, and one out
 of three fish tissue samples with elevated mercury levels. The Urbana VWVTP is not listed as a source of
 impairment either before or after the CWSRF WWTP improvements. As Indicator 1 has demonstrated,
 WWTP effluent quality did not improve after the Phase 1 improvements.

 If phase 2 was successful in bringing the WWTP into compliance, then that project  prevented potential
 degradation of the Mad  River due  to organic enrichment.

 Indicator 6
 The Mad River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content in
 no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100 ML or 2,000 per 100ML in more
 than 10% of samples per month.
MAD RIVER
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT(1990)
POST-PROJECT (beginning
8/93)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
159
233.53
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
106
no data
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
140
328.52
Fecal coliform counts are not an issue with this project as the counts are well within the water quality
standards for the stream.
F-14

-------
 6. STONELICK WWTP (completion date 10/29/93)
 location:  Clermont County, latitude 39'13' 13" N, longitude 84*03' 58" W

 Indicator A
 This regionalization project funded an interceptor to collect wastewater from the Stonelick area and send
 it to the Middle East Fork WWTP for treatment.  Consequently the Stonelick WWTP and its discharge to
 Stonelick Creek were eliminated. The Middle East Fork WWTP was expanded and upgraded to
 accommodate a number of regional projects. This example focuses on the former receiving stream of the
 Stonelick WWTP (identified by USEPA River Reach number 0509202-010). CWSRF funding for this
 project totaled $2,422,200.

 Indicator 1
 We do not have information for this project. We can assume that all previous  inputs from the WWTP
 have been eliminated.

 Indicators 4& 5
STONELICK WWTP IMPROVEMENTS
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
STONELICK CREEK
OH53 8
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
VERY HIGH
ECOREGION
INTERIOR PLATEAU
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1987
1993
FULLY
ATTAINED
3.60
3.10
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
3.30
NOT
SUPPORTING
3.10
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
16.20
16.50
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
Source
Municipal Point Sources
Other
Agriculture
Nonirrigated crop production
Source unknown
Dam construction
      Magnitude
1987          1993
H
S
              M
              H
              H
              H
Cause
Other habitat alterations
Cause unknown
Organic enrichment/DO
Flow alteration
  Magnitude
1987   1993
       H
       H
M
S
Early monitoring comments indicate that Stonelick WWTP had a major impact on the watershed along
with potential impacts from agriculture and on-site systems. The upper sections of this creek are
intermittent so the effluent had little dilution.

As expected, post-project monitoring did not indicate any degree of degradation due to municipal
sources.  Although the total number of fully attaining river miles has dropped slightly,  there is a large
increase in river miles that previously did not support the use designation, but now show partial
attainment.  Comments do indicate that the upper watershed is impacted by nonpoint sources and habitat
alterations (Stonelick Lake). We can conclude from this information that elimination of the wastewater
                                                                                         F-15

-------
 treatment plant had a positive impact on the receiving stream.

 Indicator 6
 We do not have information for this project.
 7. WELLSTON WWTP (completion date 9/15/94)
 location: Jackson County, latitude 39*06' 46" N, longitude 82*31' 31" W

 The Wellston WWTP effluent is located on Meadow Run at river mile 1.17. Meadow Run is in the Little
 Raccoon Creek Basin and is identified by USEPA River Reach number 05090101-079.


 Indicator A
 In 1991, Findings and Orders (F&Os) were issued  to the Wellston WWTP for not providing the treatment
 necessary to meet the final effluent limitations of the NPDES permit, and for not having adequate capacity
 to treat the wet-weather flows to the WWTP. The plant was also experiencing problems with sludge
 management.  To satisfy the F&Os, the improvements to the WWTP were required to be completed prior
 to separating the combined sewer system.

 This plant, formerly known as the North Plant, discharged to Meadow Run at river mile (RM) 1.20. When
 improvements were made to the Wellston WWTP in 1992, the discharge location was moved to RM 1.17.
 The Pillsbury (formerly Jenos) discharge was located at RM 1.19 during the 1995 survey. The 1992
 WWTP upgrade involved the following improvements to the wastewater treatment process:  1)
 improvements in pre-screening at the headworks; 2) new pumps to handle the flow variations and the
 elimination of the bypass from the headworks; 3) grit removal facilities; 4) a new biological treatment unit;
 5) new secondary settling tanks; 6) ultraviolet disinfection; and 7) improved sludge handling and treatment
 facilities, including a belt filter press and aerated sludge holding facilities. Sanitary sewer service was
 extended to the south Wellston area which has a concentration of failing septic systems. This action
 significantly reduced the discharge of inadequately treated sewage to a segment of Meadow Run.

 The total cost of the WWTP improvements, a portion of which was paid for with grant assistance from the
 Ohio Public Works Commission, was $3,517,000. The city received a 2.2% interest refinancing loan from
 Ohio's CWSRF to pay off a short-term note in the amount of $900,000, the city's portion of debt on the
 WWTP improvement project. Operating reports show that the WWTP has been functioning as designed,
 and is now able to consistently meet NPDES permit limits.

 The city had a combined sewer system in which stormwater and wastewater flows are contained in the
 same pipe.  During heavy rainfall events, the city's system was, at times, overloaded with up to 100 times
 the dry weather flow.  This resulted in discharges and overflows of raw sewage and storm flow from sewer
 manholes which posed a potential human health threat in addition to aesthetic problems and further water
 quality degradation.  Beginning in early 1996, the city initiated phased separation of the combined sewer
 system with additional CWSRF funds to eliminate the discharge and overflow of raw sewage during these
 heavy rainfall events. The monitoring data below do not capture these subsequent improvements to water
 quality.
F-16

-------
  Indicator 1

SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(1991)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 10/94)
CHANGE ;
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT WELLSTON WWTP
POUNDS OF
CBOD5
REMOVED
(daily average)
569
905
336
% CBOD5
REMOVED
83
97
14
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
439
807
368 ' :
% TSS
REMOVED
77
97
20
 After the CWSRF-funded improvements, pounds of TSS and CBODS removed by the Wellston WWTP
 increased as did the efficiency of the WWTP in removing these two parameters. Other information
 gathered from the permit support document (summarized below) indicate that the plant still has problems
 with pollutants other than TSS and CBOD5. This is a good example of how these two parameters alone are
 not sufficient to give a complete picture of what is going on in the WWTP.

 Monthly operating report data since the 1992 plant upgrade (1993-1995) indicate NPDES permit violations
 (numbers) for ammonia-nitrogen (20), cadmium (9), copper (5), dissolved oxygen (6), fecal coliform (1)
 lead (6), mercury (10), and oil and grease (1). While many violations continue to occur, the data show'a
 decline in poljutant loadings through 1993, followed by slight increases in 1994 and 1995.  Sampling of the
 Wellston WWTP 001 outfall during the 1995 survey showed high ammonia-N concentrations (5 50 mg/L
 average).  Wellston has reduced ammonia-N levels to <0.5 mg/L by adjusting the amount of air'in the   '
 oxidation ditch.

 Ambient water chemistry data from 1995 showed higher levels of ammonia-N, BODS COD chlorine
 conductivity  nitrate+nitrite-N, oil and grease, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, total Kjeda'hl nitrogen and
 total suspended solids in Meadow Run downstream (RM 0.72) from the Pillsbury and Wellston WWTP
 outfalls compared to upstream (RM 1.42). Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) was lower at the downstream site
The increases in average ammonia-N (0.09 to 6.2 mg/L) and BOD5 (2.1 to 12 mg/L) concentrations and
decrease in the average D.O. (6.1 to 2.9 mg/L) concentration from upstream to downstream during the
 1995 survey was very similar to the chemical results from the 1984 survey.  Direct comparisons of the 1990
survey data was compounded because the sampling locations were not the same as in 1995 and the
Pillsbury 001  outfall was located further upstream at RM 3.00 in 1990. (Details taken from Permit Support
Document, April 1997, Division of Surface Water, OEPA)
                                                                                       F-17

-------
 Indicators 4& 5
WELLSTON VWVTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 1 .17
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
MEADOW RUN
OH30 16
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
LIMITED RESOURCE
WATER (PRIOR '95)
WARMWATER
HABITAT (AFTER'95)
RESTORABILITY
MODERATE-HIGH
ECOREGION
WESTERN ALLEGHENY
PLATEAU
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1990
1995
FULLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
THREATENED
1.10
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
NOT
SUPPORTING
2.10
5.10
NOT
ASSESSED
1.90
0.00
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
Source
Industrial Point Sources
Mining
Municipal Point Sources
Subsurface mining
Acid Mine Drainage
      Magnitude
1990          1995
H.M.T        H
T,M           H
H             H
M,T
              H
Cause
Metals
Unionized Ammonia
Priority organics
PH
Organic enrichment/DO
     Magnitude
1990          1995
 H,T          H
M,M
              H
 M,T
        H     H
The upper portions of this segment are impacted by acid mine drainage. The 1995 biological sampling
results in Meadow Run upstream from Wellston suggested that the aquatic life use designation at the time,
Limited Resource Waters (LRW), should be upgraded to Warmwater Habitat (WWH).  Significant
improvements in biological community performance indicated a lessening of the mine drainage problems
that resulted in the original LRW designation based on the 1984 survey results. Note that attainment of the
aquatic life use in 1990 reflected the Limited Resource Water use designation while the aquatic life use
was upgraded to Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use designation in 1995.  The WWH use designation is
more difficult to attain.

The lower 1.2 miles (near the Wellston WWTP and the Pillsbury Co. outfalls) are heavily impacted by
organic wastes and low dissolved oxygen. The effects of the industrial and  municipal point sources are
indistinguishable. While improvements have been made in terms of treatment process upgrades and
overall loadings reductions, frequent permit limit violations, significant effluent toxicity,  and instream water
quality criteria exceedences indicate that more consistent compliance with permit terms and conditions is
still needed.  Unfortunately, some of these problems were only recently addressed following the 1995
survey, thus validation of their effectiveness with instream indicators was not possible.

The facility planning information and environmental assessment indicate that the CSOs/storm sewers
adversely impacted water quality in the area. This and other high sources of impairment were not
addressed by the time this monitoring took place, so it is really no surprise that this stream segment has
become more degraded even with the CWSRF funded WWTP improvements. With so many sources of
impairment, improvement of the municipal point source may not have much of an influence on the total
F-18

-------
  water quality.  It will be interesting to see future monitoring results now that the CSO problems have been
  addressed with CWSRF funding.

  Indicators
  Meadow Run has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content in
  no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 10OML or 2,000 per 10OML in more
  than 10% of samples per month.
MEADOW RUN
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT(1991)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 10/94)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
824
744
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
264
212
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
5452
426
 As noted earlier, prior to the CWSRF funded project, the Wellston WWTP was experiencing fecal
 coliform violations. Very high levels downstream from the WWTP plant prior to the improvement project
 are evident in the above table.  CSOs and violations from a food industry plant may have also contributed
 to the high fecal levels. There has been a dramatic improvement and the stream is now in attainment
 with the recreation standard and represents a reduced risk to human health.


 8. SEBRING WWTP (completion date 10/03/91)
 location:  Mahoning County, latitude 40'55' 54" N, longitude 81*1' 38" W

 The Sebring WWTP discharges to Sulphur Creek Ditch at river mile 0.48.  Sulphur Creek Ditch flows into
 Fish Creek which flows into the Mahoning River. This portion of Fish Creek has the USEPA River Reach
 number of 05030103-010.

 Indicator A
 The City of Sebring WWTP dated to the early 1900s with trickling filters and Imhoff tank/sludge drying
 beds.  Based on influent sampling, metal concentrations were high enough to be potentially toxic to the
 biological treatment system. The high heavy metal concentrations made the sludge unacceptable for land
 application. Due to organic and  hydraulic overloading, inadequate pretreatment of industrial flows, and the
 inability of the existing WWTP to comply with the advanced treatment limits contained in its NPDES permit,
 the effluent was causing water quality degradation and standards violations in Sulphur Ditch and Fish
 Creek.  There were also five overflows in the Sebring collection system.

 The CWSRF funded a new 1.5 MGD oxidation ditch WWTP and converted the existing on-site facility to an
 equalization tank for temporary wet weather flow storage.  Before and after monitoring data do not exist for
 Sulphur Ditch and Fish Creek, so we used data from the next downstream segment of the Mahoning River.


 Indicator 1
 Ohio EPA conducted (pre-project) chemical sampling of Sulphur Ditch and Fish Creek in 1986. Ohio EPA
Technical Report MAS/1995-12-14, 1996 reported elevated levels of ammonia-nitrogen and copper in the
effluent and violations of the same parameters in Sulphur Creek at two locations downstream of the outfall.

The Sebring WWTP has also significantly degraded the dissolved oxygen concentrations in Fish Creek,
and high nutrient loadings have resulted in the excessive growth of aquatic plants. In addition, the WWTP
receives significant industrial wastewater and was discharging slightly elevated heavy metals; namely,
                                                                                         F-19

-------
 cadmium, copper, chromium, mercury, zinc, lead, and nickel.

 The pollutant removal comparisons for CBODS and TSS are shown in the Table below.
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT SEBRING WWTP
SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 8/89)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 11/92)
CHANGE ' , ""';
POUNDS OF
CBOD5
REMOVED
(daily average)
490
726
236
% CBOD5
REMOVED
74
97
23
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
471
869
398
% TSS
REMOVED
73
96
23
 There is a large increase in the pounds of CBOD5 and TSS removed in the plant and the WWTP efficiency
 at removing these pollutants from the influent.

 Yearly average nitrogen ammonia levels in the WWTP effluent were 24.02 mg/L before the project
 compared to 0.56 mg/L post project. Dissolved oxygen concentrations at a downstream sampling site
 before the CWSRF project had an annual average of 4.7 mg/L compared to 8.6 mg/L post project. The
 new WWTP appears to be functioning much better than the old WWTP.

 More recent data indicate noncompliance of copper, zinc and fecal coliform parameters in the effluent and
 the occurrence of WWTP bypass events. More recent monitoring information indicates highly elevated
 levels of Cr, Pb, Zn, and PCB's, and PAHs in the sediment downstream from the effluent, and Sebring
 WWTP was listed as a possible source of this contamination.

 Indicators 4& 5
SEBRING WWTP IMPROVEMENTS
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
MAHONING RIVER OH
130
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
HIGH
ECOREGION
ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE
PLAIN
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1984
1994
FULLY
ATTAINED
10.20
17.30
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
NOT
SUPPORTING
0.00
9.00
NOT
ASSESSED
17.80
1.70
F-20

-------
                             SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                     (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
  Source
  Agriculture
  Priority organics
  Pasture land
  Minor Industrial Point Source
  Spills
  Source Unknown
  Minor Municipal Point Source
  Contaminated Sediments
1984
                                    Magnitude
1994
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
Cause
Cause unknown
Metals
Nutrients
Siltation
Pathogens
     Magnitude
1984          1994
              H
-             H
              S
              M
              S
  The Sebnng WWTP discharges to Sulfur Ditch which flows into Fish Creek which joins the Mahoning River
  in this segment. In 1984, no detrimental effects from the Sebring WWTP were noted in the Mahoning
  River downstream of Fish Creek and the segment was in full attainment. The 1984 data are very old and
  the technical support document indicates that only a portion of the segment was monitored and sampling
  was not part of an intensive survey. There are pre-project data from Fish Creek which indicates that
  Sebnng WWTP (and Beloit WWTP) do severely impact Fish Creek due to unionized ammonia low
  dissolved oxygen and organic enrichment.  There is no post-project data for Fish Creek or Sulphur Ditch.

  Post-SRF project monitoring in 1994 showed sediment contamination in the the Mahoning River
  downstream from Beloit, Sebring and Alliance WWTPs.  These WWTPs are listed as possible sources of
  the elevated levels of Cr, Pb, Zn, PCBs and PAHs in the sediment.  Sebring WWTP is indicated as the
  source of high nitrate levels taken downstream of Fish Creek. No changes in the fish community were
  evident.

  Indicator 6
 Sulphur Ditch is not listed in Ohio's Water Quality Standards, but the following data are given for relative
 value.
SULPHUR DITCH
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 8/89)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 11/92)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
3,454.9
4,668
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
185,126
No data
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
268,395
2,927
Since completion of the CWSRF project, there has been major reduction in fecal coliform counts
downstream from the Sebring WWTP. This represents a reduced risk to human health which can be
attributed to the SRF-financed improvements.

9. WEST MILTON WWTP (completion date 4/30/94)
location: Miami County, approximately latitude 39'57'34" N, longitude 84'19'26" W

The West Milton WWTP discharges to the Stillwater River in the Stillwater River Basin at rivermile 16 57
This stream segment is referred to as USEPA river reach number 05080001-.
                                                                                        F-21

-------
  Indicator A
  The West Milton WWTP required expansion and upgrading to meet its NPDES permit limits. Excessive I/I,
  and sewer lines of inadequate capacity, are directly responsible for sewer overflows and backups of
  wastewater in several areas in the village, and for the operational difficulties at the WWTP which resulted in
  NPDES permit violations.

  The sewage collection system for West Milton has separate sewers and storm sewers and no bypasses of
  raw sewage.  There are no other WWTPs that discharge to this stream segment.

  Improvements to the West Milton WWTP consisted of constructing a new primary clarifier/digester, two
  nitrification towers, a secondary clarifier, an equalization basin, a laboratory/control building, rehabilitating
  the existing trickling  filter, final clarifiers, a primary clarifier/digester, and replacing the existing comminutor.

  The expanded WWTP was designed to have an average daily design flow of 1.2 million gallons per day
  (MGD), and be capable of meeting effluent limits of 15 mg/L CBODS, 30 mg/L suspended solids, and 4
  mg/L ammonia-nitrogen.

  Upgrading the collection system involved constructing a relief sewer to accommodate the portion of the I/I
  not cost-effective to remove. The CWSRF loan was for $2,822,120.

  Indicator I
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT WWTP
SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 8/90)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 5/95)
CHANGE
POUNDS OF
CBODg
REMOVED
(daily average)
no data
457
> ,not applicable
% CBODg
REMOVED
no data
82
not applicable
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
670
684
17
% TSS
REMOVED
76
83
7
 From August 1990 through July 1991, the West Milton WWTP removed 670 Ibs (76%) of TSS per day.
 Reporting for CBOD5 started in November 1992. After the CWSRF project was completed, the WWTP
 removed 684 Ibs of TSS (83%) and 457 Ibs of CBOD5 (82%). TSS removal efficiency increased by 17
 pounds per day, or 7%.

 The 1995 technical support document for Stillwater River (DSW/MAS 1995-8-8) indicates a marked
 decrease in ammonia and CBOD5 following completion of the plant upgrade. Fiftieth percentile effluent
 loadings of ammonia-nitrogen from 1982 to 1992 ranged between 11.2 and 37.1 kg/day; during 1993 and
 1994, these decreased to 1.1 and 2.2 kg/day, respectively.  The fiftieth percentile effluent loadings of
 CBODS from 1986 to 1992 ranged between 15.0 and 84.2 kg/day; during 1993 and 1994, loadings were
 12.6 and 6.5 kg/day, respectively.

 Indicator B
 The following is an example of how the proposed Indicator B could be used.  Please refer to the Clean
 Water CWSRF Indicator Section in the front of the report for explanation, definitions and purpose.

 Mean QHEI values greater than 60 from rivers or large river segments, generally indicate a level of
 macrohabitat quality sufficient to support an assemblage of aquatic organisms fully consistent with the
WWH aquatic life use designations. Average reach values greater than 75 are generally considered
F-22

-------
 adequate to support fully exceptional (EWH) aquatic communities.
 QHEI values before and after project completion for several locations downstream from West Milton
 WWTP are available. The results are presented below.
QHEI VALUES FOR THE STILLWATER RIVER
RIVER MILE
16.0
15.7
14.7
14.4
12.1
11.5
1982
71.5
- -
-
80.5
63
-
1990
85
-
-
-
-
82
1994
-
82
80.5
- -
81.5
-
 The QHEI factors in a number of parameters, and captures information such as substrate embeddedness,
 which can be influenced by WWTPs and nonpoint sources. QHEI scores improved from 1982 into the
 range adequate to support exceptional biological communities.

 Indicators 4& 5
WEST MILTON WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 16.57
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
STILLWATER RIVER
OH57 5
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
EXCEPTIONAL
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
VERY HIGH
ECOREGION
EASTERN CORN
BELT PLAIN
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1982
1994
FULLY
ATTAINED
3.60
6.80
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
3.00
0.00
NOT
SUPPORTING
0.20
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
0.00
0.00
                          SOURCES AND CAUSEES OF IMPAIRMENT
                  (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
Source
Municipal Point Sources
     Magnitude
1982          1994
H
Cause
Unionized Ammonia
Organic enrichment/DO
  Magnitude
1982   1994
M
H
Municipal Point Sources (West Milton WWTP ) were listed as the sole high source of impairment to this
                                                                                      F-23

-------
  stream segment in 1982; in 1995, no municipal point sources caused impairment. The improvement in the
  fish communities during 1994 appears to be associated with reduced effluent loadings of ammonia-N and
  oxygen-demanding material from the West Milton WWTP. The reduced loadings (detailed under Indicator
  1) are a result of the CWSRF funded WWTP improvements completed in 1992.

  Indicator 6
  Stillwater River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content in
  no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100ML or 2,000 per 100ML in more
  than 10% of samples per month.
STILLWATER RIVER
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 8/90)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 5/95)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
no data
541
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
no data
1806
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
145
597
 The in-stream bacteriological levels do not violate primary contact standards.  High post project effluent
 fecal coliform levels may indicate a potential disinfection problem.

 10. COLUMBUS SOUTHERLY WWTP (completion date 5/3/94)
 location:  Franklin County, latitude 39'48' 48" N, longitude 83'00' 53" W

 The Columbus Southerly WWTP is one of two treatment facilities serving the Columbus metropolitan area.
 Wastewater from the eastern part of the metropolitan area, Grove City, and excess flows from the Jackson
 Pike WWTP are treated at the Southerly WWTP which discharges to the middle portion of the Scioto River,
 USEPA river reach number 05060001-027. The plant was constructed in 1967 and became an advanced
 treatment facility in September 1987.

 The treatment process is comprised of screening, aerated grit removal, pre-aeration,  primary settling,
 activated sludge aeration, secondary clarification, chlorination, dechlorination using sulfur dioxide^ and
 post-aeration. Discharge occurs directly to the Scioto River at RM 118.4.

 Indicator A.
 The CWSRF funded the construction of additional clarifier capacity at the Southerly WWTP. The project
 was initiated as a result of the Anheuser-Bush, Inc. interest in expanding production at its Columbus
 brewery, thereby increasing wastewater flows. Further planning and value engineering determined that two
 additional final clarifiers needed to be constructed at the Southerly WWTP to provide  additional solids/liquid
 separation for the aeration unit process at average daily flows and loads, and the current peak flow of 150
 million gallons per day (MGD), expandable to 198 MGD for future wet weather flows.  Construction of this
 project began  Spring 1991 and  both clarifiers were in operation in Spring 1993. The amount financed for
 this project and some sewer rehabilitation work was $34,752,787 ($12,788,420-secondary treatment;
 $24,995,547-advanced treatment; $968,820-major rehabilitation).
F-24

-------
  Indicator 1
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT COLUMBUS SOUTHERLY WWTP ,
SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 10/92)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 6/95)
CHANGE , ;
POUNDS OF
CBOD5
REMOVED
(daily average)
125,090
116,969
-8,121
% CBOD5
REMOVED
99
93
-6
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
121,577
94,635
-26,942
% TSS
REMOVED
95
76
-19
 Data suggest a decreased ability of the WWTP to remove TSS and CBOD5. This information must be
 carefully considered since the effect of overflows at the WWTP is not readily apparent. For example, the
 data suggests that 1993 may not have had as many overflows as 1995-1996 did. In fact  there are six
 months of missing overflow data for CBOD5 during 1993, but 1995-1996 has a complete record of
 overflows, suggesting that even with overflow events the WWTP overall had a removal efficiency of 93%
 for CBOD5.  In that same regard, the complete record for TSS in 1992-93 and 1995-96 suggests more
 clearly the effects of the plant overflow on removal efficiencies. Removal efficiencies varied with the
 number, frequency, and duration of storm events leading to overflows at this facility.

 Only three violations for ammonia and pH were noted during September 1996 and continue to remain low
 while flow increased after 1988. Total suspended solids loadings have remained consistent through time.
 A dramatic decrease in the ambient ammonia concentration occurred in 1988 downstream from both the
 Jackson Pike WWTP and Columbus Southerly WWTP. According to the 1996 Middle Scioto River
 Technical Support Document, this decrease was a direct result of plant improvements and upgrades to
 both facilities.

 The dissolved oxygen concentration has increased over time from an annual daily average of 7 43 mg/L in
 1992-93 to 9.2 mg/L in 1995-96 downstream of the WWTP.  Average concentrations have been
 significantly above the exceptional warmwater criterion since 1980.

Total phosphorus concentrations have declined throughout the study area. In 1996, average phosphorus
concentrations were found to be below the Ohio EPA guideline (1 mg/L) for the prevention of nuisance
algal growths at all sample sites.

The level of nitrate has increased along the entire stream segment. This coincides with the decrease in
ammonia due to the nitrification processes installed at the Columbus WWTPs.
                                                                                         F-25

-------
 Indicators 4& 5
COLUMBUS SOUTHERLY WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 118.40 (BYPASS EFFLUENT RM 118.40)
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
SCIOTO RIVER
OH37 1
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
HIGH -VERY HIGH
ECOREGION
EASTERN CORN
BELT PLAIN
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1991
1996
FULLY
ATTAINED
5.65
1.85
THREATENED
0.00
4.50
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
1.50
0.90
NOT
SUPPORTING
0.10
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
0.00
0.00
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
 Source
 Municipal Point Sources
 Combined Sewer Overflow
 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (NFS)
     Magnitude
1991          1996
H             M,T
H             H
              T
Cause
Unionized Ammonia
Organic enrichment/DO
  Magnitude
1991   1996
H      T
H      H,T
 The 1991 monitoring comments indicated that Columbus Southerly WWTP is the most significant point
 source of impairment in the area.  Non- and Partial attainment that year were due to lingering impacts
 from Columbus CSOs and WWTPs, although extensive improvements downstream from Columbus
 Southerly have been documented over the past 10 years. The 1996 monitoring indicated significant
 improvement in this segment due to reduced pollutant loads from the two WWTPs in Columbus and
 combined sewer overflows. Biological communities indicated full attainment of WWH criteria but DELT8
 anomalies in fish were markedly elevated within this reach indicating likely toxic and/or bacteriological
 stressors.

 Indicator 6
 This stretch of the Scioto River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal
 coliform content in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100 ML or 2,000
 per 100 ML in more than 10% of samples per month.
       ^efonnities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors
F-26

-------
SCIOTO RIVER
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 10/92)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 6/95)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
2186
5905
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
no data
222.3
DOWNSTREAM
(3/100ML)
1770
4693.6
Monitoring indicates a gradual decrease in the number of fecal coliform bacteria per sample occurring
throughout most of the study area both upstream and downstream from Columbus WWTPs. The WWTP
effluent seems to have a diluting effect on the fecal coliform concentrations in the stream. Mean
concentrations are still above Ohio water quality standards criteria and are most likely due to CSOs,
WWTP bypasses and other diffuse inputs.  This information points out further work that the city needs to
do in order to minimize the potential for human health problems. It also points out an area for potential
CWSRF assistance.
11. OAK HILL WWTP (completion date 10/01/95)
location: Jackson County, latitude 38*52'55" N, longitude 82"34'36" W

The Oak Hill WWTP discharges to Huntingcamp Creek in the Symmes Creek Basin. This stream segment
can be referenced by USEPA river reach number 05090101-.

Indicator A
Oak Hill WWTP was hydraulically overloaded and  in need of expansion and upgrading to meet its National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. Excessive I/I in the collection system was
identified as contributing to the WWTP problems.

The WWTP improvements consisted of a grit chamber, a comminutor, two aeration tanks, two final
clarifiers, a new chlorine contact tank along with dechlorination, conversion of the existing final clarifiers to
aerobic digesters and replacement of the existing sand drying beds with plastic filter media for sludge
drying, and an earthen dike to provide flood protection to the 100-year  flood elevation.

Sewer system improvements eliminated the excessive amount of I/I from the collection system.

These upgrades were funded through a grant from Farmers' Home Administration, a grant from the Ohio
Public Works' Commission-Issue 2 Program and a low interest loan (at a hardship rate) from Ohio's
CWSRF program in the amount of $937,651.

Indicator 1
From May 1992 through April 1993, the Oak Hill WWTP removed an average of 117 pounds of TSS per
day (65%) and an average of 224 pounds of CBOD5 per day (76%).  After completion of the CWSRF
project in October 1997, the WWTP removed an average of 305 pounds of TSS (96%) per day and an
average of 378 pounds of CBODS (97%) per day.
                                                                                        F-27

-------

SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 5/92)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 10/97)
CHANGE >" V\;
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT OAK HILL VWVTP
POUNDS OF
CBODg
REMOVED
(daily average)
224
378
' • • '; ,w
% CBOD5
REMOVED
76
97
21
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
117
305
, 204
% TSS
REMOVED
65
96
, 31 ,
  Pounds removed increased by 204 for TSS and 183 for CBOD5 as did the WWTP removal efficiencies for
  both parameters. The efficiencies increased by 31 % for TSS and by 21 % for CBOD5.

  Indicators 4& 5
OAK HILL WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 1.7
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
HUNTINGCAMP CREEK
OH32 40
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
MODERATE
ECOREGION
WESTERN ALLEGHENY
PLATEAU

SAMPLING
YEAR
1987
1995
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
FULLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
NOT
SUPPORTING
3.40
3.40
NOT
ASSESSED
0.00
0.00
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
 Source
 Municipal Point Sources
 Channelization
 Sludge
 Onsite wastewater systems
       (septic tanks)
 Urban runoff/storm sewers (nps)
      Magnitude
1987          1995
H      H
M
       H

       H
       H
Cause
Other Habitat alterations
Nutrients
Oil and Grease

Organic enrichment/DO
  Magnitude
1987   1995
M
       H
       M
H
H
The early monitoring indicated that upstream of Oak Hill WWTP the stream is ditch-like with degraded
habitat. Oak Hill WWTP is specifically noted as a source of impact. Later monitoring named Oak Hill
WWTP as a source of degradation with sludge deposits present in significant amounts in the stream
channel. Oil and grease from a junk yard upstream and other nonpoint sources of impairment add to the
water quality impairments in 1995. Indicator 1 demonstrates that the CWSRF project resulted in a big
F-28

-------
 improvement in pollutant removals at the WWTP, but this is not demonstrated by the aquatic community.
 Huntingcamp Creek is only moderately restorable and more time may be required before any improvement
 can be seen in the segment due to the WWTP improvements. If the nonpoint sources of impairment are
 severe enough, the aquatic community may not recover even if the VWVTP problems are eliminated.

 Indicator 6
 Huntingcamp Creek has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform
 content in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 10OML or 2,000 per 10OML
 in more than 10% of samples per month.
HUNTINGCAMP CREEK
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 year)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 5/92)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 10/97)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
3,300
5,192
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
no data
140
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
60,000
3,758
Violations of fecal coliform concentrations are clearly a source of impairment to this stream segment as
well as a potential human health threat. Prior to the CWSRF-funded project, the VWVTP added significantly
to the problem, but following the WWTP improvements, the downstream fecal coliform concentrations are
lower than the upstream concentrations. The WWTP effluent seems to be diluting the already high fecal
coliform concentrations. Many of the sources of impairment noted above could be contributing to this
problem.


12.  RAVENNA WWTP (completion date 10/9/93)
location:  Portage County,  latitude 41*08' 58" N, longitude 8ri5' 42" W

Two municipal wastewater treatment plants discharge to Breakneck Creek, the Franklin Hills VWVTP on
Breakneck Creek, and the Ravenna WWTP which discharges to Hommon Ditch, a tributary of Wahoo
Ditch which flows into Breakneck Creek which is located in the Cuyahoga River Basin. This segment is
identified by USEPA River Reach number number 04110002-005.

The Ravenna WWTP is equipped with primary and secondary settling tanks, aeration tanks, microscreens,
a chlorine contact tank, sludge concentrator, aerobic and anaerobic digesters, and sludge drying beds.

Indicator A
The CWSRF was used to fund two project phases. Phase 1 included: a siphon control chamber, screen
building, flow equalization basins, roughing filter, effluent pump station and post aeration, and a pump
station and various other minor improvements.  Phase 2 improvements  included: aerobic digester piping
modifications, expansion of the sludge concentrator building and removal of the existing sludge
concentrator, a sieve drum concentrator, a belt filter press, renovation of sludge drying beds, sewer system
rehabilitation, and clean-up of a temporary sludge landfill.

The Ravenna WWTP was  unable to meet its NPDES permit limits and was under enforcement action to
expand and upgrade its plant in order to comply with its permitted effluent limits.

Indicator 1
Prior to the WWTP improvements, the Ravenna WWTP could not meet  its final ammonia-nitrogen limit
and although TSS and BOD limits were being met consistently, it was becoming more difficult to do so as
                                                                                         F-29

-------
   the WWTP approached its design capacity.

SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 1 1/89)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 11/94)
CHANGE , -
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT RAVENNA WWTP •
POUNDS OF
CBOD5
REMOVED
(daily average)
2,198
2,569
371 , ,-
% CBOD5
REMOVED
98.
98
0
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
2,564
3,279
715 :
% TSS
REMOVED
94
95
1
  Pounds of pollutants removed increased by 715 pounds for TSS and by 371 pounds for CBODS while the
  VWVTP percent removal efficiency increased by 1 % for TSS and remained static for CBODS .

  The Cuyahoga River Technical Support Document (MAS/1997-12-4, 1999) indicated that under normal
  operation, ammonia nitrogen and total Kjeldahl nitrogen loads have decreased, especially since 1988.
  However, 95th percentile loadings have increased, demonstrating wider and wider separation between
  normal and extreme treatment performance. Ravenna has a history of wet weather bypasses from the
  VWVTP. The loadings trends show that the plant operates well during dry weather, but is increasingly
  unable to handle peak flows. Further expansion and upgrade of their treatment system, if approved,
  should result in improved plant performance and eliminate treatment bypasses.

  All Breakneck Creek samples from RM 14.6 to the mouth were in compliance with chemical WQS criteria.
  While the standards were not exceeded, the Ravenna and Franklin Hills WWTPs had discemable
  impacts on Breakneck Creek.  Median nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations increased an order of
  magnitude downstream from the Ravenna VWVTP via Wahoo Ditch (from 0.2 mg/L to 2.0 mg/L), and
  peaked downstream from the Franklin Hills WWTP.  Phosphorus and ammonia-nitrogen concentrations
  were high in Wahoo Ditch with peak concentrations of 0.65 mg/L and 2.5 mg/L, respectively.  However,
  only ammonia-nitrogen concentrations were detectably higher in Breakneck Creek downstream from
 Wahoo Ditch, suggesting that the phosphorus was readily assimilated, but the nitrogen was not. The
 high-ammonia nitrogen concentrations found in  Wahoo Ditch correspond to the high 95th percentile.

 Indicators 4& 5

AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
BREAKNECK CREEK
OH888
RAVENNA WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 0.85 .
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
HIGH
ECOREGION
ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE
PLAIN
F-30

-------
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1987
1996
FULLY
ATTAINED
2.00
9.50
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
15.80
2.00
NOT
SUPPORTING
0.70
3.80
NOT
ASSESSED
0.00
3.20
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
Source
Municipal Point Sources
        Major
        Minor
Natural
Landfills
      Magnitude
1987          1996
M
              H
              H
H             H
S
Cause
Flow Alteration
Organic enrichment/DO
Unknown toxicity
  Magnitude
1987   1996
M     H
H      H
       H
The old monitoring comments do not specifically discuss the Ravenna VWVTP, but generally list municipal
point sources as being a moderate source of impairment. The 1996 comments indicate that the fish
communities showed impacts from the Ravenna VWVTP with further declines noted downstream from the
Franklin Hills VWVTP.  This was further evidenced by the presence of an increased percentage of tolerant
fishes at RM 3.1 relative to RM 5.2 and a low Modified Index of Well Being scrore. This index score
continues to decline downstream from Franklin Hills before recovering at the mouth. The results suggest
intermittently toxic conditions downstream from Ravenna which are increased as a result of the discharge
from the Franklin Hills VWVTP.

The CWSRF funded project appears to have improved the functioning of the Ravenna VWVTP. Breakneck
Creek is in better shape than it was in 1987 as far as total miles fully attaining the aquatic life use
designation, but it is clear that further improvement could occur. Municipal point sources are now listed as
high sources of impairment as compared to moderate sources in 1987.  This may reflect improvement in
Ohio EPA's ability to discern causes and sources as monitoring procedures and reporting improved since
1987.

Indicator 6
Breakneck Creek has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content
in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100ML or 2,000 per 100ML in
more than 10% of samples per month.
BREAKNECK CREEK
ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS
SAMPLING PERIOD (1 year)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 1 1/89)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 1 1/94)
UPSTREAM
(#/100ML)
no data
2,364
EFFLUENT
(#/100ML)
100
104
DOWNSTREAM
(#/100ML)
481
439
                                                                                       F-31

-------
  The fecal coliform data indicates high background levels that drop to a more acceptable level downstream
  of the VWVTP effluent.  Effluent levels have very low fecal counts. The high background conditions do not
  appear to be related to the WWTP operations.


  13. VILLAGE OF CONNEAUT (improvements implemented 1987 through 1992 refinanced through
  WPCLF in 1993), location: Ashtabula County, latitude 41'58' 08" N, longitude 80*32' 57" W

  Conneaut Creek is designated Cold Water Habitat, and Seasonal Salmonid Habitat.  This creek harbors a
  number of sensitive species with declining populations in the state. The Conneaut WWTP discharges to
  the mouth of Conneaut Creek as it empties  into Lake Erie.  The USEPA River Reach number for this
  location is 04120101-012.

  Indicator A
  Conneaut's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was under Findings and Orders issued Oct 4,  1985  This
  enforcement action resulted from the failure of the WWTP to meet the NPDES permit limits,  resulting in
  degradation of Conneaut Creek.  After evaluating a variety of alternatives, the city upgraded the WWTP.
  eliminated a combined sewer overflow (CSO), and rehabilitated existing sanitary sewers. Improvements to
  the WWTP and portions of the collection system were made between 1987 and 1992. The loan  amount
  was $2,580,000, combined with a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of $93,0,00.

  The Conneaut WWTP was constructed in 1954 with a design capacity of 2.5 million gallons per  day (MGD)
  It was expanded in 1973 and upgraded in 1987-88 to meet NPDES permit requirements. The WWTP
  improvements required to comply with the permit limitations were a new 300,000 gallon equalization basin-
  a new 20,000 cubic foot sludge holding tank; two (2) primary settling tank mechanisms; one  (1)
  communicator; one (1) grit tank mechanism; and modifications to the headworks digester control building,
  and the service building. The current plant is an activated sludge treatment facility with  an average  daily
  flow (ADF) capacity of 5.0 MGD. The WWTP discharges to the mouth of Conneaut Creek at RM 0 30
  However, the WWTP is considered to be a Lake Erie discharge.

  Gravity sewers and force mains were installed in the previously unsewered areas of East Conneaut,
  Gateway Avenue, and West Main Road over the past ten years. Runoff from this area flows into Conneaut
  Creek.  The final phase of East Conneaut sewer installation is slated to begin in early 2000.

  Indicator 1
 A1988 permit document indicates that CBOD5 and ammonia-nitrogen in the WWTP effluent were found
 at low concentrations. Monthly averages for BOD5, CBOD5, and TSS were always found to be lower than
 10 mg/L; ammonia levels were below 4.0 mg/L and heavy metals were found in varying concentrations.
 The 95th percentile confidence interval values for cadmium, total chromium, lead, nickel, and  mercury
 were all above the levels mandated by their permit.
 Comparative pollutant removal levels for TSS and CBOD5 are shown below.
F-32

-------
POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT CONNEAUT WWTP
SAMPLING
PERIOD
(1 YEAR)
PRE-PROJECT
(beginning 1/86)
POST-PROJECT
(beginning 1 1/94)
CHANGE ' ;
POUNDS OF
CBOD5
REMOVED
(daily average)
no data
1,266
cant determine
% CBOD5
REMOVED
no data
97
cant determine
POUNDS OF TSS
REMOVED
(daily average)
, 1,421
1,362
*
-59 :
% TSS
REMOVED
96
97
1
TSS and CBOD5 concentrations were not the causes of NPDES permit violations that triggered the WWTP
upgrade. The table above reflects that these parameters were being removed at an acceptable level.

The 1997 Grand and Ashtabula River Basin Technical Support Document indicates that the water quality
of Conneaut Creek (RM 23.1) is good with no exceedance of any of Ohio's Water Quality Criteria with the
exception of one dissolved oxygen reading (possibly attributable to low follow conditions observed during
the sampling period).  Nutrient concentrations in Conneaut Creek at this location were very low. This
sampling location provides information concerning the unsewered portion of the city, but is too far away
from the WWTP effluent to provide information regarding the plant.

Indicators 4& 5
VILLAGE OF CONNEAUT
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
CONNEAUT CREEK
OH933
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
CWH
RESTORABILITY
HIGH-VERY HIGH
ECOREGION
ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE
PLAIN
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1987
1989
1995
FULLY
ATTAINED
0.00
22.33
22.53
THREATENED
0.00
1.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
0.30
NOT
SUPPORTING
6.40
0.50
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
17.43
0.00
0.00
                                                                                         F-33

-------
                             SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                    (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
  Source           •          1987
  Municipal Point Sources       H
  Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(NPS) S
  Landfills                     S
  Contaminated Sediments      S
  Spills
  Dredging
  Streambank modification/
            destabilization
Magnitude
1989  1995
                                Magnitude
      Cause               1987   1989   1995
      Organic enrichment/DO S    —
      Metals                 H
 S.T
  H
         H
         H
H
     Other habitat alterations  -     H,T
     PH                    -     S,T
                                                   H
 The monitoring comments are sparse for this segment and do not elaborate on the sources of impairment.
 The chemical data above indicates that high metals concentrations (also reflected in the cause column
 above) is the component of VWvTP effluent causing impairment. There is a correlation between the
 completion of the CWSRF-funded Conneaut WWTP improvements and the disappearance of the
 "Municipal Point Source" of impairment. A corresponding improvement in water quality is evident as can be
 seen in the use attainment table above.

 Conneaut continues to receive CWSRF funding for collection system upgrades and repairs, and for
 construction  of sewers in the eastern part of the city where failing on-lot systems create a potential health
 hazard.  It is  interesting to note the disappearance of the urban runoff/storm sewers (nonpoint) source of
 impairment and organic enrichment/low DO cause of impairment as these projects progressed.

 Indicators
 There is insufficient information to look at this indicator.  The only ambient stream values available are for
 1975-77 where the fecal coliform count was 1,21.7 per 100ML. The site downstream from the VWVTP was
 not comparable due to the influence of Lake Erie.

 According to  the Environmental Assessments for the east Conneaut area, the local health department has
 records of failing on-lot systems and corresponding localized high fecal coliform levels in puddles and
 ditches in the area.


 14. CITY OF PARMA HEIGHTS (completion date 8/1/96)
 location: Cuyahoga County,  latitude 41"23' 04" N, longitude 8r45' 36" W

 Indicator A
 This project involved connecting 28 homes with failing on-lot systems to a centralized collection system.
 The health department in the area determined these systems to be inadequate and undersized.  Water
 quality sampling conducted by the health department indicated water quality violations from area catch
 basins and storm sewers. The surrounding area is served by a centralized collection system.

 The loan amount from the CWSRF was $218,870 with the remainder of the project costs coming from
 assessments.
F-34

-------
 Indicators 4& 5
PARMA HEIGHTS COLLECTION SYSTEM
AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
BIG CREEK OH89 5
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WWH
RESTORABILITY
MODERATE - HIGH
ECOREGION
ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE
PLAIN
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1984
1991
1996
FULLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
0.00
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
0.00
0.00
0.00
NOT
SUPPORTING
8.40
1.00
8.00
NOT
ASSESSED
3.6
11.00
4.00
                           SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
                                 Magnitude
 Source                      1984   1991   1996
 Industrial Point Sources        M       -
 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(NPS)  H,S     -       M
 Combined Sewer Overflows     H       -       H
 Spills  .                     -        -       S
 Other                        -               M
 Cause
   Magnitude
1984   1991   1996
Organic enrichment/DO H
Metals               M
Oil and grease        S
Flow alteration
Cause Unknown
       H
H

M
M
S
The monitoring comments indicate that in 1984 there was one fish kill (129 fish) caused by sewage.
Extensive sludge deposits were also noted.  Subsequent monitoring noted improving conditions in the
water quality, but urban runoff and spills continue to be a major problem in the basin. Sanitary sewer
overflows had been recorded but many of these were due to breaks or blockages.  Oil contamination from
a research oil company was also suspected to impact water quality.

The evidence suggests that the CWSRF-funded project helped improve water quality, but such a small
project in a stream segment with many sources of impairment did not make a large enough improvement
to bring this segment into attainment.

Indicator 6.
There is no information available to evaluate this indicator.


15. HARDIN COUNTY LANDFILL (completion date 11/15/95)
location:  Hardin County, latitude 40'39' 00" N, longitude 83'38' 30" W

The Hardin County Sanitary Landfill is a 17 acre landfill on a 200 acre tract owned by Hardin County and
located about two miles west of Kenton. The Scioto River forms the southern boundary of the site and is
identified by USEPA river reach number 05060001-035. The southern limits of solid waste placement are
about 200 feet from the Scioto River's current channel. The western boundary of the site is wooded with an
intermittent stream tributary to the Scioto River.
                                                                                        F-35

-------
   Indicator A
   This project involved planning, engineering, and construction for final closure of the Hardin County Sanitary
   Landfill. Documented groundwater contamination has been noted in the uppermost aquifer since 1989  The
   landfill is also thought to be a source of stream litter and other nonpoint sources of pollution to the Scioto
   River.

   Under Findings and Orders issued by the Director of the Ohio EPA, Hardin County developed the Hardin
   County Sanitary Landfill Closure Plan.  Among other things, the approved ciosure/post-closure plan
   provided for:

                 construction of a cap over the landfill to prevent storm water infiltration;
                 construction of a leachate collection system to remove leachate from the landfill;
                 implementation of storm water and erosion control measures to maintain the integrity of
                 the cap system and prevent site run-off from adversely impacting the surrounding
                 environment.

  The Scioto River downstream from the landfill, between Panther Creek and the Little Scioto River was
  identified in the 1990 Nonpoint Source Assessment as being impaired by nonpoint sources of pollution.

  The CWSRF loan amount for this project was  $971,500.

  Indicator 1
  Ambient water quality showed no violations of Ohio Water Quality Standards from Hardin County Landfill in
  1984 or 1995. Water quality parameter concentrations were similar to or less than concentrations noted
  upsteam indicating no impact from the county  landfill with the exception of abundant stream litter.

  Indicators 4& 5

AFFECTED
WATERBODY(S)
SCIOTO RIVER
OH3424
HARDIN COUNTY LANDFILL, RM 213.90
AQUATIC LIFE USE
DESIGNATION
WARMWATER
HABITAT
RESTORABILITY
LOW
ECOREGION
EASTERN CORN
BELT PLAIN
AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES
SAMPLING
YEAR
1984
1995
FULLY
ATTAINED
0.00
8.63
THREATENED
0.00
0.00
PARTIALLY
ATTAINED
3.60
16.30
NOT
SUPPORTING
8.40
0.00
NOT
ASSESSED
12.93
0.00
F-36

-------
                            SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
                   (magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
 Source
 Municipal Point Sources
 Channelization
 Pasture land
 Nonirrigated crop production
  Magnitude
1984   1995
H
M     H
S
S     M
Cause
Organic enrichment/DO
Other habitat alterations
Siltation
 Magnitude
1984   1995
H
M      H
       M
 The monitoring comments do not name Hardin County Landfill as a source of impairment to this segment
 either in 1984 or in 1995. The 1984 comments mention channelization, row crops, pastures and the
 McGuffy WWTP as being sources of impairment while the 1995 causes named channelization and
 nonirrigated crop production. The more recent monitoring describes the surface water quality as good,
 noting that channelization is a problem for the fish community. Capping this landfill had no immediately
 apparent water quality improvement based on surface water monitoring results.  Nonpoint source pollution
 from the site may be characterized as siltation which is listed as a moderate cause of impairment.  In any
 case, the project description does describe erosion and runoff prevention activities that almost certainly
 resulted in some reduced nonpoint source pollution to the surface waters from the landfill site.

 Indicator 6.
 The goal of this project was to mitigate a known source of groundwater contamination and probable source
 of surface water pollution. Before the CWSRF-funded project, water ponded on the landfill and percolated
 through the waste and entered ground water and drainage ditches to the Scioto River. The contamination
 posed a possible threat to a drinking water and human health.  Quarterly groundwater monitoring results at
 the site have documented groundwater contamination in the uppermost aquifer since at least 1989. The
 source of the contamination, which appears to be confined to the uppermost aquifer, is believed to be
 landfill leachate.9 The limited extent of the groundwater contamination may be due, in part, to the presence
 of a bottom confining layer and the low density of the observed contaminants (i.e., the contaminants tend to
 float on the surface of the water table). Capping the landfill decreased the human health risks by reducing
 the potential for direct exposure to the fill and leachate.  It also reduced the amount of potential leachate
 entering the groundwater.  Recent information indicates that more may need to be done at this site to
 protect groundwater.
9Leachate is liquid that has either come in contact with or been released from solid waste.  Leachate
formation commonly results from the infiltration and percolation of precipitation through the solid waste
mass. Once formed, leachate may emerge at the surface as seeps or springs or continue to percolate
downward, posing a threat to groundwater.
                                                                                          F-37

-------

-------
Appendix G. Ohio EPA Biological Indicators

-------

-------
                    Indicators
                                        Biological indicators are features of the aquatic
                                        ecosystem that demonstrate the health and vitality
 of the ecosystem. There are three indices that Ohio EPA uses to assess the health of the
 biological community and determine aquatic life use designations.  These are the index of
 biological integrity (IBI), the modified index of well being, (Mlwb) and the invertebrate
 community index (ICI). These may be referenced in other sections of the 305(b) or in various
 monitoring or technical support documents.
*
*
*
*
Index of Biological Integrity
Invertebrate Community Index
Modified Index of Well Being
Making Sense of the Indices
Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)

The index of biological integrity is a measure of fish species diversity and species populations.
The criteria used to establish the index for each of the five ecoregions reflects the biological
performance exhibited by natural or least impacted habitats of each region based on specific
reference sites. The index is a number that reflects total native species composition, indicator
species composition, pollutant intolerant and tolerant species composition, and fish condition.
Combined, the higher the calculation, the healthier the aquatic ecosystem; conversely, the
lower the index, the poorer the health of the aquatic ecosystem. The highest score is 60.


Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)

The invertebrate community index is based on measurements of the macroinvertebrate
communities living in a stream or river. It is particularly useful in evaluating stream health
because: (1) there are a wide variety of macroinvertebrate taxa, which are known to be
pollutant intolerant; and (2) there are a number of macroinvertebrate taxa, which are known to
be pollutant tolerant. Like the IBI, the ICI scale is 0 to 60 with higher scores representing
healthier macroinvertebrate communities and therefore more biologically diverse communities.

Modified Index of Well Being (Miwb)

The modified index of well  being is based upon the index of well being, which is a calculation of
fish mass and density. The modified index of well being factors out 13 pollutant tolerant
species of fish from certain calculations. This prevents false high readings on polluted streams
which have large populations of pollutant tolerant fish.
                                                                                G-l

-------
  Making Sense of the Indices

  The Ecological Assessment Unit at Ohio EPA uses these indices, in concert with other
  chemical and physical water quality data to evaluate the use attainment of particular stream
  segments. When these three biological indices are evaluated together or in pairs, we can lea
  things about the water quality picture which may not be evident from examining one index
  alone. For example, if a high IBI is coupled with a low Mlwb, it might indicate that while there
  a variety of species and a good number of individuals of each species (high IBI) individual   [
  members  of these species are smaller than what is expected. This might indicate that while fi|
  are numerous, they are not maturing fully. In turn, this information could be useful in
  determining which pollution source is impacting the biological community more than others.
  example, thermal increases caused by effluent from wastewater treatment plants could
  contribute to poor maturation offish fry. This is just one of many explanations that might be
  true, depending on other environmental factors.
G-2

-------
Appendix H. Ohio EPA Sampling Fact Sheet

-------

-------
Introduction

Ohio  EPA has  begun to  collect
more data related to the effects of
sedimentation  on  aquatic  life in
streams and rivers. Sedimentation
is  the  third  leading  cause  of
impairment to aquatic life in  Ohio
and is a problem that is prevalent
in all areas of the state. Ohio EPA
is attempting to increase its focus
on innovative ways to remediate
these  conditions and more sensi-
tive ways to assess stresses on
aquatic life from excess fine  sedi-
ment in streams and rivers.

In   geomorphologically    stable
streams, input  of fine  materials
that  naturally  erode  into   the
stream is  generally  balanced by
the export of such materials. The
median  particle  size in  a unim-
pacted stream in  Ohio is typically
coarse (gravel, cobble, some-
times  boulders). These sizes
are typically associated with
high quality  biota  and stream
habitats. As  erosion increases
in a  watershed,  either  from
surface  runoff  and/or   bank
erosion, the percent of fine
materials in the stream bottom
can  increase,  fill  pools and
embed  the  larger  diameter
substrates.  These conditions
are frequently reflected in the
      aquatic biota that inhabitant  the
      stream and  by attributes  of  the
      QHEI substrate metric. Even at the
      visual  resolution of the QHEI sub-
      strate  metric and attributes  the
      effects  of  fine  sediments  on
      aquatic life can be substantial (see
      Figure 2). With an increased need
      to focus on  NPS  impairments to
      meet strategic management goals
      and  to effectively address TMDlg-
      issues there is a  need for  some?
      more  sensitive tools to measure!'
      NPS stressors like fine sediments
      Such tools could be used to estabg
                     '                  9
      lish  targets  and  measure  incre-s
      mental   progress    after    the5
      establishment  of  BMPs   or  to
      detect  deviation from reference
      conditions  in streams in rapidly
      developing area.
                   Figure 1.
      Six Leading Causes of Aquatic Life Use Impairment
 Habitat Alterations
Organic Enrichment
       Siltatiort
        Metals
   Flow Alteration
      Nutrients
                                       Embeddedness Attribute
                                         Embeddedness
                                                         High
                               Qmllty
                AltMonitored
	           Data
                 SS-SSCycles
"^^SjjtSV  ^omtth"!?!^
            0    200   400    600    800   1000
            Impaired Stream & River Miles
                                   QHEI Substrate Metric Score
Figure 2. Relationship between IBI and
measures of substrate quality as mea-
sured by the QHEI.

  Pebble Counts
     A  pebble  count is commonly
     used to  sample the  surface
     particle  size  distribution  of
     gravel-bed rivers. Wolman first
     developed the method back in
     the   1950s  (Wolman  1954).
     Our goal here is to accumulate
     a  database  of reference site
     pebble counts (least impacted
     and  habitat  impacted)   for
     assessing the utility of these
     methods  for identifying areas
     with excess erosion.
                            Sampling Fact Sheet #:  Field-1-MAS-99

-------
  Methodology.
 The pebble count method that we
 are  using is the "Zig-Zag" pebble
 count (Bevenger and King 1995).
 The concept is to get an estimate
 of the distribution of substrates on
 the surface of the  stream bottom
 by  size category.  The  length of
 stream we assess  is equivalent to
 the length sampled for a fish sam-
 ple (i.e., headwater: 150 m, wade-
 able: 200 m, boat 500 m).  Most
 sites will be in wadeable streams.
 Start at the downstream end of
 the  sampling  zone and pick a
 point up and across the stream
 (e.g., tree) at an acute angle. On
 every third pace or  so, bend down
 and without looking pick the first
 particle that touches your finger at
 the tip of your boot. It is important
 to not look so as not to bias your
 selection. You also  want to pick a
Intermedate AMS (c)
Perpncfcular to (a)
                                                                           Short AHS (b)
                    Long Axis (a)
            sill!    I  I 11  !
from Big and Little Darby Creeks
     specific spot on your
     finger  for  situations
     where   your   finger
     touches   more  than
     one   piece  simulta-
     neously.   Using  the
     "whole hand" to reach
     down to initially select
     a substrate piece can
     seriously   underesti-
     mate fines. Care must
     also  be  taken that
     your hand does  not
     "float   downstream"
     where it might touch a
     larger piece before it
     hits  the  stream bot-
     tom.  Three  or more
     paces  (—7 feet)  are
     taken between stones
     to  reduce the poten-
     tial   for  autocorrela-
     tion..  For  very  small
     streams this distance
     can likely be reduced
     (one  long  or several
     short paces).

     Pick up that piece and
     measure its intermedi-
 ate axis  (see Figure 3) in mm
 Thinking of the  piece  as a flat-
 tened ellipsoid the  intermediate
 axis is not the short, flat axis (b) or
 the long axis  (a), but rather the
 middle or intermediate axis (c). To
 be consistent you measure  the
 greatest length of this axis perpen-
 dicular to the  long axis. You want
 to  collect  a   minimum of  100
 pieces within  the zone to get  a
 good sample.  To do this, start off
 with  a rather  acute  angle.  With
 experience  this can  be adjusted
 so  that a little  over a 100 pieces
 are collected with the  zone.

 Note that the  zig-zag pattern  is
 done from bank full stage to bank
 full stage (i.e., dry and wetted part
 of stream). This is best  done with
 two people with one recording and
 one measuring. Frequency of par-
 ticles are tallied on a data sheet
 by habitat type (Appendix 1). Pres-
 ently we are tracking  whether the
 particle was on the dry portion of
the channel,  from  a riffle/run area,
or a pool/glide area. For panicles
that are embedded or too large to
                            Field Fact Sheet #: Field-1-MAS-99

-------
 lift the intermediate  axis  is  esti-
 mated   by   placing   your  ruler
 against  the  submerged  rock  or
 measuring  with your fingers and
 then  measuring the span of your
 fingers.  At about 10% of the sites
 a replicate should be taken to esti-
 mate within-site variation.

 In addition to  the  pebble count,
 the field sheet also has spaces to
 record data to perform a Rosgen
 stream  classification.    At  this
 point, this is  not a requirement of
 the  pebble   count  methodology,
 but it may be useful for classifying
 natural streams with natural differ-
 ences in substrates.

 Applications

 There will be multiple applications
 investigated  that  may  use  this
 data. Aggregated at a watershed
 scale, median particle sizes may
 be able to identify subwatersheds
 constributing the most sediment
 to   downstream,   impaired    or
 threatened  waterbodies.   Paired
 with biological  and QHEI data  at
 reference sites, this data may pro-
 vide more precise predicitive rela-
 tionships  between the  biota  and
 substrate  conditions.  Such  rela-
 tionships  have  been documented
 in a number of studies (White and
 Merritt 1998;)  At sites with NPS
 TMDL  targets  (e.g.,  sediment
 reuction)  median  particle size  or
 some  other  statistic of  percent
 fines can  be use to test the effec-
 tiveness of  various BMPs  (e.g.,
 bank restoration, establishment of
 no till plots, etc.,).
Accuracy
Although  collection of  a  pebble
count  is  not resource  intensive,
like  any field  technique it takes
training and ability improves with
experience.  Some papers are ref-
erenced that should  prove useful
in improving sampling techniques.
Impor-
tant Defi-
nitions:
                   Size of substrate categories used in the zig-zag peb-
                   ble count (standard Wentworth sizes classes)
                   Intermediate Diameter
                           < 2 mm
                          2-3.9 mm
                          4-7.9 mm
                          8-15 mm
                          16-31 mm
                          32-63 mm
                         64-127 mm
                        128-255 mm
                        256-511 mm
                       512-1023 mm
                         > 1024 mm
 BankfuH Stage  -
 "The     bankfull
 stage      corre-
 sponds to the dis-
 charge at which
 channel   mainte-
 nance  is the most
 effective, that is,
 the discharge at
 which     moving
 sediment,  form-
 ing or removing
 bars,  forming or
 changing   bends
 and    meanders,
 and     generally
 doing  work  that
 results  in  the
 average  morpho-
 logical  characteristics  of  channels
 (Dunne and  Leopold  1978  cited in
 Rosgen 1995)."  The  importance for
 us is that these levels  move the most
 sediment downstream.  We measure
 the "dry" channel within the bank full
 dimensions to provide a estimate of
 the material being exported  down-
 stream. Some visual indictors of bank
 full stage  (Rosgen  1995) that may
 prove useful in-Ohio include: (1) eleva-
 tion at the top of the  highest deposi-
 tional  features (e.g., point & central.
 bars), (2) a break in the slope of banks
 or a change in the particle size distri-
 bution  (finer materials  dropping out at
 overflows), (3) presence of inundation
 features such as benches, (4) staining
 of rocks  or bridge  abutments, (5)
 roothairs exposted  below an  intact
 soil layer, and (6), especially in small
 wooded streams, lichens.  Be careful
 not to characterize terraces from pre-
 vious longer term flloods or under dif-
 ferent  climatic conditions as bankfull.
 Also some vegetation  (e.g., grasses)
 that can quickly colonize areas can be
 misleading  as bankfull  indicators. The
 bank full is typically about the 1.2 year
 reccurence interval for Ohio streams.

 Intermediate  Length •   For pebble
 counts this is not the shortest (c) axis
 or longest  measurement (a axis), but
is taken at the middle length (b-axis)
that is perpendicular  to the longest
Class
Silt
Sand
Very Fine Gravel
Fine Gravel
Medium Gravel
Coarse Gravel
Very Coarse Gravel
Small Cobble
Large Cobble
Small Boulder
Medium Boulder
Large Boulder
Bedrock
Clay Hardpan
Detritus/Wood
Artificial (Concrete
Rip/Rap)
                                     axis. "Since most streambed particles
                                     approximate ellipsoids, the fa-dimen-
                                     sion is  an acceptable predictor  of
                                     nominal diameter. The nominal diame-
                                     ter is defined  as the diameter of  a
                                     sphere with the same volume and thus
                                     corresponds to sieve size. This in turn
                                     makes it possible to determine parti-
                                     cle size frequency
                                     distribution from the b-axis alone."

                                                References
                                     Bevenger,  G.S.  and  R.M. King
                                          1995.  A Pebble count  Proce-
                                          dure for Assessing Watershed
                                          Cumulative   Effects.  Research
                                          Paper RM-RP-319. Fort Collins,
                                          CO: U.S. Department of Agricul-
                                          ture,  Forest  Service,  Rocky
                                          Mountain  Forest  and  Range
                                          Experiment Station.

                                     Idaho DEQ .  1997.  1997 Beneficial
                                          use   reconnaissance  project
                                          workplan. Idaho Dept. of Envi-
                                          ronmental  Quality,  Watershed
                                          Monitoring  &  Analysis  Bureau,
                                          Boise, Idaho

                                     Kondolf, G.M.    1995.  Discussion:
                                          Use of pebble counts to  evalu-
                                          ate fine  sediment increase  in
                                          stream     channels.     Water
                                          Resources  Bulletin 31(3):  537-
                                          538
                              Field Fact Sheet #: Field-1-MAS-99

-------
 Kondoir, G.M. and S. Li.   1992. The
      pebble  count  technique  for
      quantifying  surface  bed  mate-
      rial size in instream flow studies.
      Rivers 3(2): 80-87.

 Marcus,  W.  A.,  Ladd,  S.  C.,
      Stoughton, J. A. and J.  W.
      Stock.  1995. Water Resources
      Research 31(10): 2625-2631.

 Rosgen, D.  1996. Applied River Mor-
      phology.   Wildlands Hydology,
      Pagosa Springs, CO, USA

 White, J.  and G.  Merritt.    1998.
      Evaluation of R-EMAP techniques
      for the measurement of ecologi-
      cal integirty of streams in Wash-
      ington   state's   coast  range
      ecoregion.  Environmental  Moni-
     toring and Assessment 51: 345-
     355.

Woiman M. G.  1954. A method for
     sampling coarse river-bed mate-
     rial. Transactions of  the Ameri-
     can Geophysical Journal 35(6):
     951-956.

   For more information contact:
      Ed Rankin or Chris Yoder
    Ecological Assessment Unit
      Division of Surface Water
            Ohio EPA
       1685 Westbelt Drive
       Columbus, OH 43228

         614.728.3388
       FAX:  614.728.3380
 http://chagrin.epa.state.oh.us/

 This and other publications are
 available on the, Division of Sur-
      face Water Web Site:
                            Field Fact Sheet #:  Field-1-MAS-99

-------
  River Code:.
  Date:	
      River/Stream:
               RM:
Location:
  Investigator:,
                             . Rosgen Channel Type:.
Particle Size Range Total
(mm) (Dry)
Channe
Silt
Sand(<2)
V Fine Gravel (2-3.9)
Fine Gravel (4-7.9)
Medium Gravel (8-15)
Coarse Gravel (16-31)
V Coarse Gravel (32-63)
Small Cobble (64-127)
Large Cobble (128-255)
Small Boulder (256-51 1)
Medium Boulder (512-1023)
Large Boulder (> 1024)
Bedrock
Clay Hardpan














Zig/Zag Pebble Count
Total
(Wetted Channel")
Riffle Run
1













Pool Glide














% Cum%




























Bank Full Width:

Bank Full Mean Depth

Width/Depth Ratio
          Bankroll Max Depth:
          Flood Prone Area Width:

          Entrenchment Ratio
Channel Slope

Valley Slope:

Sinuosity

-------

-------