United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-841-B-97-002B
September 1997
&EPA Guidelines for Preparation
of the Comprehensive State
Water Quality Assessments
(305(b) Reports) and
Electronic Updates:
Supplement
© Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable-Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
ion Agency 305(b) and Waterbody System (wBS) Coordinators*
75202
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexiaj
66101
lava, Kamof, Missouri, Nebrosto
' is Iff—ft-—— ,.
San Frtndjoq, CA 941 OS
- Arizona, CoHtomia, HawaS,
Nevada. American Samoa, Guam
Curry Jones [30S(b)]
C206) 553-6912
t,rttaven ruysiip tyvuij
(2^6) 553-1665
coorinators are listed inside te ack cover.
-------
Guidelines for Preparation of the
Comprehensive State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports) and
Electronic Updates:
Supplement
September 1997
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (4503F)
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Acknowledgments
EPA prepared these Guidelines with participation by the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup,
whose members are listed on the following page. The full Workgroup met in June and
October 1996 to develop the guidance for the new 305(b) cycle. Members also
participated in numerous conference calls and focus group meetings to discuss key
technical issues and develop materials for these Guidelines. EPA gratefully acknowledges
their efforts, which have significantly improved the 305(b) assessment and reporting
process. The cover photo was taken by Phil Johnson.
Barry Burgan, National 305(b) Coordinator, led the development of these Guidelines and
facilitated the efforts of the Workgroup. Research Triangle Institute and Tetra Tech, Inc.,
provided technical and logistical support under EPA Contract 68-C3-0303.
EPA National Contacts
The primary contact regarding these Guidelines, the National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress, and the Waterbody System (WBS) is:
Barry Burgan, National 305{b) and WBS Coordinator
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Monitoring Branch (4503F)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7060 (E-mail: burgan.barry@epamail.epa.gov)
(202) 260-1977 (fax)
Other National Contacts:
Water environmental indicators and Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI):
Sarah Lehmann (202) 260-7021 (lehmann.sarah@epamail.epa.gov)
Reach File (RF3): Tommy Dewald (202) 260-2488
(dewald.tommy@epamail.epa.gov)
Georeferencing waterbodies to RF3: Tod Dabolt (202) 260-3697
(dabolt.thomas@epamail.epa.gov)
Probability-based monitoring: Steve Paulsen or Phil Larsen (541) 754-4362
(paulsen@mail.cor.epa.gov or larsen@mail.cor.epa.gov)
Biological integrity: Chris Faulkner (202) 260-6228
(faulkner.chris@epamail.epa.gov)
303(d)/TMDLs: Mimi Dannel (202) 260-1897 (dannel.mimi@epamail.epa.gov)
Clean Lakes: Anne Weinberg (202) 260-7107 (weinberg.anne@epamail.epa.gov)
WBS User Support: Research Triangle Institute (919) 990-8637
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 2: Guidelines Supplement
Section
Acknowledements . . . . ...................................... ii
List of Figures ... .......................................... vi
List of Tables .................... . . . ....................... vii
Acronym List ...... ........................................ v"i
1 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b) ...... 1-1
1.1 What is an Assessment? ......................... 1-1
1.2 . Degree of Use Support ....................... .... 1-4
1.3 Types of Assessment Information . . . ................ 1-5
1 .4 Monitored and Evaluated Waters . ................. . . 1-5
1 .5 Presumed Assessments .......................... 1-9
1.6 Causes of Impairment (Pollutants and Other Stressors) ..... 1-10
1.7 Sources of Impairment ........................... 1-12
1 .8 Cause/Source Linkage ....... .................... 1-17
1.9 Major/Moderate/Minor Contribution to Impairment ..... ... 1-18
2 DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION .... 2-1
2.1 Extent of Individual Assessments .................... 2-1
2.2 Comprehensive Statewide Assessment ........ . ....... 2-2
2.2.1 General Types of Monitoring Designs ........... 2-5
2.2.2 Planning Process for Probability-based Sampling
in a Rotating Basin Design ................... 2-6
2.2.3 Stratified Probability in a Rotating Basin Design .... 2-8
2.2.4 Case Studies of Different Types of Monitoring Designs 2-10
2.2.5 Improving Monitoring Designs through Modeling .... 2-12
2.3 Watershed and Waterbody Delineation ................ 2-13
2.4 Managing Assessment Data ..... . . . . . .............. 2-22
3 MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS ................. 3-1
3.1 ITFM Recommendations for Monitoring ................ 3-1
3.2 Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS) ............. ....... 3-5
3.2.1 Bioassessment ............... ........... 3-10
3.2.2 Habitat Assessment ....................... 3-12
3.2.3 Aquatic and Sediment Toxicity Methods ......... 3-13
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page
3.2.4 Physical/Chemical Methods 3-16
3.2.5 Integration of Different Data Types in Making an
ALUS Determination 3-21
3.2.6 Additional Information on Biological Assessment of
ALUS for Wadable Streams and Rivers 3-27
3.3 Primary Contact Recreation Use 3-33
3.3.1 Bathing Area Closure Data 3-34
3.3.2 Bacteria 3-34
3.3.3 Other Parameters 3-35
3.3.4 Special Considerations for Lakes 3-36
3.4 Fish/Shellfish Consumption Use 3-37
3.5 Drinking Water Use 3-37
3.5.1 Prioritization and Phases of Source Water Assessment 3-38
3.5.2 Tiered Approach for Source Water Assessments .... 3-39
3.5.3 Data Sources 3-40
3.5.4 Contaminants Used in the Assessment 3-42
3.5.5 Data Interpretation 3-43
3.5.6 Conclusion 3-43
4 MEASURING AND REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
INDICATOR 4-1
4.1 Voluntary Pilot Biological Integrity Indicator 4-1
4.2 Phases and Steps in Developing the Indicator 4-2
4.3 Reporting the Biological Integrity Indicator: Case Study .... 4-6
5 REFERENCES 5-1
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Appendix
A Provisions of the Clean Water Act
B Benefits of Rotating Basin Monitoring and Assessment: South Carolina
C Water Environmental Indicators and 305(b) Reporting
D Contaminated Sediment Assessment Methods
E Example of Basin-Level Assessment Information: Arizona
F 305(b) Reporting for Indian Tribes
G Definitions of Selected Source Categories
H Data Sources for 305(b) Assessments
I 305(b) Monitoring and Assessment Design Focus Group Handouts
K Section 106 Monitoring Guidance and Guidance for 303(d) Lists
L Information for Determining Sources of Designated Use Impairment
M Section 319 v. Section 314 Funding
N Examples of 305(b) Wetlands Information
O National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
Number page
1-1 Monitoring, assessment and 305{b) reporting as an interrelated
process 1_2
1-2 Waterbody System printout summarizing assessment results for a
waterbody 1.3
2-1 Comprehensive Statewide and Tribal water quality assessment .... 2-4
2-2 Universe of streams from which to draw a random sample 2-7
2-3 Stratification of streams into three classes 2-7
2-4a Random selection of basins . 2-9
2-4b Random selection of streams within a basin 2-9
2-5 14-digit SCS Watersheds in Eastern North Carolina 2-17
3-1 Monitoring for different designated uses based on a combination of
biological, physical, and chemical measures 3-2
3-2 Determination of ALUS using biological, chemical, toxicological,
and/or habitat data , 3.22
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES
Number
1-1 Assessment Type Codes from the Waterbody System 1-6
1-2 Cause/Stressor Codes from the Waterbody System 1-11
1-3 Source Categories (with National Codes from the Waterbody
System) 1-13
2-1 Approaches for Delineating Waterbodies 2-21
3-1 Hierarchy of Bioassessment Approaches for Evaluation of Aquatic
Life Use Attainment Based on Resident Assemblages . . . 3-6
3-2 Hierarchy of Habitat Assessment Approaches for Evaluation of
Aquatic Life Use Attainment 3-7
3-3 Hierarchy of Toxicological Approaches and Levels for Evaluation of
Aquatic Life Use Attainment i 3-8
3-4 Hierarchy of Physical/chemical Data Levels for Evaluation of Aquatic
Life Use Attainment 3-9
3-5 Recommended Factors for Converting Total Recoverable Metal
Criteria to Dissolved Metal Criteria 3-20
3-6 Determination of ALUS Using More Than One Data Type 3-23
3-7 Assessment Framework for Determining Degree of Drinking Water
Use Support 3-44
4-1 An example of laboratory results from sorting and identification
of a single benthic macroinvertebrate sample 4-9
4-2 Determining the biological integrity indicator for the waterbody .... 4-10
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYM LIST
ADEQ
ADWR
ALUS
ASTM
AWQMN
BMP
BPJ
CAFO
CCC
CLPMS
CMC
CSO
CU
CWA
CZARA
DNREC
DLG
DO
DOE
DQO
DWFG
EMAP
EPA
FDA
FIPS
FWS
GIS
GPS
GRIS
HUC
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Aquatic life use support
American Society for Testing Materials
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
Best management practice
Best professional judgement
Concentrated animal feeding operation
Criteria continuous concentration
Clean Lakes Program Management System
Criteria maximum concentration
Combined sewer overflows
USGS watershed cataloging unit
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation"
Digital line graph (database)
Dissolved oxygen
Washington State Department of Ecology
Data quality objective
305{b) Drinking Water Focus Group
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Federal Information Processing Standard
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Geographic information system
Global positioning satellite system
Grants Reporting and Tracking System
Hydrologic Unit Code
viii
-------
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYM LIST (continued)
ITFM Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
IWI Index of Watershed Indicators
LAN Local Area Network
LWQA Lake Water Quality Assessment
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MDL Method detection limit
NAS National Academy of Science
NAWQA National Ambient Water Quality Assessment Program
NBS National Biological Service
NHD National Hydrographic Dataset
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS Nonpoint source
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSTP NOAA's National Status and Trends Program
NWQMC National Water Quality Monitoring Council (formerly ITFM)
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OPPE EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
ORD EPA Office of Research and Development
OST Office of Science and Technology
OW EPA Office of Water
OWM EPA Office of Wastewater Management
OWOW EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
PACE Annual Census Bureau Survey of Pollution Abatement Costs and
Expenditures
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCS EPA Permit Compliance System
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
PPA Performance Partnership Agreements
PS Point source
PSP Paralytic shellfish poisoning
PWS Public water supply
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYM LIST (continued)
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
RBP Rapid bioassessment protocol
REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
RF3 EPA Reach File Version 3
RTI Research Triangle Institute
SCRF1 Waterbody System Screenfile 1
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SOC Semi-volatile organic compound
SOP Standard operating procedure
STORET EPA STOrage and RETrieval system
TDS Total dissolved solids
TMDL Total maximum daily load
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
UAA Use attainability analysis
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOC Volatile organic compound
WBS EPA Waterbody System
WQC Water quality criteria
WET Whole effluent toxicity
WLA Waste load allocation
WQL Water quality limited
WQS Water quality standard
WRC Water Resource Council
-------
1
I
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
SECTION 1
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
This section describes the basic components of a water quality assessment
including degree of use support, causes (pollutants and other stressors), and
sources of impairment. It also explains several concepts that may have
resulted in inconsistencies in the past, such as the fully supporting but
threatened category, presumed assessments, and natural sources.
1.1 What is an Assessment?
In setting their water quality standards, States assign one or more
designated uses to each individual waterbody. Designated uses are
beneficial uses that States want their waters to support. Examples are
aquatic life support, fish consumption, swimming, and drinking water
supply. Under Section 305(b), assessment of an individual waterbody (e.g.,
a stream segment or lake) means analyzing biological, habitat,
physical/chemical, and/or toxicity data and other information to determine
• The degree of designated use support of the waterbody (fully supporting,
fully supporting but threatened, partially supporting, or not supporting)
• If designated uses are impaired, the causes (pollutants or other stressors)
and sources of the problem
• Degree of achievement of biological integrity using State biological
criteria or other measures.
• Descriptive information such as the type and quality of data used in the
assessment, i
Figure 1-1 illustrates how monitoring, assessment, and reporting are related
for an individual waterbody. Figure 1-2 shows actual assessment results for
a waterbody.
1-1
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
o
Q.
a.
3 «
CO g
w =
— £2
o SJ —
II
1°
en
"3
^c
I
i
Assess.
Protocols
Uses&
Standards
U)
-9>
JD
•«
ii
co ro
§
CO
«.2
OT
W
V
O
O
•a
Oi
+•>
jo
0)
(0
CO
CO
O)
c
"E
o
a.
0)
.a
LO
O
CO
T3
(0
•H*
0)
CO
CO
0)
(0
CO
(0
D)
c
c
o
0)
O)
1-2
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
General Report of All Waterbody Data
(Partial Listing for a Single Waterbody)
08-11-95
Waterbody ID : VT08-01
Waterbody Name: Lower winooski River
Waterbody Type: River
Size:
- Waterbody Location
Basin: 08-Winooski
CU: Not Available
Stream Order: Not Available
Monitoring Stations: Not Available
Boundary States: Not Available
Counties: FIPS Number County Name
Ecoregion number: Not entered
Ecoregion name : Not entered
Description of the Waterbody:
Main Stem - Mouth to Confluence of Alder Brook
Reach Indexing
Next Assessment: Not Available
»»«*=»..«»»»»»»««»««=. waterbody Assessment - Date: 9401 .
Begin Sampling: Not Available
Segment Number: 00
20.00 Miles
End Sampling: Not Available
AQOATIC LIFE SUPPORT
Fully Supported »>
Partially Supported «>
Not Attainable *>
Fully Supported «>
Partially Supported »
Not Attainable «>
Toxics Monitoring -> Y
10-Metals in sediments
0.00
17. SO
0.00
SWIMMABLE
2.SO
17.50
0.00
Threatened
Not Supported
Not Assessed
»>
»
*>
2.50
0.00
0.00
Threatened
Not Supported
•Not Assessed
0.00
0.00
0.00
Media/Pollutants Assessed
Cause Size Mag
0300-Priority organics 17.50 S
0400-Nonpriority organics 2.50 T
OSOO-Metals 17.50 S
0900-Nutrients 17.50 M
3.100-Siltation 17.50 M
1200-Organic enrichment/Low DO 17.50 S
1500-Flow alteration 17.50 M
1700-Pathogens 17.50 M
1900-Oil and grease 17.50 M
2000-Ta«te and odor 17.50 M
Nonattainment Sources
Source
0100-INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES
0200-MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCES
1000-AGRICULTURE
3200-Land Development
4000-URBAN RUNOFF/STORM SEWERS
6300-Landfills
6600-Hazardous Waste
7400-Flow Regulation/Modification
8300-Highway Maintenance And Runoff
8400-Spills
8800-Upstream Impoundment
Size Mag
17.50 M
17.50 M
17.50 S
17.SO E
17.50 H
17.50 S
2.50 T
17.50 M
17.50 M
17.50 S
17.50 M
Figure 1 -2. Waterbody System printout summarizing assessment results for a waterbody
1-3
-------
1^_WATERjiyALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
1.2 Degree of Use Support
Each designated use has its own requirements for a finding of fully
supporting, fully supporting but threatened, partially supporting, or not
supporting. Section 3 of this Guidelines Supplement gives EPA's detailed
recommendations for determining the degree of use support for various
designated uses.
Throughout these Guidelines, the term "impairment" means either partially
supporting or not supporting a designated use.
The category "fully supporting but threatened" requires further explanation.
A waterbody is fully supporting but threatened for a particular designated
use when it fully supports that use now but may not in the future unless
pollution prevention or control action is taken because of anticipated sources
or adverse pollution trends. Such waters are treated as a separate category
from waters fully supporting uses. States should use this category to
describe waters for which actual monitoring or evaluative data indicate an
apparent declining water quality trend (i.e., water quality conditions have
deteriorated, compared to earlier assessments, but the waters still support
uses). States may also choose to include waters for which monitoring or
evaluative data indicate potential water quality problems requiring additional
data or verification.
Fully supporting but threatened is not appropriate during temporary
impairment of designated uses (e.g., due to a construction project in a
watershed). The threatened category may be appropriate prior to
anticipated impairment, but while actual impairment is occurring, partial
support or nonsupport should be reported.
Summarizing Assessment Results in the Report to Congress
EPA uses the following descriptive terms in graphical presentations of degree of designated use
support:
Good Water Quality = Fully Supporting or Fully Supporting but Threatened
Fair Water Quality = Partially Supporting
Poor Water Quality = Not Supporting
Note: Impaired means Partially Supporting or Not Supporting (Fair or Poor)
1-4
-------
JLWATERQUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
1.3 Types of Assessment Information
Each State reports assessments of those waterbodies for which use support
decisions can be based on reliable water quality information. Such
assessments are not limited to waters that have been directly monitored — it
is appropriate in many cases to make judgments based on other information
(see Section 1.4). Waterbodies assessed prior to the current reporting
period can be included in 305(b) reports if the State has the technical basis
to conclude that the assessment results are still valid. It is not appropriate,
however, to claim that waterbodies are fully supporting uses by default in
the absence of sufficient information to make an assessment (see also
Section 1.5).
If statistical survey (probability) designs are used, the results can be
reported relative to the entire resource (e.g., headwater streams in an
ecoregion), not just those waterbodies actually monitored.
Table 1-1 lists categories of information for assessments. These
Assessment Type Codes are from the EPA Waterbody System (WBS). They
provide a wealth of information about the basis for individual assessments.
Assessment Database Managers—For 1997 and beyond, EPA is strongly
encouraging the use of Assessment Type Codes in WBS and other State
assessment data systems. They are important data elements for annual
electronic updates (see Section 6 of the main Guidelines volume).
1.4 Monitored and Evaluated Waters
EPA asks the States to distinguish between assessments based on
monitoring and assessments based on other information.
• "Evaluated waters" are those waterbodies for which the use support
decision is based on information other than current site-specific ambient
data, such as data on land use, location of sources, predictive modeling
using estimated input variables, and some questionnaire surveys of fish
and game biologists. As a general guide, if an assessment is based on
older ambient data (e.g., older than five years), the State should also
consider it "evaluated."
1-5
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 1-1. Assessment Type Codes from the Waterbody System
100 Qualitative (evaluated) assessment—unspecified3
110 Information from local residents
120 Surveys of fish and game biologists/other professionals
130 Land use information and location of sources
140 Incidence of spills, fish kills, or abnormalities
150 Monitoring data that are more than 5 years old
175 Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment (e.g., channelization, dredging,
severe bank erosion)
180 Screening models (desktop models; models are not calibrated or verified)
190 Biological/habitat data extrapolated from upstream or downstream waterbody
191 Physical/chemical.data extrapolated from upstream or downstream waterbody
200 Physical/chemical monitoring1"
210 Fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional pollutants only
211 Highest quality fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional pollutants;
frequency and coverage sufficient to capture acute and chronic events, key periods,
high and low flows
220 Non-fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional pollutants only
222 Non-fixed-station monitoring, conventional, during key seasons and flows
230 Fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional plus toxic pollutants
231 Highest quality fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional plus toxicants;
frequency and coverage sufficient to capture acute and chronic events, key periods,
high and low flows
240 Non-fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional plus toxic pollutants
242 Non-fixed-station physical/chemical monitoring, conventional plus toxicants, during key
seasons and flows
250 Chemical monitoring of sediments
260 Fish tissue analysis
270 Community water supply chemical monitoring (ambient water)
275 Community water supply chemical monitoring (finished water)
300 Biological monitoringb
310 Ecological/habitat surveys
315 Regional reference site approach
320 Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys
321 RBP III or equivalent benthos surveys
322 RBP I or II or equivalent benthos surveys
330 Fish surveys
331 RBP V or equivalent fish surveys
340 Primary producer surveys (phytoplankton, periphyton, and/or macrophyton)
350 Fixed-station biological monitoring
1-6
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 1-1 (continued)
360 Habitat assessment
365 Visual observation, usually at road crossings; professional not required
370 Visual observation, use of land use maps, reference conditions, professional not
required
375 Visual observation, may quantify some parameters; single season typically; by
professional
380 Quantitative measurements of instream parameters, channel morphology, floodplain;
one or two seasons; by professional
400 Pathogen monitoring13
410 Shellfish surveys
420 Water column surveys (e.g., fecal coliform)
430 Sediment analysis
440 Community water supply pathogen monitoring (ambient water)
450 Community water supply pathogen monitoring (finished water)
500 Toxicity testing13
510 Effluent toxicity testing, acute
520 Effluent toxicity testing, chronic
530 Ambient toxicity testing, acute
540 Ambient toxicity testing, chronic
550 Toxicity testing of sediments
600 Modeling0
610 Calibrated models (calibration data are less than five years old)
700 Integrated intensive survey13 (field work exceeds one 24-hour period and multiple
media are sampled)
710 Combined sampling of water column, sediment, and biota for chemical analysis
720 Biosurveys of multiple taxonomic groups (e.g., fish, invertebrates, algae)
Assessments Based on Data from Other Sources
800 Assessments based on data from other sources0
810 Chemical/physical monitoring data by quality-assured volunteer program
820 Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys by quality-assured volunteer program
830 Bacteriological water column sampling by quality-assured volunteer program
840 Discharger self-monitoring data (effluent)
850 Discharger self-monitoring data (ambient)
860 Monitoring data collected by other agencies or organizations (use the assessment
comment field to list other agencies)
870 Drinking water supply closures or advisories (source-water quality based)
1-7
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 1-1 (continued)
Discrepancy in Aquatic Life Assessment Results'1
900 Discrepancy in Aquatic Life Assessment Results
910 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is based on
physical/chemical data
920 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is based on biological
data
925 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is based on habitat
data
930 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is based on toxicity
testing data
940 Discrepancy among different data types; aquatic life assessment is based on qualitative
(evaluated) assessment data
INoto: New codes have been added to include information types in Tables 3-2 and 3-3.]
* Generally considered to be evaluated assessment types.
b Generally considered to be monitored assessment types.
e Considered to be monitored or evaluated assessment types depending on data quality and State assessment
protocols.
d States are requested to use these codes to identify cases when biological, habitat, toxicity, and/or
physical/chemical data show different assessment results.
1-8
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
• "Monitored waters" are those waterbodies for which the use support
decision is principally based on current, site-specific, ambient monitoring
data believed to accurately portray water quality conditions. Waters
with data from biosurveys should be included in this category along with
waters monitored by fixed-station chemical/physical monitoring or
toxicity testing. To be considered "monitored" based on fixed-station
chemical/physical monitoring, waters generally should be sampled
quarterly or more frequently. For specifics on biological monitoring, see
Section 3.
States may use some flexibility in applying these guidelines. For example:
• For the 800 series of codes in Table 1-1, if State-approved quality
assurance/quality control procedures have been applied to volunteer
monitoring programs, waters sampled under these programs could be
considered monitored. However, a State may use its discretion in
making an Assessment Category determination of evaluated vs.
monitored. The State may wish to conduct a comparison to determine
the sensitivity or power of the volunteer method compared to the State's
methods (e.g., volunteer data may prove more useful for identifying
severe impacts than for determining full support). Note: EPA has
developed The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project
Plans. To obtain a copy, contact the Monitoring Branch at (202) 260-
7018.
• If older ambient data exist for high-quality waters located in remote areas
with no known pollutant sources, and if those data are believed to
accurately portray water quality conditions, those waters could be
considered monitored.
EPA and States have been working together to better define the kinds of
data upon which assessment decisions are made. See Tables 3-1 through
3-4.
1.5 Presumed Assessments
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup determined that presumed assessments
are unacceptable. Examples of presumed assessments are
• Assuming that waterbodies are fully supporting by default unless there is
information to the contrary
• Extrapolating assessments from one waterbody or watershed to others
unless they have very similar characteristics
1-9
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
• Extrapolating the "percentage of assessed stream miles that are fully
supporting" to all streams in the State without adequate scientific basis
such as probability-based monitoring design.
Note: If waterbodies are monitored using survey designs, results can be
extrapolated.
EPA encourages States to report on all waters for which there is a
reasonable technical basis for evaluation. A reasonable basis could include a
judgment that a stream is not supporting uses based on channelization, a
highly disturbed watershed, or data from nearby streams with similar
characteristics.
In addition, EPA recommends that data from a single monitoring station not
be used to generate a monitored assessment of an entire watershed.
Rather, a monitoring station can be considered representative of a
waterbody for that distance upstream and/or downstream in which there are
no significant influences to the waterbody that might tend to change water
quality within the zone represented by the monitoring station. See
Section 2.1.
1.6 Causes of Impairment {Pollutants and Other Stressors)
Causes of impairment are those pollutants and other stressors that
contribute to the impairment of designated uses in a waterbody. In the
remainder of these Guidelines the term "cause/stressor" is used. Table 1-2
lists cause/stressor codes from the WBS. States can also add their own
codes to WBS to track additional causes. At the States' request, EPA has
added new subcategories under Code 0500 and Code 0900 to track specific
metals and nutrients.
How to Avoid Double-counting of Causes/Stressors
WBS Users—If you use the new subcategories for metals/nutrients or add
cause/stressor codes to WBS, you must enter a total size for each major
category of causes/stressors (the bold categories in Table 1-2; e.g., 0500-
Metafs or 0200-Pesticides) for each waterbody. This is necessary because there may be
overlap among the subcategories of causes/stressors.
Non-WBS Users—Like WBS, most customized waterbody-level databases must also track a total
size for each major category of causes/stressors (the bold categories in Table 1 -2) in order to
avoid overlap among subcategories.
1-10
-------
1
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
•^^••••^^^^•^^•^^•mass^a • .— - t
Table 1 -2. Cause/Stressor Codes from the Waterbody System
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0410
0420
0500
0600
0700
0720
0750
0800
0900
Cause Unknown
Unknown Toxicity
Pesticides
Priority Organics
Nonpriority Organics
PCBs
Dioxins
Metals
0510 Arsenic
0520 Cadmium
0530 Copper
0540 Chromium
0550 Lead
0560 Mercury
0570 Selenium
0580 Zinc
Ammonia (un-ionized)
Chlorine
Cyanide
Sulfates
Other Inorganics
Nutrients
0910 Phosphorus
0920 Nitrogen
0990 Other
1000 pH
1100 Siltation
1200 Organic
Enrichment\Low
Dissolved Oxygen
1300 Salinity/Total Dissolved
Solids/Chlorides/Sulfates
1400 Thermal Modifications
1500 Flow Alterations
1600 Habitat Alterations (other
than flow)
1700 Pathogens
1800 Radiation
1900 Oil and Grease
2000 Taste and Odor
2100 Suspended Solids
2200 Noxious Aquatic Plants
(native macrophytes)3
2210 Excessive Algal Growth/
Chlorophyll a
2400 Total Toxics
2500 Turbidity
2600 Exotic Species
NOTES: In addition to the above, WBS users can enter their own customized cause codes. See WBS
Users Guide.
Codes 0200 through 0800 are toxicants for purposes of WBS reports.
Filling and draining is considered a source (Source Code 7800) and no longer appears in the
above table.
Bold type indicates a major cause category; regular type indicates a subcategory.
aNon-native plants should be handled under Category 2600.
1-11
-------
1 . WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS
In Table 1-2, bold type indicates a major cause/stressor category and regular
type indicates a subcategory. See the highlight box entitled "How to Avoid
Double-counting of Causes/Stressors" regarding the importance of storing
size data for major cause/stressor categories, not just subcategories.
1 .7 Sources of Impairment
Sources are the activities, facilities, or conditions that contribute pollutants
or stressors resulting in impairment of designated uses in a waterbody.
Table 1-3 lists source codes from the WBS. States can also add their own
source codes to the WBS. Appendix G provides definitions of selected
source categories.
In Table 1-3, bold type indicates a major source category and regular type
indicates a subcategory of that major category. See the highlight box
entitled "How to Avoid Double-counting of Sources" regarding the
importance of storing size data for all applicable major source categories, not
just subcategories.
Determining the sources of designated use impairment can be a difficult
process. Ambient monitoring data can give good evidence of the causes of
impairment. In some cases, field observations can provide information on
obvious, nearby problems; e.g., land use, substrate, and habitat may provide
a basis for identifying sources. This is especially the case for
"hydromodification" sources.
In most cases, additional information is needed-watershed land use
inventories, records of permit compliance, locations of areas with highly
erodible soils, areas with poor best management practice (BMP)
implementation, measurements of in-place contaminants, or loadings from
atmospheric transport or ground water.
Assessment Database Managers— Agriculture is the only source category
with three tiers of codes (see Table 1-3). EPA asks States to track size data
for the "1000— Agriculture" code and at least the next tier ("1050— Crop-
related Sources", etc.)
m
•
±.
p^sL- - aDJ-^ll
1-12
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 1-3. Source Categories (with National Codes from the Waterbody System)
0100 Industrial Point Sources
0110 Major Industrial Point Sources
0120 Minor Industrial Point Sources
0200 Municipal Point Sources
0210 Major Municipal Point Sources-
0212 Major Municipal Point Sources-
0214 Major Municipal Point Sources-
0220 Minor Municipal Point Sources-
0222 Minor Municipal Point Sources-
0224 Minor Municipal Point Sources-
0230 Package Plants (Small Flows)
-dry and/or wet weather discharges
-dry weather discharges*
-wet weather discharges*
-dry and/or wet weather discharges
-dry weather discharges*
-wet weather discharges*
0400 Combined Sewer Overflow
0500 Collection System Failure*
0900 Domestic Wastewater Lagoon
1000 Agriculture**
1050 Crop-related Sources*
1100 Nonirrigated Crop Production
1200 Irrigated Crop Production
1300 Specialty Crop Production (e.g., horticulture, citrus, nuts, fruits)
1350 Grazing-related Sources*
1400 Pasture grazing—Riparian and/or Upland
1410 Pasture Grazing-Riparian*
1420 Pasture Grazing-Upland*
1500 Range Grazing—Riparian and/or Upland
1510 Range Grazing-Riparian *
1520 Range Grazing-Upland*
1600 Intensive Animal Feeding Operations*
1620 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs; permitted, PS)
1 640 Confined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS)
1700 Aquaculture
2000 Silviculture
2100 Harvesting, Restoration, Residue Management
2200 Forest Management (e.g., pumped drainage, fertilization, pesticide
application)
2300 Logging Road Construction/Maintenance
2400 Silvicultural Point Sources
1-13
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 1-3 (continued)
3000 Construction
3100 Highway/Road/Bridge Construction
3200 Land Development
4000 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
4100 Nonindustrial Permitted
4200 Industrial Permitted
4300 Other Urban Runoff
4400 Illicit connections/illegal hook-ups/dry weather flows*
4500 Highway/Road/Bridge Runoff*
4600 Erosion and Sedimentation*
5000 Resource Extraction
5100 Surface Mining
5200 Subsurface Mining
5300 Placer Mining
5400 Dredge Mining
5500 Petroleum Activities
5600 Mill Tailings
5700 Mine Tailings
5800 Acid Mine Drainage
5900 Abandoned mining*
5950 Inactive mining*
6000 Land Disposal
6100 Sludge
6200 Wastewater
6300 Landfills
6350 Inappropriate Waste Disposal/Wildcat Dumping*
6400 Industrial Land Treatment
6500 Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks)
6600 Hazardous Waste
6700 Septage Disposal
7000 Hydromodification
7100 Channelization
7200 Dredging
7300 Dam Construction
7350 Upstream Impoundment
7400 Flow Regulations/Modification
1-14
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Table 1-3 (continued)
7550 Habitat Modification (other than Hydromodification)
760Q Removal of Riparian Vegetation
7700 Bank or Shoreline Modification/Destabilization
7800 Drainage/Filling of Wetlands
7900 Marinas and Recreational Boating*
7910 In-water releases*
7920 On-land releases*
8050 Erosion from derelict land*
8100 Atmospheric Deposition
8200 Waste Storage/Storage Tank Leaks (above ground)
8250 Leaking underground storage tanks*
8300 Highway Maintenance and Runoff
8400 Spills (Accidental)
8500 Contaminated Sediments
8520 Debris and bottom deposits*
8530 Internal nutrient cycling (primarily lakes)*
8540 Sediment resuspension*
8600 Natural Sources
8700 Recreation and Tourism Activities (other than Boating; see 7900)
8710 Golf courses*
8900 Salt Storage Sites
8910 Groundwater Loadings
8920 Groundwater Withdrawal
8950 Other
9000 Unknown Source
9050 Sources outside State Jurisdiction or Borders*
Notes:
Bold type indicates a major source category; regular type indicates a subcategory.
In addition to the above codes, WBS users can enter their own customized source codes.
Code 8000 for "Other" has been deleted because it resulted in significant loss of detail
nationwide.
See Appendix G for definitions of selected source categories.
* Codes changed or added since 1996 Guidelines.
** Agriculture is the only major source category with three tiers of codes (such as codes
1000, 1050, and 1100). EPA asks States to report size data for the
"1000—Agriculture" code plus one or both of the other two tiers.
1-15
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
How to Avoid Double-Counting of Sources
WBS Users—WBS can be used to generate the 305(b) summary report,
"Total Sizes of Waters Impaired by Various Source Categories." However, to
use the WBS to generate this table, enter a total size for each major category
of sources (i.e,, the bold categories in Table 1-3 such as 1000-Agriculture and 2000-
SiJvicuIture). This is necessary because there may be overlap among the subcategories of
sources.
Non-WBS Users—Your customized database must also track major source categories (the bold
categories in Table 1-3) at the waterbody level.
A modeling framework can be helpful, especially where a variety of sources
could be involved. Even a simple annual average export-coefficient
screening model can help determine if particular source categories are
significant contributors to impairment. A well-rounded assessment process,
therefore, might involve monitoring, an inventory of land uses and point
source contributions for a watershed, and, where appropriate, a screening-
level model to rank and prioritize the relative impacts of different source
categories.
Appendix H lists types of information that can be used to determine sources
of water quality impairment.
Natural Sources
The Natural Sources category should be reserved for waterbodies impaired
due to naturally occurring conditions (i.e., not caused by, or otherwise
related to, past or present human activity) or due to catastrophic conditions.
In the past, some States have used natural sources as a catch-all category
for unknown sources, this gives an inaccurate picture of the extent of
natural sources at both State and national levels. States should use the
natural sources category only for clearly defined cases, including:
• Saline water due to natural mineral salt deposits
• Metals due to naturally occurring deposits
• Low dissolved oxygen (DO) or pH caused by poor aeration or natural
organic materials, where no human-related sources are present or where
impairment would occur even in the absence of human activity
1-16
-------
1. WATER QUALITYASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
• Excessive siltation due to glacial till or turbidity due to glacial flour, where
such siltation is not caused by human activity or where impairment would
occur even in the absence of human activity
• Habitat loss or pollutant loads due to catastrophic floods that are
excluded from water quality standards or other regulations
!•
• High temperature, low DO, or high concentrations of pollutants due to
catastrophic droughts with flows less than design flows in water quality
standards.
The Natural Sources category does not include, for example, low flows due
to diversions resulting in low DO; drainage from abandoned mines resulting
in low pH; stormwater runoff resulting in habitat destruction, high
temperatures, or other impacts except under catastrophic conditions; or
atmospheric deposition of heavy metals where human-induced emissions are
a factor.,
In many cases. State water quality standards already take into account
natural conditions (e.g., a "fish and wildlife/swamp waters" classification in
the Southeast where naturally-occurring low DO is allowed), in such cases,
the waterbody is not reported as impaired. In other cases where standards
do not allow for natural conditions, impairment by a natural source may still
be beyond a State's capability to correct for technical or economic reasons.
A use attainability analysis (UAA) should be done to determine if designated
uses are attainable or if other uses are more appropriate for a waterbody.
Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators can provide information on
conducting UAAs. In the absence of a UAA, EPA recognizes that States
should report impairment due to natural sources even in cases where
standards could be overly restrictive or in need of revision.
1.8 Cause/Source Linkage
States are requested to link causes/stressors with sources for waterbodies
in their assessment databases where possible. A special cause/source link
field is provided in WBS for this purpose. Linked cause/source data are
important for answering State resource management questions. For
example, the question "Which waterbodies are impaired due to nutrients
from agricultural runoff?" cannot be answered if the cause/source link is not
used.
The following chart illustrates what happens when causes and sources are
not linked. Although valuable information is stored, one cannot tell which
sources are associated with which pollutants or stressors:
1-17
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
Causes and Sources Not Linked
Waterbody
WBID = XX-012
Mill Creek above Brook Branch
Causes (pollutants/stressors)
Nutrients, siltation, thermal
modification
Sources
(not linked with causes)
Urban runoff, removal of
riparian vegetation, municipal
point sources
The following chart shows how the same causes and sources can be
associated with each other using the WBS link variable:
Causes and Sources Linked
Waterbody
WBID - XX-012
Mill Creek above Brook Branch
Causes (pollutants/stressors)
Nutrients
Nutrients
Siltation
Thermal modification
Thermal modification
Sources (linked with causes)
Urban runoff
Municipal point sources
Removal of riparian vegetation
Urban runoff
Removal of riparian vegetation
For help in accomplishing this link, WBS users and non-WBS users are urged
to contact WBS Technical Support at the number on page ii for more
information.
1.9 Major/Moderate/Minor Contribution to Impairment
Section 4 of the main Guidelines volume requests determination of the
relative contribution to impairment of causes and sources of pollution.
The definitions of major/moderate/minor contributions in these Guidelines
now reflect the severity of impairment rather than the number of sources
contributing. The 1994 definitions, for example, required that a source be
labeled "major" if it is the only source of impairment on a waterbody,
regardless of the severity of impairment. The current definitions are:
• Major contribution: A cause/stressor or source makes a major
contribution to impairment if it is the only one responsible for nonsupport
of any designated use or it predominates over other causes/sources.
1-18
-------
1. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 305(b)
• Moderate contribution: A cause/stressor or source is the only one
responsible for partial support of any use, predominates over other
causes/sources of partial support, or is one of multiple causes/sources of
nonsupport that have a significant impact on designated use attainment.
• Minor contribution: A cause/source is one of multiple causes/sources
responsible for nonsupport or partial support and is judged to contribute
relatively little to this nonattainment.
The major/moderate/minor designations are difficult to quantify and will
continue to reflect the best professional judgment of the data analyst. For
example, multiple minor causes/stressors or sources or multiple moderate
causes/sources could be interpreted to add up to nonsupport. States are
asked to clarify how they use magnitude codes in their annual electronic
reporting data dictionaries.
1-19
-------
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
SECTION 2
DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
This section discusses several topics related to the overall operation of State
water quality assessment programs:
• The extent of individual assessments
• Comprehensively characterizing waters of the State through a
combination of targeted and probabilistic monitoring designs
• Delineating waterbodies and watersheds
• Managing assessment data
2.1 Extent of Individual Assessments
The extent or size of a
waterbody that is represented
by a given monitoring station
is important because it affects
the quality of assessment
results. For example, low
assessment quality can result
when a large segment of
stream or a large lake is
assessed based on a single
monitoring site. The 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup
discussed this topic in 1994
and concluded that only
general guidance can be given
at this time, as follows.
Because of the importance of
site-specific considerations,
EPA discourages the use of
uniform default values for the
A monitoring station can be considered
representative of a stream waterbody for a
distance upstream and downstream that has
no significant influences that might tend to
change water quality or habitat quality. A
significant influence can be
• A point or nonpoint source input to the
waterbody or its tributaries
• A change in watershed characteristics
such as land use
• A change in riparian vegetation, stream
banks, substrate, slope, or channel
morphology
• A large tributary or diversion
• A hydrologic modification such as
channelization or a dam.
2-1
-------
g^DESIGNING^ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
size of waterbody represented by a single monitoring site. For streams,
States should consider the upstream and downstream characteristics of
each monitoring station and its watershed in arriving at an extent of
assessment. A single site should not be used to assess an entire watershed
unless land use, sources, and habitat are relatively homogeneous (e.g., as is
sometimes the case in undeveloped areas) and the observed stressor is
consistent with watershed-wide impacts.
In general, a wadable stream station probably should represent no more than
five to 10 miles of stream. For large rivers, EPA believes that 25 miles is a
reasonable upper limit for a single station unless stream-specific data
demonstrate otherwise. However, some large western rivers may have no
significant influences for more than 25 miles, as is the case in New Mexico
where a few stations on large rivers are believed to represent 50 to 75 miles
each.
For lakes, the factors that affect the number of monitoring sites needed per
lake are complex. They include purpose of the sampling, lake size,
stratification, morphometry, flow regime, and tributaries. No simple
guideline for size assessed per station can be given. Reckhow and Chapra
(1983) discuss monitoring design for lakes and the potential problems
associated with sampling only a single site. Similarly, no specific guidelines
are available for the extent of assessment of estuarine monitoring sites. The
Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) has used a CIS to draw circles
around each monitoring site; the site is considered to represent the area
within its circle. Open water stations represent an area within a 4-mile
radius, most bay stations represent an area within a 2-mile radius, and
highly sheltered bay sites represent an area within a 0.5-mile radius. DOE
uses circles in part to emphasize the uncertainty associated with the extent
of assessment for estuarine sites.
EPA asks States to provide information in the Assessment Methodology
Sections of their 1998 305(b) reports on how they determine extent of
waterbody represented by a single assessment or monitoring site.
2.2 Comprehensive Statewide Assessment
EPA, States and Tribes are moving toward a goal of comprehensively
characterizing waters of the States and Tribes using a variety of monitoring
techniques based on the condition of, and goals for, the waters. Achieving
this goal would mean a significant increase in the percentage of waters
assessed throughout the Nation. For example, in their 1996 305(b) reports,
the States assessed approximately 19 percent of the Nation's total stream
miles (including intermittent streams, canals, and ditches); this amounted to
less than half of the Nation's perennial stream miles. Achieving the goal of
2-2
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
comprehensive coverage will require a combination of monitoring
approaches including both targeted and probability-based monitoring as well
as aggregation of acceptable data from a variety of agencies and sources.
Figure 2-1 shows several aspects of monitoring, assessment, and reporting
that will be important to realizing the goal.
The traditional means used by EPA to meet the 305(b) requirements has
been to compile information from individual States, Territories, Tribes, and
interstate basin commissions. In general, such data come from a diverse set
of monitoring programs, each of which is based on its own valid purpose.
One of the difficulties that arises from this process is differences in overall
objectives. On the one
hand, EPA is required to
report on the condition of
the Nation's aquatic
resources as a whole,
implying either a national
census of the resource or
a sample survey from
which inferences about
the entire resource can
be drawn. On the other
hand, States often select
monitoring locations with
specific, local purposes in
mind. A compilation of
such data for regional or
national assessments is
subject to question about
the representativeness of
these locations for
making comprehensive
assessments; i.e., to
what extent might the
resultant assessment be
biased by the non-
random selection of
monitoring locations as
well as the incomplete
coverage of the State or
Tribal lands?
Comprehensive Assessment: An evaluation
of resources that provides complete spatial
coverage of the geographic area or resource
being studied; it provides information on
assessment value (condition of the resource),
spatial and temporal trends in resource
condition, causes/stressors and sources of
pollution, and locational information.
Sample Survey (Probability-Based) Design: A
sampling design based on selection of sites
or sample locations using some aspect of
randomization; allows statistically-valid
inferences to be drawn on a population as a
whole.
Conventional or Targeted Design: Targeted
site selection is used to answer specific
questions regarding the condition of a site or
area.
Judgmental (Sample Survey) Design: Non-
random selection of sampling sites with the
intent of using assessment results for
drawing inferences on a population as a
whole.
2-3
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
-Q
S
«- «-s
s £,
(i; o
•a!
*» 5
U r-
.S I
3 S5
*• §
is
B"«
te u
2 "°
.S -I
65 a
p
s *•
?•§
II
•o
c
TO £
.E ~
•c "5
OJ
cc
° "o ^
T3
C
«
0) CO
5?'co
(0 ••».
*—
iO
tn
CO
*••
«
a
g -
(S £
0)
Q)
a
TO
o
O C
•a a>
Si E
i *"
0) CO
*- a>
,J2 ">
OT J2
CD -a
C Oi
*S -c
11
"" n
^S
0
.—
a
-o
e
=
c
o
E
0
CO
«
~
u
cJ
•EJ
—
13
sSr
eo
'5
o
E
u
.—
e
«
o
-2
o
E
0
00
^
9J
1 5
o. °
ao «
•S 0
0 0
E S.
„
,s
a
•a
£J
>
'w' o
a 2
0 CO
•a "o
e .c
O i.
(J ^
B
"=
e .2?
2 S3
o* "°
•— .—
°* to
'C "^
1 "i
o o-
o
S 5
o e
O CO
U)
2
- a
> -2
" M
.5 js
S s
^2
g
rq
jj
0
C
2
aq
•c
o
'S
^
OJ)
.s
o
'S
o
s
II
(—
'C
O
'5
o
"t?
• S
0
E
CO
0)
CO
CO
(0
3
CT
0)
CD
"JO
T3
re
0)
•H1
CD
0)
'w
0)
£
a.
E
o
O
(N
1
D5
iZ
2-4
-------
SESSMENTC AND MANAGING INFORMATION
2.2.1 General Types of Monitoring Designs
The section is intended to expand upon these fundamental differences in
general objectives; to describe the types of questions each of the monitoring
approaches is intended to address and some of the strengths and
weaknesses of the approaches; and to provide some initial recommendations
toward more comprehensive assessments. The term "sample survey" is
used to describe monitoring designs for producing representative data for
regional (statewide, basinwide, ecoregional) or national assessments. The
term "conventional or targeted" is used to describe monitoring designs that
are more local in scope and that tend to focus on a particular problem, or on
sites that are selected for a specific local issue. A "judgmental" monitoring
design refers to selecting sites for assessing a broader geographic area and
assuming that they are representative of that area (non-random selection).
EPA recognizes that most States would need to make programmatic or
design adjustments in their monitoring efforts to meet national-, regional-, or
State-scale objectives as well as more site-specific data needs.
Sample surveys are
intended to produce
snapshots of the condition
of an entire resource
Examples of Monitoring Questions
Site Specific: What is the biological condition
. . of Jamster Creek? (targeted monitoring
when that resource n most often uged)
cannot be subject to a
Regional: What is the biological condition of
lakes in the mid-Atlantic coastal plain?
(requires probability-based monitoring design
or defensible judgmental design in the
absence of a census)
census (monitoring of
every waterbody).
Sample surveys rely on
the selection of
monitoring sites that are
representative of the
resource. Randomization
in the site selection process is one way to ensure that the sites represent
the resource of interest. These surveys are often called probability-based or
statistical sample surveys.
An alternative is to select sites judgmentally, based on some criterion other
than randomness. Judgmental selection of sites is based on the judgment
of the monitoring agency that the sites are representative of the target
resource. Such judgmentally-based sample surveys require strong defense
regarding the representativeness of the sites so selected, and it may not be
possible to estimate the uncertainty with which inferences are made as it is
when using probability-based sample surveys.
Targeted designs allow questions to be addressed that are focused on site-
specific problems, and the aggregation of these site-specific results to make
2-5
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
comprehensive assessments is open to question regarding the
representativeness of those sites to the resource as a whole. State
monitoring programs that combine aspects of the two general approaches
(survey designs and targeted designs) may be necessary to provide data and
assessments useful at multiple geographic scales from site-specific to
national. Appendix I provides some of the advantages and disadvantages of
probability-based, targeted, and judgmental monitoring and also examples of
the types of questions that can be addressed by each.
2.2.2 Planning Process for Probability-based Sampling in a Rotating Basin Design
Considerable planning is required to define the particular classes of
waterbodies of interest, but the end result can be a cost-effective,
defensible and rigorous process for making inferences about all waterbodies
in an area.
The initial step in random selection is definition of the target population
(e.g., all lakes over 10 acres or all streams of the State). To characterize all
streams of a State, basin, or watershed, the agency would do a simple
random selection of locations from within the appropriate boundaries
(Figure 2-2). However,
stream segments could
be stratified based on
watershed, stream
sizes (e.g., first,
second, or third-order),
ecoregion, or even
predominant land
use/land cover.
Random selection of
stream locations for
sampling then occurs
within each grouping.
Target Population (Stratum): A group of
potential sampling locations (or assessment
units) that is some subset of the total
population of sampling units.
Geographic Scale: Spatial breadth or size;
can be based on political unit (e.g., state,
county, or municipality), basin or watershed
(e.g., the Anacostia River Watershed, the
Columbia River Basin), region (e.g., the
Huron-Erie Lake Plain ecoregion, the Pacific
coastal Mountain ecoregion), or resource
(e.g., the Okefenokee Swamp, the
Everglades).
Figure 2-3 represents
the stratification of
streams into three
classes. Techniques
are available to ensure even distribution of sampling sites among the classes
or strata and across the resource (or State or basin). The selection process
would depend on geographic scale or monitoring questions and objectives.
Such a probability-based design can provide assessment data that are useful
not only for each class of streams individually, but that can be aggregated
into a broader-scale resource assessment. It would also allow extrapolation
of sources and causes/stressors to broader geographic scales.
2-6
-------
2, DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
1
5
9
13
2
6
10
14
3
7
11
15
4
8
^
12
16
V
State
Stream reaches
Figure 2-2. Universe of streams from which to draw a random sample
1
5
,/
/ F >
^g, y *— » '
S ^ t
•/S& S
13
" t ""* i-
^ *. / ^ ""^
Jfy^yV
6
10
-:'H^r
v * * ***
3
7
11
15
y« _ ^,-5. ^" "
&%g^?~£
T>'4' '
'"'l^/'
f B^
12
16
Site Class 1
Site Class 2
Site Class 3
Figure 2-3. Stratification of streams into three classes
2-7
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
2.2.3 Stratified Probability in a Rotating Basin Design
Year
Basin
No.
1997
7
15
8
6
1998
9
2
11
.-
1999
4
14
3
-
2000
1
5
16
-
2001
10
13
12
-
Incorporating
stratified
probability design
into a monitoring
program could
enable a more
efficient and
effective sampling
of all of a State's
major basins. If a
State is willing to
select its order of rotating basins randomly, the State could potentially
obtain results, even in the early year(s), that are meaningful and valid for
statewide assessment. To apply such a design, begin with a random
selection of three to four basins to be sampled in each year (Figure 2-4a).
The sampling schedule in the text box above is an example of the results for
a State with 16 basins. Randomized selection of basins is not necessary,
and the State can select the order of basins on a priority basis.
The second phase of site selection is random selection of stream reaches
from within each of the basins. For example, there are 1 6 stream segments
in Basin 6 (Figure 2-4b). Random selection of a subset of stream segments
from within Basin 6 allows aggregation of assessment results into a
statistically-valid basinwide assessment.
Referring to the above
schedule box, following the
1997 sampling season,
there would be four basin
assessments to aggregate
for a statewide assessment;
after 1999, there would be
10 basin assessments to
aggregate for a statewide
assessment, and so forth.
With each subsequent year,
the confidence associated
with statewide assessments
increases. In the first year ^^^^^^™^^^^~~"
of the second cycle (2002
in this example), the basin rotation would begin again.
A stratified design can be used to focus on a
class of waterbodies for which there has
been little previous data collection. For
example, larger rivers and streams of some
States are well-represented by historical,
fixed-station sampling networks, while only a
small percentage of headwater streams are
assessed. Maryland has applied stratified
random design to first- through third-order
streams to greatly increase the percentage of
its total miles assessed. Delaware selects
sampling from all points where roads cross
streams.
2-8
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
State X
Basin 6
Selected
^
1
5
9
13
2
^6
10
14
3
7
11
15
4
8
12
16
Figure 2-4a. Random selection of basins
Basin 6
Stream F
^
A
E
I
M
B
^F
J
N
C
G
K
0
D
H
L
P
Figure 2-4b. Random selection of streams within a basin
2-9
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
Note: The above is one approach to incorporating probability-based
sampling into rotating basin monitoring. Another approach is to use a
repeated statewide survey yearly, complimented by targeted monitoring and
assessment according to the State's rotating-basin schedule.
EPA/ORD Corvallis is available to provide technical support in designing
probability-based rotating basin surveys through coordination with the
Regional 305(b) Coordinator. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) has developed expertise in the area of
probability surveys and in establishing a mechanism to help States
investigate and implement probability-based designs for their specific needs.
2.2.4 Case Studies of Different Types of Monitoring Designs
Probability-based Sample Survey Design: State of Delaware
A probability-based sampling design was developed to assess the ecological
condition of Delaware's nontidal streams by the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Conservation (DNREC). The results were used
to produce unbiased estimates of biological and physical habitat condition
for the State's 305(b) reports. The area of the State containing nontidal
streams was estimated from National Wetlands Inventory data on the
State's 35 major watersheds. A list of 3,200 locations where roadways
cross a nontidal stream was produced using a GIS. Sampling sites were
then selected randomly from this list and sampled during the Fall of 1993.
The design was selected to reduce the time necessary to reach specific
locations on nontidal streams. The underlying assumption is that road
crossings are an accurate representation of nontidal stream resources in
Delaware. This assumption is currently being tested.
Ninety-six sites were selected in the northern two counties using this
approach; benthic macroinvertebrate and habitat data were collected at all
locations. Results of the habitat assessment were presented in Delaware's
1994 305(b) report. The majority of the 1357 miles of nontidal streams in
the two counties had impaired physical habitat; 65% were severely impaired
(i.e., 'poor'} and 22% were moderately impaired (i.e., 'fair'). The habitat
results were also reported as three strata within the two counties: one
stratum comprising all of Kent County (32 sites); another, the piedmont
region of New Castle County (26 sites); and the third, the coastal plain of
New Castle County (38 sites). Thus, the probability design allowed
reporting of results at two geographic scales: 1) the two counties
aggregated, and 2) the two counties individually and separated by
physiographic region or topography.
2-10
-------
^DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
The above description of the Delaware program is taken directly from "The
use of a probability-based sampling design to assess the ecological condition
of Delaware streams" (Maxted, 1996).
Judgmental Sample Survey Design: State of Washington
This approach is referred to as the 'representative sampling approach' by the
staff of the State of Washington, Department of Ecology. They reviewed all
existing monitoring stations to determine why existing sampling locations
were selected. If stations were selected because they were judged to be
representative of the type of water within a watershed, they will be used in
the sampling network and aggregated to a statewide assessment.
Alternatively, if stations were selected because of their position relative to a
known problem, such as those downstream of a specific discharge, they will
not be used as part of a statewide assessment. Data from the latter sites
will continue to be used strictly for site-specific assessments; the former will
provide site-specific assessments that can be aggregated into a regional
(statewide, ecoregional) assessment.
All sites determined as appropriate for the statewide assessment will be
initially stratified by ecoregion and waterbody type under the assumption
that collectively these sites are representative of all waters within their
particular stratum. This assumption will be tested by direct comparison to
results provided by the strictly probabilistic design of EPA Region 10
REMAP. Although one concern may be that the selection process could be
biased against selecting problem sites, preliminary results show an increased
percentage of stations exhibiting impairment compared to a strict probability
design.
The Washington Department of Ecology provided background material for
the above description of their program.
Combined Probability-based Sample Survey and Conventional Designs:
Prince George's County, Maryland
The Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources (DER)
recently designed and piloted a county-wide biological monitoring program.
The County is located in the middle Atlantic coastal plain region and has
flowing surface waters that drain into the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers,
which themselves drain into the Chesapeake Bay. The County wants to
answer questions at various geographic scales including stream-specific,
watershed-wide, and county-wide and to have sampled all watersheds over
a 5-year period. It was necessary to be able to have valid county-wide
assessments from the first year of the program and to be able to address
problems from known point sources.
2-11
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
NFS Monitoring and Evaluation Guide
A nonpoint source (NFS) pollution monitoring and evaluation (M&E) guide is available for use by
those who fund and approve M&E plans and those who perform the monitoring. The guide
discusses the various objectives of NFS pollution M&E, biological monitoring for NFS pollution,
and qualify assurance/quality control aspects, and includes an extensive chapter on statistical
methods for the evaluation of NFS pollution monitoring data. Appendices contain abstracts and
content listings of over 40 guidance documents related to monitoring both point and nonpoint
source pollution programs.
Federal, State and regional agencies that support M&E activities might use the guide to assess
the technical merit of proposed plans. Those agencies, private groups, and university personnel
that perform M&E might use the guide to formulate their plans. The guide is in no way intended
to supersede proven NFS pollution M&E plans currently in use, but it is intended as both a check
against existing plans and an outline for developing new NFS pollution M&E plans. To obtain a
copy contact the NFS Branch at (202) 260-7110.
The unit of assessment was defined as a channel segment of a wadable,
nontidal river or stream into which no tributary flows. The number of
assessment units within the County was determined from maps to be
approximately 1000. This target population was prestratified (subdivided or
grouped) by the following: northern and southern parts of the County,
watershed, and order (first through fourth). Step 1 was to randomly select
four to five watersheds (alternating between north and south) until about 25
percent of the total population, or 200 stream segments, had accumulated.
Then, from within each watershed, approximately 25 percent from each of
the groups of first, second, and third order segments were randomly
selected. Fourth order segments, if they were represented in a particular
watershed, were automatically selected since their occurrence was so rare
within the County. This process resulted in a rotating basin design where,
over a 6-year period, a total of 254 probability sites would be sampled per
index period. Each of the 41 watersheds would have 25 percent of its first
order streams sampled, 25 percent of its second order, and 25 percent of its
third order.
Twenty to 25 specific streams with known problems or special projects
would also be sampled and would be used for evaluating the effectiveness
of stream restoration projects, remediation of stormwater outfalls,
implementation of BMPs, or the effects of specific discharges.
2.2.5 Improving Monitoring Designs through Modeling
Calibrated empirical and process models hold the potential to estimate in-
stream quality based on landscape and other stressor factors. This active
2-12
-------
AND MANAGING INFORMATION
area of research links landscape ecology with instream indicators of
biological, habitat and chemical quality (e.g., correlating the Index of
Biological Integrity with land use and other factors). While probability-based
monitoring gives reliable estimates of condition over wide areas, models can
provide comprehensive screening for potential problem areas that should be
sampled to confirm problems. That is, calibrated empirical and/or process
models relating landscape and other stresses to instream condition can
potentially provide reliable estimates of where additional problems are likely
to be found and thus can result in better targeted monitoring approaches.
Statisticians refer to this approach as "model-based inferences." These
models may be an additional tool for States in their efforts to use all
available monitoring network approaches to answer key questions such as:
"what is the desired condition, where are our problems, and are we making
progress over wide areas over time?" A potential synergy among
approaches is that data from probability-based efforts could be used to
construct the models needed for better screening and targeting. References
regarding linking landscape ecology with instream indicators of biological
habitat and chemical quality include Zucker and White (1996), Roth et al.
(1996), Jones et al. (1996), and U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1996.
2.3 Watershed and Waterbody Delineation
The waterbody is the basic unit-of-record for water quality assessment
information. That is, most States assess individual waterbodies and store
assessment results at this level— results such as degree of use support,
causes/stressors, sources, and type of monitoring. The States have defined
waterbodies in various ways, from short stream segments and individual
lakes to entire watersheds.
The paragraphs below describe features of watersheds and waterbodies and
common approaches to their delineation. One goal of this section is to help
States make the best decisions about watershed and waterbody delineation,
thereby avoiding their need to repeat the process later. Another goal is to
ensure that whatever process is selected, it will result in data that can be
related to standard watersheds such as USGS Cataloging Units and Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) watersheds to allow data
aggregation at various scales. The proper delineation of individual
waterbodies is time-consuming but critically important to a State's 305(b)
program. Many States have found it necessary to re-delineate waterbodies
after only a few years based on previously unrecognized data needs. EPA
urges any State that is considering re-delineating its waterbodies to contact
the National 305(b) Coordinator for information about approaches and the
experience of other States.
2-13
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
USGS Hydrologic Units
The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) is a system developed by the USGS and
adopted as a national standard. This system divides the United States into
four levels of hydrologic units for purposes of water resources planning and
data management:
• Region (2-digit code)
• Subregion (4-digit code)
• Accounting Unit (6-digit code)
• Cataloging Unit (8-digit code)
Note: NRCS has added two additional levels of watersheds. Figure 1-3
shows an 8-digit USGS Cataloging Unit and a 14-digit NRCS small
watershed.
The following illustrations show how the hydrologic unit classification is
applied to a portion of the State of South Carolina.
2-14
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
South Atlantic - Gulf Region 03
Regions - The Region is the largest unit that USGS uses for comprehensive
planning. For example, the South Atlantic-Gulf Region 03 extends from the
coastline to the Blue Ridge, and from southern Virginia through the
Southeast to New Orleans, Louisiana. There are 18 regions in the
conterminous United States, with a national total of 21 (including Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands).
Subregions and Accounting Units - Subregions are defined by major river
basins. For instance, in South Carolina, subregion 0305 includes the
Saluda, Broad, and Santee Rivers and the Edisto system. Accounting Units
are aggregations of Cataloging Units used by USGS to organize water
resource data into manageable units. The South Carolina data in Subregion
0305 are organized into 030501-the Santee, Saluda, Broad Rivers
accounting unit--and 030502--the Edisto River accounting unit.
Cataloging Units (CUs) - The CU is the lowest level of hydrologic
classification by USGS for planning and data management. There are 2,111
CUs in the continental United States. The 8-digit HUC number designates
each individual CU. In the previous graphic, the lines within Accounting
Unit 030501 are CU boundaries and each CU has a unique 8-digit HUC.
The HUC has been adopted as a Federal Information Processing Standard
(FIPS); i.e., the HUC is a mandatory standard for Federal agencies describing
hydrologic data. The HUC classification is well accepted by professional
planners and hydrologists at all levels of government and in the private
sector.
2-15
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
NRCS Watersheds
Years ago, the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources
Conservation Service) subdivided the CUs into watersheds, appending three
digits to the eight digit HUC (CU + 3). The designations were made by each
State Conservationist to create smaller units for planning activities. There
were some consistency problems with the earlier designations, with
inharmonious sizes from State to State and a lack of common standards for
base maps. Now NRCS Headquarters, working with USGS, EPA, and
others, is aggressively pursuing better coherence in the nationwide
delineation and standardizing use of the 11-digit watershed code. NRCS is
in the process of subdividing States into 14-digit small watersheds
(CU + 3+ 3) for planning and analysis at an even finer scale. For example,
NRCS in North Carolina worked closely with .State environmental agencies to
delineate 1,640 14-digit watersheds averaging about 19,000 acres each
(see Figure 2-5).
2-16
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
Figure 2-5. 14-digit SCS Watersheds in Eastern North Carolina
(dark lines are county boundary)
2-17
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
NRCS 11-Digit Watersheds in Cataloging Unit 03050109
IMRCS Watersheds as a Common Watershed Base
Many States are seeking to establish common watersheds for use by all
State agencies, an approach EPA endorses. The watershed level that seems
to offer the most advantages, and is the most frequently chosen by the
States, is the NRCS watershed. Use of these watershed boundaries allows
easy access to NRCS data and improves coordination of nonpoint source
assessments with other agencies.
South Carolina was the first State to index its waterbodies to RF3 and it
used the NRCS watershed as the basis for waterbody designation. At first,
use support, cause/stressor, and source information was tracked only at the
watershed level, but this proved too generalized for use in some specific
State decisions. The State then went back and identified use support,
causes/stressors, and sources for individual stream segments, which proved
to be a useful level of resolution. One goal in any delineation scheme is to
assemble data at a resolution sufficient to answer the questions that are
important for management, without spending more resources than
necessary to obtain data.
2-18
-------
^^^^^^ DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
South Carolina, on the basis of information developed in its first GIS effort,
also developed some important locational information at significantly higher
resolution. They used global positioning system (GPS) technology to
accurately identify the location of discharges. They are proceeding basin by
basin throughout the State. Their GIS now has obvious value as a tool for
management.
This type of functionality will become increasingly important as tools such
as ArcView become available.* These tools, together with the GIS
coverages produced by EPA's Reach Indexing project, will allow States to
analyze their waterbody and stream reach data spatially. The WBS route
system data model (RTI, 1994) allows the State to geographically identify
specific use support classifications down to the reach segment level. The
EPA contact for georeferencing waterbodies to RF3 is given oh page ii.
Waterbody Delineation
Waterbodies have been defined on a wide range of criteria—from individual
RF2 reaches, frequently used from 1986 to 1988, to NRCS watersheds or
other groupings conforming to administrative boundaries. Tracking of
individual RF3 reaches for the 305(b) report gives detailed resolution to
waterbody data but can complicate workload management. On the other
hand, watershed-scale waterbodies may fail to give sufficient detail for
mapping and management decisions unless they identify the actual locations
of use support classifications and causes/stressors and sources of
impairment.
EPA recommends that States delineate waterbodies to be compatible with
NRCS 11- or 14-digit watersheds. "Compatible" can mean for example that
multiple stream and lake waterbodies lie entirely within the watershed's
boundaries but can be mapped individually (i.e., do not cross NRCS
watershed boundaries). Where 14-digit watersheds will be delineated in the
near future, a State might consider waiting for these boundaries before
redelineating waterbodies. Figure 2-5 shows some of the 14-digit
watersheds agreed upon by NRCS and the State of North Carolina.
* Mention of trade names in this document does not constitute endorsement. ArcView is a
program that enables nonprogrammers to utilize ARC/INFO coverages to do mapping and spatial
analysis. ARC/INFO and ArcView (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., ESRI) are the
only GIS packages currently in wide use by EPA and State water agencies.
2-19
-------
Table 2-1 describes an approach to delineating waterbodies that is
consistent with aggregating data at the watershed level. A cornerstone of
any approach should be flexible data management. That is, the level of
detail of assessment data can vary from watershed to watershed depending
on the unique causes/stressors and sources in each watershed. EPA urges
any State that is considering re-delineating its waterbodies to contact the
National 305(b) Coordinator for more information about options and
experiences of other States.
Aggregating Assessment Data at Watershed, Basin, and Ecoregion Levels
EPA recommends that States store assessment data at the most detailed
level of resolution they can manage— generally at the level of stream
segment, individual lake, or very small homogeneous watershed. EPA
encourages States to develop the capability to aggregate their waterbody-
level assessment data to the watershed, basin, and ecoregion levels. EPA is
not asking States to present aggregated assessment data by NRCS
watershed, USGS HUC or ecoregion in the 305(b) report, but rather to
develop the capability to do so by including appropriate locational data.
However, if States prepare basin management plans, States are encouraged
to begin reporting aggregated data in them (see Appendix E).
Using CUs or NRCS watersheds as basic units for aggregating water quality
assessment data will aid in data integration and in making other agencies'
data available to the States. Sufficient locational information should be
included to allow aggregation of detail at a minimum at the CD level. CU
numbers can be stored, for example, in WBS SCRF1 or SCRF2 files. At a
minimum, WBS or other State 305(b) databases should contain watershed
identification numbers for each waterbody and, to the extent possible,
waterbodies should not cross NRCS or CU watershed boundaries.
Assessments can also be aggregated by ecoregion if ecoregion codes are
stored in WBS for each waterbody, or in combination with a GIS coverage
of ecoregions. Note: If waterbodies are georeferenced to RF3, and a GIS is
available, aggregation of assessments to watersheds and ecoregions can be
done with the GIS.
Reach Indexing Waterbodies to RF3
Reach indexing or georeferencing is the process of electronically linking a
State's waterbodies and other water quality information to the EPA Reach
File. Within the next year, RF3 will be incorporated into a new National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD), with increased flexibility, accuracy, and GIS
compatibility. The NHD will become the official hydrologic database for
USGS, EPA, and other agencies. The main product of reach indexing is a
GIS coverage containing locations of waterbodies, stream networks and
2-20
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
V)
0)
'•&
o
i
05
"&
a
Oi
0)
Q
V)
CD
o
<0
E
Q.
Q.
.
JO
-
X
„ £
J
"1
^ CO
* 13
, "jr
~Qi
•<
CD
4-*
CO
o
2
+J
2
co
c
CO
CD
CD
55
1
73
^5
C
CD
&
o5
rr
.E co
o
ARC/INFO route systems and dynamic
segmentation can be used to add greater detail 1
c
J2
E
o>
CD
CO
O
CO
.92
co
^ CO
ll
individual
individual
• .
1
_CO
73
C
CO
to"
*s
0
>
c
selected waterbodies if needed.
= a
CO 3
E CD
eo J2
.|
™ c
.2 o
co "o
3 JC
ft (/)
•c fc
4-> ,S>
il
0 CO
11
stream ne
homogene
.
States can learn from other States' experiences
o.
3
JU,
CD
E
c
co
u
73
03.
CO
0)
4- •
ro
0 I
JD CO
0} CO
to c
5 «
0 »
o ^2
.
CO
Ideally, the number of waterbodies should be in
73
O
.£
CD
I
CD
0
C
tractable range-recommend keeping the total
below 2,000 to 4,000 waterbodies depending o
"S
CO
c
0
t
o
Q.
o __
eo "5
estuarie
(polygon
individual
estuaries
.
CD
to
55
0
4-»
•s
CD
'co
CD
CO
o
DC
^^
0
— ^
CJ
CO
CO
2
o
o
T-t
:erbodies <
I
With georeferencing to RF3, this approach is
powerful in its ability to interface with GIS and
undaries
o
.a
1
2
CD
CD
73
EPA databases. For tracking and reporting by
watershed, watershed boundaries can be overlai
on these waterbodies using a GIS, or watershed
ID numbers can be stored in WBS
-"
2-21
-------
2. DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS AND MANAGING INFORMATION
flows, and other information. This gives the State powerful mapping and
spatial analysis capabilities. In 1 996, at least a dozen States incorporated
color maps of uses support, causes and sources into their 305(b) reports
and other documents such as basin plans. The reaction to this mapping
capability has been very positive. Assessment results displayed in map form
are much easier for managers and the public to understand than the
traditional tabular or printout form.
2.4 Managing Assessment Data
The EPA Waterbody System (WBS) is a PC system of water quality
assessment information used by nearly half of the States with 305(b)
databases. Most other States have developed and maintain their own
customized systems. WBS was developed by EPA for States and other
entities specifically for tracking and reporting assessments under 305(b). It
provides a standard format for water quality assessment information and
includes a software program for adding and editing data, linking to other
water databases, generating reports, and transferring data between the PC
and GISs.
WBS has four main functions:
• To reduce the burden of preparing reports required under Sections
305(b), 303(d), 314, and 319 of the Clean Water Act
• To improve the quality and consistency of water quality reporting among
the States
• To provide data for national level assessments and for analyzing water
quality issues outside of 305(b)
• To be a useful water quality management tool for State agencies.
These 305(b) Guidelines and user requests determine the features of the
WBS. The Guidelines require States to track dozens of data types for each
waterbody (each State has from several hundred to several thousand
waterbodies) in order to generate the summary tables required in Section 4
of the main volume of these Guidelines. Although most WBS features result
from the 305(b) Guidelines, WBS also contains some data elements that
States have requested for internal management purposes (e.g.,
georeferencing fields and memo fields).
WBS contains over 100 data elements in such categories as:
2-22
-------
AND MANAGING INFORMATION
• Descriptors — waterbody name, number, description, type (stream, lake,
etc.), size
• Locational data elements — Reach File coordinates, basin and watershed
identifiers
• Assessment data — degree of use support for each use, size impaired,
causes/stressors and sources, type of monitoring, type of assessment,
assessment confidence.
For detailed information about the WBS, see the WBS Users Guide. EPA
also provides ongoing technical support to WBS users. Between January
and August 1996, EPA provided consultations to more than 30 agencies,
including States, Territories, Tribes, and Interstate Commissions, on the use
of WBS and RF3 for 305(b) programs. Contact WBS Technical Support at
the telephone number on page ii.
Data Management Options for Aggregating Data by Watershed
At least three options are available for aggregating assessment data by
watershed for basin management plans and other purposes. These options
are compatible with WBS and the approaches described in Table 4-1 .
1 . Entirely within WBS or other State assessment database. If waterbody
records contain CU or NRCS watershed numbers, the database can
aggregate data to that level automatically.
2. WBS or other State assessment database in combination with a GIS
program. WBS can be used to store assessment data in combination
with GIS programs such as ARC/INFO or ArcView, which enable users
to analyze spatial data and prepare maps. ArcView runs on personal
computers and users do not need to learn the ARC/INFO programming
language. It uses standard ARC/INFO data coverages (e.g., reach-
indexed waterbodies or STORET monitoring stations). (See previous
note regarding mention of trade names.)
3. Entirely within the GIS environment. States with full GIS capability
(e.g., having access to ARC/INFO programmers and workstations) can
manage assessment data within the GIS environment and export results
to WBS or other programs for reporting.
2-23
-------
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
SECTION 3
MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
This section presents EPA's recommended approaches to making use
support decisions. Designated uses are assigned to individual waterbodies
in a state's water quality standards. Types of designated uses include:
aquatic life, fish consumption, recreational uses such as swimming, and
drinking water. This guidance is drafted for wadeable streams and rivers.
However, the approach is applicable to other types of waterbodies, as well.
3.1 ITFM Recommendations for Monitoring
The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) was
formed in 1992 to develop recommendations on monitoring to achieve more
comparable and scientifically defensible information, interpretations, and
evaluations of water-quality conditions across the nation. The ITFM
comprised both Federal and State agencies responsible for monitoring and
assessment programs as well as an associated advisory committee including
municipalities, academia, industry, etc. (ITFM 1995). The ITFM
subsequently developed a model for stream monitoring for different types of
designated uses based on a combination of biological, physical, and
chemical monitoring (Figure 3-1). The model defines the relationship
between parameters that directly measure the condition of the biotic
community and its response over time to stressors, such as fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate indices, and parameters that measure either stressors or
exposure of organisms to stressors, such as levels of pH, nutrients, and
toxicants. For streams, EPA recommends that States incorporate ITFM's
suite of parameters in their monitoring programs for evaluating attainment of
designated uses. These are general recommendations to consider when
developing and revising monitoring programs. For example, monitoring for
aquatic life use would include the base monitoring program parameters in
the box—community level biological data from at least two assemblages,
habitat, and physical/chemical field parameters —plus ionic strength,
nutrients, and toxicants in water and sediment.
The ITFM in May 1997 became a permanent National Water Quality
Monitoring Council to facilitate, among other tasks, the development and
implementation of the recommendations on specific methods for measuring
3-1
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
For Aquatic Life
Designated Use
Add These Parameters
(Stressor/Exposure)
• ionic strength
• nutrients
• potentially hazardous
. chemicals in water and A
bottom sediment
For Fish
Consumption
Designated Use
Add These Parameters
• phytoplankton
• bioaccumulative
chemicals
Base Monitoring Program Indicators of Ecological Condition
Biological Condition Indicators (Response)
1 Rsh assemblage • Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage • Periphyton assemblage
Physical Habitat Indicators
(Stressor)
• Channel morphology
• Riparian vegetation
•Flow
> Substrate quality
For Swimming
Designated Use
Add These
Parameters
• pathogens and fecal indicator
microorganisms
• ionic strength (pH)
1 potentially hazardous chemicals
in water and bottom sediment
• odor and taste
Chemical Indicators
(Stressor/Exposure)
>pH
• Conductivity
• Temperature
• Dissolved oxygen
For Secondary
Contact
Designated Use
Add These
Parameters
• pathogens and fecal
indicator
microorganisms
For Drinking Water
Supply Designated Use
Add These
Parameters
• pathogens and fecal indicator
microorganisms
« phytoplankton
• ionic strength (pH, salinity)
1 potentially hazardous chemicals
in water
• odor and taste
•quantity of water
• total suspended
sediment
Figure 3-1. Monitoring for different designated uses based on a combination of
biological, physical, and chemical measures
3-2
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
the parameters shown in Figure 3-1. Standard methods for measuring the
chemical parameters and conducting toxicity tests are well established
among the States, but methods for biological and habitat assessments are
not standardized for all types of waterbodies. Recent work by the Ohio EPA
suggests that bioassessment methods differ widely in their accuracy and
discriminatory power for aquatic life use determinations (Yoder et al., 1994).
Ohio evaluated a hierarchy of bioassessment approaches relevant to
differing levels of rigor and confidence. In their State, Ohio EPA found that
less intensive bioassessment approaches tend to be accurate in detecting
impairment but may give a false indication of full support in reaches where
the methods are not rigorous enough to detect subtle problems.
ITpM (1995) recommends that to combine data for assessment, monitoring
data produced by different organizations should be comparable, of known
quality, available for integration with information from a variety of sources,
and easily aggregated spatially and temporally. This is important at a variety
of scales, up to and including national assessments. If different methods
are similar With respect to the quality of data each produces, then data from
those methods may be used interchangeably or together (Diamond et al.
1996). As data quality (i.e., precision, sensitivity) increases, the confidence
in the assessment increases. Data quality objectives should be defined for
each method so that assessments can be validated by imposing a known
level of confidence in the results.
Monitoring Design
Any monitoring and assessment program begins with setting goals and a
monitoring design that can meet those goals. The history of water quality
monitoring is replete with programs that could not answer key questions.
Examples include:
• A watershed study where the monitoring organization assumes that flow
data can be obtained after the fact based on "reference point"
measurements from bridges, only to learn later that many streams lack
the channel morphometry to develop a stage-discharge relationship;
• An intensive survey where the laboratory's detection levels for metals
prove inadequate to detect even concentrations above water quality
standards;
• A basin survey where management or the legislature poses the question
"What is the statistical trend in biological condition pf our streams?" too
late to be incorporated into the monitoring design.
3-3
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
As discussed in Section 2, EPA has a goal of comprehensively characterizing
the Nation's streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and shorelines.
These assessments will include monitored and evaluated assessments and
may involve probability-based as well as targeted monitoring. To achieve
this goal, EPA encourages States to incorporate a formal process of goal
setting and monitoring design while meeting their own State-specific goals.
ITFM provides general guidelines for the topics to consider in monitoring
design in a technical appendix of its final report (ITFM, 1995), and EPA's
Section 106/604{b) monitoring guidance tailors the ITFM guidelines to the
106/305(b) process.
The Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process developed by EPA's Quality
Assurance Management Staff is a specific approach to monitoring design
that has been applied to monitoring programs in all media. The DQO
process involves the stakeholders in the program in the design.
Stakeholders itemize and clarify the questions being asked of a monitoring
program, including the required level of accuracy in the answers. Generally,
these questions are stated in quantitative terms ("What are the index of
biotic integrity [IBI] and invertebrate community index [ICI] values for
wadable streams in Big River Basin, and what is the trend in IBI across the
basin, with 80 percent certainty?"), and statistical methods may be
recommended for selecting sites or sampling frequency. For information
about DQOs for water quality monitoring contact the Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division at (202) 260-7023.
To date, States have taken three main approaches to monitoring a large
portion of their waterbodies:
• Fixed-station networks with hundreds or thousands of sites (most large
networks have been reduced in the past 10 years)
• Rotating basin surveys with a large number of monitoring sites covering
thousands of miles of waters (Ohio EPA's bioassessment program)
• Rotating basin surveys with a probabilistic monitoring design; a
statistically valid set of sites are selected for sampling in each basin
(Delaware's benthic macroinvertebrate program).
The National Water Quality Monitoring Council may make recommendations
about monitoring design; in the meantime, however, EPA encourages States
to consider existing approaches such as Ohio's and Delaware's. In
particular, EPA urges States to take advantage of monitoring data provided
by other agencies such as USGS, NOAA, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). See Section 2 for more information about comprehensive
assessments using different monitoring designs.
3-4
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
3.2 Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS)
The EPA/State 305(b) Consistency Workgroup has begun to implement the
ITFM recommendations including how to integrate the results of biological,
habitat, chemical and toxicological assessments in making a determination
of aquatic life use support (ALUS). This approach includes consideration of
assessment quality as indicated by levels of information of the different data
types in evaluating the degree of impairment (partial support vs nonsupport)
when there are differences in assessment results. Level of information is
discussed below and described for each data type in Sections 3.2.1 through
3.2.4, Tables 3-1 through 3-4. Guidance on making assessments of ALUS
for each individual data type is included in Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.4.
Guidance and case studies on integration of the assessment results from
different data types, including consideration of level of information and site
specific conditions, are presented in Section 3.2.5.
Level of Information
In 1994, the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup concluded that descriptive
information characterizing the level of information, or rigor, in the method is
needed to more fully define an assessment of use support. Documenting
this information is important because users often need to know the basis of
the underlying information. The Workgroup recommends that assessment
quality information become a part of State assessment data bases.
Consequently, the Workgroup has developed guidance for evaluating the
level of information of methods used in making ALUS.
Data types are grouped into four categories: biological (Table 3-1), habitat
(Table 3-2), toxicological (Table 3-3) and physical/chemical (Table 3-4). A
hierarchy of methods corresponding to each data type and ordered by level
of information is summarized in the tables. The rigor of a method within
each data type is dictated by its technical components, spatial/temporal
coverage, and data quality (precision and sensitivity). In the data type
tables, Level 4 data are of highest quality for a data type and provide
relatively high level of certainty. Level 1 data represent less rigorous
approaches and thus provide a level of information with greater degree of
uncertainty. However, in situations where severe conditions exist, a lower
level of assessment quality will be adequate. For example, a severely
degraded site can be characterized as impaired with a high level of
confidence based on a cursory survey of biota or habitat, as in the case of
repeated fish kills or severe sedimentation from mining. Data in Levels 1
. through 4 vary in strengths and limitations, and, along with site-specific
conditions, should be evaluated carefully for use in assessments. Data not
adequate for ALUS determinations should be excluded from the assessment.
3-5
-------
g
I
i
Ul
CG
O
CL
o.
V)
Ul
U)
o
c
o
M
O
I
1 1
3 —
"ro -a
l3 I
S «
^ <
-
§ «
2 u
Q.CC
*8
i S
o
S
2
CO
a
CO
0)
0
w
^
m
l&
„
^>>
Xf
*H
a
1
CD
D)
S
CJ
Spatial
Temporal Co
Technical Components
•3 »
> o *
J3 JE
O CM
CM CM
CO CO
a o
t- LO
co co
o
ts
73 'oj
i °
5
£ IQ
•S
.2 co
CD ,O
°- co
° 2
k. Q.
O ..
Ill
_§ co '5
13 co S
CO
'55
u.
CD
.C
O
Limited monitoring;
extrapolations from
c
Visual observation of biota; reference
conditions not used; simple documentatic
«-
o o
CM LO
co co
o" CM"
r- CM
CO CO
^
1
•1— '
.2
r- *O)
CO °
c .2
O «Q
••j?
.2 co
CJ C
£ .2
Q. 'co
E "o .S>
•S tt "
o C?
E .•§" o
o .S ®
4J +•• 73
s S'g
O CD £-
_I CO 0.
O
*Q
CO *
15. i.
CO CO
CO L.
0 0
II
ill
CD
^>
4-1
co
One assemblage (usually invertebrates);
reference conditions pre-established by
professional biologist; biotic index or narr
evaluation of historical records
CM
LO r-^ i-^
T- CM CO
CO CO CO
o" o" o o
r- CM co LO
CO CO CO CO
>.
£• 3 .,
•5 CO D)
*~ CO .£ CO
'co E Q. E
S o E o
co t ™ t
J" CD « CD
33 D. i- D.
S«£«
J'ffl
.2 ;5 .£ ;5
2 _ *•* _ •
D. CO 03 (D "£
co 'w *5 '« jjj
S 8 o g S?
"O H— o ^- ^
O O O <0
^ t. 1- H CO
2 Q. O Q. CO
O ,
CD M- T3
^3 'co .•§ «5
" .. » E to
T3 c -1? = &
S 0 W m S
Monitoring of target
during a single seas
limited sampling for
studies; may includt
spatial coverage for
level assessments
JD
0 T.
Single assemblage usually the norm;
reference condition may be site-specific, <
composite of sites (e.g., regional); biotic
index (interpretation may be supplemente
narrative evaluation of historical records)
CO
LO r-" r-^ O
T- CM CO LO
co co co co
o o" o" o"
i- CM CO •*
CO CO CO CO
1"
V)
. *. w
•Cj" ^
'> o
•^ t
'55 <"
c Q-
co _co
•n 'co
c £
ro .2 c
C S CD
0 — E
co <5 co
i § s
£ '55 co
Q. (ft CO
Sfl
I Q. CO
CO
CO 2 k.
.£ 'w o
CL M- T3
E ° 2
CO CD i_ ; • CD
CO CO O !2 CO
CO u c *"
i CD CD CO 4S
»|l it?.!
•E-S &1 2 '§ S
3 <0 g) C/J — "O
TJ O ^ (0 ,p 4j o
D) .O w T3 m c '-P
C ,fc i- 0) ? £ W
*C M QJ f- .— P 1=
o c £ w " 55 S
•*-• O ™ ir -^ co co
'E CO O CO Q.
c
gj O X
5 "O -n
Generally two assemblages, but may be c
if high data quality; regional (usually base
sites) reference conditions used; biotic ini
(single dimension or multimetric index)
•*
CO
CD
a.
£•
TJ
0
-S
S
•4-*
CD
5
jj
O
2
15.
Q.
CO
T^
*^
0
5
CO
CD
o
CO
g
a.
CL
CO
CD
CO
CD
+-•
c
.0
'4-*
co
o
'•5
0
E
CD
o
u>
.c
i
to
0)
'E
CO
u
1
c
CD
CO
3
0
•a
CD
CO
CO
J3
_co
CD
J3
LLJ
O
Z
_
CO
CD
CO
IE
II
_!.
T3
C
CO
4-t
CO
CD
J3
II
r-
£
CD
1
J_?
C
CO
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
o
la
M-
o
0
CO
~
2
2
CD
£
c
o
S
E
1
"o
m
CO
C
o
JK
T3
C
O
CD
C
CD
|
O
'>
S
•M
c
CD
73
E
CO
CO
CO
0
CD
CD
.2
£•
CD
CD
T3
O
O
4-*
c
CD
'S
a.
E
4-*
CD
4-f
CD
73
O r-
*~* I
CO *"
C J>
'o -^
Q. J5
73 r-
S £
i !
O) CD
5 T3
O O
8 °
W 03
-------
W
z
o
DC
01
tn
Q
O
Q.
Q.
3
W
111
0)
c
'to
I
Q)
(0
a>
(S
I
o
(0
(0
0)
o
03
2
a.
a.
a>
CO
to
a>
to
to
(0
(0
S
0)
If
to
a
% o
>, O
/ • ea
>
sl
^
*
i'"
Vt M^X
5 *
*? ja
: ^t
i<°
;>t§
-'"^a
**- ;Q
> •j
*
*"•"•
/
* ,
'** D)
, (0
'• I'l
§. «
' W!
, J
-&
f /
/ Q)
'"' C
o
o.
1
< , 4-5
' X
|s|
in
CO
CO
~!
.^ '5
"2 t; cr
C C ni
CO .0} k-
r- O •*-»
1- °
'o C +J
CD 0 .JO
ag c?
5 .£ o
J2 2-D
i_ a. >•
o .^-c
/- >• »
C 4.T •*->
5 ^ •—
O "+3 CO
-^ c ]5
3 CO —
^*
Sporadic visits; sites are most
from road crossings or other
easy access
:^ ff\
Visual observation of habitat characteristics
no true assessment; documentation of
readily discernable land use characteristics
that might alter habitat quality; no referenci
conditions
,-
0
PX
co
c
S
.J8
•*-» T3 -M
•!•= §
1 o &
CO W t
-D '§> §
CD "5 >-
c 3 =
o — o
'« ro "-
o c °
£— CO Q5
D. CO >
**- O
0 ° >
O i_ :_
_l Q..S
i
C
r^
Limited to annual visits and n<
specific to season; generally
easy access; limited spatial
coverage and/or site-specific
studies
<~
Visual observation of habitat characteristics
and simple assessment; use of land use
maps for characterizing watershed conditioi
reference condition pre-established by
professional scientist
CN
in
px
CO
4-1
.c
**-* co
'> o° SJ
'•i3 O O
'7n *-
<2 T> CO
®.c-o
co •*•• S
"O O o
™ « °-
§'c?°
to "n >-
•rr .is fl)
m -Q ?
0} r
Q."CO -2 CD
IT C °> C
* .° co 'c
co 'co E 'm
ft co E £
° °fc?
^" t- CD C
S D. D. (D
— "D +^
.2 § CO
Assessment during a single
season usually the norm; spat
coverage may be limited or bn
and commensurate with
biological sampling; assessme
may be regional or site-specifi
•a
Visual-based habitat assessment using
standard operating procedures (SOPs); may
be supplemented with quantitative
measurements of selected parameters;
conducted with bioassessment; data on Ian
use compiled and used to supplement
assessment; reference condition used as a
basis for assessment
CO
0
00
oo
«
o c
•— flj
• -• O c
>» £- c
.ti "D W
1 o 1
CD +-> _
CO CO T3
73 0 "
CO "5 >
c la >
O _ >-
'co ra
^Cg £ CD
y II
a i
co co
CD *-.
co co
CD CD
* 1
O)
.0
CD
1
i 1
i 1
CD *J
C C
I i
* i
1
I S «
CO
CO
co
® -s
CO «
I I
-S
*• CD
IS
Q.
.S" CD
E
I
CD j^
3 <2
r- <5
i "s
"8 C
eo .o
co
« I
J3 C
co T
co
-1- o
- 03
•= E
'•% §
o
-------
(fi
<
I
cc
HI
in
o
§
a.
D
(O
LU
w
I
I
03
in
to
u
1
cr
o
I
"ra
CO
0)
TJ
CO
W
0)
u
a
o
a.
D.
o
x
o
"I
fi
cu
CO
CO
o
a
1
to
a
Data Quality11
Spatfal/
Temporal Coverage
in
c
ro ." E
c o ., c fe
1 | I ||
£ o ^ -S -S
5 SI ^ S|
4-i 03 03 03 C
ti ti ti '£
° 0 3 0 |
C
• <£ "D O co
c
•
.*£?
O
'x
-»-•
k.
O
O)
*d
o
•M
2
03
1
C.
o
'S
1
M—
O
"53
1
C
'o
a.
T3
c
03
03
_C
CO
03
>,
4-1
'o
'x
o
03
4-1
0
I
In
CD
S
CO
03
'S
QC
•
i
r—
0
.a
CD
0
4_
00
03
T)
O
O
03
O.
i*J"
1
VI
V)
03
CO
U
<(
to
CD
00
CO
-------
(/)•
1
il
ri«
S
cc
UI
UJ
1-
oc
o
Q.
Q.
2
U)
111
n ONIMVIAI '£
*-
c
0)
•1
a
<
0)
(0
(U
£
B
•J
o
•^
4-1
(B
ata Levels for Evaluation of Aqui
o
"n
u
'i
•D |
4-* "~"
.'i °
J3 D)
Low spatial and temporal coverage:
• Quarterly or less frequent sampling wit
period of record (e.g., 1 day)
• Limited data during key periods or at hi
flows (critical hydrological regimes)11.
c
.2
CO
w
E 8
S CD
~ — to
w tt
CO C ™ -
r~ *» ^ (Q
ny one of the following:
Water quality monitoring using grab water samplir
Water data extrapolated from an upstream or dow
where homogeneous conditions are expected
Monitoring data >5 years old without further valii
Best professional judgment based on land use dat
locations
^ • • • •
_
CM CMO
CM ^-00
CMCMt-
ooo
CM^r-
CMCMOO
o"o"o~
r-COCQ
CM CM CM
8
""•"- CO
-''o
5
fs >-
8 o
5 to
>- 5 >•
CD CO
-* -0 -S
Moderate spatial and temporal coverage:
• Bimonthly or quarterly sampling during
periods (e.g., spring/ summer months
• Fish spawning seasons, including limite
quality data at high and low flows
• Short period of record over a period of i
multiple visits during a year or season.
u
"io °
£ -0
8 ^
ny one of the following:
Water quality monitoring using grab water samplir
Rotating basin surveys involving multiple visits or
sampling
Synthesis of existing or historical information on f
contamination levels
Screening models based on loadings data (not calil
verified).
*£ • •
CM
CM
CMO
CM.-
CMCD
*~^o"
CM CM
8
CO SI
0.9°
2
% to II
CO > *0 ^^'c
O O O)1*- 0)
A"= ~ .S > Q.
CD <0 c > ca
- 3 0.^ 0 ra
Broad spatial and temporal (long-term, e.g.
years) coverage of site with sufficient freq
coverage to capture acute events:
• Typically, monthly sampling during key
(e.g., spring/ summer months, fish spav
seasons), multiple samples at high and 1
• Lengthy period of record (sampling over
of months).
CO
c
_3
—
iy one of the following:
Composite or a series of grab water sampling usec
coverage as appropriate)
Calibrated models (calibration data <5 years old).
^
*
00
0
IT}
CM
CM
CM
-
CO
CM
.G
CO
X
1 l_
D)C %'~
o o D -M n) ^
Broad spatial (several sites) and temporal (1
e.g., > 3 years) coverage of site with suffi
frequency and parametric coverage to capt
events, chronic conditions, and all other po
P/C impacts
• Monthly sampling during key periods (e.<
spring/summer months
• Fish spawning seasons) including multip
samples at high and low flows
• Continuous monitoring.
CO
CD
4-1
'to
CO
CO Q>
CO >.
0 g
1 of the following:
Water quality monitoring using composite or series
samples (diurnal coverage as appropriate)
Limited sediment quality sampling and fish tissue s
with high probability of contamination.
^
•
8
O)
c
o
.
+-J CD
C >
CD CD
'co T
•it
m O
•M Q.
CO Q.
W W
ZZ »
» -ft ~
« S *
'*"'/- O
J oxygen, turbidity, color, conductivity)
ere 1 = lowest and 4 = highest.
?n P/C data; 3 years of data are not required
lh metals, low pH) can result in high confidei
jrentiate along a gradient of environmental c
f"O lc >t
CD ^- ~ "5
to to" to +2 o
.<2 'w -a o *••
^ -J5 c 2- °
I"" ' {— Qj C 4— '
J— n, ."— r~
°: Z§ °> g
CD e~ CO ^ C
K O) .§ 'm O.
1 refers to physical water parameters (e.g., temperc
rmation refers to rigor of physical/chemical samplin
period of record can indicate a high confidence of i
a single visit to a stream with severe acid mine dn
lay be needed to establish full support.
lity of the physical/chemical endpoints to detect im
ment Type Codes from Table 1-1.
g £ e a> t s g
•g £ o -5. o> « S
>• ». w E .£ o g
£ ° « | 2 » <
£ S 1 b |»|
t — i uj u- E oc >
O
03
1
CO
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
^^HH^HBH^n^^H^*i^B^^B^ni^BH^B^HIH^
At the Workgroup's recommendation, EPA is applying levels of information
to wadable streams and rivers where EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
or other comparable methods can be applied. This is because, at this time,
monitoring methods for wadable streams and rivers are better documented
and standardized (Gibson et al. 1996, Plafkin et al., 1989) than for other
surface water resources such as lakes and estuaries.
EPA asks States to document the level of information that characterizes
their methods for biological, habitat, toxicological, and chemical evaluations.
The approach may be extended to ALUS determinations in other types of
waterbodies as well as other designated uses in future 305{b) cycles based
on the experience with ALUS in streams and rivers and as methods for other
waterbody types are standardized. The Waterbody System will contain
fields to track level of information for each data type (first columns of
Tables 3-1 through 3-4).
EPA encourages States to store and provide this information for each river
and stream assessment in addition to WBS Assessment Type Codes. See
Section 6, especially Table 6-1, of the main Guidelines volume regarding
data elements for annual electronic reporting.
3.2.1 Bioassessment
Biological survey methods are desirable for ALUS determinations, because
they measure ecosystem health and integrity more directly than surrogate
techniques and serve as response indicators to a variety of stressors.
Certain biological survey and assessment techniques are useful for
screening; i.e., they are intended to be sufficient for detecting problems and
may not be as rigorous as techniques used to assess the degree of use
support or prioritize sites for further study or some mitigation action.
However, simple biological screening techniques are usually sufficient to
identify severely degraded or the other extreme (i.e., excellent) biological
conditions. A hierarchy of biological approaches can be developed that
incorporates certain technical considerations and are relevant to various
levels of information (Table 3-1). The data quality elements emphasize a
determination of precision (i.e., measurement error at a site as evidenced by
the reproducibility of metric values or bioassessment scores for a given site
during the same index period) and sensitivity (i.e., the ability to detect
impairment relative to the reference condition).
Based on considerable information already available, EPA strongly endorses
the regional reference approach for State bioassessment programs for
streams (Gibson et al. 1996), which is a level 3 or 4 assessment in
Table 3-1. If States choose not to implement a reference site approach,
they are still encouraged to monitor two organism assemblages (level 4),
3-10
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
with detailed taxonomy, a multimetric approach, and habitat evaluation. In
calling for two assemblages, EPA seeks to include critical groups in the food
chain that may react to different ecosystem stressors or differently to the
same stressor. EPA recognizes that the use of two assemblages or the
regional reference approach may not be feasible in certain cases (e.g.,
streams in the arid west due to naturally occurring conditions such as
extreme temperatures and lack of flow). EPA also recognizes that some
State bioassessment programs are in their early stages and may not yet
have the capability to use a regional reference site approach or to monitor
more than one assemblage.
Many States (Davis et al. 1996) are currently assessing a single assemblage,
benthic macroinvertebrates, with detailed taxonomy, a multimetric approach,
and habitat evaluation (Level 2 or 3 assessment in Table 3-1). These States
are monitoring a critical assemblage that often gives the greatest information
about ecosystem health for the available resources. For fish sampling, some
rely on their fish and game agencies, which are mainly oriented to game
fish. As resources permit, EPA encourages State water quality agencies to
develop the capability for fish assemblage monitoring themselves or work
with the fish and game staff to develop the needed capabilities.
ALUS Determination Based on Biological Assessment Data
A. Fully Supporting: Reliable data indicate functioning, sustainable
biological assemblages (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, or algae) none
of which has been modified significantly beyond the natural range of
the reference condition.
B. Partially Supporting: At least one assemblage (e.g., fish,
macroinvertebrates, or algae) indicates moderate modification of the
biological community compared to the reference condition.
C. Not Supporting: At least one assemblage indicates nonsupport. Data
clearly indicate severe modification of the biological community
compared to the reference condition.
The interpretation of the terms "modified significantly," "moderate
modification," and "severe modification" is State-specific and depends on
the State's monitoring and water quality standards programs. For example,
Ohio EPA reports nonattainment (not supporting) if none of its 3 indices (2
for fish and 1 for macroinvertebrates) meet ecoregion criteria or if one
assemblage indicates severe toxic impact (Ohio's poor or very poor
category), even if the other assemblage indicates attainment. Partial
support exists if 1 of 2 or 2 of 3 indices do not meet ecoregion criteria and
are in the poor or very poor category.
3-11
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Additional Considerations for Lakes
State lake managers should address more than one biological assemblage in
making lake ALUS decisions. Many parameters of these assemblages may
not have specific criteria (e.g., algal blooms, growth of nuisance weeds) but
have important effects on lake uses. Many are also response indicators of
the level of lake eutrophication.
Lake resources vary regionally, even within States, due to variations in
geology, vegetation, hydrology, and land use. Therefore, regional patterns
of lake water quality, morphometry (physical characteristics such as size,
shape, and depth), and watershed characteristics should ideally be defined
based on comparison to natural conditions using an ecoregion approach.
The State can then set reasonable goals and criteria for a variety of
parameters. These regional patterns currently apply to natural lakes, but are
being evaluated for use with reservoirs.
EPA is developing guidance on bioassessment protocols and biological
criteria development for lakes and reservoirs (Guidance on Lake and
Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria, draft, U.S. EPA, 1996). Draft
guidance is currently being revised to address a review of comments by
EPA's Science Advisory Board. Notice of availability for public review and
comment in the Federal Register is planned for 1997.
3.2.2. Habitat Assessment
Assessment of the physical habitat structure is necessary for aquatic life
support evaluations because the condition and/or potential of the biological
community is dependent upon supportive habitat. Aquatic fauna often have
very specific habitat requirements, independent of water quality (Barbour et
al. 1996a). The technique of habitat assessment has evolved substantially
over the last decade to provide adequate information on the quality of the
habitat. Numerous State and Tribal agencies are well-versed in habitat
assessment and have incorporated appropriate techniques into their
monitoring programs. Results from nonpoint-source assessments suggest
that habitat alteration is a major source of perturbation of the Nation's
surface waters. The strengths of habitat assessment are: (1) enhances
interpretation of biological data; (2) provides information on non-chemical
stressors, and (3) leads to informed decisions regarding problem
identification and restoration.
Most often, habitat assessment is conducted in conjunction with
bioassessment. A general habitat assessment incorporates physical
attributes from microhabitat features such as substrate, velocity, depth, to
channel morphology features such as width, sinuosity, flow or volume, to
3-12
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
riparian and bank structure features. All of these features are stressor
indicators. The approach also can integrate habitat information into an
index or summary of overall habitat condition.
The rigor of the habitat assessment ranges from a visual-based characteriza-
tion (Level 1), which documents specific characteristics without placing a
value, to a true assessment (Levels 2 through 4), which places a value on
the quality of the physical habitat structure (Table 3-2). Habitat
assessments may be visual-based (e.g., RBPs), patterned after Ohio EPA
(1987), Plafkin et al. (1989), Florida DEP (1994), and Idaho DEQ (1995), or
more quantitative as suggested by the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP). The data quality associated with habitat
assessment is more difficult to define than with bioassessment, but can be
done by a comparison among investigators.
ALUS Determination Based on Habitat Assessment Data.
A. Fully Supporting: Reliable data indicate natural channel morphology,
substrate composition, bank/riparian structure, and flow regime of
region. Riparian vegetation of natural types and of relatively full
standing crop biomass (i.e., minimal grazing or disruptive pressure).
B. Partially Supporting: Modification of habitat slight to moderate usually
due to road crossings, limited riparian zones because of encroaching
land use patterns, and some watershed erosion. Channel modification
slight to moderate.
C. Not Supporting: Moderate to severe habitat alteration by
channelization and dredging activities, removal of riparian vegetation,
bank failure, heavy watershed erosion or alteration of flow regime.
Habitat assessment is mostly conducted in conjunction with bioassessment.
However, degradation of habitat associated with aquatic resources is a
primary stressor limiting the attainment of aquatic life use support in many
regions of the country. Land use patterns involving urban development and
impervious surface, agriculture and ranching, silviculture, mining, and flood
control/regulation are generally the principal factors in habitat degradation.
3.2.3. Aquatic and Sediment Toxicity Methods
EPA recommends that information from toxicity tests be separated from the
physical/chemical data. Although chemical criteria are based on toxicity
tests, actual testing done to evaluate an aquatic life use should be treated
as an additional ecological indicator.
3-13
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Toxicity tests are a well-established tool for examining effects of both point
and nonpoint sources of chemicals or effluents in surface waters (i.e.,
stressor and exposure indicators). Most States require whole effluent
toxicity (WET) testing of waste water dischargers under the NPDES
program. For ALUS, ambient water column and whole sediment toxicity
tests may be most relevant, particularly if the early life stages of test
organisms and subiethal (chronic) endpoints are used (Table 3-3). Ambient
tests use samples that are collected from sites and that are typically used
whole (i.e., no dilution). Toxicity tests, like chemical analyses, use
temporally discrete samples which, in the case of water column tests,
typically have short holding times « 36 hours according to EPA guidance).
Sediment samples may be held for longer periods (2 to 8 weeks) prior to
testing if stored properly. Samples used in aquatic toxicity testing are
usually collected over no more than a 24-hour period. Sediment samples,
by their very nature, are grab samples which are also collected over a short
time period (hours) at any one site. As a result, all toxicity tests, even those
involving prolonged chronic exposures (such as EPA 7-day chronic tests or
28-day chronic sediment tests), yield data that are a "snapshot" in time.
The longer the period of time over which site water or sediment samples are
collected and used in testing, the longer the "snapshot" and the higher
confidence that the test result is representative of prevailing water or
sediment quality conditions at that time. The strengths of ambient toxicity
tests are:
They aid in identifying point and nonpoint source water-quality
impairments that may otherwise be undetectable using other monitoring
tools;
They are used for confirming that observed impairment is not due to
chemical or toxicity-related sources. Ohio EPA and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, for example, used toxicity tests to
demonstrate that habitat or physical stressors were the major causes of
impairment in some systems and not point-source toxicity as previously
assumed;
They integrate biological effects of most chemical stressors present,
thereby giving a more accurate estimate of the actual water or sediment
quality as compared to chemical concentration measurements; this has
been shown to be particularly true for certain water column metals, bulk
sediment chemical measurements that do not take into account total
organic carbon or acid volatile sulfide concentrations (for nonpolar
organics and metals, respectively), and for sites in which potential
pollutants were unmeasured or unknown.
3-14
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINE
•
DNS
WET tests are potentially useful for ALUS at sites in which an effluent
contributes the major flow instream (i.e., effluent-dominated or efflueri
dependent systems). These tests are well standardized and relatively 1
to interpret, however, their relationship to ALUS is dependent on man^
factors that may or may not be identifiable for the system of interest ('
et al. 1996; LaPoint et al. 1996). ;
Sediment toxicity tests are especially useful for ALUS since sediments 3
be prominent sources as well as sinks. For this reason, sediment samrj
may represent a somewhat longer "snapshot" in time than water colurf
samples. Also, because sediment samples can b£ stored for longer peri
tiler
\se in testing. Collec
ps the use of sedimf
I of the bioavailablej
(amenable to standaj
assessments and sed
tool to evaluate and,
pting, using the mor/
'ppriate for ALUS./
Is
>n
ts
ent
tese
than water samples, they are more convenient
of sediment pore water or elutriates further ex j
in ALUS because these fractions may contair nc
pollutants present and because these fractic , a
aquatic toxicity test methods. Combined w i fc
chemical analyses, sediment toxicity is a pi /erf
identify causes of impairment. Whole se/ -lent
standardized 10-day acute tests, may b< nost &v '
are the least labor-intensive and costly 1 its and a, ->lso easiest to
interpret. The more recently developed PA chronic\ ^rnent te/' methods
(which should be available by the end / 1997) are alst, <>mj/ j tools for
ALUS. Sediment testing is most relev t if there are app'iv^_.e reference
site sediments available with which tc ompare different site samples.
Usually, such reference sites are avaif tie, but in some instances are defined
by trial and error. The use of clean \t. oratory-formulated reference
sediments as a means of comparisor 3 also a viable option, particularly if
factors such as sediment particle siz are similar to that observed at the site
of interest.
Concerns with sedirf TlTtt^:/—y _,) for representativeness, many
sediment samples/ ^y need to "breomposited at a site to overcome physical
and chemical hr/ogeneity; (2) storage and manipulation of samples prior to
testing may ch^ ge the chemical characteristics and toxicity of 'a sample in
unknown ways; arC<3) for some species, physical characteristics of the
sediment (e.g., partL.e size or TOC) may be suboptimal for the test species
resulting in a false positive or apparently toxic conditions when there are
none. This may necessitate the use of two or more different test species
for a given sediment sample.
Several EPA, American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), and State
agency toxicity test methods exist, both for saltwater and freshwater
aquatic and sediment toxicity tests, ranging from short-term acute or
lethality tests (usually 48 to 96h in length for aquatic and pore water or
elutriate tests and 10d for whole sediments) to longer term early life stage
3-15
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
(7 day for pore water and elutriates and 28 day for whole sediments) and
full life-cycle (> 21 day for aquatic tests) chronic tests that measure
sublethal endpoints. Some sublethal tests such as those for saltwater
bivalve embryo-larval development or echinoderm fertilization, may be much
shorter in duration (48 and 1.5 hour, respectively). Appropriate sample
collection is critical to ensure representative and accurate results. In
addition, chemically inert sampling equipment must be used and depth
and/or width integrated composite samples should be considered for ALUS
determination.
ALUS Determinations Based on Aquatic and/or Sediment Toxicity Data
A. Fully Supporting: No toxicity noted in either acute or chronic tests
compared to controls or reference conditions.
B. Partially Supporting: No toxicity noted in acute tests, but may be
present in chronic tests in either slight amounts and/or infrequently
within an annual cycle.
C. Not Supporting: Toxicity noted in many tests and occurs frequently.
Other Considerations
For certain species such as planktonic ones, ambient aquatic samples may
appear more or less toxic due to the presence of certain natural water
quality conditions or eutrophication effects. Ambient tests are a "snapshot"
in time and may be unrepresentative of other times, seasons, or flows.
Non-toxic conditions include naturally high dissolved solids, hardness, or
conductivity, or naturally low alkalinity and hardness. Appropriate reference
site or control samples for comparison may not be readily available in some
systems resulting in a certain amount of uncertainty in extrapolating
laboratory control or simulated reference conditions to actual natural
conditions at a site. WET tests are best incorporated into the NPDES
program; for ALUS, the results obtained using tools in the 305(b) process
such as bioassessment, ambient aquatic and sediment toxicity tests, and
chemical monitoring are more appropriate.
3.2.4 Physical/Chemical Methods
The use of physical/chemical data as stressor and exposure indicators for
determining ALUS has long been a basis of State monitoring programs.
Established criteria exist for many chemical parameters and standard
sampling and analysis protocols have been developed for ensuring
consistency and quality control. These data are separated into categories of
toxicants (priority pollutants, chlorine, and ammonia), conventionals
3-16
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
(dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature) in reference to the physical
constituents of water quality, and metals. Although SOPs exist for
physical/chemical parameters. States still differ in their design and
implementation of chemical sampling and analysis (Table 3-4). Sampling
frequency and intensity vary among states. The number of parameters
sampled and analyzed also varies among programs which influences
comparability in assessments.
Analyses of chemical concentrations in fish tissues are included in Table 3-
4. Though not a traditional or required measure of ALUS, fish tissue
concentrations are useful for evaluating the potential impacts to wildlife that
depend on aquatic systems for food and/or habitat.
ALUS Determinations Based on Physical/Chemical Assessment Data
EPA recognizes that many States may not always collect a broad spectrum
of chemical data for every waterbody. Therefore, States are expected to
apply the following guidance to whatever data are available and to use a
"worst case" approach where multiple types of data are available. If, for
example, chemical data indicate full support but temperature data indicate
impairment, the waterbody is considered impaired.
Conventionals (dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant or stressor, criteria exceeded in
<10 percent of measurements. In the case of dissolved oxygen (DO),
national ambient water quality criteria specify the recommended
acceptable daily average and 7-day average minimums and the
acceptable 7-day and 30-day averages. States should document the
DO criteria being used for the assessment and should discuss any
biases that may be introduced by the sampling program (e.g., grab
sampling in waterbodies with considerable diurnal variation).
B. Partially Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in 11 to
25 percent of measurements. For DO, the above considerations apply.
C. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in >25
percent of measurements. For DO, the above considerations apply.
Special Considerations for Lakes
For lakes. States should discuss their interpretation of DO, pH, and
temperature standards for both epilimnetic and hypolimnetic waters. In
addition, States should consider turbidity and lake bottom siltation.
3-17
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Toxicants (priority pollutants, metals, chlorine, and ammonia)
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant, no more than 1 exceedance of
acute criteria (EPA's criteria maximum concentration or applicable
State/Tribal criteria) within a 3-year period based on grab or composite
samples and no more than 1 exceedance of chronic criteria (EPA's
criteria continuous concentration or applicable State/Tribal criteria)
within a 3-year period based on grab or composite samples.
B. Partially Supporting: For any one pollutant, acute or chronic criteria
exceeded more than once within a 3-year period, but in _10 percent of samples.
Note: The above assumes at least 10 samples over a 3-year period. If
fewer than 10 samples are available, the State should use discretion
and consider other factors such as the number of pollutants having a
single violation and the magnitude of the exceedance(s).
Other Considerations Regarding Toxicant Data
• EPA maintains that chronic criteria should be met in a waterbody that
fully supports its uses. Few States and Tribes, if any, are obtaining
composite data over a 4-day sampling period for comparison to chronic
criteria. EPA believes that 4-day composites are not an absolute
requirement for evaluating whether chronic criteria are being met. Grab
and composite samples (including 1-day composites) can be used in
water quality assessments if taken during stable conditions. This should
give States more flexibility in utilizing chronic criteria for assessments.
• States should document their sampling frequency. Sampling frequency
should be based on potential variability in toxicant concentrations. In
general, waters should have at least quarterly data to be considered
monitored; monthly or more frequent data are considered abundant.
More than 3 years of data may be used, although the once-in-3-years
consideration still applies (i.e., two violations are allowed in 6 years of
abundant data).
• The once-in-3-years goal is not intended to include spurious violations
resulting from lack of precision in analytical tests. Therefore, using
documented quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) assessments.
States may consider the effect of laboratory imprecision on the observed
frequency of violations.
3-18
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
• If the duration and frequency specifications of EPA criteria change in the
future, these recommendations should be changed accordingly.
• Samples should be taken outside of designated mixing zones or zones of
initial dilution.
Special Considerations Regarding Metals
The implementation and application of metals criteria is complex due to the
site-specific nature of metals toxicity. EPA's policy is for States to adopt
and use the dissolved metal fraction to set and measure compliance with
water quality standards, because dissolved metal more closely approximates
the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than does total
recoverable metal. One reason is that a primary mechanism for water
column toxicity is adsorption at the gill surface which requires metals to be
in the dissolved form. Table 3-5 provides guidance for calculating EPA
dissolved criteria from the published total recoverable criteria. The dissolved
metal criteria, expressed as percentage, are presented as recommended
values and ranges. If a State is collecting dissolved metal data but does not
yet have dissolved criteria, Table 3-5 might be useful for estimating
screening values. Also, if total recoverable metal concentrations are less
than the estimated dissolved metal criteria calculated from Table 3-5, the
State could be relatively certain that toxic concentrations are not present.
Some States have already developed and are using dissolved metals criteria
and should continue to do so. In the absence of dissolved metals data and
State criteria, States should continue to apply total recoverable metals
criteria to total recoverable metals data because this is more conservative
and thus protective of aquatic life. In some situations, a State may choose
to use total recoverable metals criteria when there are indications that total
metal loadings could be a stress to the ecosystem. The ambient water
quality criteria are neither designed nor intended to address the fate and
effect of metals in an ecosystem, e.g., protect sediments, prevent effects
due to food webs containing organisms that dwell in the sediments and
those that dwell in the water column and filter or ingest suspended particles.
However, since consideration of sediments or bioaccumulative impacts is
not incorporated into the criteria methodology, the appropriateness and
degree of conservatism inherent in the total recoverable approach is
unknown.
Historical metals data should be used with care. Concern about the
reliability of the data are greatest below about 5 to 10 ppb due to the
possibility of contamination problems during sample collection and analysis.
EPA believes that most historical metals concentrations above this level are
valid if collected with appropriate quality assurance and quality control.
3-19
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Table 3-5. Recommended Factors for Converting Total Recoverable Metal
Criteria to Dissolved Metal Criteria
Metal
Arsenic (III)
Cadmiumb
Hardness =
Hardness =
Hardness =
50 mg/L
1 00 mg/L
200 mg/L
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead"
Hardness =
Hardness =
Hardness =
50 mg/L
1 00 mg/L
200 mg/L
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Recommended, Conversion Factors •
CMC3
1.000
0.973
0.944
0.915
0.316
0.982
0.960
0.892
0.791
0.690
0.998
0.922
0.978
ccca
1.000
0.938
0.909
0.880
0.860°
0.962
0.960
0.892
0.791
0.690
0.997
0.922
0.986
* CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration
CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration
b The recommended conversion factors (CFs) for any hardness can be calculated using the
following equations:
Cadmium
CMC: CF = 1.136672 - [(In hardness) (0.041838)]
CCC: CF = 1.101672 - [(In hardness) (0.041838)]
Lead (CMC and CCC): CF = 1.46203 - [(In hardness) (0.145712)]
where:
(In hardness) = natural logarithm of the hardness. The recommended CFs are given to
three decimal places because they are intermediate values in the calculation of dissolved
criteria.
c This CF applies only if the CCC is based on the test by Stevens and Chapman (1984). If the
CCC is based on other chronic tests, it is likely that the CF should be 0.590, 0.376, or the
average of these two values.
Source: Stephen, C. E. 1995. Derivation of Conversion Factors for the Calculation of
Dissolved Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals. U.S. EPA, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Duluth.
3-20
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
3.2.5 Integration of Different Data Types in Making an ALUS Determination
The following guidelines apply to ALUS determinations for wadable streams
and rivers when biological, habitat, chemical, and/or toxicity data types are
available (Figure 3-2, Table 3-6). These guidelines strongly emphasize the
use of biological data for the assessment of ALUS specific to wadeable
streams and rivers. However, the basic principles are applicable to other
waterbody types. This guidance has undergone external peer-review
(Dickson et al. 1996) and has been revised to address the principle peer-
review recommendations to improve the guidance. In addition, peer review
recommendations were made to expand the guidance to (1) develop a
confidence icon for the overall assessment and (2) develop guidelines that
consider the results from biological, chemical and physical assessments in
relation to their role as response, stressor or exposure indicators. The peer
review specifically recommended that EPA develop a weighting algorithm for
biological results (as response indicator) in relation to results from
physical/chemical, habitat, and toxicological assessments (as
stressor/exposure indicators). These latter recommendations will be
evaluated for future guidelines. EPA considers the current guidelines,
particularly consideration of level of information, as providing the initial basis
for addressing these additional peer review recommendations.
EPA recommends consideration of the level of information of the different
data types in evaluating degree of impairment (partial support vs
nonsupport). Case studies follow that demonstrate how ALUS
determinations could be made based on types of data, level of information,
and site specific information and conditions, and are not intended to cover
all possible situations but to highlight commonly encountered scenarios.
These case studies are based on actual State examples that represent a
State's decision process in making an ALUS determination, and are
presented in a uniform manner for illustration. Different states use different
ordinal scales for assessment.
Generally, assessments based on data with high levels of information should
be weighted more heavily than those based on data with low levels of
information, and biological data should be weighted more heavily than other
data types. In particular, it is recommended that the results of biological
assessments, especially those with high levels of information, be the basis
for the overall ALUS determination if the data indicate impairment. This is
because the biological data provide a direct measure of the status of the
aquatic biota and detect the cumulative impact of multiple stressors on the
aquatic community, including new or previously undetected stressors. This
approach is consistent with EPA's Policy on Independent Application while
incorporating a weight of evidence approach in determining the degree of
impairment (partial or nonsupport). The Policy does not allow for a
3-21
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Compile available data for a segment of waterbody and assign level
of information for each data type (Section 3.2, Table 3-1 through 3-4).
Evaluate assessment results for each data type
I
Make an overall ALUS determination based on the following guidelines
ATTAINMENT
No impairment
Indicated by all
data types
Fully Supporting
No impairment
indicated by all
data types but
with a declining
trend in water
quality over time.
Fully Supporting
but Threatened
NONATTAINMENT
I
Impairment indicated by 1 or more
data types. Determination of partial or
nonsupport should be based on the
nature and rigor of the data and site
specific conditions. Biological data
could be the basis for overall
assessment if it indicates impairment.
See text and case studies.
I
Partially Supporting
Figure 3-2. Determination of ALUS using biological, chemical, lexicological,
and/or habitat data.
3-22
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
—
Table 3-6. Determination of ALUS Using More Than One Data Type
ALUS Attainment
A. Fully Supporting:
B. Fully Supporting but Threatened:
ALUS Non-attainment
C. *PartiaIly Supporting:
D. *Not Supporting:
No impairment indicated by all data type;
No impairment indicated by all data types;
one or more categories indicate an apparent
decline in ecological quality over time or
potential water quality problems requiring
additional data or verification, or
Other information suggests a threatened
determination (see Section 3.2)
Impairment indicated by one or more data
types and no impairment indicated by others
Impairment indicated by all data type;
* A determination of partially supporting or not supporting could be made based on
the nature and rigor of the data and site-specific conditions in the results of the
data types. If bioassessment (usually Level 3 or 4) indicates impairment, then a
determination of not supporting should be made. See case studies that follow.
3-23
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Ten Mile River. MA-Site TM01 Dec. 1991
Waterbody Description
ALUS: Class B, warm water fishery
Reach Size: 0.8 miles, Headwaters to Bacon
Street, Plainville, site upstream of
electroplating facility
Drainage Area: ?
Stressors: urban development, impoundment
Number of sites monitored: 1
Assessment Quality
Data
Type
Biological
Habitat
Toxicity
P/Chemical
Level
1
2
/
3
/
/
4
Description
• RBP {Benthic
and Fish)
survey, 1990
• Vis.-based RBP
• None
• Conventionals,
no metals
Assessment Findings
threshold for attainment
Hab Tox P/Chem
Results Summary: ,
a. Benthos show some impairment, but
fish indicate no impairment
b. Habitat is degraded from impoundments
and urban development
c. Analysis of conventional pollutants
shows no exceedances
Result
Partially Supporting
Ten Mile River. MA-Site TM02 Dec. 1991
Waterbody Description
ALUS: Class B, warm water fishery
Reach Size: 0.1 miles,Bacon Street, Plainville,
site downstream of electroplating
facility
Drainage Area: ?
Stressors: urban development, impoundment
Number of sites monitored: 1
Assessment Quality
Data
Type
Biological
Habitat
Toxicity
P/Chemical
Level
1
2
/
3
'
4
Description
• RBP (Benthic
and Fish)
survey, 1990
• Vis.-based RBP
• None
• Conventionals,
no metals
Assessment Findings
threshold for attainment
Bio
Hab Tox P/Chem
Results Summary:
a. Both benthos and fish show impairment
b. Habitat is degraded from impoundments
and urban development
c. Analysis of conventional pollutants shows
no exceedances
Result =
Not Supporting
3-24
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATI/
Little River. Kentucky. 1994-95
Waterbody Description
ALUS: Warmwater Aquatic Life
Reach Size: 37.4 mi
Drainage Area: 250 mi2
Stressors: Municipal WWTPs, agriculture
Number of sites monitored: 1
Assessment Quality
Type
• Biological
• Habitat
•Toxicity
• P/Chemical
Level
1
/
2
3
^
4
/
Description
• Fish, macroinvertebrates
(Level 4), algae survey by
division biologists; survey
form submitted by regional
fisheries biologiest
• Monthly ambient monitoring
network station '
Assessment Findings
threshold for attainment
Bio Hab Tox P/Chem
Results Summary:
a. Analysis of conventional pollutants and
metals show no results greater than
water quality criteria
b. Biological assessment of 3
assemblages indicates only.partial y'
support, mostly from macroinverte' ;
data
c. Survey of district fisheries biologist
indicates fair fishery
Result =
Partially Supporting
/
/
Middle Fork Kentucky River. Kentucky 1
, Waterbody Description
ALUS: Warmwater Aquatic Life /
Reach Size: 27.1 mi /
Drainage Area: 205 mi2 /
Stressors: Coal mining /
Number of sites monitored: None; asses/ »is visual
observation and general knowledge of / /of fishery
Type
• Biological
• Habitat
•Toxicity
• P/Chemical
Assessment ,ty
Level
1
/
2
3
Description
/
t
• Survey submitted by
regional fisheries biologies
Assessment Findings
jood
Poor
Very
Poor
threshold for attainment
Ho Hab
Hab Tox ,P/Chem
Results Summary:
a. Fisheries biologist familiar with this river
indicates poor fishery because of heavy
siltation from surface mining smothering the
cobble substrate
Result
Not Supporting
3-25
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Blackstone River. MS 62-06. Massachusetts,
1994
Waterbody Description
ALUS: Class B, Warmwater Fishery
Roach She: 3.7 mi
Drainaga Area: ?
Slrcssors: WWTP treating industrial center of Blackstone,
urban runoff, contaminated sediments
Number of sites monitored: 1
Assessment Quality
Data
Typo
•Biological
•Habitat
•Toxicity
•P/Chemical
Level
1
2
/
/
3
/
/
4
Description
• RBP (Benthic) Survey
• Visual-based done at 2 sites
• Instream chronic test
• Toxics (water column and
sediments
Assessment Findings
threshold for attainment
Habt Hab2 Tox P/Chem
Results Summary:
a. Benthic assemblage diverse, but
dominated by relatively tolerant taxa
b. Habitat good at site 1, but water
withdrawal causes stream to go dry at 2.
c. No instream chronic toxicity
d. Cd, Cu, Pb exceed chronic criteria; Cu
also exceeds acute criterion
Result -
Partially Supporting
Nauaatuck River CT 6900. Connecticut. 1996
Waterbody Description
ALUS: Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Reach Size: 19 miles Torrington to Waterbury
Drainage Area: 155 mi2
Stressors: 2 POTWS, 3 metal finishers, urban runoff
Number of sites monitored: 4 biol., 1 chem., long term sites
Assessment Quality
Data
Type
• Biological
• Habitat
• Toxicity
• P/Chemical
Level
1
/
2
3
/
/
4
/
Description
• RBP III Benthos
• RBP IV Fish
• RBP Visual obs.
• WET acute
• Conventional, metals,
longterm fish tissue
Assessment Findings
threshold for attainment
Bio Hab Tox P/Chem
Results Summary:
a. Benthos show moderate impairment,
fish show no impairment.
b. Habitat is fair to good.
c. Toxicity -WET testing indicates no
exceedance.
d. Conventional pollutants show no
exceedance, some exceedance of
copper chronic criteria at low flows.
Result =
Partially Supporting
3-26
-------
DETERMINATIONS
determination of full support when there are differences in assessment
results when at least one assessment indicates impairment. For example, it
is possible to arrive at an overall assessment of partial support where
biological data indicate full support and other data types indicate some level
of impairment.
3.2.6 Additional Information on Biological Assessment of ALUS for Wadable Streams and
Rivers
The following information may be useful to States in making ALUS
determinations based on biological and associated habitat data. Biological
assessments are evaluations of the biological condition of waterbodies using
biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface
waters and comparing results to the established biological criteria. They are
done by qualified professional staff trained in biological methods and data
interpretation. The utility of biological measures has been demonstrated in
assessing impairment of receiving waterbodies, particularly that caused by
nonpoint sources and nontraditional water quality problems such as habitat
degradation. Biological assessments are key to determining whether
functional, sustainable communities are present and whether any of these
communities have been modified beyond the natural range of the reference
condition. Functional and sustainable implies that communities at each
trophic level have species composition, population density, tolerance to
stressors, and healthy individuals within the range of the reference condition
and that the entire aquatic system is capable of maintaining its levels of
diversity and natural processes in the future (see Angermeier and Karr,
1994).
The techniques for biosurveys are still evolving, but there have been
significant improvements in the last decade. Appropriate methods have
been established by EPA (e.g., Plafkin et al., 1989), State agencies (e.g.,
Ohio EPA, 1987; Massachusetts DEP, 1996; Florida DEP, 1994; Idaho DEQ,
1995), and other investigators assessing the condition of the biota (e.g.,
Karr et al., 1986). Guidance for development of biocriteria-based programs
is provided in the Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters (U.S. EPA, 1990) and Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for
Streams and Small Rivers (Gibson et al., 1996). As biosurvey techniques
continue to improve, several technical considerations apply:
• The identification of the REFERENCE CONDITION is basic to any
assessment of impairment or attainment of aquatic fife use and to the
establishment of biological criteria.
Reference conditions are described from an aggregate of data best
acquired from multiple sites with similar physical dimensions, represent
3-27
-------
3, MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
minimally impaired conditions, and provide an estimate of natural
variability in biological condition and habitat quality. For determining
reference condition, alternative approaches to selection of reference sites
include use of historical data, paleoecological data for lakes,
experimental laboratory data for select cases, quantitative models, and
best professional judgment (Hughes 1995).
Reference conditions must be stratified (i.e., put into homogenous
waterbody classes) to account for much of the natural physical and
climatic variability that affects the geographic distribution of biological
communities. The Ecoregion.Concept (Omernik, 1987) recognizes
geographic patterns of similarity among ecosystems, grouped on the
basis of environmental variables such as climate, soil type, physiography,
and vegetation. Currently, efforts are under way in several parts of the
country to refine these ecoregions into a more useful framework to
classify waterbodies. Procedures have begun in several ecoregions and
subecoregions to identify reference conditions within those particular
units. In essence, these studies are developing reference databases to
define biological potential and physical habitat expectations within
eporegions. The concept of reference conditions for bioassessment and
biocriteria is discussed further below.
In developing community bioassessment protocols, reference conditions
against which to compare test sites and to judge impairment are needed.
Ideally, reference conditions represent the highest biological conditions
found in waterbodies unimpacted by human pollution and disturbance.
That is, the regional reference site concept is meant to accommodate
natural variations in biological communities due to bedrock, soils, and
other natural physicochemical differences. Recognizing that pristine
habitats are rare (even remote lakes and streams are subject to
atmospheric deposition), resource managers must decide on an
acceptable level of disturbance to represent an achievable or existing
reference condition. Acceptable reference conditions will differ among
geographic regions and States and will depend on the aquatic life use
designations incorporated into State water quality standards.
Characterization of reference conditions depends heavily on classification
of natural resources. The purpose of a classification is to explain the
natural biological condition of a natural resource from the physical
characteristics. Waterbodies vary widely in size and ecological
characteristics, and a single reference condition that applies to all
systems would be misleading. A classification system that organizes
waterbodies into groups with similar ecological characteristics is required
to develop meaningful reference conditions.
3-28
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
The best approach to classifying and characterizing regional reference
conditions is determined by the estimated quality of potential reference
sites that are available in the region. If a sufficient number of relatively
undisturbed waterbodies exist (e.g., primarily forested watersheds), then
it is possible to define watershed conditions that are acceptable for
reference sites. If no reference sites exist, then reference conditions can
be characterized based on an extrapolation of the biological attributes
representative of the aquatic biota expected to be found in the region
(see Gibson et al., 1996) or through other quantitative models (Hughes
1995). EPA sees the use of a regional reference condition as an
important component and goal of State biological programs. The
Agency also recognizes that other approaches, such as
upstream/downstream sampling, may be necessary (U.S. EPA, 1990).
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has been very active in the
development of biocriteria based on reference conditions. Ohio's
experiences and methods may be useful to other States in developing
their biological monitoring and biocriteria programs (see, for example,
Ohio EPA, 1987, 1990). Florida DEP has developed a similar approach
for defining reference conditions (Barbour et al., 1996); Arizona DEQ has
oriented its reference condition by elevation (Spindler, 1996); and Maine
DEC uses a statistically derived-decision model technique that is based
on a knowledge of the ecology and expectations in the response to
perturbation of the biological attributes to classify and assess its streams
(Davis et al., 1993). For further information on the development and
implementation of biological criteria and assessments, States should
consult Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters (U.S. EPA, 1990), Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish (Plafkin et al.,
1989), and Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and
Small Rivers (Gibson et al., 1996).
A MULTIMETRIC APPROACH TO BIOASSESSMENT is recommended to
strengthen data interpretation and reduce error in judgment based solely
on population indices and measures.
The accurate assessment of biological integrity requires a method that
integrates biotic responses through an examination of patterns and
processes from individual to ecosystem levels (Karr et al., 1986). The
early conventional approach to using individual population measures has
been to select some biological parameter that refers to a narrow range of
changes or conditions and evaluate that parameter (e.g., species
distributions, abundance trends, standing crop, or production estimates).
Parameters are interpreted separately with a summary statement about
the overall health. This approach is limited in that the key parameters
3-29
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
emphasized may not be reflective of overall ecological health. The
preferred approach is to define an array of metrics that individually
provide information on each biological parameter and, when integrated,
function as an overall indicator of biological condition. The strength of
such a multimetric approach, when the component metrics are calibrated
for a particular stream class, is its ability to integrate information from
individual, population, assemblage, and zoogeographic levels into a
single, ecologically-based index of water resource quality (Karr et al.,
1986). The development of metrics for use in the biocriteria process can
be partitioned into two phases (Barbour et al., 1995). First, an
evaluation of candidate metrics is necessary to eliminate nonresponsive ,
metrics and to address various technical issues (i.e., associated with
methods, sampling habitat and frequency, etc.). Second, calibration of ,
the metrics determines the discriminatory power of each metric and
identifies thresholds for discriminating between "good" and"poor" sites.
Known impaired sites are used to provide a test of discriminatory power.
This process defines a suite of metrics that are optimal candidates for
inclusion in bioassessments. Subsequently, a procedure for aggregating
metrics to provide an integrative index is needed. For a metric to be
useful, it must be (1) relevant to the biological community under study
and to the specified program objectives; (2) sensitive to stressors;
(3) able to provide a response that can be discriminated from natural
variation; (4) environmentally benign to measure in the aquatic
environment; and (5) cost-effective to sample. A number of metrics
have been developed and subsequently tested in field surveys of benthic
macroinvertebrate and fish assemblage (Barbour et al., 1995).
Assessment of HABITAT STRUCTURE as an element of the biosurvey is
critical to assessment of biological response.
Interpretation of biological data in the context of habitat quality provides
a mechanism for discerning the effects of physical habitat structure on
biota from those of chemical toxicants. If habitat is of poor or
somewhat degraded condition, expected biological values are lowered;
conversely, if habitat is in good condition (relative to regional
expectations), high biological condition values are expected. Poor
habitat structure will prevent the attainment of the expected biological
condition, even as water quality problems are ameliorated. If lowered
biological values are indicated simultaneously with good habitat
assessment rating scores, toxic or conventional contaminants in the
system may have caused a suppression of community development.
Additional chemical data may be needed-to further define the probable
causes (stressors). On the other hand, high biological metric scores in
poor habitat could indicate a temporary response to organic enrichment,
3-30
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
natural variation in colonization/mortality, change in predation pressures,
change in food source/abundance, or other factors.
• A standardized INDEX PERIOD is important for consistent and effective
monitoring. '
The intent of a statewide bioassessment program is to evaluate overall
biological conditions. The capacity of the aquatic community to reflect
integrated environmental effects over time can be used as a foundation
for developing bioassessment strategies (Plafkin et al., 1989). An index
period is a time frame for sampling the condition of the community that
is a cost-effective alternative to sampling on a year-round basis. Ideally,
the optimal index period will correspond to recruitment cycles of the
organisms (based on reproduction, emergence, and migration patterns).
In some instances, an index period would be oriented to maximize
impact of a particular pollutant source (e.g., high-temperature/low-flow
period for point sources). Sampling during an index period can
(1) minimize between-year variability due to natural events, (2) optimize
accessibility of the target assemblages, and (3) maximize efficiency of
sampling gear.
• STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES and an effective QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROGRAM are established to support the integrity of the
data.
The validity of the ecological study and resultant conclusions are
dependent upon an effective QA Plan. An effective QA Plan at the onset
of a study provides guidance to staff in several areas: objectives and
milestones for achieving objectives throughout the study; lines of
responsibility; accountability of staff for data quality objectives; and
accountability for ensuring precision, accuracy, completeness of data
collection activities, and documentation of sample custody procedures.
Documented SOPs for developing study plans, maintenance and
application of field sampling gear, performance of laboratory activities,
and data analyses are integral quality control components of QA that can
provide significant control of potential error sources.
• A determination of PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS of the
bioassessment provides an understanding of the data quality for the
assessment.
Perhaps the most important component irt making bioassessments useful
to water resource programs is the data quality of different assessment
methods currently in use and the level of comparability among methods
in performing an assessment. The comparability of methods should be
3-31
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
judged by the degree of similarity in their performance characteristics
(i.e., a performance-based approach) rather than by direct comparison of
their respective scores or metric values (ITFM 1995, Diamond et al.
1996). To enable a sharing of data and results from various techniques
that might be used by different agencies or other groups, some level of
confidence in making an assessment must be established for each
method based on the quality of data. This performance characteristic is
precision, which is dependent upon the sampling methodology and the
range in natural variation of the reference condition (note - use of
stream classification will increase precision).
The ability to detect impairment also depends on the sensitivity of the
method. In some cases, the desirable sensitivity level depends on how
severe or subtle the impairment. For example, it does not require a very
rigorous method to detect impairment following an extensive fish kill or
algal bloom. It is the subtle impact areas that require some level of rigor
that minimizes Type I and Type II errors in a judgment of condition.
Based on preliminary information obtained from bioassessments
conducted in Florida (Barbour et al. 1996a, Diamond et al. 1996), Ohio
(Stribling et al. 1996), and New Hampshire (Stribling et al. 1994),
quantitative criteria for precision arid sensitivity can be set conservatively
at "high" being less or equal to 20%, "moderate" being between 21 and
49%, and "low" being more or equal to 50%. High precision is equated
to having low measurement error (coefficient of variation <20%) and
sensitivity is the ability to detect small differences (<20% difference)
between reference and the site being assessed.
AN IDENTIFICA TION OF THE APPROPRIA TE NUMBER OF SAMPLING
SITES that are representative of a waterbody is an important
consideration in evaluating biological condition.
The spatial array of sampling sites in any given watershed or region and
the extrapolation of biological condition and water quality to areas
beyond the exact sampling point must be established in any type of
assessment. Two primary guidelines can be identified for extrapolating
biological assessment data to whole watersheds. First, the structure of
aquatic communities in lotic (flowing water) systems changes naturally
with an increase in size of the stream. Thresholds in this continuum of
change can be established through an analysis of regional databases.
The biological condition at any particular site can only be used to
represent upstream and downstream areas of the same physical
dimensions and flow characteristics. Likewise, lake size will influence
the number of sites needed to adequately characterize a lake or area of a
lake. In small lakes, one site will generally be sufficient. In large lakes
3-32
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
with multiple basins or in reservoirs with various zones (inflow,
midsection, outflow), a site representative of each basin or zone may be
needed.
A second consideration for site identification is the change in land use
patterns along a stream gradient or lake shoreline. Changes from
agricultural land use to urban centers, forested parkland, etc., would
warrant different representative sampling sites. A waterbody with
multiple dischargers may also require numerous sampling sites to
characterize the overall biological condition of the waterbody.
Technical Support Literature
The Peer Review Team for ALUS recommended several technical papers to
be used in support of specific technical issues associated with
bioassessment. Information from these and other relevant literature will be
incorporated into the revision of this chapter, pending comments and
guidance from the Technical Experts Panel. The technical papers
recommended by the ALUS Peer Review Team are as follows:
Cummins, K. W. 1988. Rapid bioassessment using functional analysis of
running water invertebrates. In: T. P. Simon, L. L. Hoist and L. J. Shepard
(eds,). EPA -905-9-89-003. Proceedings of the First National Workshop on
Biological Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago.
Cummins, K. W. and M. A. Wilzbach. 1985. Field procedures for analysis
of functional feeding groups of stream macroinvertebrates. Contribution
1611. Appalachian Environmental Research Laboratory, University of
Maryland, Frostburg, Maryland.
Davis, W. S. and T. P. Simon (eds). 1995. Biological assessment and
criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Hauer, F. R. and G. A. Lamberti (eds). 1996. Methods in Stream Ecology.
Academic Press, San Diego.
Rosenberg, D. M. and V. H. Resh. 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and
Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York.
3.3 Primary Contact Recreation Use
All States have recreational waterbodies with bathing areas, as well as less
heavily used waterbodies with a designated use of swimming. In some
States, nearly all waters are designated for swimming, although the great
3-33
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
majority of waters are not used heavily for this purpose. States are asked
to first target their assessments of primary contact recreation use to high-
use swimming areas such as bathing beaches, a risk-based approach to
targeting resources to protect human health.
3.3.1 Bathing Area Closure Data
States should acquire data on bathing area closures from State and local
health departments and analyze them as follows.
A. Fully Supporting: No bathing area closures or restrictions in effect
during reporting period.
B. Partially Supporting: On average, one bathing area closure per year of
less than 1 week's duration.
C. Not Supporting: On average, one bathing area closure per year of
greater than 1 week's duration, or more than one bathing area closure
per year.
Some bathing areas are subject to administrative closures such as automatic
closures after storm events of a certain intensity. Such closures should be
reported along with other types of closures in the 305(b) report and used in
making use support determinations if they are associated with violation of
water quality standards.
3.3.2 Bacteria
States should base use support determinations on their own State criteria
for bacteriological indicators.
EPA encourages States to adopt bacteriological indicator criteria for the
protection of primary contact recreation uses consistent with those
recommended in Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria— 1986 (EPA
440/5-84-002). This document recommends criteria for enterococci and £.
coif bacteria (for both fresh and marine waters) consisting of:
• Criterion 1 = A geometric mean of the samples taken should not be
exceeded, and
• Criterion 2 = Single sample maximum allowable density.
Many State criteria for the protection of the primary contact recreation use
are based on fecal coliform bacteria as previously recommended by EPA
(Quality Criteria for Water— 1976). The previous criteria were:
3-34
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
• Criterion 1 = The geometric mean of the fecal coliform bacteria level
should not exceed 200 per 100 ml based on at least
five samples in a 30-day period, and
• Criterion 2 = Not more than 10 percent of the total samples taken
during any 30-day period should have a density that
exceeds 400 per 100 mL.
If State criteria are based on either of EPA's criteria recommendations
outlined above (based on the 1976 or 1986 criteria), States should use the
following approach in determining primary contact recreational use support:
A. Fully Supporting: Criterion 1 and Criterion 2 met.
B. Partially Supporting:
• For E. coif or enterococci: Geometric mean met; single-sample
criterion exceeded during the recreational season, or
• For fecal coliform: Geometric mean met; more than 10 percent of
samples exceed 400 per 100 mL.
C. Not Supporting: Geometric mean not met.
This guidance establishes a minimum baseline approach; should States have
more restrictive criteria, these may be used in place of EPA's criteria. Please
indicate when this is the case.
3.3.3 Other Parameters
In addition to pathogens, some States have criteria for other pollutants or
stressors for Primary Contact Recreation. As noted by the ITFM, potentially
hazardous chemicals in water and bottom sediment, ionic strength, turbidity,
algae, aesthetics, and taste and odor can be important indicators for
* recreational use support determinations. The following guidelines apply
where appropriate (i.e., where States have water quality standards for other
parameters).
A. Fully Supporting: For any one pollutant or stressor, criteria exceeded in
^10 percent of measurements.
B. Partially Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in 11 to
25 percent of measurements.
3-35
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
C. Not Supporting: For any one pollutant, criteria exceeded in >25
percent of measurements.
3.3.4 Special Considerations for Lakes
Trophic Status—
Trophic status is traditionally measured using data on total phosphorus,
chlorophyll a, and Secchi transparency. As mentioned above, comparison of
trophic conditions to natural, ecoregion-specific standards allows the best
use of this measure.
In this context, user perception surveys can be a useful adjunct to trophic
status measures in defining recreational use support. Smeltzer and Heiskary
(1990) offer a basis for linking trophic status measures with user perception
information. This can provide a basis for categorizing use support based on
trophic status data. If user perception data are not collected in the State,
extrapolations using data from another State, i.e., best professional
judgment, might provide the opportunity to characterize recreational use
support in a similar fashion.
Pathogens—
States should consider pathogen data in determining support of recreational
uses. Guidelines above also apply to lakes.
Additional Parameters—
In addition to trophic status and pathogens, States should consider the
following parameters in determining support of recreational uses:
• Frequency/extent of algal blooms, surface scums and mats, or periphyton
growth
• Turbidity (reduction of water clarity due to suspended solids) «
• Lake bottom siltation (reduction of water depth)
• Extent of nuisance macrophyte growth (noxious aquatic plants)
• Aesthetics.
3-36
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
3.4 Fish/Shellfish Consumption Use
Fish/Shellfish Consumption Advisory Data
A. Fully Supporting: No fish/shellfish restrictions or bans are in effect.
B. Partially Supporting: "Restricted consumption" of fish in effect
(restricted consumption is defined as limits on the number of meals or
size of meals consumed per unit time for one or more fish/shellfish
species); or a fish or shellfish ban in effect for a subpopulation that
could be at potentially greater risk, for one or more fish/shellfish
species.
C. Not Supporting: "No consumption" of fish or shellfish ban in effect for
general population for one more fish/shellfish species; or commercial
fishing/shellfishing ban in effect.
In addition, the ITFM recommended specific indicators for assessing fish and
shellfish consumption risks: levels of bioaccumulative chemicals in fish and
shellfish tissue for fish and shellfish consumption, and, for shellfish only,
paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP)-type phytopiankton and microbial
pathogens.
In areas where shellfish are collected for commercial or private purposes and
removed to cleaner waters for depuration, the originating waterbodies
should be considered Partially Supporting for Shellfish Consumption use.
3.5 Drinking Water Use
The following guidelines provide a framework for assessment of drinking
water use support. These guidelines were developed by EPA in conjunction
with the 305(b) Drinking Water Focus Group (DWFG), which consists of
interested State and EPA personnel. EPA and States participating in the
DWFG made it their goal to develop a workable set of guidelines that would
serve to elevate the awareness of drinking water as a designated use within
the 305(b) program, increase the percentage of waters assessed for drinking
water use support, and enhance the accuracy and value of the assessments.
It was agreed by all parties involved in the development of these drinking
water guidelines that no single template is suitable for every reporting State.
The guidelines must incorporate flexibility and rely heavily on the judgment
of the professional staff of each State's public water supply supervision
program to meet the challenges of assessing source waters for drinking
water use support.
3-37
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
For purposes of the 1998 305(b) Water Quality Reports, States are asked to
focus their assessments on water resources that support significant drinking
water supplies. It is generally assumed that most States will initially focus
their assessments on surface water resources; however, these guidelines are
non-resource-specific and the framework may be applied to any waters
within a State that are designated for drinking water use.
EPA and States participating in the DWFG discussed at length the issues
and difficulties involved in assessing source waters for drinking water use
support. EPA and these States recognize and fully accept that there will be
significant variability in the information that States are able to provide in the
1998 305{b) reporting cycle. However, EPA expects that the direction of
future reporting cycles will be evident, and that States will begin to develop
plans and mechanisms to improve the overall accuracy and value of the
assessments.
Key features of these guidelines include:
• assessment of State's water resources in phases over two 305(b)
reporting cycles
• flexibility to perform assessments using a tiered approach
• identification of multiple data sources that may be used in the
assessments
• assessment of water resources using a target list of contaminants
reflecting the interests and goals of the State, and
• interpretation of data.
3.5.1 Prioritization and Phases of Source Water Assessment
EPA and the DWFG recognize that assessment of source waters for drinking
water use support within the framework of the following guidelines is
revised to achieve the key features listed above. EPA and the DWFG also
recognize that assessment of the entire State's water resources for drinking
water use support is a monumental task. To ease the burden, States may
choose to perform drinking water use support assessments using a phased
approach.
States may consider prioritizing their water resources and performing
drinking water use support assessments for a limited percentage of their
water resources. States are encouraged to expand their drinking water
assessment efforts to include additional waters each subsequent reporting
3-38
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
cycle. In this way, an increasingly greater percentage of waters will be
assessed. Furthermore, this phased approach provides States with the
opportunity to develop and implement plans arid mechanisms for
compilation, organization, and evaluation of drinking water data for
improved reporting. EPA encourages States to set a goal of assessing
drinking water use support for most of the State (approximately 75 percent
of the waterbodies used for drinking water) by the year 2000.
For 1998, States are encouraged to set a priority for reporting results for
waters of greatest drinking water demand. For these waters, States may
elect to further prioritize with respect to vulnerability or other State-priority
factors.
Identifying the presence of "treatment beyond conventional means" is one
example of a technique that may be used to screen water resources for
potential vulnerability and aid in prioritization of source waters for drinking
water assessments. If "treatment beyond conventional means" is present
(i.e., treatment beyond coagulation, sedimentation, disinfection, and
conventional filtration), it may signify that the source water has been
impacted to some degree and warrants more detailed investigation;
however, it should be recognized that this information is generally not
explicit, and therefore, neither the presence nor the absence of "treatment
beyond conventional means" can be positively correlated to drinking water
designated use support without additional investigation.
Prioritization of water resources for assessment may best be achieved in
coordination with State professionals responsible for collecting and
maintaining water quality data for sources of drinking water. It is generally
these professionals that are most familiar with the data needed to assess
. drinking water designated use support and the conditions under which that
data were collected. Their insight is integral to assuring the accuracy and
value of these assessments.
3.5.2 Tiered Approach for Source Water Assessments
' In addition to assessing only a limited percentage of State waters for
drinking water use support, EPA and the DWFG encourage States to
consider using a tiered approach in the assessments. A tiered approach
accommodates the different types of data currently available to States with
which to make an assessment and allows for differing levels of assessment.
Initially, States may use the most readily available information such as
regional data, agency files, or other existing records or reports to conduct a
preliminary assessment. As State programs develop and become more
sophisticated, the preliminary assessments can be progressively upgraded
3-39
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
through the incorporation of more detailed data (e.g., monitoring data). For
1998, EPA encourages States to provide a short narrative explaining how
their assessments were performed and the level of detail incorporated into
each assessment.
3.5.3 Data Sources
By instituting the tiered approach to conducting drinking water designated
use assessments, EPA and the DWFG are acknowledging that data
collection and organization varies among the States, and that a single data
source for assessing drinking water designated use does not exist for
purposes of the 1998 305(b) reports. EPA encourages States to use
available data that they believe best reflect the quality of the resource. EPA
is not asking States to conduct additional monitoring that does not fit in
with other State priorities.
It is generally accepted that for purposes of the 1998 305(b) reports, States
may need to be resourceful to acquire the data necessary to conduct
preliminary assessments of source waters for drinking water designated use.
States noted during the previous 1996 305(b) reporting cycle that the
Guidelines placed heavy emphasis on the use of ambient water quality data.
Frequently these data were not available and States defaulted to the use of
finished water quality data. It was noted by many States that the default to
finished water quality data might yield a jaded view of the source water
quality.
EPA and the DWFG concur that the use of finished water quality data is not
the best possible source of data for assessing source water quality;
however, EPA and the DWFG also recognize the difficulties in obtaining data
for use in drinking water assessments. By encouraging States to prioritize
their water resources and perform drinking water use support assessments
in a phased approach over two 305(b) cycles, EPA hopes that acquiring the
necessary data will continue to become less difficult in time.
Within the numerous 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), the States are encouraged to use the Source Water Assessment
Program (SWAP) to promote assessment of drinking water sources. EPA's
August 1997 guidance suggests that States complete source water
delineations and source inventory/susceptibility analyses for the public water
supplies in the State within two years after EPA approval of the program.
These assessments, when completed by the States, are an additional source
of data for evaluating drinking water designated use and should contribute
considerably to the assessment of drinking water quality.
3-40
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
For the 1998 305(b) reporting cycle, EPA is encouraging States to be
resourceful in acquiring and using available data. EPA is not asking States
to perform additional monitoring.
EPA and the DWFG identified several potential data sources that States
might consider using in their 1998 assessments, including:
• Available ambient water quality data
• Untreated water quality data from public water supply (PWS) wells
and/or surface water intakes1
• PWS drinking water use restrictions
• STORET database
• Independent water suppliers databases
• Source water assessments (SDWA 1996 Amendments)
• U.S. Geological Survey NAWQA studies
• Private water .association studies
• Independent studies
• Other 305(b) use support impairments (e.g., aquatic life impairments).
States that have access to other data sources that can be used to assess -
source water quality for drinking water purposes are encouraged to use
them if, in the judgment of the drinking water professionals, the data have
undergone sufficient quality assurance/quality control checks.
Ideally, one or several of the above data sources will be available for States
to use in assessing drinking water use support. However, lacking any of the
above, States may have no choice but to default to the PWS compliance
monitoring data required under the SDWA (i.e., finished water quality data).
These data should only be used if the distinct source water can be identified
(i.e., mixed systems do not qualify). Information on contamination-based
1States that designate for drinking water use only at the point of intake should
assess an appropriate area of the source water for drinking water use support. This may
require assigning an appropriate area around or distance upstream of the point of intake.
3-41
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
drinking water use restrictions imposed on a source water may also be
considered.
3.5.4 Contaminants Used in the Assessment
In many cases, the source of the data will determine the contaminants used
in the assessment. For example, if a State has access to ambient
monitoring data, the assessment is limited to the monitored contaminants.
Each State should develop a target list of contaminants that best represents
the State's assessment goals; this list may be based, on monitoring or other
sources of data. EPA and the DWFG recommend that States use the
contaminants regulated under the SDWA as a starting point in developing
their target list of contaminants (a list of the contaminants regulated under
the SDWA and their associated maximum contaminant levels is provided in
Appendix O). States are not expected to include all of the contaminants
regulated under the SDWA as part of their target list.
EPA and the DWFG acknowledge that there are no specific guidelines or
hierarchical structure to follow for developing a target list of contaminants
for use in drinking water assessments and States must use their best
professional judgment in the decision-making process. Important
considerations include the availability and quality of data and the level of
assessment States are prepared to make. To assist States in reducing the
comprehensive list of contaminants regulated under the SDWA to a final,
more manageable, grouping of contaminants, EPA and the DWFG
recommend that States consider any of the following:
• MCL violations
• detections greater than the action trigger limits
• vulnerability studies
• occurrence data
• chemical waivers
• contamination-based drinking water use restrictions
• treatment beyond conventional means
• treatment objectives
• treatment processes
• treatment technique violations, and/or
• ambient turbidity levels.
EPA and the DWFG realize that the list of contaminants regulated under the
SDWA is not an all-inclusive list and States may decide to add contaminants
to their target group based on their best professional judgment. For
example, States may choose to add contaminants that are not regulated
3-42
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
under the SDWA but are of special interest or concern within the State
(e.g., pesticides, herbicides, algae, phosphates).
3.5.5 Data Interpretation
EPA and the DWFG developed a framework to assist States in assigning use
support categories based on data availability. As shown in Table 3-7,
assessments can be based on actual monitoring data that are compared to
water quality criteria (e.g., State-specific water quality standards or National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations). If States do not have actual
monitoring data available, finished water quality data and/or drinking water
use restrictions could be used to infer source water quality. Use restrictions
include:
• closures of source waters that are used for drinking water supply
• contamination-based drinking water supply advisories lasting more than
30 days per year
• PWSs requiring more than conventional treatment (i.e., other than
coagulation, sedimentation, disinfection, and conventional filtration) due
to known or suspected source water quality problems
• PWSs requiring increased monitoring due to confirmed detections of one
or more contaminants (excluding cases with minimum detection limit
issues).
3.5.6 Conclusion
Relatively few source waters have been adequately characterized for
drinking water use support during the past 305(b) reporting cycles. EPA
and States worked to develop a workable set of Guidelines that would serve
to elevate the awareness of drinking water as a designated use within the
305(b) program, increase the percentage of waters assessed for drinking
water use support, and enhance the accuracy and value of the assessments.
These Guidelines provide a flexible framework for assessing drinking water
designated use support. Using this framework is expected to result in
better, more comprehensive assessments of source waters.
3-43
-------
3. MAKING USE SUPPORT DETERMINATIONS
Table 3-7. Assessment Framework for Determining Degree of
Drinking Water Use Support
Classification
Full Support
Full Support
but
Threatened
Partial Support
Nonsupport
Unassessed
Monitoring Data
Contaminants do not exceed
water quality criteria8
Contaminants are detected
but do not exceed water
quality criteria3
Contaminants exceed water
quality criteria3 intermittently
Contaminants exceed water
quality criteria3 consistently
j
and/or
and/or
and/or
and/or
Use Support Restrictions
Drinking water use restrictions
are not in effect.
Some drinking water use
restrictions have occurred
and/or the potential for adverse
impacts to source water quality
exists.
Drinking water use restrictions
resulted in the need for more
than conventional treatment
with associated increases in
cost.
Drinking water use restrictions
resulted in closures.
Source water quality has not been assessed for contaminants used or
potentially present.
8 For purposes of this assessment, EPA encourages States to use the maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) defined under the SDWA. However, if State-specific water quality standards exist, and
constituent concentrations are at least as stringent as the MCL levels defined under the SDWA,
State-specific water quality criteria can be used for assessment purposes.
3-44
-------
1
4. MEASURING AND REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR
'
SECTION 4
MEASURING AND REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR
4.1 Voluntary Pilot Biological Integrity Indicator
EPA is considering the addition of a new item to the 305(b) report, the
biological integrity indicator. EPA has previously presented its concept of
how this indicator would be assessed to States, both through its 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup and in earlier drafts of these Guidelines, which were
distributed to States for comment. Some States have supported the
inclusion of biological integrity as a separate indicator while others have
questioned its usefulness given that biological integrity is already considered
in the assessment of aquatic life use support (ALUS). EPA believes that
while much of the field work to assess biological integrity is already
performed by States in their assessment of ALUS, a separate biological
integrity indicator would add useful information to the 305(b) report (see
box).
EPA is currently preparing to
submit this indicator to the
Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for approval
under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. As part of
this process, States will be
given a formal opportunity to
comment to both EPA and
OMB on the practical utility
of this indicator, the
additional burden associated
with assessing it, and any
other concerns they may
have regarding its inclusion
in the report. EPA is aware
that some States are already
preparing to assess biological
integrity as part of their
The Biological Integrity Indicator
The biological integrity indicator describes
the condition of the biota and habitat in an
ecosystem having minimal influence from
human activities. The indicator measures the
degree to which an ecosystem approaches
this condition. Many States with
biomonitoring programs can already measure
some form of this indicator.
The traditional aquatic life use support
(ALUS) assessment takes into account
socioeconomic factors in State water quality
standards. It can also be based on chemical
data alone. The biological integrity indicator,
on the other hand, must be based on
biological and habitat monitoring and on
comparison to reference conditions.
4-1
-------
4. MEASURING AND REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR
1988 305(b) reports. EPA would welcome submission of these
assessments and will use them in its ongoing evaluation of this item for
possible inclusion in future 305(b) reports. States are not required to
include assessments of biological integrity in their 1 988 reports, although of
course they should continue to consider biological and habitat monitoring in
their assessment of ALUS.
For the benefit of those States that wish to submit with their 1 988 reports
the results of any biological integrity assessments they are already
conducting, as well as to further inform subsequent comment on the
inclusion of this indicator in future reports, EPA is providing these
guidelines.
Biological integrity is "the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and
maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a
species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to
that of the natural habitat of a region" (Karr and Dudley, 1981; see also
Angermeier and Karr, 1994). The State members of the 305(b) Consistency
Workgroup asked that the biological integrity indicator be reported
electronically rather than in their hard-copy 305 (b) reports. This will avoid
presenting assessments of aquatic life use support and biological integrity in
the same State document, which might confuse the public. The voluntary
pilot biological integrity indicator is thus included in the list of data elements
in Section 6 of the main Guidelines volume.
The recommended approach for developing and reporting on the indicator is
presented in Section 4.2 as three phases:
• Develop reference conditions, the framework for making judgements of
biological impairment
• Design the monitoring network, including both historical sampling
locations and new ones
• Implement the monitoring program.
The information to develop a biological integrity indicator is described in
detail below. This approach is compatible with biological and habitat
assessment levels 3 and 4 in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 as well as the case studies
for making ALUS determinations in Section 3. States may develop
alternative approaches for measuring the biological integrity indicator,
provided such approaches are compatible with levels 3 or 4 in Tables 3-1
and 3-2. Note that a good monitoring program should integrate biological
monitoring with water column sampling; habitat, sediment and tissue
monitoring; and other monitoring. Biosurvey monitoring should not be a
4-2
-------
IIMTEGRITY INDICATOR
separate program or done in a vacuum without other important types of
monitoring.
The following outline of the three phases is not intended to be a complete
description of the process for developing the biological integrity indicator.
More complete technical guidance is available for many of the biological
monitoring concepts and procedures described in this section. See
Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Rivers (Gibson et
al., 1996; EPA 822-B-96-001) and Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use
in Streams and Rivers (Plafkin et al., 1 989, EPA /440/4-89-001 ). For
additional information, contact the EPA/OWOW Monitoring Branch at the
number given on page ii.
The approach below has been applied to streams and rivers. Protocols for
the measurement of biological integrity in lakes and estuaries are not fully
developed. When these protocols are completed, reporting of biological
integrity will expand into these waterbody types. In the interim, the States
that have developed such protocols are encouraged to report biological
integrity for as many waterbody types as possible.
4.2 Phases and Steps in Developing the Indicator
Although the steps in these phases are presented in a linear fashion below,
the overall process is quite iterative, with some of the later steps providing
information that allows testing of previous steps and refinement of the
process.
I Phase 1 - Develop Reference Conditions ||
The majority of the tools necessary for routine data analysis and site
assessment are developed during this phase of the process. The approach
presented here involves the use of reference sites; EPA recognizes that
States may have other approaches for developing reference conditions.
a. Classify Natural Landscape and Waterbody Types Contained within
Region of Interest.
/ Partition the landscape on maps based on, for example, ecoregions,
subecoregions, physiographic regions, watershed size, waterbody
type, vegetation types, elevation, etc. Categories will serve as
preliminary site classes.
4-3
-------
4. MEASURING AND REPORTING THE BlOLO^ICALJISITEGRITYJNDiCATOR
b. Select Reference Sites.
/ Identify multiple sites per site class that exhibit minimal physical or
chemical degradation and meet specified reference site criteria.
c. Select Stressor Sites.
/ Identify multiple sites per site class with various degrees of known
and documented physical and/or chemical degradation.
d. Sample Reference and Stressor Sites.
/ Using appropriate biological methods, sample sites.
e. Test Site Classification; Select and Calibrate Metrics (assumes a
multimetric approach).
/ Calculate all potential metrics, indicate probable direction of change
in presence of stressors
/ Exclude metrics that have no ecological meaning
/ Compare individual metric value ranges (from multiple reference
sites) within and among preliminary site classes
If value ranges cannot be separated, combine 2 or more site
classes and aggregate reference site data from combined
classes
If metric values are highly variable within classes, examine
alternative site classifications
- Test final classification with analytical methods such as
discriminant analysis, MANOVA, or ordination
/ Compare metric value ranges of reference sites vs, stressor sites
within new site classes (i.e., test ability of each metric to
discriminate between impaired and non-impaired)
- Exclude metrics that fail to respond to stressors within a site
class and lack discriminatory power (use statistical tests, if
necessary).
4-4
-------
f. Develop Performance Characteristics of Calculated Values.
./ Need to know precision and uncertainty of index and metric
estimates (preliminary estimates can be developed with single year
of data).
S Final determination requires repeated (replicate) samples, multiple
year samples, and knowledge of site class variability.
g. Develop Metric Scoring Criteria.
/ After metrics have been selected, choose threshold for determining
impairment (depending on direction of change in presence of
stressor) as some percentile of reference value distribution. Divide
remainder of range into successively lower scoring categories.
h. Determine Assessment (Index) Rating Scales
i/ States use different approaches to continuous rating scales,
typically using three, four and five categories. Currently, EPA is
recommending a five-category scale such as excellent, good, fair,
poor, and very poor (where excellent would be considered minimally
impaired, that is, achieving biological integrity.
| Phase 2 - Develop Monitoring Network Design
a. Determine Types and Geographic Scale(s) of Questions to be Addressed
(Site-Specific, Watershed-wide, or Region-wide)
S Determine appropriate approach for site selection (random
selection), special (targeted selection), or combined approach.
b. Determine Acceptable Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for Assessment
Results.
/ Base on estimates of precision and uncertainty of metrics and index
(developed in Phase 1), as well as on availability of resources.
c. Select Sampling Sites.
i/ Select sampling sites using probability design, targeted design, or
combined approach. Take advantage of historical sampling sites
where feasible.
4-5
-------
4. MEASURING AND REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR
Phase 3 - Implement Monitoring Program
This is the routine monitoring program that will be performed regularly over
specified time intervals, depending on the program. During Phases 1 and 2:
o Metrics have been selected and calibrated; scoring criteria already
developed
o Sampling locations have been selected based on monitoring
objectives
o Field sampling and laboratory methods have been defined
o Index period has been defined
o Data management system has been defined and
o DQOs have been defined
a. Schedule field teams to complete sampling within index period.
b. Complete all sampling (as well as field taxonomy for fish) within defined
time period; take duplicate samples (complete) at approximately 10% of
sites.
c. Perform laboratory sorting and subsampling (benthos and periphyton,
only).
d. Perform laboratory taxonomy (fish, where necessary; benthos; and
periphyton) using a standard level of effort (i.e., consistent taxonomic
levels for different organisms).
e. Using raw data from laboratory results, calculate selected metrics
(selected during Phase I) for each sample.
f. Normalize metric values into unitless scores by comparison to scoring
criteria (developed during Phase I).
g. Sum all metric scores for each sample.
4-6
-------
4. MEASURING AND REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR
h. Compare summed metric total to assessment rating scale developed
during Phase I.
/ this step provides the site assessment of "excellent, very good,
good, fair, or poor" (or other narrative rating terms)
i. Compare precision and uncertainty values to the DQOs (developed in
Phase I).
4.3 Reporting the Biological Integrity Indicator: Case Study
This section presents an example of metric calculation, index scoring, and
judgement of impairment using actual data for a site. This is performed
following the selection of reference sites and metrics, determination of final
site classes, and development of reference conditions (i.e., scoring criteria).
(Note: alternative methods are acceptable-providing they are compatible
with level 3 or 4 assessments in Tables 3-1 and 3-2). This example uses a
benthic macroinvertebrate sample taken from a low gradient stream in the
eastern United States and compares the laboratory results to the appropriate
reference conditions. The text box on Page 4-7 presents definitions of the
final metrics that were selected (Phase 1/step e above), the reference
conditions used as the basis for scoring calculated metric values
(Phase 1/step g above) and categories used for translating total
bioassessment scores to narrative ratings (Phase 1/step h above).
Following sampling using appropriate methods for the stream type and
region under study, the benthic macroinvertebrate sample is returned to the
laboratory for sorting and taxonomic identification. An example of what
results from laboratory processing of a single sample is shown in Table 4-1
and is a list of taxa, the number of individuals of each taxon, and their
tolerance values and functional feeding group designations. This set of raw
data represents Step 1 of the site assessment process.
Using the data produced in Table 4-1, the selected metrics are calculated,
resulting in a set of metric values (Table 4-2). Each metric value is
compared to the metric scoring criteria that were previously developed and
normalized to scores, resulting in a list of metric scores (table 4-2). For
example, the site used for this example had a calculated value of 19.4 for
the metric '% EPT (metric 3)'. Comparing that value to the scoring criteria,
this site receives a '3' for this metric. This comparison, or scoring, once
done for all seven metrics, results in a list of metric values (Table 4-2) that
can then be summed for a total bioassessment score. Comparing total
bioassessment, or index, score to the narrative rating categories allows
translation to a narrative assessment--in this case, a Biological Integrity
Indicator rating of "good" (Table 4-2). The State's electronic database
4-7
-------
4. MEASURING AND REPORTING THE
(WBS or other) would then be updated to show this rating for the
appropriate number of miles of this waterbody (e.g., 5 miles = "good").
The exact sampling methods, reference site selection criteria, metrics,
scoring criteria, and narrative rating categories will vary according to the
waterbody type and region, sampling index period, and sample handling
procedures.
4-8
-------
1
4. MEASURING AMD REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR
Tools Developed During the Phase 1 Process that are Used During Bioassessment
Metric Definitions
1. Taxa Richness - the number of distinct taxa in the sample.
2. EPT Taxa - the number of distinct Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies),
and Trichoptera (caddisflies) taxa in the sample.
Percent EPT - the number of EPT individuals as a proportion of the total sample.
Percent Chironomidae - the number of chironomid individuals as a proportion of the
total sample.
Number of Trichoptera Taxa - the number of distinct Trichoptera taxa in the sample.
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index - measures the abundance of tolerant and intolerant individuals
in a sample by the following formula, where x: is the number of individuals in the ith
species, ti is the tolerance value of the ith species, and n in the total number of species
in the sample:
7- Percent Collector-Filterers - the number of individuals that are members of the
Functional Feeding Groups Collector or Pilferer as a proportion of the total sample.
Reference Conditions
Metrics
1. Total Taxa
2. EPT Taxa
3. %EPT
4. %Chironomidae
5. No. Trichoptera Taxa
6. HBI
7. %Collector-Filterers
Scoring Criteria
>23
>22.3
<;5.5
;>57.2
22-12
7-4
22.3-11.2
33.6-67.3
5-3
5.5-7.8
57.2-28.1
11-1
3-0
11.16-0
>67.3
2-0
>7.8
28.1-12
Narrative Rating Categories
Narrative Rating
very good
good
poor
very poor
Total Bioassessment Score
>31
25-30
18-24
4-9
-------
4. MEASURING AND REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR
Table 4-1. An example of laboratory results from sorting
and identification of a single benthic macroinvertebrate sample.
'axon
DIPTERA
JHIRONOMIDAE
fanypodinae
Drthocladllnae
;hironomlnae
Tipula
Oixelta
Umnophila
Chrysops
°seudolimnophlla
Hexatoma
Simulium
Cullcoldes
Bezzla/Palpomyia
Maltochohelea
Phylocentropus
Hydatophylax
Pycnopsyche
Ptilostomis
'ronoqula
Chaumatopsyche
Paranemoura
Leptophlebla
Cenlroptitum
Baetls
Boyeria
Calopteryx
Naohermes
Gammarus
Caeddotea
Crangonyx
DLIGOCHAETA
PIsldlum
Pseudosuccinea
Total No. Individuals
No. TV
2
19
52
7
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
7
2
2
5
1
4
7
1
12
2
7
3
2
2
1
2
1
23
6
5
7
16
1
-
5
5
5
5
4
1
4
7
2
3
6
10
6
-
5
2
4
4
3
5
2
4
2
6
2
5
2
6
6
4
10
5
6
211
FFG
-
-
-
-
-
SHR
COL
PRE
PRE
PRE
PRE
FIL
PRE
PRE
-
FIL
SHR
SHR
SHR
SHR
FIL
SHR
SHR
COL-
COL
PRE
PRE
PRE
COL
COL
COL
COL
FIL
COL
Abbreviations: FFG-functional feeding group, TV-tolerance value, SCR-
scrapers, PRE -predators, SHR -shredders, FIL-filterers, COL-collectors.
4-10
-------
Note:
j^JVIEASURING AND REPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR
Table 4-2. Determining the biological integrity indicator for the waterbody*.
Each of the seven metrics are calculated using raw data resulting from laboratory
analysis. Metric values are normalized by comparison to scoring criteria, allowing
them to be summed to a total index, or bioassessment, score. Comparing the total
index score to narrative rating categories results in the a condition narrative .
Metric
TotTax
EPT Tax
%EPT
%Chir
TrichTax
HBI
%ColFil
Total Index Score
Value
32
10
19.4
37.4
6
5.2
12.3
Score
5
5
3
3
5
5
1
27
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY INDICATOR:
Good
See previous box entitled "Metric Definitions." As,noted in Section 4.1, other approaches to
achieving biological assessment and habitat levels 3 or 4 (Tables 3-1 and 3-2) can be used to
determine the biological integrity for a waterbody. See also example case studies for ALUS
assessments in Section 3 for more information about assessment quality.
4-11
-------
-------
1
5. REFERENCES
SECTION 5
REFERENCES
Angermeier, P. L. and J. R. Karr. 1994. Biological integrity versus
biological diversity as policy directives. Protecting biotic resources.
Bioscience 44(10): 690-697.
Barbour, M. T., J. B. Stribling, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Multimetric Approach
for Establishing Biocriteria and Measuring Biological Condition. In: Davis,
W. S. and T. P. Simon, eds.. Biological Assessment and Criteria-Tools for
Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, FL.
Cummins, K. W. 1 988. Rapid bioassessment using functional analysis of
running water invertebrates. In: T. P. Simon, L. L. Hoist and L. J. Shepard
(eds.). EPA -905-9-89-003. Proceedings of the First National Workshop on
Biological Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago.
Cummins, K. W. and M. A. Wilzbach. 1985. Field procedures for analysis
of functional feeding groups of stream macroinvertebrates. Contribution
1611. Appalachian Environmental Research Laboratory, University of
Maryland, Frostburg, Maryland.
Davis, W. S. and T. P. Simon (eds). 1995. Biological assessment and
criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida
Gibson, G. R., M. T. Barbour, J. B. Stribling, J. Gerritsen, and J. R. Karr.
1 994. Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers.
EPA 822-B-94-001. U.S. EPA Office of Water. Washington, DC.
Hauer, F. R. and G. A. Lamberti (eds). 1996. Methods in Stream Ecology.
Academic Press, San Diego.
Heiskary, S. A. and B. C. Wilson. 1989. The Regional 'Nature of Lake
Quality Across Minnesota: An Analysis for Improving Resource
Management. Division of Water Quality, MN. Pollution Control Agency.
5-1
-------
5. REFERENCES
Heiskary, S. A. and Wilson, C. B. 1989. "The Regional Nature of Lake
Water Quality Across Minnesota: An Analysis for Improving Resource
Management," in Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science, volume 55,
Number 1, pp. 72-77.
Heiskary, S. A., B. C. Wilson, and D. P. Larseh. 1987. Analysis of regional
patterns in lake water quality: Using ecoregions for lake management in
Minnesota. Lake and Reservoir Management 3:337-344.
ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on Water Quality Monitoring). 1994a.
Water Quality Monitoring in the United States-1993 Report of the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. (Including
separate volume of technical appendices). January 1994. Washington, DC.
ITFM. 1994b. The Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the
United States—Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality. (Including separate volume of technical
appendices). Washington, DC.
Jones, B., J. Walker, K. H. Riitters, J. D. Wickham and C. Nicoll. 1996.
Indicators of Landscape Integrity. In: J. Walker and D. Reurer (eds.).
Indicators of Catchment Health: a Technical Perspective.
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser.
1986. Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and Its
Rationale. Special Publication 5. Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana,
Illinois.
Maxted, J. 1996. The use of a probability-based sampling design to assess
the ecological condition of Delaware streams. In: A National Symposium:
Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Watershed Development on Aquatic
Ecosystems and Water Quality. U.S. EPA and the Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission, March 18-21, 1996, Chicago.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Life: Volumes l-lll. Ohio EPA, Division of Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus,
Ohio.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. The Use of Biocriteria in the
Ohio EPA Surface Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. Ohio EPA,
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assessment
Section, Columbus, Ohio.
5-2
-------
1
5. REFERENCES
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States.
Annual Association for American Geographers 77(1 ):118-125.
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes.
1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers:
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Reckhow, K. H. and S. C. Chapra. 1983. Engineering Approaches for Lake
Management (2 vols). Butterworth Publishers, Boston.
Rhode Island Sea Grant and U.S. EPA. 1994. National Directory of
Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs. EPA 841-B-94-001.
University of Rhode Island, Narragansett and EPA Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Rosenberg, D. M. and V. H. Resh. 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and
Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Roth, N. E., J. D. Allan, and D. L. Erickson. 1996. Landscape influences
on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape
Ecology 11 (3):141-146.
Smeltzer, E. and Heiskary, S. A. 1990. "Analysis and Applications of Lake
User Survey Data," in Lake and Reservoir Management 6(1): 109-118.
Stephen, C. E. 1995. Derivation of Conversion Factors for the Calculation
of Dissolved Freshwater Aquatic Life'Criteria for Metals. U.S. EPA,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Appalachian Man
and the Biosphere. 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Aquatics
Technical Report. Report 2 of 5. Atlanta.
U.S. EPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water-1 976. Office of Water,
Washington , DC.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water-1986. EPA 440/5-86-001.
Office of Water, Washington , DC.
U.S. EPA. 1987. Nonpoint Source Guidance. Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters. EPA 440/5-90-004. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
5-3
-------
5. REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1991. Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria
in the Water Quality Program, Office of Water. Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Decisions. EPA 505/2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL
Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for
Use in Fish Advisories, Vol 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. EPA 823-R-93-
002. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Technical and Economic Capacity of States and Public
Water Systems to Implement Drinking Water Regulations — Report to
Congress. EPA 810-R-93-001, September 1993. Washington, DC.
U.S.EPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources
of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002. Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington , DC.
U.S. EPA and NOAA. 1993. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program-
Program Development and Approval Guidance. EPA Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds, Washington , DC.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process.
EPA QA/G-4. Washington, DC.
U.S.EPA. 1994b. Draft. Guidance on Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment
and Biocriteria. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA. 1995a. Knowing Your Waters: Tribal Reporting Under Section
305{b). EPA 841B-95-003. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1995b. WBS96 Users Guide. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, Washington, DC.
Yoder et al. 1994. Determining the Comparability of Bioassessments.
Intergovernmental Task Force on Water Quality Monitoring, Washington,
DC.
5-4
-------
I
5. REFERENCES
Zucker, L. A. and D. A. White. 1996. Spatial modeling of aquatic biocriteria
relative to riparian and upland characteristics. In: Watershed '96, A National
Conference on Watershed Management, Baltimore, Maryland. Water
Environment Federation.
5-5
-------
-------
List of Appendixes
Appendix A
Provisions of the Clean Water Act
Appendix B
Benefits of Rotating Basin Monitoring and Assessment: South Carolina
Appendix C
Water Environmental Indicators and 305(b) Reporting
Appendix D
Contaminated Sediment Assessment Methods
Appendix E
Example of Basin-level Assessment Information: Arizona
Appendix F
305(b) Reporting for Indian Tribes
Appendix G
Definitions of Selected Source Categories
Appendix H
Data Sources for 305(b) Assessments
Appendix I
305(b) Monitoring and Assessment Design Focus Group Handouts
Appendix J
Example Description of State Assessment Methods: Illinois
Appendix K
Section 106 Monitoring Guidance and Guidance for 303(d) Lists
Appendix L
Information for Determining Sources of Designated Use Impairment
Appendix M
Section 319 v. 314 Funding
Appendix N
Examples of 305(b) Wetlands Information
Appendix O
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
-------
-------
1
Appendix A
Provisions of the Clean Water Act
-------
-------
APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
APPENDIX A
PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Section 305. Water Quality Inventory
(b)(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1,
1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter,
a report which shall include--
(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in
such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental
descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal,
and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by
the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant
to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water
quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of
such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the
water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act,
together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to
achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is
necessary;
(D) an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the
economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this
Act in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such
achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement;
and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources
of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must
A-1
-------
APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an
estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an
analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1,
1976, and biennially thereafter.
Sec 106. Grants For Pollution Control Programs
(e) Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make any grant
under this section to any State which has not provided or is not carrying out
as a part of its program--
(1) the establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods,
systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile and
analyze data on (including classification according to eutrophic
condition), the quality of navigable waters and, to the extent
practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring; and
provision for annually updating such data and including it in the report
required under section 305 of this Act;
Section 204. Limitations and Conditions
(a) Before approving grants for any project for any treatment works under
section 201(g){1), the Administrator shall determine--
(2) that (A) the State in which the project is to be located (i) is
implementing any required plan under section 303{e) of this Act and
the proposed treatment works are in conformity with such plan, or (ii)
is developing such a plan and the proposed treatment works will be in
conformity with such plan, and (B) such State is in compliance with
section 305(b) of this Act.
Section 303. Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans
(d)(1) (A) Each State shall identify those waters within its
boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by Section
30l(b)(1)(A) and Section 301(b)(D(B) are not stringent enough to
implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. The
State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into
account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such
waters.
(B) Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof
within its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under
Section 301 are not stringent enough to assure protection and
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife.
(C) Each State shall establish for the waters identified in
Paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the
priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants
which the Administrator identified under Section 304(a)(2) as suitable
for calculation. Such load shall be established at a level necessary to
implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal
variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack
of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations
and water quality.
(D) Each State shall estimate for the waters identified in
Paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection the total maximum daily thermal
load required to assure protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife ..."
(d){2) Each State shall submit to the Administrator, from time to time, with
the first submission not later than one hundred and eighty days after the
date of publication of the first identification of pollutants under
Section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the waters identified and the loads
established under Paragraphs (1)(A), (1KB), (1)(C), and (1)(D) of this
subsection ..."
NOTE: EPA published final revisions to 40 CFR 130.7 (the regulations implementing
Section 303{d)) in the Federal Register on July 24, 1992. The revisions define "from
time to time" as a biennial reporting requirement for submitting prioritized lists of water
quality-limited waters. (Note that the regulatory revisions pertain exclusively to 303(d)
lists of waters requiring TMDLs and do not require biennial submittals of TMDLs). The
regulations also specify that the State submittals under Section 303(d) coincide with
State Submittals under Section 305(b) and may be submitted as part of the 305{b)
report. From the 303(d) regulations:
"(d) Submission and EPA approval.
(1) Each State shall submit biennially to the Regional Administrator, beginning in
1992, the list of waters, pollutants causing impairment, and the priority ranking
including waters targeted for TMDL development within the next two years as
required under Paragraph (b) of this section. For the 1992 biennial submissions,
these lists are due no later than October 22, 1992. Thereafter, each State shall
submit to EPA lists required under Paragraph (b) of this section on April 1 of
every even-numbered year. The list of waters may be submitted as part of the
State's biennial water quality report required by Section 130.8 of this part and
Section 305(b) of the CWA or submitted under separate cover."
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A: PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Section 314. Clean Lakes
(a) Each State shall prepare or establish, and submit to the Administrator for
his approval--
(A) an identification and classification according to eutrophic
condition of all publicly owned lakes in such State;
(B) a description of procedures, processes, and methods
(including land use requirements), to control sources of pollution of
such lakes;
(C) a description of methods and procedures, in conjunction
with appropriate Federal agencies, to restore the quality of such
lakes;
(D) methods and procedures to mitigate the harmful effects of
high acidity, including innovative methods of neutralizing and
restoring buffering capacity of lakes and methods of removing from
lakes toxic metals and other toxic substances mobilized by high
acidity;
(E) a list and description of those publicly owned lakes in such
State for which uses are known to be impaired, including those lakes
which are known not to meet "applicable water quality standards or
which require implementation of control programs to maintain
compliance with applicable standards and those lakes in which water
quality has deteriorated as a result of high acidity that may
reasonably be due to acid deposition; and
(F) an assessment of the status and trends of water quality in
lakes in such State, including but not limited to, the nature and extent
of pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to
which the use of lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution,
particularly with respect to toxic pollution.
(2) Submission as part of 305(b)(1) Report.-The information required under
paragraph (1) shall be included in the report required under section 305(b)(1)
of this Act, beginning with the report required under such section by April 1,
1988.
A-4
-------
Appendix 6
Benefits of Rotating Basin Monitoring
and Assessment: South Carolina
-------
-------
Benefits of Rotating Basin Monitoring and Assessment
Prepared for the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup
October 1996
David Chestnut
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Over a dozen States are implementing statewide basin management approaches
that include rotating basin monitoring. In some cases, States are already benefiting
from adopting the approach, e.g., through improved staff morale or increased miles of
streams monitored each year. For more information about the benefits and start-up
requirements, see Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach (EPA 841-R-95-004),
available from the EPA Watershed Protection Branch, (202) 260-7074.
Overview of South Carolina's Watershed Water Quality Management Process
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
has defined five 'basins' in the State, maintaining the integrity of the USGS 8-digit
cataloging units and grouping them to equalize the number major and minor NPDES
permits between basins. A Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy is
prepared for each basin, one per year on a fixed rotating basis. As part of the
Watershed Water Quality Management Program, all NPDES permits within the target
basin are reissued in the same year.
The main 'product' of this program is a Watershed Water Quality Management
Strategy (WWQMS) document for each basin. The basic organizational and reporting
unit for the WWQMS document is the 11-digit USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) watershed unit. Each watershed unit forms a chapter of the final
document. Each chapter contains maps showing the locations of important features:
monitoring site location, NPDES end of pipe locations, water intakes, landfill and mine
locations, wetlands, occurrence of endangered species, etc.
Monitoring Strategy for the Basin
The WWQMS development process begins with a water quality monitoring
strategy for the target basin. This includes the identification of spatial gaps in the
routine fixed monitoring network and the establishment of monitoring sites to provide
-------
Water Quality
Monitoring Stations
Big Pine Tree Creek Watershed
(03050104-070)
SccMdaryStatiou
Watenkcd Statiou
V Biological StttlMj
4 SaattaryBatUig Altai
# Potential SaiHaryBathiif An
••• Bydrograpky
representative coverage, with at least one monitoring site at the most downstream
access of each NRCS watershed unit in the basin. Additional sites are added for larger
watershed units or in significant land use and waterbody types. This monitoring
strategy is implemented for one year. Any additional wasteload allocation needs are
identified and necessary data are collected in this year.
Data Collected for Each Watershed Unit
For each NRCS watershed unit, a compilation of land use statistics, growth
potential, identified nonpoint source impacts, known groundwater contamination
problems, and lists of permitted dischargers, water intakes, landfills, mining sites,
waterbodies on the 303(d) or 304(1) lists, etc. is prepared. An initial assessment of
water quality at each monitoring site in the NRCS watershed unit is prepared, and other
data or study results for the waterbody that are readily available from other sources are
reviewed. All of this information is assembled into a comprehensive summary of what
is known about an individual watershed unit. The program makes extensive use of an
in-house GIS to store, analyze, and report this information.
-------
Natural Resources
Wando River Watershed
(03050201-080)
Hjdrogripby
Wctli.di
Eadugtnd Spttto
Activities Potentially Affecting Water Quality
Ashley River Watershed
(03050202-040)
* Mi
-------
The resulting document contains very detailed information at a local scale. This
information can then be distributed-either in the form of the WWQMS for the whole
basin or as individual chapters-to other groups with resource management concerns at
differing scales. These groups include other State and federal agencies, councils of
government, NRCS conservation districts, county councils, lake homeowners
associations, and individual citizens.
Annual Electronic Reporting
In the case of water quality assessment data, SCDHEC maintains a separate
305(b) database that is linked to the GIS for detailed mapping of use support,
stressors, and sources by waterbody, watershed, or basin. As each WWQMS is
completed, the 305(b) database and associated GIS coverages for that basin can be
provided to EPA to satisfy the new Annual Electronic Reporting process.
Benefits of this Approach to the State
This rotating basin, watershed management approach has resulted in
improvements in the efficiency of our water quality management programs. Many of
these benefits are related to the increased ability to provide information, rather than
raw data, to potential partners in water quality management activities. Some of the
following benefits were originally described in Watershed Protection: A Statewide
Approach (EPA 841-R-95-004), and SCDHEC is seeing them take form in actual
practice.
• Systematic, detailed review of water quality data.
• The Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy document is an valuable
resource that provides information, not just data, at a scale where
implementation of corrective activities is feasible. With the ability to provide
assessments and associated support data at a more local scale, interest and
cooperation with other entities has improved. Even a single basin was too large
an area to interest many groups organized at a regional level, e.g. county,
conservation district, or lake homeowner association. NRCS has requested that
SCDHEC representatives attend regional meetings with their field agents so they
can focus on identified nonpoint source concerns. Other natural resource
management agencies have used the watershed documents to direct their own
activities.
The watershed approach with information provided at a local scale focuses on a
discrete resource (the watershed) around which citizens can rally. This
enhances public support and involvement. Opportunities for this interaction
occur during basin plan development and activities such as workshops.
• With an established order of rotation and predictable sampling period for each
basin, coordination and cooperation with other water quality data generating
-------
entities are enhanced. Several other groups that collect water quality data for
their own purposes are looking at adjusting the timing of their activities to
coincide with our intensive monitoring activities in a particular basin. This leads
to increased opportunities for data sharing. The pooling of resources and data
by multiple stakeholders tends to increase the amount and types of data
available for carrying out assessments. We have noticed a distinct increase in
communication and the exchange of information with other agencies.
Resources are better directed to priority issues. Improved information bases and
assessments can facilitate identification of water quality issues, allow for
comprehensive review of within-basin needs. Improved coordination among
stakeholders promotes the leveraging of resources.
Focusing on functional watersheds emphasizes environmental results: water
quality monitoring and management programs can focus more directly on the
resource. Historically, EPA and State agencies have measured success in
terms of bean counts - numbers of permits, compliance orders, inspections, etc.
Consistency and continuity are encouraged. The approach reduces the
tendency to operate in a reactive or crisis mode. Continuity is assured by the
predictable schedule of management actions in a particular basin. Consistency
is improved because all NPDES permit limits along a major river may be
adjusted at the same time using the same water quality model.
The basis for management decisions is improved. Organizing around basins
can improve the scientific basis for management decisionmaking in many ways.
Basin-oriented monitoring and assessment results in more detailed information
being made available for management decisions.
The approach encourages gathering of information from a variety of sources on
all significant stressors, including those that tend to be overlooked by traditional
programs (e.g., ecosystem effects due to habitat loss). Information derived from
water quality parameters without standards can also be considered, such as
long term trends in nutrients, turbidity, etc.
Program efficiency is enhanced. Focusing on individual basins can improve
program efficiency within the State water quality agency. For example:
Modeling studies can be consolidated to increase the stream miles of waterbody
modeled per unit of effort. Also, NPDES permits can be consolidated by basin to
limit the number of public notices; this requires adjusting permit expiration
schedules so that all permits in a basin have the same expiration dates.
Basinwide assessment results can support 305(b) reporting if a common
database is used for basin plans and 305(b) reports, such as the Waterbody
System (WBS).
-------
Basin plans can satisfy Section 303(d) reporting requirements since strategies
for addressing impaired waters can be included in basin plans.
• Encourages Innovative solutions. Some problems in a basin, such as habitat
destruction, inadequate stream flow, wetlands loss, atmospheric deposition, and
introduced aquatic species, are difficult for traditional water quality programs to
address. Some nontraditional solutions that may be more feasible under a basin
approach: ecological restoration; protection of critical areas such as
headwaters, riparian buffers, and biotic refuges; wetlands mitigation banking;
market-based solutions such as pollutant trading.
• Provides a means to educate the public about our Agency's efforts and
limitations in protecting water quality.
• Increased use of GIS as a management tool. The watershed program is driving
the development of GIS coverages.
• Brings to light gaps in the Agency's water quality protection efforts. Allows us to
identify opportunities for improvement.
• Eliminated the backlog in expired major NPDES permits. The backlog of expired
major permits following implementation of Watershed Water Quality
Management dropped from 50 in 1992, to 20 in 1993, to 8 in 1994, to 3 in 1995.
By reissuing all NPDES permits within the target basin in the same year, the
backlog of expired permits has been eliminated.
Acknowledgement
Mike McCarthy of Research Triangle Institute provided ideas and assistance in putting
together this summary.
References
SCDHEC. 1995. Watershed Water Quality
Management Strategy: Program Description.
Columbia, SC.
SCDHEC. 1996. Watershed Water Quality
Management Strategy: Catawba-Santee
Basin. Technical Report No. 002-96.
Columbia, SC.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Watershed Protection: A
Statewide Approach (EPA 841-R-95-004).
Office of Water, Washington DC.
-------
Appendix C
Water Environmental Indicators and
305(b) Reporting
-------
-------
1
Comments and Issues
Raised by Focus Group
f
.2
CD
o
Q.
O
-
£ o .52 =
§ s-g I
o cc > it
S
53
o 5
I b 8
P « «
§!&..-
£ co'w
•n
-------
2=
Comments and Issues
Raised by Focus Group
|£
1 s i
% -5 §
t!u z m
|. Ji
5 S B *£ §
aj e> (^ O ^£
K> Z
'! a|-
!* g-A
1 ffl ™
^ §
W <
c.^^
(J (§ > it
"o S
g W
li "I
W Q •X>
tor Number and
ptton
* §
*U gj
j? Q
Prepare brochure for State
managers defining detailed
procedures for measuring and
reporting indicator and minimum
State program; provide tech
support to States; give examples in
the Guidelines.
O'o358!£ioWro
X
X
X
X
C/3 i_
1 1 J ! y.-gi
Ilillll
A
Cul w'J 1
i-If.
O> (2 ^
S8 3 p
re m o
^
Short term: involve States in ways
to present to public and Congress
(e.g., explanations on all maps).
Long term: State WQSs for sed.;
work with OST re: updates
States await WQSs for
sediment; States with good
monitoring or scattered
problems appear heavily
polluted on maps
X
X
to
H>
'ra -a
"B.-S'S
, E ^!>J
£ 3 x'ta
O to a> c
to c £>
1 i-2
&ii
£
&
Contaminated Sedime
m
Short term: Publicize that EPA
has begun major improvements in
PCS loading data. Long term:
address inconsistent reporting
from facilities and States; increase
coverage of facilities.
to . .
PCS misses loads from
CSOs and from minor
dischargers that impact sm
streams; some States don't
require flows, data quality
poor for some States;
indicator too inaccurate for
national use now
X
X
t
§1
I £
£
Selected Point Source
Loadings to Surface
Water-changes in
loadings of selected
pollutants
m
tO
Short term: Resolve issue of how
and where EPA will use this
indicator. Long term: substitute
more direct measure
Administrative, not a
indicator of environmental
improvement
X
X
to
73
c
O
p
» « "5
O in i_
Sources of Point Sour
Loadings through Cla
V Wells to GW-numbe
wells closed
rt
(O
t—
EPA continue to develop SDWIS;
decide on lag time before reporting
this indicator; Workgroup
encourage 305(b) staff to become
familiar with SDWIS; GW Focus
Group include in GW Guidelines?
&
SDWIS or equiv. not avail.
in some States for few yea
305(b) staff prefer EPA
obtain directly from SDWIS
or State SDWA databases
X
X
2 ^ :£? W
ifl^lll
slslif r
OOL 3 £ W -S 4=
55
1 w
n
O)
c
Population Served by
Community Drinking
Water Systems Violati
Health Standards
^
O
CM
I
a
-------
1
(O
j
Comments and Issues
Raised by Focus Group
|j>-
c S —
a) o ra
3 CO "c
$ 15.1
U. Z CD
"n
C 55 "to
SO fl) O 3
0^2 l^C
to "§ 23 o <
Q— ^* Z
«Ti St^
§ g K-n
O flj
n" ® 3
°- Si
col<
T3
o> ra o
§ n "0 3
t §.£ g"
O en > it
"o g
g CO
•T ® II VO
O (0 03
CO Q * T3
ator Number and
ription
O t)
.£ Q
1
1
to
g
o.
at
ra
ra
CO
°
Same as previous indica
X
X
> Q. £ > ra fj-
5 S ^ P 9 ro J)
*J u. > »ir CO "O «fc
W
Q Q
to Q-
* "-
>. c
U O
Population Served by
Unfiltered Surface Wai
Systems at Risk from
Microbiological Polluti
oi
1
'•6
._
(0
ra
(U
CO
S
S
T3
1
O.
<0
ra
ra
CO
X
X
2 < -^ OT
olllgfl
55
§ CO
fO Q-
« U-
^
Population Served by
Community Drinking
Water Systems
Exceeding Lead Actioi
Levels
CO
c
Not an indicator of huma
health (administrative);
focuses on GW sources
X
X
2< < -
llllll
111 III
TS
£ -C
0) O
^ Q-
f" £
c
rt
Source Water Protectii
No. of community water
systems with Source
Protection Programs
^
8
Q. i=
"§ W S
"O (1) i_
Q.I"!
§'•5^
-I'l'-n
s £ o
SJii
to
Include States' data.
Modernized STORE! mi
have easy-to-use data
management and trend
software and ability to
compare values to State
WQSs.
X
X
X
R S 'ra UJ
I!-!
CO ^ O ro
3 ro Z •>
T3
C
™co
& CD
S CO
W Z>
•§ co "or
Surface Water Pollutar
-trends in rivers and
streams (eventually: NH
BOD, !N, NO3,
pathogens, TP, susp.
solids, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg,
phenols, tot. res. chlorini
c\i
3S g
"55 *f> m10
S g f 5 S
111 o>|l
.2 co 2 .g § co ^
s § ! § is" I $
•C fl) //) ""r** m •& n
•^ -g .2 O) Q\ ^ g"
Iflllll
o to c -g S ro »j
CC ra Q.J= tt) o to
C -a S
Poor connections betwee
State 305(b) and TNC/Nc
Her. Programs; inconsisti
reporting among States
X
X
if
o
Q.O.
£ II
?!
•D -g «
ro z o §
C-5 ^ .-t; o>
Z ra 5) o
S~ to X Q.
Species at Risk-% of
freshwater aquatic or
wetlands species
CO
o
n
co
S1
a
-------
j
Comments and Issues
Raised by Focus Group
£ 1-
S
!g JD Q O 3
oc > zl
• S 3?
s c r^ in
i. °_
8 o §
°~ 15 £
" ***
llll
o te>iJ:
"o |
§ M
J(Q u CD
ra * ~
Q • "O
j
§ 8
? ^
5 Q
°
u
romEPAandOth
al and Private Age
s S
(5 &
ou.
d> S*
I§
•75 CO
Investigate how States partic
in NSSP and find linkage to
NSSP limited by funding to
5-year reporting
X
X
(Q
>*
10
i*
ij?
ill
lilt
f- V> OT O.
O . .
3 13 T> TJ
1 a S S .•§
Shellfish Bed Cor
% of shellfish wate
classified as appro
conditionally appro
restricted or prohib
CO
HI
15 o si
CD'S . §
EPA allow States with more
accurate data to override fee
data. Longtenn: worktowa
functional or quality indicato
is source for acres under pe
Some States already report
in 305(b). Some have more
accurate data than F'S and
NRI.
X
X
5 1?
51
•o W
CO 0 J=
It!
ro co
en o
3
c
7C
Wetland Acreage-
rate of wetland los.
O
Sra £ c
Incorporate indicator into 30
Guidelines; much progress r
in 1996 re: reporting by aqui
Long term: Major increases
GW monitoring & reporting?
Placeholder indicator based
on one-time well survey. Not
reflective of statewide or
national GW quality. Oppor-
tunity lost: States do not
store short-term well data.
«
•
ra
O Q. CO S W 4:
1
*• Q O)
Ground Water Po
Nitrate -populatio
potentially exposec
nitrate in GW >10
X
«t
NOAA report
freq. = 5 yea
1
»g
Resolve issue of how and w
EPA will use this indicator.
term: identify alternatives &
improvements.
Not a measure of ambient
water quality problems; do
not report in same document
as State assessment data
X
NRI reports;
freq. = 5 yea
co
h
* &
in ra
ra >-
Nonpoint Source
Sediment Loadin
Cropland-annual
erosion
f^
*"
T3
Interagency workgroup is
developing a statistically val
method for this indicator
X
_
If
o ^.
«2
Marine Debris-w
debris collected di
annual event
co
S
m
O
CO
•O
(/)
*?
O
?
idicators repo
:ly in special i
cr
0)
ay be reported mo
2
•
ft
a
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4503F)
EPA 841-F-96-OOt
June 1996
&EPA
Environmental Indicators
of Water Quality in the
United States
Fact Sheets
These fact sheets accompany the environmental indicators report.
They provide further details on the 18 environmental indicators that
measure progress toward national water goals and objectives.
The indicators were chosen through an intensive multi-year process involving
public and private partners including EPA's Office of Water in collaboration with the
Center for Marine Conservation; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and Office of Research and Devel-
opment; the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality; Native
American Tribes; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; The Nature
Conservancy; the States; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Rsh and
Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Geological Survey.
-------
National Environmental Goals for Water
CLEAN WATERS: America's rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will support healthy communities offish, plants, and
other aquatic life, and will support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for people. Wetlands
will be protected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habitat, reduce floods, and improve water quality. Ground waters
will be cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses.
SAFE DRINKING WATER: Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink.
Note: Goals taken from Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. Government Review Draft. EPA 230-D-96-002. Washington, DC: USEPA. In press.
Water Objectives to Meet These Goals
Objectives are measured by indicators presented in this report
Conserve
& Enhance
Aquatic Ecosystems
Support Uses Designated by States & Tribes
* in Th eir Water Quality Standards
Conserve and Improve
Ambient Conditions
Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings
and Other Stressors
Water Management Programs and Human Activities Affect Our Waters
The objectives adopted by EPA's Office of Water and its partners are shown above. These objectives are like building blocks in a
pyramid, where success in reaching the goals at the top is dependent on successful attainment .of those lower in the pyramid. For
example, by reducing pollutant loads to waters, the overall quality, or ambient condition, of the water and sediment is improved.
Consequently, the waters can support the uses designated for them by .states and tribes in their water quality standards. Ultimately,
the health of both the general public and aquatic ecosystems is protected.
Indicator Data Completeness•
Indicators are used to show changes in environmental conditions and are only as good as the.quality of the measurements that
support them. The indicators presented in this report contain measurements of varying quality. These measurements might differ
in precision, accuracy, statistical representativeness, and completeness. This comprehensive national report uses data from many
agencies. While these data sources have undergone data quality assessment by their respective agencies, this first national report
makes no attempt to describe data quality attributes other than completeness for the indicators. This report includes data of
varying quality for two reasons: (1) the indicator describes an important, if as yet imperfect, way to measure a national objective,
and (2) efforts are under way to improve indicator measurements in future reports. Further details on the data used to support
each indicator are presented in individual fact sheets available from EPA in hard copy or on the Internet at the address at the end
of this report. Each indicator graphic in this report shows the level of data completeness using the following symbols:
• Data consistent/sufficient data collected
> Data somewhat consistent/additional data needed
O Data need to be much more consistent/much additional data needed
-------
Water Quality Objectives and Indicators
Objective I: Conserve and Enhance Public Health
1. Population served by community drinking water systems violating health-based requirements—Population
served by drinking water systems with one or more violations of health-based requirements.
2. Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from microbiological pollution—Population
served by, and number of, systems that have not met the requirements to filter their water to remove microbio-
logical contaminants.
3. Population served by drinking water systems exceeding lead action levels—Population served by, and number
of, systems with lead levels in drinking water exceeding the regulatory threshold.
4. Source water protection—Number of community drinking water systems using ground water that have
programs to protect them from pollution.
5. Fish consumption advisories—Percentage of rivers and lakes with fish that states have determined should not
be eaten, or should be eaten in only limited quantities.
6. Shellfish growing water classification—Percentage of estuarine and coastal shellfish growing waters approved
for harvest for human consumption.
Objective II: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems
7. Biological integrity—Percentage of rivers and estuaries with healthy aquatic communities.
8. Species at risk—Percentage of aquatic and wetland species currently at risk of extinction.
9. Wetland acreage—Rate of wetland acreage loss.
Objective HI: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards
10. Designated uses in state and tribal water quality standards
a. Drinking water supply designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe drinking
water supply use, as designated by the states and tribes.
b. Fish and shellfish consumption designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support fish and
shellfish consumption, as designated by the states and tribes.
c. Recreation designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe recreation, as desig-
nated by the states and tribes. .
d. Aquatic life designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support healthy aquatic life, as
designated by the states and tribes.
Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions
11. Ground *ater pollutants—Population exposed to nitrate in drinking water. In the future, the indicator will
report the presence of other chemical pollutants in ground water.
12. Surface water pollutants—Trends of selected pollutants found in surface water.
13. Selected coastal surface water pollutants in shellfish—The concentration levels of selected pollutants in .,
oysters and mussels.
14. Estuarine eutrophication conditions—Trends in estuarine eutrophication conditions.
15. Contaminated sediments—Percentage of sites with sediment contamination that might pose a risk to humans
and aquatic life.
Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors
16. Selected point source loadings to (a) surface water and (b) ground water—Trends for selected pollutants
discharged from point sources into surface water, and underground injection control wells that are sources of
point source loadings into ground water.
17. Nonpoint source loadings to surface water—Amount of soil eroded from cropland that could run into surface
waters. Future reports will include additional nonpoint source surface water pollutants as well as sources of
nonpoint source ground water pollution.
18. Marine debris—Trends and sources of debris monitored in the marine environment.
-------
-------
1
June 1996
POPULATION SERVED BY COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS
VIOLATING HEALTH-BASED REQUIREMENTS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator displays the population provided
water in 1994 by community water systems that
violated one or more of fee health-based
requirements during that year. By tracking drinking
water violations, the relative risk to humans of exposure
to harmful levels of contaminants in drinking water can
be illustrated, In 1994, more than 45 million people (19
percent of the population) were served by community
drinking water systems that violated health-based
requirements at least once during the year. This measure
is a "rough cuf' indicator of potential exposure
to harmful levels of contaminants that have the
potential to adversely affect public health.
This indicator does not illustrate the
persistence of contaminants in drinking water
or their level above the violation.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
EPA and the states regulate
approximately 200,000 public drinking
water systems that serve more than 240
million people. Public water systems are
defined as systems that provide piped water for
human consumption to at least 15 service
connections or serve an average of at least 25
people for at least 60 days each year.
Approximately 60,000 of these water systems
are known as community drinking water
systems—systems that provide water to the
same population year-round. The remaining
120,000 are noncommunity water systems that
provide drinking water for nonresidential use
(e.g., workplaces, schools, restaurants).
The concentration of contaminants in drinking
water provided by water systems to consumers
is strictly controlled by standards established to
minimize or eliminate risk to human health.
Under the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act and
the 1986 Amendments, EPA sets national limits on
contaminant levels in drinking water to ensure that the
water is safe for human consumption. These limits are
known as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). For
some regulations, EPA establishes treatment techniques
in lieu of an MCL to control unacceptable levels of
contaminants in water. In general, these standards or
limits are referred to as health-based requirements and
they address several areas including surface water
treatment, total coliform, lead and copper treatment, and
chemical/ radiological contamination.
Percentof Population Served by Systems with:
No reported violations 81 %
Surface water treatment violations 9%
Total coliform violations 8%
Lead and copper treatment violations 1%
Chemical/radiological contamination violations 1%
Note: As many as one-fourth of the water systems did not complete all required
monitoring. The compliance status of some of these could not be assessed from
reported data. 243 million people were served by community drinking water systems
in 1994
Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1994
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the population served by community water
systems in violation of health requirements will be reduced from 19 to 5 percent.
-------
2 Indicator 1: Population Served by Systems Violating Health-Based Requirements
When violations of health-based requirements occur,
water systems are compelled to remove the contaminants
or face penalties under EPA and state regulatory
programs. More than 80 percent of the population is
served by community water systems that reported no
violations of drinking water health-based requirements
during fiscal year 1994. EPA plans to use the newly
developed Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) to report on the number and types of violations
reported from public water systems.
The Agency also regulates how often public water
systems monitor their water for contaminants and report
the monitoring results to the states or EPA. Generally,
the larger the population served by a water system, the
more frequent monitoring and reporting are required. In
addition, EPA requires PWSs to monitor for unregulated
contaminants to provide data on occurrences for future
regulatory development EPA also requires PWSs to
notify the public when they have violated any of the
regulations.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Data quality and the process used to report on
drinking water system regulatory compliance are
critical factors in determining the quality of this
indicator. The current data quality can be improved for
many states. The Government Accounting Office and
EPA have concluded that the overall rate of
noncompliance is understated
In an effort to improve the data used by this indicator,
EPA and the states are jointly pursuing a modernization
initiative to upgrade and improve their drinking water
information systems. EPA is replacing the Federal
Reporting Data System with SDWIS. States are now
testing the first components of SDWIS, which will
improve both data quality and reporting of violations.
With the cooperation of the states, EPA will be able to
use SDWIS to improve the oversight and management of
drinking water programs.
The objective of the SDWIS modernization is to improve
the accessibility and quality of the drinking water data
that EPA and states provide to the public. The data
available through SDWIS might allow better and more
targeted measures of the occurrence of contaminants in
drinking water by providing information on the type of
contaminant, the duration of occurrence, and the degree
to which the maximum contaminant level was exceeded.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the indicator?
EPA currently has drinking water standards in
place for 81 contaminants, and several major
new regulatory actions are in progress. EPA's
drinking water program has promulgated standards
designed to protect people from drinking water
contaminated by fecal coliform, organic and inorganic
chemicals, lead and copper, radionuclides, and by-
products from water treatment chemicals. As part of the
Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization process, EPA
has identified activities to address the major issues
facing the drinking water program today:
• Building State Capacity to Implement Programs—
Eliminating the gap between needs and funding by
increasing federal grants while encouraging states to
seek alternative financing.
• Revising the Mandate to Add 25 New Standards
Every 3 Years—Reducing the number of regulated
contaminants to allow EPA to focus on those
contaminants which pose real, known public health
risks.
• Enacting a Source Water Protection Program—
Allowing states to ensure drinking water quality by
protecting the water at the source, thereby reducing
the amount of expensive treatment required.
• Addressing Problems Facing Small Systems—
Reducing the regulatory burden on small water
systems and providing support for building viable
water systems.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http-7Avww.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
POPULATION SERVED BY UNRLTERED SURFACE WATER SYSTEMS
AT RISK FROM MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION
What does the indicator tell us?
Drinking water systems supplied by surface
waters can sometimes withdraw water that
contains harmful levels of disease-causing
microbiological contaminants, such as Giardia
lamblia, Legionella, and viruses. Under the Surface
Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), EPA and the states
require all inadequately protected drinking water
systems using surface water sources to
install filtration and disinfection
treatment to remove these
microbiological contaminants from the
drinking water. Compliance with the
rule will dramatically reduce the
probability of human exposure to
harmful levels of microbiological
contaminants from surface water
sources.
This indicator displays the population
provided water by unfiltered surface
water systems that did not comply with
the SWTR requirements that went into
effect in 1993. Over 12 million people
were provided drinking water from more
than 1,000 unfiltered community water
systems not in compliance with the
SWTR in 1993. These numbers
decreased in 1995, with approximately
9.9 million people being provided
drinking water from 400 systems not in
compliance with the rule.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),
will use the Safe Drinking Water Information
System (SDWIS) to track both the number of
systems in non compliance with the SWTR and the
population served by these systems. States report
this information to EPA on a quarterly basis, in
accordance with regulations governing delegation
of the drinking water program to the states.
E
PA's Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, in
coordination with the Office of
1993
1,000
Systems
1994
750
Systems
1995
400
Systems
Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1994
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, every person served by a public water system
that draws from an unprotected river, lake, or reservoir will receive drinking
water that is adequately filtered.
-------
indicator 2: Population Served By Unfiltered Surface Water Systems
This indicator uses the SWTR compliance program
status as a surrogate measure of the risk to the
population from using drinking water from
inadequately protected water sources. This
program evaluation is being undertaken as a pilot
project for EPA under the Government
Performance and Results Act, which requires all
federal agencies to have a strategic planning
process including clearly stated goals and
indicators to measure them.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Data quality and the process used to report
on drinking water system regulatory
compliance are critical factors in
determining the quality of this indicator. The
current quality of the SWTR database is
questionable in some states.
In an effort to improve the data for this indicator,
EPA and the states are jointly pursuing a
modernization initiative to upgrade and improve
their drinking water information systems. EPA is
replacing the Federal Reporting Data System with
the Safe Drinking Water Information System.
States are now testing the first components of
SDWIS, which will improve both data quality and
reporting of violations. With the cooperation of the
states, EPA will be able to use SDWIS to improve
the oversight and management of drinking water
programs.
The objective of the SDWIS modernization is to
improve the accessibility and quality of the
drinking water data that EPA and states provide to
the public. The SWTR database is now being
integrated into SDWIS, which will make data
management more efficient and improve data
quality and analyses of program performance.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Through aggressive action by EPA, the
states, and the water systems themselves,
the risk of human exposure to
microbiological contaminants is being reduced.
By the end of fiscal year 1995, the number of
surface water systems not complying with the
SWTR was reduced from 1,000 to 400.
However, because most of the progress has
been made in small and medium water systems,
the population at risk has not dropped as
dramatically—from 12 million to 9.9 million.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
POPULATION SERVED BY COMMUNITY DRINKING
WATER SYSTEMS EXCEEDING LEAD ACTION LEVELS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator measures the population
provided water by community water systems
that have exceeded lead action levels and are
required to take corrective action. It is not a precise
predictor of the risk of exposure to the general
population provided water by the targeted water
systems. The monitoring results reflect the
situation in only the worst portions of the
distribution system and represent only the relative
probability of risk for consumers of
those targeted water systems.
Based on the results of lead monitoring
through fiscal year 1995, 69.1 million
people were provided drinking water by
water systems that exceeded the action
level of 15 parts per billion (ppb) at least
once. Of that number, 42.8 million
people were provided water by systems
where sampling results showed lead
levels between 15 and 30 ppb, and 26.3
million people received water from
systems where sampling results showed
lead levels over 30 ppb, which EPA
views as a significant exceedance.
About 2.1 million people received water
from water systems where sampling
results showed lead levels greater than
130 ppb. Higher exceedances increase
the probability that people consuming
water are at risk.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
EPA, under its Lead and Copper Rule,
requires that water systems follow a series
of steps to reduce the likelihood of lead
entering the drinking water from distribution
system materials. Water systems are required to
monitor for lead in their distribution systems and
15-30 31-80 81-130 >130
Lead Action Level Exceedance (ppb)
Source: State data in EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, 1995
-------
Indicator 3: Drinking Water Systems Exceeding Lead Levels
to take action when lead in more than 10 percent of
the samples taken at the tap exceeds the regulatory
action level of 15 ppb. Depending on the size and
type of the system, actions range from establishing
a public education program to implementing
corrosion control treatment or replacing lead pipes.
EPA requires large systems to install lead controls
regardless of sampling results. The lead monitoring
data for water systems exceeding the lead action
level are contained in EPA's Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS).
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Data quality and the process used to report
on drinking water system regulatory
compliance are critical factors in
determining the quality of this indicator. This
indicator measures the results of lead monitoring
requked under the Lead and Copper Rule. It shows
exceedances of an action level defined in the rule to
trigger additional actions. It is not in itself an
indicator of a drinking water standard violation.
The quality and completeness of the data for this
indicator is questionable in some states.
In an effort to improve the indicator, EPA and the
states are jointly pursuing a modernization
initiative to upgrade and improve their drinking
water information systems. EPA is replacing the
Federal Repotting Data System with the Safe
Drinking Water Information System. States are
now testing the first components of SDWIS, which
will improve both data quality and reporting of
violations. With the cooperation of the states, EPA
will be able to use SDWIS to improve the oversight
and management of onnking water programs.
The objective of the SDWIS modernization is to
improve the accessibility and quality of the
drinking water data that EPA and states provide to
the public. The new system will make reporting of
lead monitoring results more efficient and data
validation more complete.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA estimates that 20 percent of human
exposure to lead is attributable to lead in
drinking water. Lead enters the drinking
water through pipes in the distribution system, lead
service lines, and household plumbing, including
faucets and other fixtures. Lead in drinking water,
however, is controllable through actions taken by
water systems and their customers. Under the Lead
and Copper Rule, EPA has established a series of
steps that water systems must take to reduce the
likelihood of lead entering drinking water from
distribution system materials. These steps include
corrosion control treatment and lead service line
replacement.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
June 1996
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
What does the indicator tell us?
To protect drinking water sources even before
water is withdrawn by a supplier, EPA has
instituted the Source Water Protection
Program. Currently, the program protects ground
water used for drinking water by requiring the
(1) delineation of the ground water area to be
protected, (2) identification of potential sources of
contamination, (3) development of contingency
plans in case of a threat to the drinking
water source, and (4) development of
source management plans to control
potential sources of contamination.
Source water protection will be
extended to surface waters.
This indicator focuses on state progress
in implementing the critical elements of
ground water protection programs
established to protect drinking water
sources. Approximately 3,800 of the
60,000 community drinking water
systems are covered by all four parts of
the ground water protection program.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The Safe Drinking Water Act
established EPA's Wellhead
Protection (WHP) program. The
WHP program requires states to develop
systematic and comprehensive programs
to protect public ground water supplies.
To measure progress toward
implementing ground water protection
programs, EPA will track local-level
implementation through the WHP
program report. States are required to
produce these reports every 2 years in an
effort to update EPA and the public on the status of
their drinking water protection programs.
These reports will help in determining the reduction
in the number of people potentially exposed to
harmful contaminants found in ground water used
as a community drinking water source. It also will
assess the adequacy of the pollution prevention
controls that are critical to the safety of ground
water used as drinking water supplies.
NBHHHH^
ySJS^S^^^^-'^'^'- - '--"'^
9&SyK&£%%'''$ •''?*& „»''", ";l • ' ' • i '•,
••••-•.:.' '--•':,••' v^'"""* ™**"» -nr***™.™ '^TH^^B
60,000-
10
f_ 50,000 -
(/>
1 1 IDEN
« t>
5 w 40,000 -
o> o
.it
•is
Q 5 30,000
>.>
? a>
§ a
II 20,000- 18'700
«= m
r: •
| 10,000 - ^H
1 I
o-l — ™L
Delineation
Source: State Biennial Wellhes
O
Data
Completeness
ITIFYING TAKING ACTION
Note: Source water protection
programs for 30,000 community
drinking water systems is the
2005 milestone
7,200
•m 4,289 3,840
s Source Contingency Source
Inventories Planning Management
id Reports to EPA, 1993
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 60 percent of the population served by
community water systems will receive their water from systems with source
water protection programs in place.
-------
Indicator 4: Source Water Protection
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
The 1995 guidelines for the wellhead
protection report were expanded to include
state reporting of communities relying on
surface water. This tracking mechanism will
measure not only the number of community water
systems with ground water and surface water
protection, but also the population protected. As
more states begin to establish wellhead protection
areas and implement ambient and compliance
monitoring, the information might be used to
validate the effectiveness of the source water
protection program.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
The goal of reducing the number of people
potentially exposed to harmful contaminants
from community drinking water supplies is
consistent with the compliance policies and
programs of the current public water system
regulatory program. Implementing source water
protection programs around water systems reflects
a new direction toward preventing pollution at the
source.
Prevention is often more cost-effective than
cleanup. This indicator might forecast dramatic
changes in current EPA policies and programs and
might alter what is expected of public water
suppliers. The outline of the new approach is
included in EPA's reauthorization
recommendations, which would provide alternative
regulatory programs for water systems in
designated source water protection areas.
Well-implemented and enforced local prohibition
ordinances can be a primary means for managing
potential contamination sources. Also, data on
maximum contaminant level violations for nitrates,
volatile organic compounds, and pesticides can be
used to illustrate the value of source water program
implementation in preventing drinking water
contamination.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
June 1996
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES
What does the indicator teli us?
This indicator identifies the percentage of
river miles and lake acres for which fish
consumption advisories have been issued. A
total of 46 states have issued fish consumption
advisories. Information obtained by EPA's Office of
Science and Technology from state reporting
efforts indicates that one or more fish consumption
advisories have been issued for 14 percent of the
Nation's lake acres and 4 percent of the Nation's
river miles.
States issue fish consumption advisories to warn
recreational and subsistence anglers and
other members of the public of the risks
associated with consuming
contaminated noncommercial fish. A
fish consumption advisory may involve
one or more of the following warnings:
(1) do not eat any fish caught in a
certain area; (2) eat only a specified
limited amount offish, particularly if
you are in a high-risk group (e.g.,
pregnant women or young children); or
(3) eat fish only after special
preparation.
pollutant on a national, regional, state, and
watershed basis. It helps identify the risks posed
by a particular chemical on a geographic basis
and could be used to target control, remediation,
and risk management programs to high-risk areas.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
EPA is increasing the scope of the fish
advisory program to include information
on advisories for turtles, frogs, and
waterfowl. The expanded database will be known
as the National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
is responsible for protecting consumers
from contaminants in fish sold through
interstate commerce.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
States provide EPA with
information on fish consumption
advisories. EPA collects and
stores this information in the National
Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories,
which is updated annually. The
database is used to map advisories by
25%
Data
Completeness
Lakes
Rivers
Source: State data reported to EPA's Office of Science and
Technology, 1994
-------
Indicators: Fish Consumptibn Advispries
Consumption Advisories. Other
improvements to the information
system include listing the total
river miles and lake acres under
advisory and automatically
calculating the percentage of
waters covered by state-issued
fish consumption advisories for
37 particular contaminants,
including mercury, dioxin,
chlordane,PCBs,andDDT. In
addition, the information system
will overlay county and major
city lines and index the advisories
with a code for the stream or river
segment to enable integration of
the National Listing with other
geographic information systems.
The 1995 update will be available
on CD-ROM, diskette, or the
Internet.
To improve the comparability and consistency of
state-issued fish consumption advisories and
accuracy in reporting, EPA has published guidance
for states to use in developing advisories and in
notifying recreational and subsistence anglers of
potential risk from contaminated fish. EPA
periodically sponsors conferences and technical
training sessions, and serves as a national clearing-
house for related information to assist states with
their fish advisory programs.
EPA also is working with the states to link
information from state agencies that issue fish
consumption advisories with the information other
state agencies provide on attainment of the fish and
shellfish consumption designated use, gathered in
compliance with section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act. This approach should result in more
consistent information on fish consumption issues.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Fish can become contaminated because of
proximity to (1) a hazardous waste site, (2) a
discharge outfall, (3) a chemical spill, (4) a
public recreation area, or (5) a nonpoint
Number of Fish Advisories Issued by Each State in 1995 |
(Change in number from 1994)
Note: This map depicts the number of waterbodios, by state, where fish consumption advisories wars m
effect in 1995 based on Womwtton reported to EPA by the slates. Because of the variability of the
Woimttion reported, the numbeis depicted here do not reflect the geographic extent of chemical contam-
ination of fishBssut in «ch state norm* extent of a state's monitoring efforts. An asteriskf) denotes a
state that has Issued statewide advisories for particular pokjtants or types ol watertxxfes.
source. Pollutants from these sources can also
collect and persist hi sediment and bioaccumulate
through the food chain, becoming a potential
hazard to aquatic life and human health.
As a result, EPA is working with its partners to
place further restrictions on pollution from point
sources, clean up Superfund sites, improve
containment of accidental spills, and reduce
nonpoint source pollution. These efforts should
reduce the incidence of contaminated fish.
EPA is also developing a guidance document on
managing the risks associated with fish
consumption. The document will help states and
tribes reduce loadings of high-risk chemicals to
water and sediment. It will also provide guidance
on the types of actions that states and tribes can
take to reduce the risks to particularly susceptible
individuals.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
SHELLFISH GROWING WATER
CLASSIFICATION
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
classifed shellfish growing waters
nationwide where shellfish harvesting is (1)
approved (waters may be harvested for direct
marketing at all times); (2) conditionally approved
(waters do not meet the criteria for approved waters
if subjected to intermittent microbiological
pollution, but may be harvested when criteria are
met); (3) restricted (waters may be
harvested if shellfish are subjected to a
suitable purification process); and
(4) prohibited (no harvest for human
consumption at any time).
Harvest-limited classifications are
assigned to waters based on water
quality as well as management
decisions. Classifications based on
water quality are supported by sanitary
surveys that identify actual pollution
sources and water sampling data.
Management decisions include
mandatory buffer zones and wastewater
treatment plant outfalls, marinas, and
situations in which regulations requiring
current and complete sanitary surveys
have not been met. Thus, in cases where
it is known that water quality problems
are the cause of shellfish bed closures,
this indicator could be used to determine
the area and extent of pollution.
Closures could also help determine
pollution sources with the most impact
and future problems that are likely to
occur if no action is taken.
In 1990,17 million estuarine acres were classified,
with 63 percent approved for shellfish harvest—a 6
percent decline from 1985. Of the other 37 percent,
termed harvest-limited acreage, 9 percent were
conditionally approved for harvest under certain
conditions, such as season, river stage, or amount
of rainfall.
Data
Completeness
17,152,000 Acres of
Classified Shellfish Growing
Waters Nationwide
D Approved
• Conditionally Approved
El Restricted
• Prohibited
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1990
-------
Indicator 6: Shellfish Growing Water Classification
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
All shellfish growing waters in the United
States are classified using National
Shellfish Sanitation Program guidelines
developed by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Commission (ISSC) to protect the health of people
who consume shellfish, such as oysters, clams, and
mussels. These guidelines are based primarily on
fecal coliform bacteria levels.
The ISSC includes representatives from states,
industry, and the federal government. Every 5
years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), in cooperation with ISSC,
produces the National Register of Classified
Estuarine Waters, which catalogs the location,
current acreage, classifications, and the reasons for
the classifications.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Although data on shellfish bed closures have
been collected and published since 1966
for all 23 coastal states in the Register, it
was not until 1990 that the collection process
included information on the cause of harvest
restrictions. The 1995 Register, the most accurate
to date, will be released in late 1996 and will
contain data for each shellfish growing area on
(1) size, (2) location, (3) spatial extent, (4) harvest
classification, (5) reason for harvest restriction,
(6) relative abundance of the resources,
(7) contributing pollution sources, and (8) the
presence or absence of restoration activities, such
as pollutant input reduction measures.
To perform trend analyses using this indicator, a
base year must be established and data collected in
subsequent years must reflect the same parameters
and protocols used in the base year. Using 1995 as
the base year would provide the most accurate
baseline data on reasons for harvest-restricted
classifications.
This is important because harvest restricted
classifications might or might not be caused by
problems with water quality. Other reasons for
harvest restricted classifications include limited
administrative resources, areas closed or opened
for conservation purposes, or lack of a completed
sanitary survey. However, accurately collecting
data on the reasons for harvest restrictions ensures
using only those harvest restrictions resulting from
water quality problems.
In addition to the above improvements, changes
should be considered in the way that NOAA
collects Register information. Visiting all coastal
states is extremely time-consuming, labor-
ntensive, and expensive. If all states used the
same geographic information system to track all
elements of each shellfish growing water, data
gathering, processing, and analysis could occur
on a yearly basis.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Shellfish are contaminated by several pollution
sources including sewage treatment plants,
industrial facilities, septic systems, and
nonpoint sources. The largest increases in
pollution of shellfish beds between 1985 and 1990
were attributed to urban runoff, septic systems, and
boat pollution.
These increases reflect a common problem for
shellfish areas—the influence of increased tourism
and coastal development. As a result, EPA,
NOAA, and their partners will enhance the
protection of the Nation's shellfish areas by
focusing on and improving coastal zone
management efforts.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows data from (1)31 states
that currently have comprehensive
biological monitoring programs in streams
and wadeable rivers and (2) EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP),
which uses biological monitoring to evaluate
estuaries. Of those rivers and estuaries actually
assessed for biological integrity, 50 percent of
rivers and 74 percent of estuaries have
healthy aquatic communities.
Pronounced changes in these biological
communities indicate a disruption of
healthy environmental conditions and
can be useful in identifying cumulative
effects of pollutants, habitat alteration
that is difficult to see, effects from
bioaccumulative chemicals, and other
impacts that chemical monitoring does
not reveal.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The data for rivers and streams are
based on state monitoring
programs that compare the
aquatic organisms monitored at many
locations to the expected composition,
abundance, and condition of aquatic
organisms typical of a minimally
impaired reference condition.
Information for estuaries is collected by
EMAP, which uses a sample survey
design to assess a wide area of waters.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Assessing a water for healthy biological
communities is a complex task, and the
science to do so is newer and used less
frequently than that used for chemical monitoring.
EPA and its partners are working together to
strengthen biological monitoring programs, assess
more waters, and gather better data for producing
Rivers
9% Assessed
Estuaries
55% Assessed
lource: EPA EMAP, 1994, and state biological monitoring data, 1992-1994
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 80 percent of the Nation's surface
waters will support healthy aquatic communities.
-------
Indicator 7: Biological Integrity of the Water
the indicator. Methods for biological monitoring in
lakes are not yet standardized, so there are not
enough data to confidently report the number of
lakes supporting healthy aquatic life.
This indicator could be improved by increasing the
number of estuaries and rivers assessed and by
beginning to perform lake biological assessments.
Greater consistency in monitoring techniques must
be ensured through the use of comparable methods
and assessments. This could be accomplished
through work done by the Intergovernmental Task
Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). ITFM
will also work to ensure consistency among federal
and state data needed for representative reference
conditions throughout a region.
EPA is working with states to develop methods and
guidance to quantitatively measure the biological
integrity of specific surface water types. Protocols
for wadeable rivers and streams are available, and
those for lakes are hi draft form. Protocols for
monitoring estuaries, wetlands, and large rivers are
still needed.
To improve the amount and cross section of data
used to characterize biological integrity, EPA is
actively supporting states and tribes in the
comprehensive biological assessment of their
waters. EPA is also working with other federal
agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority
and the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water
Quality Assessment program to determine how
those data can be used to support this indicator.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA and other federal and state agencies
recognize that while most point sources are
controlled with specific permit limits, less
visible stormwater runoff and nonpoint sources of
pollution also should be controlled. EPA and its
partners are now placing greater emphasis on
reducing the effects of habitat perturbation from
grazing, farming, stream channelization,
stormwater runoff, introduction of nonnative
species, dam operations, and dredging. These
activities affect aquatic ecosystems by reducing
waterside vegetation, which provides both shade
and bank stabilization; by increasing siltation; by
scouring and removing important habitat
components; and by raising water temperatures.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
May 1996
SPECIES AT RISK
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
species dependent on freshwater aquatic or
wetland habitats that are at risk. Currently,
the groups of animals at greatest risk overall are
those dependent on aquatic systems. More than 60
percent of freshwater mussels and crayfish are at
risk, the highest imperilment ratio documented for
any group of plants and animals in the United
States.
been assessed and ranked, and rankings are updated
as new information becomes available.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
These conservation status ranks are not legal
categories, as are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) listings of threatened and
endangered species. These status ranks focus on
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
An important part of assessing the
biological diversity and integrity,
in a waterbody is determining
whether the aquatic species that should
naturally exist in the waters are actually
there and at the expected population size.
This indicator uses data from The Nature
Conservancy and the Network of State
Natural Heritage Data Centers, a public-
private network of biological inventory
and assessment programs. The biological
and conservation status of species are
assessed, and the species are ranked by
the state agency-based Heritage Network
as extinct, critically imperiled, imperiled,
vulnerable, apparently secure, or
demonstrably secure. Criteria for ranking
a given species include the number of
populations or occurrences known and
their health, the estimated number of
individuals, the distributional range and
extent of appropriate habitat, the
population and range trends, threats, and
fragility or susceptibility to these threats.
Approximately 30,000 U.S. species have
75% -
CO
be
.2 50% -j
S.
25% •
0%
Data
Completeness I
67%
65%
37%
35%
18% 5
18%
19%
M.
5%
«>cfl •= a: as
Source: The Nature Conservancy and State Natural Heritage Data
Centers, 1996
-------
Indicators: Species at Risk
known biological factors, with any
individual status rank considered a
hypothesis based on the best
available information. Thus, ranks
are less precise for species with
less current inventory information.
To improve the confidence and
accuracy of the ranks, additional
inventory efforts are needed. The
indicator will also need to
distinguish between those species
that are naturally rare and those
that are imperiled because of
human induced threats. Improve-
ments to the National Wetlands
Inventory, which provides
information on wetland use by
plants, and to the Natural Heritage
Network, which covers habitat use
generally, will result in a more complete list of
wetland species and animal species habitat
information.
Although trend information, where available, is
incorporated into the assessment of these
conservation status ranks, the indicator cannot
currently show specific trends. The indicator does
not distinguish between those species that have
stable or increasing populations and those that have
declining populations. To allow the indicator to
better differentiate between cause of impediment
and population trends, additional research is needed
to carry out a trend monitoring strategy. EPA, The
Nature Conservancy, and USFWS are working
together to better integrate multiple data to support
development of a second part to this indicator that
will focus on trends.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Degraded water quality and altered water
flow are considered two of the primary
threats affecting aquatic organisms and
leading to these dramatic levels of imperilment.
Any effort to prevent, control, or clean up water
pollution or maintain or restore natural flow
Aquatic Species at Risk by State |
Source: The Nature Conservancy and
State Natural Heritage Data Centers, 1996
Percent Aquatic/Wetland
Species at Risk *
• >15% H! 10-15%
• Includes species of mussels, crayfish, fishes,
amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds
regimes should contribute to a decrease in species
at risk by providing those species with a clean and
safe habitat. More specifically, there are various
programs that target species at risk for protection.
Many of the species identified as at risk by The
Nature Conservancy and Natural Heritage Network
are also listed as threatened or endangered by
USFWS. Listing a species as threatened or
endangered guarantees that it will receive special
protection.
The Nature Conservancy itself works to protect
species at risk by determining which species are
truly vulnerable and where they exist, and by
working with partners to acquire or manage lands
and waters harboring these rarities, as well as
representative examples of ecological communities.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
June 1996
WETLAND ACREAGE
What does the indicator tell us?
More than 200 million acres of wetlands
existed in the conterminous United States
during colonial times. Today, less than
half of those original wetlands remain. Many
wetlands have been converted to farmland or
dredged and filled to accommodate urban
development Twenty-two states have lost at least
50 percent of their original wetlands; 7 of those
states have lost over 80 percent.
monitor wetland loss and report improvements in
wetland acreage.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Although efforts to eliminate wetland loss
and realize a net gain in wetlands are under
way, wetland loss is still a problem.
Equally important, however, is the condition of
existing wetlands. Wetland monitoring programs to
This indicator recognizes historical
wetland loss but focuses on wetland loss
trends. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the U.S Department of
Agriculture report that from the mid-
1970s to the mid-1980s approximately
290,000 acres of wetlands were lost
annually on non-federal lands in the
conterminous United States. During the
mid-1980s to the early 1990s this trend
slowed to about 70,000 to 90,000 acres
annually. These non-federal lands
represent about 75 percent of the
Nation's lands.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
This indicator uses information
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) on wetland
acreage on federal and non-federal
lands. In addition to USFWS, the
Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) reports on wetland acreage on
non-federal lands in its National
Resource Inventory. EPA will continue
to work with USFWS and NRCS to
600
Data
Completeness
mid 1950s -
mid 1970s
* mid 1970s-
mid 1980s
**mid 1980s-
early 1990s
Sources:* U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service, 1990 (Data include federal lands)
** U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992 (Data exclude federal lands)
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, there will be an annual net increase of at least
100,000 acres of wetlands, thereby supporting valuable aquatic life, improving
water quality, and preventing health- and property-damaging floods and drought
-------
Indicator 9i Wetland Acreage
determine whether
wetlands are healthy,
functioning systems are
still in their infancy.
Comprehensive studies of
the extent of wetland
degradation are just
beginning to assess the
condition of the
biological life that is
dependent on healthy
wetlands. To improve the
indicator's ability to
assess wetland
conditions, efforts to
determine not only
wetland acreage but also
wetland quality will
increase.
Historical Wetland Loss by State j
Less than 50% wetland loss in the past 200 years
50% to 79% wetland loss in the past 200 years
80% or greater wetland loss in the past 200 years
Source: U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service
What is being
done to improve conditions
measured by the indicator?
As awareness of the importance of wetlands
has increased, programs and initiatives to
protect them have become more prevalent.
In addition, several important trends have emerged
that have supported wetland protection programs.
Together, these programs, initiatives, and trends
have led to a decrease in wetland losses and an
increase in emphasis on wetland protection and
restoration.
The support and continuation of these efforts and
trends into the future will improve the health and
status of our nation's wetlands. Some of the efforts
and trends responsible for these improvements
include:
• Decline in the profitability of converting
wetlands for agricultural production.
• Passage of the Swampbuster provision in the
1985 and 1990 farm bills.
• Presence of Clean Water Act section 404
permit program and growth in state
management programs.
Greater public interest and support for wetland
protection and restoration.
Implementation of federal, state, and local
programs that protect and restore wetlands,
such as the Conservation Reserve Program,
Partners for Wildlife, and Reinvest in
Minnesota.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
June 1996
DRINKING WATER SUPPLY DESIGNATED USE
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
assessed waterbodies that have attained the
drinking water supply use designated by
states and tribes as part of their water quality
standards. This designated use requires that water
obtained from the waterbody is safe to drink
following conventional treatment, such as
chlorination, by a water supplier.
States and tribes define their waterbodies,
monitor their quality, and report the results
to EPA, which publishes the individual and
aggregated results in the National Water
Quality Inventory. According to the 1994
Inventory, 83 percent of assessed rivers and
streams and 87 percent of assessed lakes
and reservoirs can be used safely as a
drinking water supply.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The Clean Water Act requires states
and tribes (if authorized) to adopt
standards with designated uses for
waterbodies or waterbody segments. One
of these designated uses is drinking water
supply. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act requires that states and tribes assess the
degree to which their surface .waters
support the designated uses.
States and tribes report the results of the
assessments to EPA every 2 years through
the issuance of 305(b) Reports. Data from
the reports are then aggregated to form the
National Water Quality Inventory, which is
used to portray the status of the Nation's
waters. The results reported in the National
Water Quality Inventory will be used to track
changes in the indicator.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
currently requires states and tribes to report
water quality monitoring results to EPA. It is
important to note that states, tribes, and other
is
li
100%
75%
Q
^.
g; 50%
of
25% •
0%
Data
Completeness
83%
87%
Rivers
Lakes
Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress,
1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
flowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
estuarine square miles were assessed.
Proposed Milestone: By 2005,90 percent of the Nation's rivers, streams, lakes,
and reservoirs designated as drinking water supplies will provide water that is
safe to use after conventional treatment
-------
jurisdictions do not use identical survey methods or
criteria to assess waters, in spite of guidelines
issued by EPA and developed by the 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup, composed of 25 states, 3
tribes, and 7 federal agencies. In addition, most
states and tribes do not assess all of their
waterbodies during the 2-year 305(b) reporting
cycle, and they might even modify criteria or assess
different waterbodies every 2 years. In 1994, only
17 percent of the Nation's total river and stream
miles (48 percent of those which are constantly
flowing), 42 percent of its lake and reservoir acres,
and 78 percent of its estuaries were assessed for
overall water quality.
305(b) data used to support this indicator might not
represent general conditions in the Nation's waters
because states, tribes, and other jurisdictions often
focus on major perennial rivers, estuaries, and
public lakes with suspected pollution problems in
order to direct scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many states, tribes, and
other jurisdictions lack the resources to collect
information for nonperennial streams, small
tributaries, and private ponds. This indicator does
not predict the health of these or other unassessed
waters. Because of these limitations, EPA must use
caution in comparing data between states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions, as well as between
reporting periods.
In an effort to improve future reporting, EPA is
pursuing several initiatives. First, EPA is working
with the states and tribes to better link the source
water assessment to the existing drinking water
standards and to tighten the criteria used to identify
actual or potentialh impaired waters.
EPA is working with it.-; partners to develop
monitoring and assessment approaches that will
improve state-to-state consistency in reporting.
This will provide a more accurate picture of the
Nation's waters when all of the data are aggregated
on a national basis.
EPA is working with states, tribes, and other
federal agencies to change the 305(b) reporting
cycle from 2 years to 5 years, with annual reporting
of key data for the waters assessed in each year.
This will enable comprehensive reporting of waters
meeting designated uses each 5-year period.
Indicator 10a: Drinking Water Supply Designated Mse
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality (ITFM) are providing guidance and
assistance in an effort to improve monitoring,
assessment, and reporting.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
shows that states identify agriculture, urban
runoff stormwater, and municipal point
sources as the largest pollutant sources for rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. These sources can adversely
affect drinking water supply. In addition to
continuing to control point sources, EPA and its
partners also need to control nonpoint source
pollution from both rural and urban areas.
EPA encourages states to use a place-based
watershed framework and source water protection
programs to identify the causes of water quality
degradation, to determine appropriate controls,
and to manage the control programs.
The watershed framework and source water
protection programs assist water resource
managers in reducing stresses on water quality,
such as toxic chemicals, siltation, and nutrients
from phosphate-based detergents and fertilizers,
all of which can increase the cost and reduce the
efficiency of treatment.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
FISH AND SHELLRSH CONSUMPTION DESIGNATED USE
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
assessed waterbodies that have attained the
fish and shellfish consumption use
designated by states and tribes as part of their water
quality standards.
States and tribes define their waterbodies, monitor
their quality, and report the results to EPA, which
publishes the individual and aggregated results in
the National Water Quality Inventory.
According to the 1994 Inventory, 95
percent of assessed rivers and streams,
82 percent of assessed lakes and
reservoirs, and 92 percent of assessed
estuaries provide fish safe for human
consumption. In addition, 74 percent of
assessed estuaries provide shellfish safe
for human consumption.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The Clean Water Act requires
states and tribes (if authorized) to
adopt standards with designated
uses for waterbodies or waterbody
segments. One of these designated uses
is fish and shellfish consumption.
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
requires that states and tribes assess the
degree to which their surface waters
support the designated uses. The results
of the assessments are reported to EPA
every 2 years through the issuance of
305(b) Reports. Data from these reports
are then aggregated to form the National
Water Quality Inventory, which is used
to portray the status of the Nation's
waters. The results reported in the
National Water Quality Inventory will be used to
track changes in the indicator.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
S*
:
(ection 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
currently requires states and tribes to report
water quality monitoring results to EPA. It is
important to note that states, tribes, and other
100%
Data
Completeness
Rivers (fish) Lakes (fish)
Estuaries
(fish)
Estuaries
(shellfish)
Source: National Water Quality Inventory. 1994 Report to Congress,
1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
flowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
estuarine square miles were assessed.
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 90 to 98 percent of the Nation's fish and shellfish
harvest areas will provide food safe for people and wildlife to eat
-------
Indicator 10b: Fish and Shellfish Consumption Designated Use
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring
Water Quality (ITFM) are providing guidance
and assistance in an effort to improve monitoring,
assessment, and reporting.
jurisdictions do not use identical survey methods or
criteria to assess waters, in spite of guidelines
issued by EPA and developed by the 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup, composed of 25 states, 3
tribes, and 7 federal agencies. In addition, most
states and tribes do not assess all of their
waterbodies during the 2-year 305(b) reporting
cycle, and they might even modify criteria or assess
different waterbodies every 2 years. In 1994, only
17 percent of the Nation's river and stream miles
(48 percent of those which are constantly flowing),
42 percent of its lake and reservoir acres, and 78
percent of its estuaries were assessed for overall
water quality.
305(b) data used to support this indicator might not
represent general conditions in the Nation's waters
because states, tribes, and other jurisdictions often
focus on major perennial rivers, estuaries, and
public lakes with suspected pollution problems in
order to direct scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many states, tribes, and
other jurisdictions lack the resources to collect
information for nonperennial streams, small
tributaries, and private ponds. This indicator does
not predict the health of these or other unassessed
waters. Because of these limitations, EPA must use
caution in comparing data between states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions, as well as between
reporting periods.
In an effort to improve future reporting, EPA is
pursuing several initiatives. First, EPA is working
with the states and tribes to link the information
from state agencies that issue fish consumption
advisories with the information other state agencies
provide on use attainment.
EPA is working with its partners to develop
monitoring and assessment approaches that will
improve state-to-state consistency in reporting.
This will provide a more accurate picture of the
Nation's waters when all of the data are aggregated
on a national basis.
EPA is working with states, tribes, and other
federal agencies to change the 305(b) reporting
cycle from 2 years to 5 years, with annual reporting
of key data for the waters assessed in each year.
This will enable comprehensive reporting of waters
meeting designated uses each 5-year period.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
shows that states identify agriculture, urban
runoff/stormwater, and municipal point
sources as the largest pollutant sources for rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. These sources can contribute
to excessive levels of pollutants in fish and
shellfish. Pollutants can also collect and persist in
sediments and bioaccumulate through the food
chain, reaching excessive levels in fish and
shellfish. Hydrologic modification, resource
extraction, contaminated sediments, and natural
sources, such as atmospheric deposition, however,
also degrade water quality. In addition to
continuing to control point sources, EPA and its
partners also need to control nonpoint source
pollution from both rural and urban areas.
EPA encourages states to use a place-based
watershed framework to identify the causes of
water .quality and habitat degradation, to determine
appropriate controls, and to manage the control
programs. The watershed framework assists water
resource managers in reducing stresses on water
quality, such as toxic chemicals, siltation, habitat
loss, nutrients from phosphate-based detergents
and fertilizers, and elevated water temperatures
resulting from loss of vegetative cover.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
Jtirie 1996^
RECREATION DESIGNATED USE
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of assessed
waterbodies that have attained the swimming
and recreation use designated by states and
tribes as part of their water quality standards.
States and tribes define their waterbodies, monitor
their quality, and report the results to EPA, which
publishes the individual and aggregated results in
the National Water Quality Inventory. According
to the 1994 Inventory, 77 percent of
assessed rivers and streams, 81 percent
of assessed lakes and reservoirs, and 85
percent of assessed estuaries are safe for
swimming In addition, 87 percent of
assessed rivers and streams, 86 percent
of assessed lakes and reservoirs, and 83
percent of assessed estuaries are safe for
other forms of recreation.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
The Clean Water Act requires
states and tribes (if authorized) to
adopt standards with designated
uses for waterbodies or waterbody
segments. One of these designated uses
is swimming and recreation. Section
305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires
that states and tribes assess the degree to
which their surface waters support the
designated uses. States and tribes report
the results of these assessments to EPA
every 2 years through the issuance of
305(b) Reports. Data from the reports
are then aggregated to form the National
Water Quality Inventory, which is used
to portray the status of the Nation's
waters. The results reported in the
National Water Quality Inventory will be used to
track changes in the indicator.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
S1
:
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
currently requires states and tribes to report
water quality monitoring results to EPA. It is
important to note that states, tribes, and other
100%
75%
50%-
25%-
0%
Data
Completeness
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
! Swimming a Other Recreation
Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress,
1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
flowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
estuarine square miles were assessed
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 95 percent of the Nation's surface waters will be
safe for recreation.
-------
jurisdictions do not use identical survey methods or
criteria to assess waters, in spite of guidelines
issued by EPA and developed by the 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup, composed of 25 states, 3
tribes, and 7 federal agencies. In addition, most
states and tribes do not assess all of their waterbodies
during the 2-year 305(b) reporting cycle, and they
might even modify criteria or assess different
waterbodies every 2 years. In 1994, only 17 percent
of the Nation's river and stream miles (48 percent of
those which are constantly flowing), 42 percent of its
lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of its
estuaries were assessed for overall water quality.
305(b) data used to support this indicator might not
represent general conditions in the Nation's waters
because states, tribes, and other jurisdictions often
focus on major perennial rivers, estuaries, and public
lakes with suspected pollution problems in order to
direct scarce resources to areas that could pose the
greatest risk. Many states, tribes, and other
jurisdictions lack the resources to collect information
for nonperennial streams, small tributaries, and
private ponds. This indicator does not predict the
health of these or other unassessed waters. Because
of these limitations, EPA must use caution in
comparing data between states, tribes, and other
jurisdictions, as well as between reporting periods.
In an effort to improve future reporting, EPA is
pursuing several initiatives. First, EPA is working
with the states and tnbes to more precisely define
their recreational uses to differentiate, at a minimum,
between contact recreation, such as swimming, and
noncontact recreation, such as boating and wading,
where immersion in the water is unlikely.
EPA is working with u* partners to develop
monitoring and assessment approaches that will
improve state-to-state consistency in reporting. This
will provide a more accurate picture of the Nation's
waters when all of the data are aggregated on a
national basis.
EPA is working with states, tribes, and. other federal
agencies to change the 305(b) reporting cycle from 2
years to 5 years, with annual reporting of key data
for the waters assessed in each year. This will
enable comprehensive reporting of waters meeting
designated uses each 5-year period.
Indicator 10c: Recreation Designated Ujse
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM) are providing guidance and
assistance in an effort to improve monitoring,
assessment, and reporting.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
shows that states identify agriculture, urban
runoff/stormwater, and municipal point
sources as the largest pollutant sources for rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. The ability of a waterbody to
support recreation can be impacted by one or more
of these sources.
In addition to continuing to control point sources,
EPA and its partners also need to control nonpoint
source pollution from both rural and urban areas.
EPA encourages states to use a place-based
watershed framework to identify the causes of
water quality degradation, to determine appropriate
controls, and to manage the control programs.
The watershed framework assists water resource
managers in reducing stresses on water quality,
such as toxic chemicals, nutrients from phosphate-
based detergents and fertilizers, and bacterial
contamination.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
AQUATIC LIFE DESIGNATED USE
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the percentage of
assessed waterbodies that have attained the
aquatic life use designated by states and tribes
as part of their water quality standards.
States and tribes define their waterbodies, monitor
their quality, and report the results to EPA, which
publishes the individual and aggregated results in the
National Water Quality Inventory. According to the
1994 Inventory, 69 percent of assessed rivers and
streams, 68 percent of assessed lakes and reservoirs,
and 70 percent of estuaries can support healthy
aquatic life.
How will the indicator be used
to track progress?
The Clean Water Act requires
states and tribes (if authorized) to
adopt standards with designated
uses for waterbodies or waterbody
segments. One of these designated uses
is aquatic life. Section 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act requires that states and
tribes assess the degree to which their
surface waters support the designated
uses. State and tribes report the results
of the assessments to EPA every 2 years
through the issuance of 305(b) Reports.
Data from the reports are then
aggregated to form the National Water
Quality Inventory, which is used to
portray the status of the Nation's waters.
The results reported in the National
Water Quality Inventory will be used to
track changes in the indicator.
What is being done to improve
the indicator?
Section 305(b) of the CWA
currently requires states and tribes
to report water quality monitoring
results to EPA. It is important to note
that states, tribes, and other jurisdictions do not use
identical survey methods or criteria to assess waters,
in spite of guidelines issued by EPA and developed
by the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup, composed of
25 states, 3 tribes, and 7 federal agencies. In
addition, most states and tribes do not assess all of
their waterbodies during the 2-year 305(b) reporting
cycle, and they might even modify criteria or assess
different waterbodies every 2 years. In 1994, only
17 percent of the Nation's river and stream miles (48
percent of those which are constantly flowing), 42
percent of its lake and reservoir acres, and 78 perceni
of its estuaries were assessed for overall water
quality.
o%
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress,
1995; 17 percent of all river and stream miles (48 percent of constantly
flowing miles), 42 percent of lake and reservoir acres, and 78 percent of
estuarine square miles were assessed
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, 80 percent of the nation's surface waters will
support healthy aquatic communities.
-------
Indicator 10d: Aquatic Life Designated [Use
305(b) data used to support this indicator might not
represent general conditions in the Nation's waters
because states, tribes, and other jurisdictions often
focus on major perennial rivers, estuaries, and
public lakes with suspected pollution problems in
order to direct scarce resources to areas that could
pose the greatest risk. Many states, tribes, and
other jurisdictions lack the resources to collect
information for nonperennial streams, small
tributaries, and private ponds. This indicator does
not predict the health of these or other unassessed
waters. Because of these limitations, EPA must use
caution in comparing data between states, tribes,
and other jurisdictions, as well as between
reporting periods.
In an effort to improve future reporting, EPA is
pursuing several initiatives. First, EPA is working
with the states and tribes to more precisely define
their aquatic life uses, such as salmon spawning in
rivers and lakes, cold freshwater habitat, warm
freshwater habitat, and marine habitat. EPA is also
working with states and tribes to better link
assessments to the particular aquatic life designated
use and to evaluate and reconcile potentially
conflicting chemical and biological data.
EPA is working with its partners to develop
monitoring and assessment approaches that will
improve state-to-state consistency in reporting.
This will provide a more accurate picture of the
Nation's waters when all of the data are aggregated
on a national basis.
EPA is working with states, tribes, and other
federal agencies to change the 305(b) reporting
cycle from 2 years to 5 years, with annual reporting
of key data for the waters assessed in each year.
This will enable comprehensive reporting of waters
meeting designated uses each 5-year period.
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (TTFM) are providing guidance and
assistance in an effort to improve monitoring,
assessment, and reporting.
In addition, EPA is working with states and tribes
to develop a guidance document to improve the
assessment of the aquatic life in our nation's waters.
The guidance will include ecological risk
assessment principles that will assist states and
tribes in identifying causes of impairment.
It will also include quantitatively based biological
criteria for different types of waterbodies and
ecological regions. The biological criteria will
assist states and tribes in determining impairment
of aquatic life. The criteria, in conjunction with
habitat assessment methods, will also provide a
more comprehensive and scientifically defensible
basis for assessing aquatic life impairment.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the indicator?
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory
shows that states identify agriculture, urban
runoff/ stormwater, and municipal point
sources as the largest pollutant sources for rivers,
lakes, and estuaries. Aquatic life may be impacted
by one or more of these sources.
Hydrologic modification, resource extraction,
contaminated sediments, and natural sources such
as atmospheric deposition, however, also impair
aquatic life uses. In addition to continuing to
control point sources, EPA and its partners also
need to control nonpoint source pollution from both
rural and urban areas.
EPA encourages states to use a place-based
watershed framework to identify the causes of
water quality degradation, to determine appropriate
controls, and to manage the control programs. The
watershed framework assists water resource
managers in reducing stresses on water quality,
such as toxic chemicals, siltation, habitat loss,
nutrients from phosphate-based detergents and
fertilizers, and elevated water temperatures
resulting from loss of vegetative cover.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
GROUND WATER POLLUTANTS: NITRATE
What does the indicator tell us?
Nitrate is the most widespread agricultural
contaminant and is a human health
concern since it can cause
methemoglobinemia, or "blue-baby syndrome."
Nitrate is also an environmental concern as a
potential source of nutrient enrichment of coastal
waters. High levels of nitrate in well water typically
indicate that pollution is seeping in from septic
tanks, animal wastes, fertilizers, municipal
landfills, or other nonpoint sources. The Safe
Drinking Water Act requires that EPA establish
federal safety standards that limit the allowable
levels of nitrate in water. This level is established at
10 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
This indicator uses information from the
1990 National Pesticides Survey to
demonstrate the number of people exposed to
nitrate concentrations above the EPA
maximum contaminant level. The survey
offers the first national look at pesticide and
nitrate contamination in rural domestic wells
and community drinking water systems. The
survey indicates that 4.5 million people were
potentially exposed to elevated levels of
nitrate from drinking water wells.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
Most ground water studies use
nitrate as an indicator because of
its stability and solubility in
water. Therefore, comparisons between
nitrate concentrations can be made across
many of these studies. It is also convenient
to use nitrate concentration to track changes
in ground water quality because it is a
primary health-based drinking water
standard. The lack of ambient ground water
monitoring networks, however, hampers the
tracking of any definitive trends on a national
basis.
EPA will continue to review and analyze the data
from public drinking water programs. It will also
investigate the many studies conducted by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), other federal agencies,
states, and local authorities that apply to existing
conditions and|threats to the quality of ground
water. Those studies on nitrate contamination, as
well as studies using other contaminants (e.g.,
pesticides and organic compounds) as indicators of
ground water quality, will be used to update this
indicator.
The modernization of the Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) and water quality
monitoring data from EPA's Storage and Retrieval
(STORET) systems will provide additional data to
O
Data
Completeness
Rural
Domestic
Wells
Community
Water
System
Wells
Source: National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells, 1990.
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the number of Americans served by
community and rural water wells containing high concentrations of
nitrate, which can cause illness, will be reduced."
-------
Indicator 11: Ground Water Pollutants: Nitrate
track sources of ground water contamination. SDWIS
provides data on how well drinking water systems are
meeting safety standards.
What Is being done to improve the
indicator?
Information on ground water quality is usually
obtained from the monitoring of known or
suspected contamination sites or from specific
studies that monitor for various contaminants in
limited areas. However, available data do not always
provide an accurate representation of ambient ground
water quality or an indication of the extent and
severity of ground water contamination problems. In
addition, there is considerable difficulty in using the
results of ground water studies to project both the
degree of contamination on a national level and
decreases in the population served by contaminated
systems. In the meantime, the best available source of
ground water data is studies of drinking water
supplies. Ultimately, however, this indicator should
measure ground water quality directly. Achieving this
will require the development and implementation of
monitoring strategies and programs at the local, state,
and regional levels.
EPA encourages states to conduct ground water
monitoring and to build comprehensive monitoring
programs through integration of existing efforts aimed
at characterizing the overall quality of ground water
resources. This will help develop a national picture of
the needs and progress of ground water protection
efforts. More research and development are also
needed on the natural and human-induced factors
afFecting ground water quality and monitoring, as well
as the selection of the best indicators. Agencies at all
levels of government must address problems in their
monitoring efforts, collect the most useful data for
their own applications, and achieve the most
economical use of their monitoring investment.
EPA also strongly encourages states, through the
National Water Quality Inventory and the
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality, to assess selected aquifers or hydrogeologic
settings to provide a more meaningful interpretation of
ground water within the states. It is anticipated that as
states develop and implement ground water
monitoring plans, programs, and collection
mechanisms, information will become more uniform
and trends in ground water quality in states, regions,
and the Nation can be evaluated more reliably.
In the future, to provide a more accurate picture of
overall ground water quality, this indicator might
Include other contaminants as well as other uses of
the ground water resource.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the indicator?
To prevent the contamination of ground water,
both the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, along with other federal
laws, establish requirements for states and tribes to
actively protect their ground water. Unfortunately, our
knowledge of the extent and severity of ground water
contamination is incomplete. Other than drinking
water suppliers regulated by EPA, few keep detailed
monitoring records. However, with more states
recognizing the need to establish ambient ground
water monitoring programs, drinking water data using
samples from the distribution system or blended
samples from various wells will be relied on less to
obtain good-quality information.
The challenge for ground water includes protecting
ground water—particularly wells that supply public
water systems—from pollution and helping the public
better understand the ways in which it becomes
polluted. Much of this effort will be supported by
voluntary implementation of local or regional
management strategies by cooperating agencies.
Expanded ambient and site-specific monitoring can
target known or suspected pollution sources, yielding
valuable information on ground water quality.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
SURFACE WATER POLLUTANTS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows changes in
concentration levels for selected surface
water parameters. Using data from the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), currently the
indicator presents six parameters USGS
monitored in rivers and streams: dissolved
oxygen, dissolved solids, nitrate, total
phosphorus, fecal coliform, and suspended
sediments. For example, from 1980
to 1989 USGS monitoring data from
select National Stream Quality
Accounting Network stations showed
no change in nitrate concentration
levels in 86 percent of the stations, a
downward trend in 8 percent, and an
upward trend in 6 percent.
not include all of the parameters being
measured by the loading indicator (Indicator
16a). EPA and its partners intend to track the
following list of parameters for both this
ambient indicator and for the loadings
indicator.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
This indicator is intended to
track; over time, the group of
parameters that we have
identified as significant pollutants in
our rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries,
and coastal waters. This is a measure
of ambient surface water quality,
ambient meaning the quality of waters
in general, as opposed to waters at a
specific point impacted by an
identified pollutant.
What is being done to
improve the indicator?
T
he information displayed by
this indicator covers only
rivers and streams and does
Trends in River and
Stream Water Quality
1980 -1989
Data
Completeness
11%
87%
Suspended Sediment
Fecal coliform
Total phosphorus
Nitrate
Dissolved solids
2%
13%
84%
3%
22%
73%
5%
8%
86%
6%
14%
78%
8%
Dissolved Oxygen
6%
85%
9%
JBj
324 Total
Stations
313 Total
Stations
410 Total
Stations
344 Total
Stations
340 Total
Stations
424 Total
Stations
0% 50% 100%
% of Stations Showing Changes
in Concentration Levels
Downward trend
No trend
Upward trend
Note: The presence of an upward trend indicates an increase in the concentration
of a particular constituent while a downward trend indicates a decrease in the
concentration. Analyses were made on data from USGS National Stream Quality
Accounting Network stations. Trend data for phosphorus is from 1982-1989.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1990
-------
Toxic Pollutants
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Phenol
Total residual
chloride
Conventional Pollutants
• Ammonia
• BOD
• Nitrogen (and nitrate)
• Pathogens
• Phosphorus
• Suspended solids
These parameters would provide the basis for the
national indicator providing general information on
changes in the measurements taken in surface
waters.
EPA will work with its partners, particularly states,
tribes, USGS, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to more
accurately and consistently assess and report the
data collected. Data sources that can be used for
reporting this indicator are the USGS databases
(particularly for rivers and streams); EPA's Storage
and Retrieval information system (STORET),
which contains state, USGS, and other data, for all
surface waters; and NOAA for coastal waters.
Partners will need to work together to determine the
best method for aggregating, interpreting, and
presenting the information for this indicator. Once
agreement is reached, guidance can be provided to
those collecting the data to ensure the data's quality
and accuracy.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
This indicator provides only the general
chemical information with which to assess
national water quality conditions. The
chemical information must be used along with
physical and biological information (Indicator 7) to
provide a holistic picture of water quality.
However, this indicator does provide general trends
for specific pollutants of concern and general water
quality conditions, and it can indicate where
additional action to control chemical impacts is
necessary. For example, EPA and its partners
might need to upgrade treatment at sewage
Indicator 12: Surface Water Pollutants
treatment plants or industrial facilities, or
recommend best management practices or policies
to control nonpoint sources and address ambient
water quality problems.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
SELECTED COASTAL SURFACE WATER
POLLUTANTS IN SHELLRSH
What does the indicator teil us?
This indicator shows the percent change in
concentration levels from 1986/87 to
1992/93 of six pollutants in shellfish
(oysters and mussels) collected from about 140
locations along the Nation's coastline. The
pollutants shown are six of the toxic chemicals of
greatest concern in terms of their effects on the fish
and other organisms in U.S. estuaries.
Three metals and three groups of
organic chemicals are included. The
metals copper, mercury, and lead are
commonly used in our society for a
number of purposes. The use of two of
the organic chemicals included in this
indicator, the DDT pesticides and the
industrially important polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), was very common
until about 20 years ago, and although
these chemicals are now banned, they
can still be found in the environment.
The carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) are common
constituents of oil and are also produced
by the burning of coal and wood.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
Data on these pollutant levels have been
gathered by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
since 1986. A survey to continue to measure the
levels at the established study locations is being
carried out every 2 years to furnish additional
points for establishing trends in pollutant levels.
As shown in the graph, concentration
levels of DDT and PCBs decreased
substantially from 1986/87 to
1992/93. During the same time period,
concentration levels of lead and mercury
showed evidence of a moderate decrease
and increase, respectively, while copper
showed little change. From 1988 to
1989 levels of PAHs also showed little
change.
70% -I
50% •
30% •
^w 10%-
2 co
a> oo
~x -10% H
c -30%-
IB
a.
-50% -
-70%-
O
Data
Completeness
4.6%
9.1%
3.6%
-41.9%
-53.8%
Copper Mercury Lead DDT PCS PAH
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1995
-------
1
Indicator 13: Selected Coastal Surface Water Pollutants
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
A dditional results axe being gathered as
/\ explained above. As part of NOAA's
jLJuNational Status and Trends monitoring
program, additional chemicals (e.g., dioxin) are
being added to the pollutants measured as concerns
regarding these chemicals are identified.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
A number of control measures, such as
eliminating the addition of lead to gasoline,
forbidding the use of DDT and PCBs, and
strengthening the requirements for removal of
pollutants from treatment plant effluents, have been
enacted over the past 25 years.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
June 1996
ESTUARINE EUTROPHICATION CONDITIONS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows changes in specific constituents
related to water quality that together can be used to
assess the extent of eutrophication within an estuary,
and thus assess its health and condition. Eutrophication is a
process by which a body of water begins to suffocate from
receiving more nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, than
it can handle. The excess nutrients fuel the heavy growth of
microscopic aquatic plants. As these plants die and decompose,
the supply of dissolved oxygen in the water is depleted and its
availability to other aquatic organisms, especially those which
live on the bottom, is reduced. Symptoms of eutrophication
include low levels of dissolved oxygen, extensive algal blooms,
fish kills and reduced populations offish and shellfish, high
turbidity in the water, and diebacks of seagrasses and corals.
Monitoring the changes in parameters such as chlorophyll a,
nitrogen, and other nutrient concentrations; concentrations of
dissolved oxygen; and the spatial coverage of seagrasses (or
submerged aquatic vegetation) helps assess whether estuarine
and coastal waters are receiving too many nutrients^
This indicator shows trends in eutrophication-related conditions
from the 1960sto 1995 in selected estuaries throughout the
country as measured by two different data sets. The nationwide
framework for the indicator of estuarine eutrophication is
NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory. The 129 estuaries
contained in the inventory represent a consistent and complete
framework for characterizing the Nation's estuarine resource
base. NOAA is collecting information on 16 eutrophication-
related water quality parameters for each estuary in the
inventory through a knowledge-based consensus process with
over 400 estuarine scientists. In 1990, NOAA estimated that
nearly half the Nation's estuaries were susceptible to
eutrophication. In 1992, NOAA initiated its National Estuarine
Eutrophication Survey to evaluate which estuaries had
problems in the following regions: North Atlantic (16
estuaries), Mid-Atlantic (22 estuaries South Atlantic (21
estuaries), Gulf of Mexico (36 estuaries), and the West Coast
(34 estuaries).
This indicator also uses data from EPA's National Estuary
Program (NEP). Currently, there are 28 estuaries around the
country in the NEP. In many of these estuaries, state and local
managers have identified eutrophication and excess nutrients as
critical problems. NEPs are collecting historical and baseline
monitoring information to assess the effectiveness of corrective
actions being undertaken. Taken together, the NOAA and EPA
efforts will provide the most comprehensive and complete
information base possible for the foreseeable future.
How will the indicator be used to track
progress?
Based on data collected from mailed survey responses,
individual interviews, and regional workshops in
January 1995 and February 1996, NOAA compiled
information on eutrophication trends from 1974 to 1995 and
existing eutrophication conditions in estuaries in the Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic regions. NOAA will be releasing a
sumrnaryreportofftisinforrnationininid-19%. The
remaining regions will be completed later in 1996. Data will be
collected and an indicator estimation made every 5 years.
For the NEP data, those NEPs which have identified
eutrophication or its parameters as priority problems will
develop monitoring plans to (1) evaluate trends in key
variables, (2) link the observed patterns to specific management
actions, and (3) provide information to redirect and refocus
actions based on monitoring results. Because it is difficult to
establish immediate causal relationships between specific
actions and environmental change, NEP monitoring plans try to
reinforce the understanding that tracking progress depends on a
SubnMrgtd
AquaUc
CMorophytiJ Nitrogen Anoxia v«g«tation
Hudson River
Delaware Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Neuse River
St Johns River
Biscayne Bay
Trends observed from 1974 to 1995
D
wonc •! better I I »treed
Note: EPA 2nd NOAA data should not be compared.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1996
-------
Indicator 14: Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
INDICATOR 14:
Estuarine Eutrophication Conditions
EPA DATA
Subnwrgtd
Aquatic
ChlmphyfllNttrogin Anoxli VcgXrton
Massachusetts Bays
Long Island Sound
Delaware Inland Bays
Afoemarte-Parnlico
Sounds
Tampa Bay
Barataria-Terrebonne
D
n
1960s to 1995
II better I |»
•H I _ I
Cmd
j»ot k»ow»
EPA JtxJ NOAA did are DM corojanMe. For EPA's NEP dao, collection periods
varied trora 15 to 30 yon. icuaral of ijion-ton treads are oo« rdkcted, «nd individual
KETi we not compmble.
Source: Data from EPA's National Estuary Program, 1996
commitment to long-term data collection. At the national
level, EPA has published examples of NEPs that have
developed a "Bay Quality Index," which offers a suite of
parameters and condinons. including eutrophication, that can be
used to capture a composite picture of an estuary's overall
quality and major components. Tracking the extent and
changes in eutrophic conditions helps to highlight the water
quality impacts of activities in a watershed and gauge the
effectiveness of pollution controls and other management
actions.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Despite a variety of monitoring efforts by many different
organizations anJ agencies, including EPA and
NOAA, data on eutrophication parameters for most
estuaries in the NEP arc either incomplete or not comparable.
Differences in monitoring parameters, methods, and sampling
stations and periods make it difficult to establish trends even
within a single estuary. Factors such as seasonally, spatial
relationships, and level of monitoring effort also affect the
interpretation and value of data. These difficulties are
compounded when comparisons are made between different
estuaries because each estuary responds to the stress of excess
nutrients based on its own physical and biological
circumstances.
NOAA has attempted to address mis problem by applying a
consistent survey technique to characterize the scale and scope
of past and present eutrophication levels. NOAA has also
initiated a process for improving the indicator that involves
interviews and workshops at the local and regional levels.
NOAA is planning a'national eutrophication workshop later in
1996. The workshop will determine the best way to aggregate
parameters estimated for each estuary into an overall indicator.
For the NEP data, EPA will participate with NOAA in its
national workshop and facilitate the inclusion of data collected
by individual estuary programs. By working together, NOAA,
individual NEPs, and EPA hope to improve the availability of
nationwide information on eutrophication and other indicators
in the NEP. The integration of NOAA and EPA data into a
single, unified indicator marks the beginning of these efforts.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the indicator?
Control of nutrients is a critical factor in preventing
eutrophication. Approaches for controlling nutrients
range from expensive engineering to simple prevention
and maintenance. In Long Island Sound, for example, effluent
from wastewater treatment plants is the primary nutrient source,
and many facilities have begun retrofitting their processes to
remove nitrogen. In contrast, in other areas controlling fertilizer
runoff from farms, residences, and managed greenways such as
golf courses is the most effective solution Yet other
communities are establishing more stringent zoning or
encouraging die use of denitrifying septic systems to reduce
nitrogen loadings to ground water. What these approaches have
in common is a process that reflects local conditions by
carefully identifying the sources of nutrients, calculating their
contributions to specific water-quality problems, and working
with a variety of tools to reduce their impacts.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator shows the chemicals or
chemical groups that are measured most
frequently at concentrations that might cause
adverse ecological or human health effects at a
particular site. EPA and others determine
concentration levels potentially causing risk by
examining the results of field surveys, laboratory
toxicity tests, and studies of the chemical's
behavior in the environment and in
living tissue.
Certain types of chemicals in water tend
to settle and collect in sediment.
Chemicals in sediment often persist
longer than those in water, in part
because they tend to resist natural
degradation and in part because
conditions might not favor natural
degradation. Also, these contaminants
accumulate at distinct locations in
sediment but will disperse in water.
When present at elevated concentrations
in sediment, pollutants can be released
back to water or accumulate in fish and
shellfish and move up the food chain. In
both cases, excessive levels of
chemicals in sediment might become
hazardous to aquatic life and humans.
EPA collects and analyzes sediment and
fish tissue data from state, EPA
regional, and other monitoring programs
as part of the National Sediment
Inventory (NSI). The goals of the NSI
are to survey data regarding sediment
quality nationwide, identify locations
that are potentially contaminated, and
describe the sources of contaminants responsible
for contamination.
Environmental managers can use NSI data and
assessments to determine the potential extent and
severity of contamination and to identify areas that
require closer inspection. In time, NSI data and
assessments will reveal trends and help measure
progress in minimizing risk.
Data
Completeness
Detected
37%
63%
Source: National Sediment Inventory from
EPA's Office of Science and Technology, 1993
Percentage of
measurements
of sediment
(including fish
tissue)
contaminant
levels that
indicate
potential risk
to ecological
and human
health by
chemical or
chemical
group.
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, point sources of contamination will be
controlled in 10 percent of the watersheds where sediment
contamination has been determined to be widespread.
-------
1
Indicator 15: Contaminated Sediments
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
EPA will report to Congress every 2 years on
the condition of the Nation's sediments. As
the NSI grows to include information on more
locations and future measurements, EPA and other
stewards of environmental quality will gain a better
idea of the full extent of contaminated sites and
whether conditions have improved or worsened on the
whole and at single sites.
EPA's current assessment of sediment quality in the
Nation is based largely on chemical concentrations in
sediment and in the edible portion offish that do not
migrate and tend to live near sediment These
measures allow EPA assessors to determine the
probability that contaminants at the site might cause
adverse effects on aquatic life or human health. EPA
classifies sites as having a higher probability of
adverse effects, an intermediate probability of adverse
effects, or no indication of potential adverse effects
based on available data.
EPA's assessments can provide a national perspective
and indicate the potential contamination problems at
specific locations. However, site classification based
on NSI data cannot substitute for additional study or
application of knowledge at the regional, state, and
local levels.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Future assessments based on NSI data will
benefit from the collection of a greater quantity
of information addressing conditions at more
locations. Although the NSI currently has data
representing over 20,000 locations, this coverage
represents only 11 percent of the Nation's rivers,
lakes, and coastlines. EPA will continue to coordinate
with the regional offices, states, tribes, and others to
identify and compile additional data.
EPA is committed to using state-of-the-art assessment
methods to determine whether sediment at a site poses
a risk to ecological or human health. EPA has
consulted extensively with experts within the Agency
and has commissioned outside scientific review panels
to examine its methods. EPA will continue to
promote research and improve assessment methods
as scientific knowledge in this relatively new field
expands.
EPA will also make NSI data and assessments
available to all interested individuals and
organizations by placing data and summary reports
on the Internet at EPA's World Wide Web site.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA assessors can use the NSI to demonstrate
the scope of contaminated sediments
nationwide and to identify watersheds where
further efforts are needed to address potentially
serious contamination problems. Further assessment
might indicate the need for pollution prevention or
remediation. Environmental managers can use
pollution prevention and control approaches to reduce
point and nonpoint source discharges containing
those types of contaminants which accumulate in
sediment. This will enable some contaminated
systems to recover naturally.
Where short-term risks and effects can be tolerated,
the preferred treatment of a contaminated site is to
implement prevention measures and source controls
and to allow natural processes, such as natural
degradation and the deposition of clean sediment, to
diminish risk associated with the site. At sites where
these measures will not reduce risk hi an acceptable
time frame, EPA might seek remediation under the
appropriate statutory authority.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.g6v/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
SELECTED POINT SOURCE LOADINGS TO SURFACE WATER
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator presents die change in point
source loadings from 1990 to 1995 for two key
pollutants—biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) and lead The indicator shows whether the
amount of contaminant being discharged increased,
decreased, or remained stable for each state. The
results show that the majority of states are showing a
decrease in these point source loads.
How will the indicator be used to
track progress?
Toxic Pollutants
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Phenol
Total residual
chloride
Conventional Pollutants
Ammonia
BOD
Nitrogen (and nitrate)
Pathogens
Phosphorus
Suspended solids
Information about these pollutants is
contained in EPA's Permit Compliance
System (PCS). The states report to
EPA loadings numbers for those facilities
permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The NPDES permitting process sets limits
on the amount of discharge or the amount
of contaminant contained in a discharge
from facilities that discharge wastewater
directly to a waterbody through a point
source like a pipe.
What is being done to
improve the indicator?
While the information displayed
under this indicator covers only
lead and BOD, many point sources
contaminate our surface waters, many
contaminants have been identified as a
priority of particular concern, and PCS has
information on many more. EPA and its
partners have chosen several toxic and
conventional pollutants to track as indicators
of progress toward reducing point source
pollution. In the future, this indicator should
include all the pollutants in the following list:
INDICATOR 16a: SelecMa Point Soured
100%
80%
Data
Completeness
• Significantly increasing loads (<100%)
13 Increasing loads
B Stable loads
Q Decreasing loads ,
44%
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
Source: Permit Compliance System, 1995
Lead
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, annual pollutant discharges from key point
sources that threaten public health and aquatic ecosystems will be reduced by
3 billion pounds, or 28 percent.
-------
Indicator 16a: Selected Point Source Loadings to Surface Water
In addition to including more
contaminants in the future, other
issues need to be addressed to
improve the indicator. Although
the number of NPDES permitted
facilities remains fairly
consistent, the contaminants
covered by these permits can
change. For example, the number
of permits limiting lead in 1990
was 2,630, but this number
increased to 4,134 in 1995.
Therefore, comparison between
1990 and 1995 lead loadings can
be misleading.
In addition, some facilities,
especially smaller facilities, do
not consistently report the results
of point source monitoring to
PCS, while other facilities discharging '
contaminants of concern are not required to relay
discharge information to PCS. EPA is working
with its partners to more accurately and
consistently report this indicator so that it presents
a true picture of the amount and severity of point
source loads nationally. EPA will take actions that
address (1) changes in permitting requirements
from year to year, (2) inconsistent reporting from
facilities required to submit discharge data,
(3) facilities not required to report discharge data
but still responsible for releasing contaminants to
receiving waters, and (4) differing chemical
composition among contaminants in the same
general category.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has developed the Typical Pollutant
Concentration (TPC) matrix, which will estimate
point source loadings from dischargers based on the
type of activity that occurs at the facility. USGS
and EPA are working closely with NOAA to
determine how best to use the TPC methodology
with an improved PCS system to help ensure
accurate, consistent reporting of this indicator.
EPA also plans to provide guidance to regional and
state permit writers on how to enter data more
accurately and consistently into PCS to help
facilitate improved reporting of this indicator.
Point Source Loading Trends in the United States |
LEAD
1__1 Amount Mpolutint bid Is dtenukig
^S Amount d potottnt lotd it ramtlrtng sable
^B Amount ol pobttnt told Is Irenulng
•H Amount of (X*Jt»nt told Is here*** dgnMcaiKy
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Point source discharges of lead and BOD from
permittedfacilities between the years 1990 and
1995 were compared to determine if the overall
discharges in a state were increasing or decreasing.
Source: State data in EPA's Permit Compliance System
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Fi
tor surface waters, the major point sources of
pollution are sewage treatment plants,
industrial facilities, and "wet-weather"
sources like combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and stormwater.
Sewage treatment plants treat and discharge
wastewater from homes, public buildings,
commercial establishments, stormwater sewers, and
some industries. Many industrial facilities treat and
discharge their own wastewater. Combined sewers
combine stormwater and sewage hi the same
system and can overflow directly to waterbodies
without treatment during periods of intense rainfall.
EPA will continue to permit and regulate these
facilities to continue to reduce pollution from point
sources.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
SOURCES OF POINT SOURCE LOADINGS THROUGH CLASS V
WELLS TO GROUND WATER
What does the indicator tell us?
This indicator characterizes industrial
wastewater discharges to freshwater aquifers
through shallow disposal wells, particularly
septic systems. EPA considers septic systems to be
Class V injection wells, subject to regulatory
control, unless they are small and receive only
sanitary wastes. Recent studies suggest that
probably 10 percent of septic systems in
the United States release as much as 4
million pounds of industrial waste each
year—enough to contaminate trillions of
gallons of drinking water. By 2005,
EPA plans to reduce the number of
pounds of ethylene glycol and other
industrial wastes discharged through
septic systems to zero.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Septic systems are designed to treat solely
sanitary wastes. However, some
manufacturing and commercial businesses
place their industrial wastes directly into the
ground through a dry hole or cesspool or direct
them into their septic tanks. Either way, the
This indicator serves as a
barometer of the effectiveness of
a comprehensive Class V strategy
initiated by EPA in 1995. EPA will
determine the reduction in pollutant
loadings from the number of septic
systems that are "closed," that is, no
longer injecting any industrial fluids to
the subsurface. EPA will use Class V
data from annual reports provided by
EPA-approved state Underground
Injection Control (UIC) programs. EPA
will also conduct a special study to
verify the number of systems reported
closed, particularly in community
wellhead protection areas.
O
Data
Completeness
2,500 n
I
2,000
1,500 -
1,000 -
500 -
2.400
Note: As well closures
increase, loadings or
discharges to ground
water decrease.
1989-1991
1992-1995
Source: EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1995
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, wellhead protection areas and vulnerable ground
water resources will no longer receive industrial wastewater discharges from
septic systems.
-------
Indicator 16b: Sources of Point Source Loadings to Ground Water
untreated waste might eventually find its way to a
water-table aquifer. Contamination of freshwater
aquifers can result in serious and costly
consequences to public health and the environment,
including onset of waterborne disease, expensive
ground water remediation, loss of private and
public domestic drinking water supplies, and
degradation of aquatic ecosystems, wetlands,
watersheds, and coastal zones.
Although the misuse of septic systems is a
nationwide concern, the threat is not immediately
obvious because it occurs, unseen, in the
subsurface. The biggest problem is that Class V
data on the actual volume of industrial waste
released to ground water is currently speculative.
For example, no one knows how many septic tanks
are being misused. The results presented by the
Class V indicator should be interpreted with
caution until the data quality can be improved.
Future EPA toxic release reports will distinguish
between classes of injection wells. Currently,
Class V waste release data are extrapolated from
random sampling of typical high-risk wells. Class
V data should improve as EPA's strategy for the
comprehensive management of Class V wells
proceeds and public awareness develops.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
EPA has documented Class V contamination
of drinking water supplies across the United
States (e.g., Colorado, Florida, Montana,
New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and Washington). The EPA UIC program
works with other federal agencies and state, tribal,
and local governments to adequately manage this
major source of pollution as part of source water
protection programs, which will be developed for
30,000 community water supplies by the year 2005.
This strategy recognizes that to reduce new high-
risk injection practices, EPA will have to (1) raise
public awareness through education and outreach;
(2) provide technical assistance; (3) forge federal,
state, and local government partnerships; (4) enlist
the involvement of industry; and (5) support
voluntary compliance initiatives. EPA will rely
less on regulation, penalties, and other traditional
approaches to permitting and enforcement, which
are inadequate to deal with large numbers of
shallow wastewater disposal wells with a potential
to contaminate underground sources of drinking
water. , • ,
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
June 1996
usalamtm
NONPOINT SOURCE SEDIMENT
LOADINGS FROM CROPLAND
What does the indicator tell us?
Nonpoint source pollution is derived from a wide
range of sources, including agriculture,
forestry, hydromodification, onsite wastewater
disposal, and construction sites. No single indicator can
fully capture the extent of nonpoint sources and their
impacts on the aquatic environment, but sediment
delivery from cropland is a reasonably good indicator of
the degree to which nonpoint source pollution is
prevented on agricultural lands.
This indicator presents rates of erosion
from agricultural cropland. From 1977 to
1992, the amount of sediment eroded from
cropland decreased by about 750 million
tons. Rates of erosion from cropland are an
indirect indicator of the delivery of
sediment to surface waters. In any given
watershed, however, the reliability of
erosion rates as predictors of sediment
loads is dependent on the extent to which
sediment is contributed by other sources,
such as gully or streambank erosion.
How will the indicator be
used to track progress?
In the absence of direct measures of
nonpoint source pollution, it is
necessary to estimate national
nonpoint source loadings. ThetLS.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
estimates soil erosion with field
measurements and statistical models, such
as the universal soil loss equation. USDA
tracks and reports progress in reducing
erosion rates on the Nation's agricultural
lands through the National Resources
Inventory (NRI), which is conducted every
5 years.
The NRI is a multi-resource inventory based on soils
and other resource data collected at scientifically
selected random sampling sites. The NRI covers the
48 coterminous states, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands, but excludes Alaska. Data for the
1992 NRI were collected at more than 800,000
locations by USDA field personnel and resource
inventory specialists.
2,000
1,926
O
Data
Completeness
1,725
1,505
1,185
1977 1982 1987
Source: USDA, National Resource Inventory, 1992
1992
Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the annual rate of soil erosion from
agricultural croplands will be reduced 20 percent from 1992 levels to a
total of 948 million tons per year.
-------
indicator 17: Nonpoint Source Sediment Loadings from Cropland
Change In Average Annual Soil Erosion by Wind and Water on Cropland
and Conservation Reserve Program Land, 1982 -1992
.
Of *» Hutxtl «*, ••»«.
•oinw. Homttknb
]r>«i:lK2.1M7.«n* 1WZ.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Inventory, 1993
In addition, USDA will provid
ecosystem-based assistance to
landowners in the future. This
effort will include a focus on
reducing the offsite delivery of
sediment and associated
pollutants.
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
Other national measures of nonpoint source
pollution are under consideration and might
be developed as more national data are
made available. Another possible approach for
examining nonpoint source loading focuses on
selected watersheds. A combined approach, using
both national and selected watershed studies, will
be considered as improvements to the current
indicator are pursued.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
The control of erosion and sedimentation
from cropland is achieved by landowners
and managers, often with the assistance of
local, state, and federal technical experts. EPA will
continue to work with representatives from USDA,
state agencies, and local soil and water
conservation districts to encourage the adoption of
erosion and sediment control practices, such as con-
servation tillage, on agricultural cropland.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
June 1996
MARINE DEBRIS
What does the indicator teii us?
The marine debris indicator includes trash left
behind by visitors to the beach, discarded
from boats, carried by inland waterways to
the coast, or conveyed by overflowing sewer or
storm systems. As an indicator, marine debris can
be useful in ascertaining (1) early warning signs of
possible human health risk associated with
pollution, (2) biological health risk such as
entanglement or ingestion by wildlife,
(3) limits on coastal recreation and
fishing, (4) the effectiveness of
programs to control or prevent marine
debris, (5) the aesthetic value of a
coastal area and the economy it
supports, (6) ambient conditions, and
(7) human health risks through
entanglement, injury, or exposure to
medical waste.
How wili the indicator be
used to track progress?
To measure this indicator a total of
20 survey sites in each of nine
regions of the United States will
be sampled. Volunteers will sample
each site monthly for a period of 5
years, measuring the status and trends of
30 specific debris items. The program
has been designed to answer two
specific questions:
1. Is the amount of debris on our
coastlines decreasing?
2. What are the major sources of the
debris?
f
o
5
-------
What is being done to improve the
indicator?
EPA chairs an inter-agency workgroup that
includes representatives from NOAA, the
U.S. Park Service, the U.S. Coast Guard,
and other federal organizations. The workgroup
has developed a statistically valid methodology for
monitoring the trends and sources of marine debris.
Monitoring efforts using this methodology began in
1996, and currently are being coordinated by CMC
with support from EPA and other federal agencies.
Data obtained from these efforts will be used as a
baseline for this indicator.
What is being done to improve
conditions measured by the
indicator?
Marine debris causes harm to marine life,
damages boats, endangers human health,
and can cripple coastal economies. More
than 255 species of animals are known to ingest or
become entangled in marine debris. Marine debris
disables fishing and recreational boats by engaging
propellers or clogging cooling water intakes.
The economic impacts of marine debris on coastal
communities has been demonstrated by beach
closures in New York and New Jersey in 1987 and
1988 due to medical wastes washing up on the
beaches. As more is learned about the sources of
marine debris, regulatory efforts (e.g., the
International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex V) and
stormwater permits) can be implemented to reduce
the flow of debris into the marine environment In
addition, public education can be used to improve
the environment. EPA and CMC have both
developed a marine debris curricula for teachers
and fact sheets for the public and industry.
Marine debris clean-up efforts can also help to
reduce the risk of marine entanglement through
removal of debris. CMC conducts annual beach
clean-up events that engage tens of thousands of
volunteers. In addition, CMC's Million Points of
Indicator 18: Marine Debris
Blight program is a storm drain stenciling project
that reminds people that what they dump into the
streets or down drains ends up in the connected
waterway. Prevention is the best solution.
For More Information:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Mail Code 4503F
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 phone
(202) 260-1977 fax
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
1
Comments on the indicator fact sheets and
requests for copies of the report should be
sent to the address below:
Water Environmental Indicators
EPA Office of Water
Mail Code 4503F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/OW/indic
-------
-------
Appendix D
Contaminated Sediment Assessment
Methods
-------
-------
The Incidence And Severity
Of Sediment Contamination
In Surface Waters Of The
United States:
Volume 1:
National Sediment
Quality Survey
DRAFT
July 1997
Office of Science and Technology
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
Contents
Page
Tables
Figures
"****"*********•*"•*•*•••*••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••»••»•» IX
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary xv
/ Introduction ! ,
J. l~l
What Is the National Sediment Quality Survey? j.j
Why Is Contaminated Sediment an Important National Issue? 1-2
How Significant is the Problem? _ j_3
What Are the Potential Sources of Sediment Contamination? 1.4
O Methodology ^ 2. i
Background 2-2
Description of NSI Data.. 2-3
NSI Data Evaluation Approach 2-4
Sediment Chemistry Data ; 2-12
Tissue Residue Data 2-15
ToxicityData 2-15
Incorporation of Regional Comments on the Preliminary Evaluation of
Sediment Chemistry Data 2-16
Evaluation Using EPA Wildlife Criteria 2-16
O Findings 3_j
National Assessment 3_j
Watershed Analysis 3_j2
Wildlife Assessment 3-1%
Regional and State Assessment 3_2Q
EPA Region 1 3_2i
EPA Region 2 3_26
EPA Region 3 !.ZI!"Z 3-31
EPA Region 4 3_3g
EPA Region 5 3.42
EPA Region 6 3_4g
EPA Region 7 3.53
EPA Region 8 3_5g
EPA Region 9 3_g2
EPA Region 10 1...Z1...Z! 3-67
Potentially Highly Contaminated Sites Not Identified by the NSI Evaluation 3-72
111
-------
4
5
6
Contents (continued)
Pollutant Sources 4"1
Extent of Sediment Contamination by Chemical Class 4-2
Major Sediment Contaminant Source Categories 4-3
Land Use Patterns and Sediment Contamination 4-8
EPA's Point and Nonpoint Source Sediment Contaminant Inventories 4-14
Conclusions and Discussion 5-1
Extent of Sediment Contamination • 5'2
Sources of Sediment Contamination 5-4
Comparison of NSI Evaluation Results to Results of Previous Sediment
Contamination Studies ^
Comparison of NSI Evaluation Results to Fish Consumption Advisories 5-5
Sensitivity of Selected PCB Evaluation Parameters 5-7
Strengths of the NSI Data Evaluation 5'8
Limitations of the NSI Data Evaluation 5-10
Limitations of Data 5"10
Limitations of Approach 5'12 .
Recommendations 6-1
Recommendation 1: Further Investigate Conditions in the 96 Targeted Watersheds .... 6-1
Recommendation 2: Coordinate Efforts to Address Sediment Quality Through
Watershed Management Programs ; • 6'2
Recommendation 3: Incorporate a Weight-of-Evidence Approach and
Measures of Chemical Bioavailability into Sediment Monitoring Programs 6-2
Recommendation 4: Expand the NSI's Coverage and Capabilities and Provide
Better Access to Information in the NSI °"3
Recommendation 5: Develop Better Monitoring and Assessment Tools 6-4
Glossary Glossary-1
Acronyms •'• Acronyms-1
References References-1
Appendices
A. Detailed Description of NSI Data • A-1
B. Description of Evaluation Parameters Used in the NSI Data Evluation B-l
C. Method for Selecting Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factors and Percent
Lipids in Fish Tissue Used for Deriving Theoretical Bioaccumulation
Potentials • C"1
D. Screening Values for Chemicals Evaluated D-*
E. Cancer Slope Factors and Noncancer Reference Doses Used to Develop
EPA Risk Levels E~l
F. Species Characteristics Related to NSI Bioaccumulation Data F-l
G. Notes on the Methodology for Evaluating Sediment Toxicity Tests G-l
H. Additional Analyses for PCBs and Mercury H-1
I. NSI Data Evaluation Approach Recommended at the National Sediment
Inventory Workshop, April 26-27, 1994 • l~l
iv
-------
Chapter 2
Methodology
EPA faced two primary challenges to achieving
the short-term goals of the National Sediment
Inventory (NSI) and fulfilling the mandate of the
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992, as
described in the introduction to this report. The first chal-
lenge was to compile a database of consistent sediment
quality measures suitable for all regions of the country.
The second challenge was to identify scientifically sound
methods to determine whether a particular sediment is
"contaminated," according to the definition set forth in
the statute.
In many known areas of contamination, visible and
relatively easy-to-recognize evidence of harmful effects
on resident biota is concurrent with elevated concentra-
tions of contaminants in sediment. In most cases, how-
ever, less obvious effects on biological communities and
ecosystems are much more difficult to identify and are
frequently associated, with varying concentrations of sedi-
ment contaminants, In other words, bulk sediment chem-
istry measures are not always indicative of toxic effect
levels. Similar concentrations of a chemical can produce
widely different biological effects in different sediments.
This discrepancy occurs because toxicity is influenced
by the extent to which chemical contaminants bind to other
constituents in sediment. These other sediment constitu-
ents, such as organic ligands and inorganic oxides and
sulfides, are said to control the bioovailability of accu-
mulated contaminants. Toxicant binding, or sorption, to
sediment particles suspends the toxic mode of action in
biological systems. Because the binding capacity of sedi-
ment varies, the degree of toxicity exhibited also varies
for the same total quantity of toxicant.
The five general categories of sediment quality
measurements are sediment chemistry, sediment tox-
icity, community structure, tissue chemistry, and pa-
thology (Power and Chapman, 1992). Each of these
categories has strengths and limitations for a national-
scale sediment quality assessment. To be efficient in
collecting usable data of similar types, EPA sought
data that were available in electronic format, repre-
sented broad geographic coverage, and represented
specific sampling locations identified by latitude and
longitude coordinates. EPA found sediment chemis-
try and tissue chemistry to be the most widely avail-
able sediment quality measures.
As described above, sediment chemistry measures
might not accurately reflect risk to the environment.
However, EPA has recently developed assessment meth-
ods that combine contaminant concentration with mea-
sures of the primary binding phase to address
bioavailability for certain chemical classes, under assumed
conditions of thermodynamic equilibrium (USEPA;
1993d). Other methods, which rely on statistical correla-
tions of contaminant concentrations with incidence of
adverse biological effects, also exist (Barrick et al., 1988;
FDEP, 1994; Long et al., 1995). In addition, fish tissue
levels can be predicted using sediment contaminant con-
centrations, along with independent field measures of
chemical partitioning behavior and other known or as-
signed fish tissue and sediment characteristics. EPA can
evaluate risk to consumers from predicted and field-mea-
sured tissue chemistry data using established dose-re-
sponse relationships and standard consumption patterns.
Evaluations based on tissue chemistry circumvent the
bioavailability issue while also accounting for other miti-
gating factors such as metabolism. The primary diffi-
culty in using field-measured tissue chemistry is relating
chemical residue levels to a specific sediment, especially
for those fish species which typically forage across great
distances.
Sediment toxicity, community structure, and pathol-
ogy measures are less widely available than sediment
chemistry and fish tissue data in the broad-scale elec-
tronic format EPA sought for the NSI. Sediment toxic-
ity data are typically in the form of percent survival,
compared to control mortality, for indicator organisms
exposed to the field-sampled sediment in laboratory bio-
assays (USEPA, 1994b, c). Although these measures
account for bioavailability and the antagonistic and syn-
ergistic effects of pollutant mixtures, they do not address
possible long-term reproductive or growth effects, nor
do they identify specific contaminants responsible for
observed lethal toxicity. Indicator organisms also might
not represent the most sensitive species. Community
structure measures, such as fish abundance and benthic
diversity, and pathology measures are potentially
2-1
-------
Methodology
indicative of long-tenn adverse effects, yet there are a
multitude of mitigating physical, hydrologic, and bio-
logical factors that might not relate in any way to chemi-
cal contamination.
The ideal assessment methodology would be based
on matched data sets of all five types of sediment qual-
ity measures to take advantage of the strengths of each
measurement type and to minimize their collective weak-
nesses. Unfortunately, such a database does not exist
on a national scale, nor is it typically available on a
smaller scale. Based on the statutory definition of con-
taminated sediment in the WRDA, EPA can identify lo-
cations where sediment chemistry measures exceed
"appropriate geochemical, lexicological, or sediment
quality criteria or measures." Again based on the statu-
tory definition, EPA can also use tissue chemistry and
sediment toxicity measures to identify aquatic sediments
that "otherwise pose a threat to human health or the en-
vironment" because there are either screening values
(e.g., EPA risk levels for fish tissue consumption) or con-
trol samples for comparison. However, EPA believes it
cannot accurately evaluate community structure or pa-
thology measures to identify contaminated sediment,
based on the statutory definition, without first identify-
ing appropriate reference conditions to which measured
conditions could be compared.
For this analysis, EPA evaluated sediment chemis-
try, tissue chemistry, and sediment toxicity data, taken
at the same sampling station, individually and in combi-
nation using a variety of assessment methods. Because
of the limitations of the available sediment quality mea-
sures and assessment methods, EPA characterizes this
identification of contaminated sediment locations as a
screening-level analysis. Similar to a potential human
illness screen, a screening-level analysis should pick
up potential problems and note them for further study.
Thus, classification of sampling stations in this analysis
is not meant to be definitive, but is intended to be inclu-
sive of potential problems arising from presistent metal
and organic chemical contaminants. For this reason,
EPA elected to evaluate data collected from 1980 to 1993
and to evaluate each chemical or biological measure-
ment taken at a given sampling station individually. A
single measurement of a chemical at a sampling sta-
tion, taken at any point in time over the past 15 years,
could be sufficient to classify the sampling station as
having an increased probability of association with ad-
verse effects to aquatic life or human health.
EPA recognizes that sediment is dynamic and that
great temporal and spatial variability in sediment qual-
ity exists. This variability can be a function of sam-
pling (e.g., a contaminated area might be sampled one
year, but not the next) or a function of natural events
(e.g., floods can move contaminated sediment from one
area to another, or can bury contaminated sediment). In
this report, EPA associates sampling stations with their
"probability of adverse effects on aquatic life or human
health." Each sampling station falls into one of three
categories (tiers): sediment contamination associated
with a higher probability of adverse effects (Tier 1), sedi-
ment contamination associated with a lower to interme-
diate probability of adverse effects (Tier 2), or no
indication of adverse effects (Tier 3). A Tier 3 sam-
pling station classification does not neccesarily imply a
zero or minimal probability of adverse effects, only that
available data (which may be substantial or limited) do
not indicate an increased probability of adverse effects.
Recognizing the imprecise nature of the numerical as-
sessment parameters, Tier 1 sampling stations are dis-
tinguished from Tier 2 sampling stations based on the
magnitude of a sediment chemistry measure or the de-
gree of corroboration among the different types of sedi-
ment quality measures.
The remainder of this chapter presents a short his-
tory of how EPA developed the NSI, a brief description
of the NSI data, and an explanation of the NSI data evalu-
ation approach.
Background
EPA initiated work several years ago on the devel-
opment of the NSI through pilot inventories in EPA Re-
gions 4 and 5 and the Gulf of Mexico Program. Based
on lessons learned from these three pilot inventories, the
Agency developed a document entitled Framework for
the Development of the National Sediment Inventory
(USEPA, 1993a), which describes the general format for
compiling sediment-related data and provides a brief
summary of sediment quality evaluation techniques. The
format and overall approach were then presented, modi-
fied slightly, and agreed upon at an interagency work-
shop held in March 1993 in Washington, DC. Following
the workshop, EPA began compiling and evaluating data
for the NSI. Data from several national and regional
databases were included as part of the effort.
In the spring of 1994, EPA conducted a preliminary
evaluation of NSI sediment chemistry data only. The
purpose of the assessment was to identify sampling sta-
tions throughout the United States where measured val-
ues of sediment pollutants exceeded sediment chemistry
2-2
-------
levels of concern. The results of that assessment were
then distributed to the EPA Regional offices for their
review. The Regional offices were asked to review the
preliminary evaluation and to:
• Verify sampling stations targeted as areas of
concern.
• Identify sampling stations that might be incor-
rectly targeted as areas of concern.
• Identify potential areas of concern that were not
targeted, but should have been.
• Inform EPA Headquarters of additional sedi-
ment quality data that should be included in the
NSI to make the inventory more accurate and
complete.
The EPA Regional offices completed their review of
the preliminary evaluation during the winter of 1994-95.
Regional comments on the results of the preliminary
evaluation were incorporated into the NSI database. EPA
will add new data sets identified by the Regions to the
NSI and include them in the national assessment for fu-
ture reports to Congress.
In April 1994, EPA Headquarters held the Second
National Sediment Inventory Workshop (USEPA, 1994d).
The purpose of this workshop was to bring together ex-
perts in the field of sediment quality assessment to rec-
ommend an approach for integrating and evaluating the
sediment chemistry and biological data contained in the
NSI. The final approach recommended by workshop par-
ticipants provided the basis for the final approach adopted
to evaluate NSI data for this report to Congress. Appen-
dix I of this report provides abrief description of the work-
shop approach and a list of attendees.
Description of NSI Data
The NSI includes data from the following data stor-
age systems and monitoring programs:
• Selected data sets from EPA's Storage and Re-
trieval System (STORET) (69 percent of sam-
pling stations)
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
- EPA
- States
• NOAA's Coastal Sediment Inventory (COSED)
(5 percent of sampling stations)
• EPA's Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES)
(6 percent of sampling stations)
• EPA Region 4's Sediment Quality Inventory (5
percent of sampling stations)
• Gulf of Mexico Program's Contaminated Sedi-
ment Inventory (1 percent of .sampling stations)
• EPA Region 10/COE Seattle District's Sediment
Inventory (8 percent of sampling stations)
• EPA Region 9 's Dredged Material Tracking Sys-
tem (DMATS) (1 percent of sampling stations)
• EPA's Great Lakes Sediment Inventory (less
than 1 percent of sampling stations)
• EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program (EMAP) (2 percent of sampling
stations)
• USGS (Massachusetts Bay) Data (3 percent of
sampling stations)
Although EPA elected to evaluate data collected since
1980 (i.e., 1980-93), data from before 1980 are still main-
tained hi the NSI. At a minimum, EPA required that elec-
tronically available data include locational information,
sampling date, latitude and longitude coordinates, and
measured units for inclusion in the NSI. Additional data
fields providing details such as sampling method or other
quality assurance/quality control information were re-
tained in the NSI if available. Additional information
about available data fields and NSI component databases
is presented in Appendix A of this report.
The types of data contained in the NSI include the
following:
• Sediment chemistry: Measurement of the chemi-
cal composition of sediment-associated con-
taminants.
• Tissue residue: Measurement of chemical con-
taminants in the tissues of organisms.
• Benthic abundance: Measurement of the num-
ber and types of organisms living in or on sedi-
ments.
2-3
-------
Methodology
• Toxicity: Measurement of the lethal or suble-
thal effects of contaminants in environmental
media on various test organisms.
• Histopathology: Observation of abnormalities
or diseases in tissue (e.g., tumors).
• Fish abundance: Measurement of the number
and types offish found hi a water body.
The NSI represents a compilation of environmental
monitoring data from a variety of sources. Most of the
component databases are maintained under known and
documented quality assurance and quality control proce-
dures. However, EPA's STORET database is intended to
be a broad-based repository of data. Consequently, the
quality of the data in STORET, both in terms of database
entry and analytical instrument error, is unknown and
probably varies a great deal depending on the quality as-
surance management associated with specific data sub-
mittals.
Inherent in the diversity of data sources are contrast-
ing monitoring objectives and scope. Component sources
contain data derived from different spatial sampling plans,
sampling methods, and analytical methods. For example,
mostdata fromEPA's EMAP program represent sampling
stations that lie on a standardized grid over a given geo-
graphic area, whereas data in EPA's STORET most likely
represent state monitoring data sampled from locations
near known discharges or thought to have elevated con-
taminant levels. In contrast, many of the National Status
and Trends Program data in NOAA's COSED database
represent sampling stations purposely selected because
they are removed from known discharges. However, many
other sampling stations in the COSED database were lo-
cated within highly urbanized bays and estuaries where
chemical contamination was expected. These sampling
stations include data from regional bioeffects assesments
in which NOAA examined sediment quality in several
highly urbanized areas. These surveys were region-wide
assessments, not point source or end-of-pipe studies.
From an assessment point of view, STORET data
might be useful for developing a list of contaminated sedi-
ment locations, but might overstate the general extent of
contaminated sediment in the Nation by focusing largely
on areas most likely to be problematic. On the other hand,
analysis of EMAP data might result in a more balanced
assessment in terms of the mix of contaminated sampling
stations anduncontaminated sampling stations. Approxi-
mately two-thirds of sampling stations in the NSI are from
the STORET database. Reliance on these data is consis-
tent with the stated objective of this survey: to identify
those sediments which are contaminated. However, one
cannot accurately make inferences regarding the overall
condition of the Nation's sediment, or characterize the
"percent contamination," using all the data in the NSI
because uncontaminated areas are most likely
underrepresented.
NSI data do not evenly represent all geographic re-
gions in the United States, nor do the data represent a
consistent set of monitored chemicals. For example, sev-
eral of the databases are targeted toward marine environ-
ments or other geographically focused areas. Table 2-1
presents the number of stations evaluated per state. More
than 50 percent of all stations evaluated in the NSI are
located hi Washington, Florida, Illinois, California, Vir-
ginia, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. Each of these
states has more than 700 monitoring stations. Other states
of similar or larger size (e.g., Georgia, Pennsylvania) have
far fewer sampling stations with data for evaluation. Fig-
ures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 depict the location of monitoring
stations with sediment chemistry, tissue residue, and tox-
icity data, respectively. Individual stations may vary con-
siderably in terms of the number of chemicals monitored.
Some stations have data that represent a large number of
organic and inorganic contaminants, whereas others have
measured values for only a few chemicals. Thus, the in-
ventory cannot be considered comprehensive even for
locations with sampling data. The reliance on readily
available electronic data has undoubtedly led to exclu-
sions of a vast amount of information available from
sources such as local and state governments and published
reports. Other limitations, including data quality issues,
are discussed in Chapter 5 of this report.
NSI Data Evaluation Approach
The methodology developed for classifying sampling
stations according to the probability of adverse effects on
aquatic life and human health from sediment contamina-
tion relies on measures of sediment chemistry, sediment
toxicity, and contaminant residue in tissue. Although the
NSI also contains benthic abundance, histopathology, and
fish abundance data, these types of data were not used in
the evaluation. Benthic and fish abundance cannot be
directly associated with sediment contamination based on
the statutory definition and currently available assessment
tools, and available fish liver histopathology data were
very limited.
The approach used to evaluate the NSI data focuses on
the protection of benthic organisms from exposure to con-
taminated sediments and the protection of humans from the
consumption offish thatbioaccumulate contaminants from
sediment. In addition, potential effects on wildlife from
2-4
-------
Table 2-1. Number of Stations Evaluated in the NSI by State
Region 1
Region 2
Regions
Region 4
Region 5
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jetsey
New York
Puerto Rico
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
98
55
895
7
42
5
448
618
30
218
4
206
311
1,051
120
477
1,776
318
249
318
612
563
646
1,669
108
402
438
970
703
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
107
460
101
286
662
228
203
327
253
202
38
161
43
47
44
124
1,443
36
96
267
95
291
2,225
fish consumption were also evaluated. The wildlife results
were not included in the overall results of the NSI data evalu-
ation; however, they are presented separately. Table 2-2
presents the classification scheme used in the evaluation of
the NSI data. Each component, or evaluation parameter,
of the classification scheme is numbered on Table 2-2. Each
evaluation parameter is discussed under a section heading
cross-referenced to these numbers. Figures 2-4 through 2-
8 depict the evaluation parameters and sampling station clas-
sifications in flowchart format.
EPA analyzed the NSI data by evaluating each param-
eter in Table 2-2 on a measurement-by-measurement and
sampling station-by-sampling station basis. Each sampling
station was associated with a "probability of adverse ef-
fects" by combining parameters as shown in Table 2-2 and
Figures 2-4 through 2-8. Because each individual mea-
surement was considered independently (except for diva-
lent metals, whose concentrations were summed), a single
observation of elevated concentration could place a sam-
pling station into Tier 1, the higher prob-
ability category. In general, the method-
ology was constructed such that a sampling
station classified as Tier 1 must be repre-
sented by a relatively large set of data or
by a highly elevated sediment concentra-
tion of a chemical whose effects screening
level is well characterized based on mul-
tiple assessment techniques. Fewer data
were required to classify a sampling sta-
tion as Tier 2. Any sampling station not
meeting the requirements to be classified
as Tier 1 or Tier 2 was classified as Tier 3.
Sampling stations in this category include
those for which substantial data were avail-
able without evidence of adverse effects,
as well as sampling stations for which lim-
ited data were available to determine the
potential for adverse effects.
Individual evaluation parameters, ap-
plied to various measurements indepen-
dently, could lead to different site
classifications. If one evaluation parameter
indicated a higher probability of adverse ef-
fects, but other evaluation parameters indi-
cated a lower to intermediate probability or
didnotindicate adverse effects, a Tier 1 clas-
sification was assigned to the sampling sta-
tion. For example, if a sampling station was
categorized as Tier 2 based on all sediment
chemistry data, but was categorized as Tier
1 based on toxicity data, the station was
placed in Tier 1. This principle also ap-
plies to evaluating multiple contaminants within the same
evaluation parameter. For example, if the evaluation of
sediment chemistry data placed a sampling station in Tier
1 for metals and in Tier 2 for PCBs, the station was placed
hi Tier 1.
Recognizing the imprecise nature of some assessment
parameters used in this report, Tier 1 sampling stations are
distinguished from Tier 2 sampling stations based on me
magnitude of a contaminant concentration in sediment, or
the degree of corroboration among the different types of
sediment quality measures. In response to uncertainty in
both biological and chemical measures of sediment con-
tamination, environmental managers must balance Type I
errors (false positives: sediment classified as posing a threat
that does not) with Type n errors (false negatives: sediment
that poses a threat but was not classified as such). In screen-
ing analyses, the environmentally protective approach is to
minimize Type II errors, which leave toxic sediment uni-
dentified. To achieve a balance and to direct attention to
2-5
-------
Methodology
Lr :>* >$B8M3fa$^*
•*** • - • «* «%» ^4A%4^»* ,^f
,** ^f * •• V*'!* TW^J* ^w? *
oo
C-"
I*
W
I
2-6
-------
1
2-7
-------
Methodology
2-8
-------
1
Table 2-2. NSI Data Evaluation Approach (with numbered parameters)
Category of Sampling
Station
Classifications
Tier 1:
Sediment Contamination
Associated With A Higher
Probability of Adverse
Effects to Aquatic Life or
Human Health
Tier 2:
Sediment Contamination
Associated With A Lower
to Intermediate
Probability of Adverse
Effects to Aquatic Life or
Human Health
Tier 3:
No indication of adverse
effects
Data Used to Determine Classifications
Sediment Chemistry
Sediment chemistry values
exceed draft sediment quality
criteria for any one of the five
chemicals for which criteria have
been developed by EPA (must
have measured TOC) 1
OR
[SEM]-[AVS]>5 for the sum of
molar concentrations of Cd, Cu,
Ni, Pb, and Zn* 2
OR
Sediment chemistry values
exceed two or more of the
relevant upper screening values
(ERMs, AETs (high), PELs,
SQALs, SQCs) for any one
chemical (other than Cd, Cu, Ni,
Pb, and Zn) (can use default
TOC) 3
OR
Sediment chemistry TBP exceeds
FDA levels or EPA risk levels 4
ESEMMAVS] = 0 to 5 for the
sum of molar concentrations of
Cd,Cu,Ni,Pb,andZa 5
OR
Sediment chemistry values
exceed any one of the relevant
lower screening values (ERLs,
AETs (low), TELs, SQALs,
SQCs) for any one chemical (can
use default TOC) 6
OR
Sediment chemistry TBP exceeds
FDA levels or EPA risk levels 7
OR
AND
OR
Tissue Residue
Tissue levels of dioxin or PCBs
in resident species exceed EPA
risk levels 8
Tissue levels in resident species
exceed FDA levels or EPA risk
levels 9
Tissue levels in resident species
exceed FDA levels or EPA risk
levels 10
OR
OR
Toxlcity
Toxicity demonstrated by two or
more nonmicrobial acute toxicity
tests using two different species
(one of which must be a solid-
phase test) 11
Toxicity demonstrated by a
single-species nonmicrobial
toxicity test 12
Any sampling station not categorized as Tier 1 or Tier 2. Available data (which may be very limited or quite extensive) do
not indicate a likelihood of adverse effects to aquatic life or human health.
aMetals: Cd = cadmium, Cu = copper, Ni = nickel, Pb = lead, Zn = zinc.
Does the chernfca,
have a draft SQCI
n
Was TOC measured
for the sampling station?
Use measured TOC
value to determine TOC
normalized chemical .
concentration for
comparison with SQALs
Was TOC measured
for the sampling station!
Use measured TOC
value to determine TOC
Usede&uttTOCofl%
to determine TOC
normalized chemical
concentration for
comparison with draft
SQCsandSQAU
Exceeded one or more
lower screening values
Unless categorized by another parameter
Figure 2-4. Aquatic Life Assessments: Sediment Chemistry Analysis for
Organic Chemicals and Metals Not Included in the AVS Analysis.
2-9
-------
Methodology
Was AVS measured
for the sample?
yes
Tier 2
Unkss catetorixed by another parameur
I_J^
1
What was the result of 1
comparing [SEM] to [AVS].' f
3
u
52.
'
[SEM]-[AVS]<0
r
[SEM]-[AVS]>5
Figure 2-5. Aquatic Life Assessments: Sediment Chemistry Analysis for
Divalent Metals.
2-10
Was a toxkJty
test performed!
Was toxldty demonstrated using 2 or
more nonmlcrobEal toxlcity tests
using 2 different species (one of which
was a solid-phase test)?
Was toxldty demonstrated using a
single-species nonmicrobial toxlcity
test?
' Unless categorized by another parameter
Figure 2-6. Aquatic Life Assessments: Sediment Toxicity Analysis.
-------
1
la the chemical a I Were both sediment chemestry and |
nonpolar organic? |_ilL». fish tissue residue levels measured l_
1 at the sampling station? |
no
i
no
Did the sediment chemistry TBP or 1 '
fish tissue residue level exceed the 1 *^
FDA action levels or EPA risk levels? 1 Only TBP exceec
'• no yes\
ye* \ \ I
Were fish tissue
residue levois
measured at
the sampling
station?
no
\ og>
^(^~^r\^
yes Did both sediment chemistry TBP values 1
— — ^ and fish tissue residue levels exceed 1
FDA levels or EPA risk levels? 1
no yet
leve^
V
Neither TBP nor fish
tissue levels exceeded
FDA levels or EPA
risk levels
i
'Unless categorized by another parameter
Figure 2-7. Human Health Assessments: Sediment Chemistry and Fish
Tissue Residue Analysis (excluding dioxins and PCBs).
Did levels of dioxin or PCBs
in fish tissue exceed EPA
risk levels?
no
Unless categorized by another parameter
Figure 2-8. Human Health Assessments: PCBs and Dioxin in Fish Tissue
Analysis.
2-11
-------
areas most likely to be associated with adverse effects, Tier
1 sampling stations are intended to have a high rate of "cor-
rect" classification (e.g., sediment definitely posing or defi-
nitely not posing a threat) and abalance between Type I and
Type II errors. On the other hand, to retain a sufficient
degree of environmental conservatism in screening, Tier 2
sampling stations are intended to have a very low number
of false negatives in exchange for a large number of false
positives.
The numbered evaluation parameters used in the NSI
data evaluation are briefly described below. A detailed de-
scription of the evaluation parameters is presented in Ap-
pendix B.
Sediment Chemistry Data
The sediment chemistry screening values used in this
report are not regulatory criteria, site-specific cleanup stan-
dards, or remediation goals. Sediment chemistry screening
values are reference values above which a sediment
ccotoxicological assessment might indicate a potential
threat to aquatic life. The sediment chemistry screening
values used to evaluate the NSI data for potential adverse
effects of sediment contamination on aquatic life include
both theoretically and empirically based values. The theo-
retically based values rely on the physical/chemical prop-
erties of sediment and chemicals to predict the level of
contamination that would not cause an adverse effect on
aquatic life. The empirically based, or correlative, screen-
ing values rely on paired field and laboratory data to relate
incidence of observed biological effects to the dry-weight
sediment concentration of a specific chemical.
The theoretically based screening values used as pa-
rameters in the evaluation of NSI data include the draft sedi-
ment quality criteria, sediment quality advisory levels, and
comparison of simultaneously extracted metals to acid-vola-
tile sulfide concentrations. Empirically based, correlative
screening values used in the NSI evaluation include the ef-
fects range-median/effects range-low values, probable ef-
fects levels/threshold effects levels, and apparent effects
thresholds. The use of each of these screening values hi the
evaluation of the NSI data is described below. Another
theoretically based evaluation parameter, the theoretical
bioaccumulation potential (which was usedfor human health
assessments), is also described below. The limitations as-
sociated with the use of these screening values are discussed
in Chapter 5.
Sediment Chemistry Values Exceed EPA Draft
Sediment Quality Criteria [1]
This evaluation parameter was used to assess the po-
tential effects of sediment contamination on benthic spe-
cies. EPA has developed draft sediment quality criteria
(SQCs) for the following five nonionic organic chemicals:
• Acenaphthene (polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon, or PAH)
• Dieldrin (pesticide)
• Endrin (pesticide)
• Fluoranthene (PAH)
• Phenanthrene (PAH)
EPA developed these draft criteria using the equi-
librium partitioning (EqP) approach (described in de-
tail in Appendix B) for linking bioavailability to toxicity.
The EqP approach involves predicting the dry-weight
concentration of a contaminant in sediment that is in
equilibrium with a pore water concentration that is pro-
tective of aquatic life. It combines the water-only ef-
fects concentration (the chronic water quality criteria)
and the organic carbon partitioning coefficient of the
chemical normalized to the organic carbon content of
the sediment. The draft criterion is compared to the
measured dry-weight sediment concentration of the
chemical normalized to sediment organic carbon con-
tent. If the organic-carbon-normalized concentration
of the contaminant does not exceed the draft sediment
quality criterion, adverse effects should not occur to at
least 95 percent of benthic organisms. The draft SQCs
are based on the highest quality data available, which
have been reviewed extensively.
For the NSI data evaluation, sediment chemistry
measurements with accompanying measured total organic
carbon (TOC) values can place a site in Tier 1 based ex-
clusively on a comparison with a draft SQC. The amount
of TOC in sediment is one of the factors that determines
the extent to which a nonionic organic chemical is bound
to the sediment and, thus, the availability for uptake by
organisms (bioavailability). If draft SQCs based on mea-
sured TOC were not exceeded, or if none of the five non-
polar organic chemicals that have been assigned draft
SQC values were measured, the sampling station was
classified as Tier 3 unless otherwise categorized by an-
other parameter. Appendix B discusses the assumptions
and limitations associated with the use of draft SQCs.
If a sample for any of the five contaminants for which
draft SQCs have been developed did not have accompa-
nying TOC data, the measured concentration was com-
pared to the draft SQC based on a default TOC value of
1 percent. In these instances, the draft SQC was treated
like other sediment quality screening values described
later in this section.
2-12
-------
The assumption that the percent TOC for samples
without measured TOC is equal to 1 percent is based on
a review of values published in the literature. TOC can
range from 0.1 percent in sandy sediments to 1 to 4 per-
cent in silty harbor sediments and 10 to 20 percent in
navigation channel sediments (Clarke and McFarland,
1991). Long et al. (1995) reported an overall mean TOC
concentration of 1.2 percent from data compiled from
350 publications for their biological effects database for
marine and estuarine sediments. Ingersoll et al. (1996)
reported a mean TOC concentration of 2.7 percent for
inland freshwater samples. Based on this review of TOC
data, EPA selected a default TOC value of 1 percent for
the NSI evaluation. Consistent with the screening level
application, this value should not lead to an underesti-
mate of thebioavailability of associated contaminants in
most cases.
Comparison ofAVS to SEM Molar Concentrations
[2, 5]
The use of the total concentration of a trace metal in
sediment as a measure of its toxicity and its ability to
bioaccumulate is problematic because different sediments
exhibit different degrees of bioavailability for the same
total quantity of metal (Di Toro et al., 1990; Luoma,
1983). These differences have recently been reconciled
by relating organism toxic response (mortality) to the
metal concentration in the sediment interstitial water
(Adams etal., 1985; Di Toro etal., 1990). Acid-volatile
sulfide (AVS) is one of the major chemical components
that control the activities and availability of metals in
interstitial waters of anoxic (lacking oxygen) sediments
(Meyer et al., 1994).
A large reservoir of sulfide exists as iron sulfide in
anoxic sediment. Sulfide will react with several diva-
lent transition metal cations (cadmium, copper, mercury,
nickel, lead, and zinc) to form highly insoluble com-
pounds that are not bioavailable (Allen et al., 1993). It
follows in theory, and with verification (Di Toro et al.,
1990), that divalent transition metals will not begin to
cause toxicity in anoxic sediment until the reservoir of
sulfide is used up (i.e., the molar concentration of metals
exceeds the molar concentration of sulfide), typically at
relatively high dry-weight metal concentrations. This
observation has led to a laboratory measurement tech-
nique of calculating the difference between simulta-
neously extracted metal (SEM) concentration and acid
volatile sulfide concentration from field samples to de-
termine potential toxicity.
To evaluate the potential effects of metals on benthic
species, the molar concentration of AVS ([AVS]) was
compared to the sum of SEM molar concentrations
([SEM]) for five metals: cadmium, copper, nickel, lead,
and zinc. Mercury was excluded from AVS comparison
because other important factors play a major role in de-
termining the bioaccumulation potential of mercury in
sediment. Specifically, under certain conditions mer-
cury binds to an organic methyl group and is readily
taken up by living organisms.
Sediment with measured [SEM] in excess of [AVS]
does not necessarily exhibit toxicity. This is because other
binding phases can tie up metals. However, research in-
dicates that sediment with [AVS] in excess of [SEM] will
not be toxic from metals, and the greater the [SEM]-
[AVS] difference, the greater the likelihood of toxicity
from metals. Analysis of toxicity data for freshwater
and saltwater sediment amphipods (crustaceans) from
EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in
Narragansett, Rhode Island, revealed that 80 to 90 per-
cent of the sediments were toxic at [SEM]-[AVS] > 5
(Hansen, 1995; see also Hansen et al., 1996). Thus, EPA
selected [SEM]-[AVS] = 5 as the demarcation line be-
tween Tier 1 and Tier 2. For the purpose of this evalua-
tion, where [SEM]-[AVS] was greater than 5, the
sampling station was classified as Tier 1. If [SEM]-[AVS]
was between zero and 5, the sampling station was classi-
fied as Tier 2. If [SEM]-[AVS] was less than zero, or if
AVS or the five AVS metals were not measured at the
sampling station, the sampling station was classified as
Tier 3 unless otherwise classified by another parameter.
Appendix B discusses the assumptions and limitations
associated with the [SEM]-[AVSJ approach.
Sediment Chemistry Values Exceed Screening
Values [3, 6]
Several sets of sediment contaminant screening val-
ues, developed using different methodologies, are avail-
able to assess potential adverse effects on benthic species.
The screening values selected for comparison with mea-
sured sediment levels are the draft SQCs using a default
TOC of 1 percent (for those samples which do not have
accompanying TOC data), sediment quality advisory lev-
els (SQALs) for freshwater aquatic life (developed using
the equilibrium partitioning approach discussed previ-
ously for the development of draft SQCs), the effects
range-median (ERM) and effects range-low (ERL) val-
ues developed by Long et al. (1995), the probable effects
levels (PELs) and threshold effects levels (TELs) devel-
oped for the Florida Department of Environmental Pro-
tection (FDEP, 1994), and the apparent effects thresholds
(AETs) developed by Barrick et al. (1988). The assump-
tions and approaches used to develop these screening
values are discussed in detail in Appendix B.
2-13
-------
Methodology
The draft SQCs and SQALs were both developed us-
ing the same EqP approach. However, the data used to
derive SQALs were not compiled from an exhaustive lit-
erature search, nor were the toxicity data requirements as
extensive as specified for draft SQCs. Toxicity values used
for SQAL development include final chronic values from
EPA ambient freshwater quality criteria and secondary
chrome values derived using EPA's Great Lakes Water Qual-
ity Initiative "Tier II" water quality criteria methodology.
The data used to develop the latter values were taken pri-
marily from quality-screened studies in published litera-
ture. The development of SQALs is discussed in further
detail in Appendix B of this report. EPA has also prepared
a draft document describing the derivation of the SQALs
(USEPA, 1996). The chemicals for which SQALs have
been developed are identified hi Appendix D of this vol-
ume.
The ERLs/ERMs, PELs/TELs, and AETs relate the
incidence of adverse biological effects to the sediment
concentration of a specific chemical at a specific sam-
pling station using paired field and laboratory data. The
developers of the ERLs/ERMs define sediment concen-
trations below the ERL as being in the "minimal-effects
range," values between the ERL and ERM in the "pos-
sible-effects range," and values above the ERM in the
"probable-effects range." In theFDEP (1994) approach,
the lower of the two guidelines for each chemical (the
TEL) is assumed to represent the concentration below
which toxic effects rarely occur. In the range of concen-
trations between the TEL and PEL, effects occasionally
occur. Toxic effects usually or frequently occur at con-
centrations above the upper guideline (the PEL).
In independent analyses of the predictive abilities
of the ERL/ERMs and TEL/PELs, the precentages of
samples indicating high toxicity in laboratory bioassays
of amphipod survival were relatively low (10-12 percent)
when all chemical concentrations were in the minimal
effects range, intermediate (17-19 percent) hi the pos-
sible effects range, and higher (38-42 percent) hi the prob-
able effects range. Furthermore, the percentages of
samples indicating high toxicity in any one of a battery
of 2-4 tests performed, including more sensitive bioas-
says with sublethal endpoints, were 5-28 percent, 59-64
percent, and 78-80 percent among samples within the
minimal, possible, and probable effects ranges (Long et
al., in press).
The AET approach is not based on the probability
of incidence of adverse biological effects. The AET is
the highest concentration at which statistically signifi-
cant differences in observed adverse biological effects
from reference conditions do not occur, provided that
the concentration also is associated with observance of
a statisically significant difference in adverse biological
effects. Essentially, this identifies the concentration
above which an adverse biological effect always occurs
for a particular data set. Barrick et al. (1988) list spe-
cific AET values for several different species or biologi-
cal indicators. For the purposes of this assessment, EPA
defined the AET-low as the lowest AET among appli-
cable biological indicators, and the AET-high as the high-
est AET among applicable biological indicators.
For the NSI data evaluation, the upper screening val-
ues were considered to be the ERM, PEL, draft SQC (when
using default TOC value of 1 percent), SQAL, and AET-
high for a given chemical. The lower screening values
were considered to be the ERL, TEL, draft SQC (when
using default TOC of 1 percent), SQAL, and AET-low
for a given chemical. Because they are not based on ranges
of effects, the single freshwater aquatic life draft SQC
and SQAL values for a given chemical served as both the
high and low screening values.
For a sampling station to be classified as Tier 1, a
chemical measurement must have exceeded at least two
of the upper screening values. If a sediment chemistry
measurement exceeded any one of the lower screening
values, the sampling station was classified as Tier 2. If
sediment concentrations at a sampling station did not ex-
ceed any screening values or there were no data for chemi-
cals that have assigned screening values, the sampling
station was categorized as Tier 3 unless otherwise cat-
egorized by another parameter.
Under this approach, a sampling station could be
classified as Tier 1 from elevated concentrations of cad-
mium, copper, lead, nickel, or zinc based only on a com-
parison of [SEM] to [AVS]; that is, sampling stations
could not be classified as Tier 1 based on an exceedance
of two upper screening values for any of the five metals.
However, sampling stations were classified as Tier 2 for
these five metals based on an exceedance of one of the
lower screening values if AVS data were not available.
Sediment Chemistry TBPs Exceed Screening
Criteria [4, 7]
This evaluation parameter addresses the risk to hu-
man consumers of organisms exposed to sediment con-
taminants. The theoretical bioaccumulation potential
(TBP) is an estimate of the equilibrium concentration
(concentration that does not change with time) of a con-
taminant in tissues if the sediment in question were the
only source of contamination to the organism. At present,
2-14
-------
the TBP calculation can be performed only for nonpolar
organic chemicals. The TBP is estimated from the con-
centration of contaminant in the sediment, the organic
carbon content of the sediment, the lipid content of the
organism, and the relative affinity of the chemical for
sediment organic carbon and animal lipid content. This
relative affinity is measured in the field and is called a
biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF, as discussed
in detail in Appendix C).
In the evaluation of NSI data, if a calculated sedi-
ment chemistry TBP value exceeded a screening value
derived using standard EPA risk assessment methodol-
ogy or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) toler-
ance/action or guidance level, and if a corresponding
tissue residue level for the same chemical for a resident
species at the same sampling station also exceeded one
of those screening values, the .station was classified as
Tier 1. Individual chemical risk levels were considered
separately; that is, risks from multiple contaminants were
not added. Both sediment chemistry and tissue residue
samples must have been taken from the same sampling
station. If tissue residue levels for the same chemical for
a resident species at the same sampling station did not
exceed EPA risk levels or FD'A levels or there were no
corresponding tissue data, the sampling station was clas-
sified as Tier 2. If neither TBP values nor fish tissue
residue levels exceeded EPA risk levels or FDA levels,
or if no chemicals with TBP values, EPA risk levels, or
FDA levels were measured, the sampling station was clas-
sified as Tier 3 unless otherwise classified by another
parameter. A detailed description of the methods used
to develop TBP values and to determine the EPA risk
levels used in this comparison is presented in
Appendix B.
Tissue Residue Data 18, 9,10]
Tissue residue data were used to assess potential ad-
verse effects on humans from the consumption of fish
that become contaminated through exposure to contami-
nated sediment. Only those species considered benthic,
non-migratory (resident), and edible by human popula-
tions were included in human health assessments. A list
of species included in the NSI and their characteristics is
presented in Appendix F.
Sampling stations at which human health screening
values for dioxin and PCBs were exceeded in fish tis-
sues were classified as Tier 1. For these chemicals, cor-
roborating sediment chemistry data were not required.
If human health screening values for dioxin or PCBs in
fish tissue were not exceeded or if neither chemical was
measured, the sampling station was classified as Tier 3
unless otherwise classified by another parameter.
For other chemicals, both a tissue residue level ex-
ceeding an FDA tolerance/action or guidance level or
EPA risk level and a sediment chemistry TBP value ex-
ceeding that level for the same chemical were required
to classify a sampling station as Tier 1. If tissue residue
levels exceeded FDA levels or EPA risk levels but corre-
sponding TBP values were not exceeded at the same sta-
tion (or there were no sediment chemistry data from that
station), the sampling station was classified as Tier 2. If
neither fish tissue levels nor TBP values exceeded EPA
risk levels or FDA levels, or if no chemicals with TBP
values, EPA risk levels, or FDA levels were measured,
the sampling station was classified as Tier 3 unless oth-
erwise classified by another parameter.
Toxicity Data [11, 12]
Toxicity data were used to classify sediment sites
based on their demonstrated adverse effects on aquatic
life. Nonmicrobial sediment toxicity tests with a mor- >
tality endpoint were evaluated. Toxicity test results that
lacked control data, or had control data that indicated
greater than 20 percent mortality (less than 80 percent
survival), were excluded from further consideration. The
EPA has standardized testing protocols for marine and
freshwater toxicity tests. A review of several protocols
for sediment toxicity tests suggests that mortality in con-
trols may range from 10 to 30 percent, depending on the
species, to be considered an acceptable test result (API,
1994). Current amphipod test requirements indicate that
controls should have less than 10 percent mortality (API,
1994; USEPA, 1994b).
For the NSI data evaluation, EPA considered sig-
nificant toxicity as a 20 percent difference in survival
from control survival. For example, significant toxicity
occurred if control survival was 80 percent and experi-
mental survival was 60 percent or less.
For this evaluation parameter, corroboration of mul-
tiple tests was considered more indicative of a higher
probability of adverse effects than the magnitude of the
effect in a single test Toxicity demonstrated by two or
more single-species tests using two different test species
(at least one of which had to be a solid-phase test) placed
a sampling station in Tier 1. A sampling station was
classified as Tier 2 if toxicity was demonstrated by one
single-species nonmicrobial toxicity test. If toxicity was
not demonstrated by a nonmicrobial toxicity test, or if
toxicity test data were not available, the sampling sta-
tion was classified as Tier 3 unless otherwise classified
by another parameter.
2-15
-------
Methodology
Incorporation of Regional Comments
on the Preliminary Evaluation of
Sediment Chemistry Data
Several reviewers from different EPA Regions and
states provided comments on the May 16, 1994,
preliminary evaluation of sediment chemistry data. The
comments included more than 150 specific comments
identifying additional locations with contaminated sedi-
ment that had not been identified in the preliminary evalu-
ation. Since the preliminary evaluation, the final NSI
methodology has been developed and implemented. The
updated methodology has been refined significantly to
include tissue residue and toxicity data as well as re-
vised screening values. Data corresponding to any ad-
ditional comments that required further review were
divided into two categories: (1) data that incorrectly
identified contaminated sediment and (2) additional wa-
ter bodies that contain areas of sediment contamination.
The first category primarily addressed sampling stations
identified in the preliminary assessment as exceeding
sediment chemistry screening values for specific con-
taminants that reviewers stated were located in water bod-
ies that are not contaminated from the chemical(s) in
question.
EPA examined all NSI sampling stations that had
been identified in the preliminary evaluation as exceed-
ing a sediment quality screening value, but were located
in water bodies that reviewers of the preliminary evalu-
ation identified as not being contaminated by that spe-
cific contaminant or contaminants. If the sampling
station in question was classified in this final evaluation
as Tier 1 based only on the specific contaminant(s) iden-
tified by the reviewer as not being a problem, the sam-
pling station was removed from the Tier 1 category and
placed in the Tier 3 category. Only a few sampling sta-
tions were moved from the Tier 1 category to the Tier 3
category as a result of this procedure. Stations identi-
fied in the NSI evaluation as Tier 1 based on other chemi-
cals not identified by the reviewer or because of toxicity
data were not removed from Tier 1.
Additional water bodies that reviewers identified as
potential areas of significant contamination were evalu-
ated to determine whether sampling stations along those
water bodies were classified as Tier 1 based on the final
NSI data evaluation. Locations or water bodies identi-
fied by reviewers as potential areas of significant con-
tamination are discussed separately in the results
(Chapter 3).
Evaluation Using EPA Wildlife Criteria
In addition to the evaluation parameters described
above and presented in Table 2-2, EPA conducted an as-
sessment of NSI data based on a comparison of sediment
chemistry TBP values and fish tissue values to EPA wild-
life criteria developed for the Great Lakes. This evalua-
tion, however, was not included with the results of
evaluating the NSI data based on the other parameters.
The results of evaluating NSI data based on wildlife cri-
teria are presented in a separate section of Chapter 3.
Wildlife criteria based solely on fish tissue concentra-
tions were derived for EPA wildlife criteria for water that
are presented in the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
Criteria Documents for the Protection of Wildlife
(USEPA, 1995a). EPA has developed wildlife criteria
for four contaminants: DDT, mercury, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and
PCBs. The method to adjust these wildlife criteria for
the NSI data evaluation is explained in detail in
Appendix B.
2-16
-------
Appendix E
Example of Basin-Level Assessment
Information: Arizona
-------
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 117
Middle Gila River Basin
The Middle Gila River Basin (Map 18) encompasses
12,150 square miles, and includes the Phoenix
metropolitan area. Almost two-thirds of the State's
population resides in this basin. The historical land use
in the Middle Gila Basin was agricultural; however, in the
metropolitan area agriculture has been displaced by 30
years of almost exponential population growth. Surface
water diversions in the Gila River and the Salt River for
agricultural and urban uses have left the streambeds in die
Phoenix area dry. The basin also includes two Indian
Reservations, portions of two National Forests, and 11
designated Wilderness Areas. The basin receives limited
rainfall; therefore, surface water flow in this basin is
primarily attributable to releases from upstream
impoundments, effluent from wastewater treatment plants,
and/or agricultural return flows.
The Arizona Department of Health Services released a
human health risk report in 1991 entitled "Risk
Assessment for Recreational Usage of the Painted Rocks
Borrow Pit Lake at Gila Bend, Arizona". This report
indicated that a greater than acceptable lifetime cancer
risk could result from long-term consumption offish from
this impoundment and upstream along Gila River.
Specifically, ADHS found that there would be a greater
than a one-in-a-million lifetime (70-year) risk of cancer
associated with DDT metabolite ingestion by eating (8
ounce portions) 3.5 meals per month, and methylmercury
toxicity would be expected to occur at a consumption
level approaching eight meals per month. As a result, a
fish consumption advisory was issued on October 3,1991,
warning people not to eat fish, turtles, crayfish or other
aquatic organisms from portions of the Salt, Hassayampa,
and Gila rivers (the Gila River between the confluence
with the Salt River to Painted Rocks Lake, the
Hassayampa River near its mouth, and the Salt River
below the 23rd Ave in Phoenix). Camping, boating,
fishing, other recreational uses and public access have
been prohibited since the Painted Rocks Lake State Park
was closed in January, 1989. Management of the area
has reverted back to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Bureau of Land Management through actions by
the State Parks Board. These two federal agencies are
considering proposals to reopen the lake facilities to the
public.
Sediment borings from the Gila River were tested for
organochlorine pesticides and heavy metals as pan of a
Painted Rocks Lake diagnostic/feasibility study by the
Clean Lakes Program (The Earth Technology
Corporation, 1993). Results indicted that the continued
loading of DDT metabolites, toxaphene, and mercury can
be expected from the watershed. A disparity between
high biota contaminant concentrations and low sediment
concentrations suggests that the food web acts as a
filtering mechanism for the removal and concentration of
toxic lipidophilic contaminants (DDT metabolites,
toxaphene, and mercury). Extensive agricultural area in
die watershed is the assumed source for the DDT
metabolites and toxaphene, while the potential sources of
mercury contamination include the watershed's natural
geology, mining activities (historic use of mercury to
leach precious metals), landfills, and treated sewage
effluent. Several restoration techniques were proposed to
mitigate the eutrophic conditions at the lake; however,
these proposals were costly and would not resolve the on-
going pesticide loading from the watershed.
The USFWS has begun collecting fish and predatory birds
along the lower Salt and Gila Rivers (from 59th Avenue
in Phoenix to the Colorado River) and will be testing their
tissues for organochlorine pesticides and heavy metals.
This is a follow up to the extensive monitoring completed
by the USFWS hi this area in 1985-1986. In the present
study sediment samples will not be collected because they
were not a reliable indicator of the level of contamination
in resident wildlife. USFWS is also attempting to collect
soft-shelled turtles for comparison to previous collections,
but has so far been unsuccessful.
Two projects provided information concerning the existing
level of contamination by organochlorine pesticides in
agricultural fields, a source of aquatic contamination in
this watershed. In one project samples were collected
along the edge of cultivated fields, adjacent to roadway
shoulders (SCS Engineers, 1991). Any residues of
organochlorine pesticides in these locations would
represent the results of overspray, rather than direct
application. Varying degrees of soil disturbance due to
road grading and field plowing were observed, and areas
where disturbed soils appeared to have originated from
road grading activities were' avoided. Also areas where
significant runoff or irrigation water accumulated were
avoided. Soil samples collected at approximately 6 niches
below ground surface indicated extensive residual
pesticide contamination hi these areas, and that human
consumption of the soil is probably not advisable. A
summary of these soil sample results and the USFWS
sediment sample results are indicated in the following
table:
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 118
PESTICIDE
DDT METABOLITES
TOXAPHENE
TOTAL PESTICIDES
RANGE IN SOIL*
(rag/kg)
0.07-5.13
-------
MIDDLE G1LA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 119
away, thousands of tons of debris being swept into the
floodwaters, to be deposited along the Salt and Gila rivers
shorelines for more than 100 miles. EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers have been working with the Tribal
government to mitigate these problems (the State lacks
jurisdiction). Currently, a portion of the landfill is being
moved out of the floodplain. The part that will remain
must be protected from future floods and natural shifts in
the river channel.
During the January 1993 record breaking floods,
ASARCO Hayden Tailings discharged approximately
220,000 cubic yards of tailings into the Gila River.
Tailing deposits along the banks were documented, and
voluntary actions to remediate were initiated, however,
the tailings have now spread out to such an extent that
remediation may not be possible. Also during this flood,
Black Canyon City Auto Parts discovered that keeping
salvage cars hi the Squaw Creek floodplain can lead to an
annoying "distribution of assets", as the vehicles were
swept down into the Agua Fria River. The owner has
removed them from the streambed, but deposited them on
State Land without permission. Further enforcement
action is still pending.
Portions of the federal Superfund site located at Phoenix's
19th Avenue Landfill are located within the 100-year
floodplain of the Salt River. Flooding hi 1979 raised the
water table, filled several disposal pits, breached several
dikes, and washed refuse into the river. Refuse in the
landfill contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
pesticides; the soil contains VOCs, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides; the groundwater
contains VOCs, heavy metals, and beta radiation; and
excessive methane gas is being produced. Earthen benns
have been constructed to mitigate further surface water
contamination Cleanup of this site is to begin as soon as
the design phase is completed (EPA, Sept. 1990a).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated a feasibility
study, known as Tres Rios, for seven miles of the Salt
and Gila rivers below the 91st Avenue Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The project would create an artificial
wetland to provide additional treatment of secondary
treated effluent from the plant.
Surface water (McKellips Lake) within the Indian Bend
Wash federal Superfund site is contaminated by VOCs.
In this 12 square mile Superfund site, VOCs, cyanide,
acids, and heavy metals from several industrial facilities '
have contaminated the soils. Groundwater is
contaminated with VOCs, boron, methane, chloroform,
lead and zinc. Further studies are taking place and
cleanup activities are planned (EPA, 1990a).
Results from a cooperative monitoring station on the Gila
River within the Gila River Indian Community is
indicated in the basin discussion for information purposes.
This section of the Gila River was not assessed. Total
dissolved solids exceed 1000 mg/1 on the Gila River
below San Carlos Reservoir. At a downstream
monitoring station, near the Gila River Indian
Community, TDS ranged between 7160-9090 mg/1 in
1990. Elevated salts and high boron are attributed to the
agricultural return flows from Broadacres Farm on the
Gila Indian Reservation. Broadacres Farm utilizes City
of Chandler effluent and shallow saline groundwater to
irrigate saline soils. The high levels of TDS did not
affect the assessment of this reach, because it is not
protected for Agricultural Irrigation or Domestic Water
Source uses; nonetheless, this contamination may
contribute to downstream irrigation limitations.
The Gibson Mine, which is located on a ridge near Globe,
Arizona, has documented surface water violations hi two
watersheds: Salt River Basin and Middle Gila River
Basin. The mine produced high grade copper ore
between 1906-1918, until the underground workings
apparently collapsed. Since then the mine has been
operated sporadically to produce copper from the ore
dumps. In response to a complaint La 1990, samples
taken along Mineral Creek and its tributary revealed that
designated uses were unpaired by cadmium, copper, zinc,
manganese and low pH. (See also the Gibson Mine
discussion in the Salt River Basin.) In 1993, the Attorney
General entered into a consent decree with the chief
lessee, requiring engineering studies in preparation for
remediation actions. Engineering studies have been
completed, reviewed, and approved. However,
subsequently the operation was discontinued, and there
have been insufficient funds to initiate remediation actions
as approved. Owners were also found to be responsible
for certain discharges and the Attorney General's Office
has given the owners a Notice of Violation. Negotiations
are in progress with the owners.
The Ray Mine is also located on Mineral Creek, and has
numerous documented water quality violations below the
mine. The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing an
enforcement order by EPA through its NPDES permit.
Complaints of a green stream in Queen Creek revealed
that a culvert had become plugged, backing water up
behind a railroad embankment that contained copper ore.
Magma Copper quickly resolved this problem upon
notification, investigated further, and corrected similar
situations at other locations along the creek.
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 120
At the McCabe-Gladstone Mine a seeping tailings pond
was discovered to be contaminating groundwater and
surface water with cyanide. A notification of ownership
change stimulated an investigation of the operation
through the Aquifer Protection Permit Program. This
mine is located in the Agua Fria drainage on an unnamed
tributary to Galena Gulch. As a condition of sale to
Magma Gold, in 1992, Magma has completed a
hydrogeologic study below the tailings pond, and is to
remediate the existing water quality problems.
Meanwhile, Magma restarted the mining operations
without using additional cyanide. Enforcement action is
pending, based on remediation actions taken by Magma.
The Vulture Mill site near the Hassayampa River in
Wickenburg was investigated by ADEQ in 1992 and
1993, following the death of one colt. Although toxic
poisoning of the colt could not be proven, surface water
ponding at the site was heavily contaminated with heavy
metals. Subsequently, hogs have been removed from
contact with tailings. Water drainage has been captured
and the animal waste lagoon, which had contained
excessive levels of mercury, lead and other heavy metals,
has dried up. Currently, only low level groundwater
contamination is detected on site. The owner has initiated
arrangements to have the tailings processed if they contain
sufficient amounts of gold.
Investigations in 1990 at Zonia Mine, near the headwaters
to the Hassayampa River, revealed contamination of
surface water with cadmium, copper, manganese,
mercury, zinc, and TDS, and a low pH. EPA issued a
Findings in Violation order against the owner hi 1991.
The owner has leased the mine to Arimetco Mining Co,
which has completed substantial remediation activities to
eliminate leaks at the leach basins. A hydrogeological
study of the area was completed in 1993, which is
currently under review by EPA and ADEQ. Arimetco
plans to restart the mining operations under an Aquifer
Protection Permit. Enforcement action against the owner
has been halted by EPA as remediation actions continue.
Abandoned mines have contaminated groundwater, surface
water and stream sediments at several other sites in this
watershed. For example:
• The abandoned Maricopa Mine along Cave
Creek has discharged ore and tailings into this
ephemeral wash, as evidenced by elevated
chromium and lead in sediment samples.
• Surface water monitoring along Turkey Creek (a
tributary of the Agua Fria River) at Golden Belt
Mine exhibited contamination by arsenic,
cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead and mercury.
• In the Agua Fria River headwaters: copper and
mercury violations occur near Arizona Victory
Mine, copper and zinc violations occur at Walker
Mine, mercury violations occur at Knapp Gulch,
copper violations occur at Transcendent Mine.
• Below the Holiday Girl Mine (Hassayampa River
headwaters) mercury exceeds standards and
dissolved oxygen is below required levels.
• Monitoring below the Senator and Cash mines in
the Hassayampa River Basin indicate violations
of cadmium, copper, zinc, and low pH values.
• Turbidity violations occur below Wagoner Mine.
Prior reports of groundwater and soil contamination with
VOCs at Luke Air Force Base (near the Agua Fria River)
have been extensively investigated. In 1993, a "record of
decision" indicated that all eight soil sites had levels of
contamination above the detection level but below "action
levels" for remediation. The Air Force Base has decided
to bio-remediate one site to eliminate any potential that
contamination could spread onto adjacent private land.
The investigation of groundwater contamination continues,
but preliminary data indicate that contamination may be
below "action levels" for remediation. A record of
decision concerning groundwater contamination is to be
completed in 1996.
Luke Air Force Base has also been in non-compliance
with the NPDES permit for many years. In the summer
of 1994 Luke will complete the construction of a six
million dollar tertiary wastewater treatment plant. Initial
testing indicates mat the effluent will be better than
surface water standards and permit requirements.
There have been documented violations of surface water
quality from National Metals in Phoenix due to
precipitation runoff. The runoff flows to a ditch, which
discharges to the Salt River at about 31st Avenue in
Phoenix. Enforcement and mitigation actions are in
progress.
ADEQ's annual water compliance report has indicated
that several NPDES permits in this basin have chronically
been hi non-compliance (see Appendix C for current
compliance). Toxic monitoring hi the Salt River by the
City of Phoenix (April 1987-1989) indicated several toxics
that exceeded water quality standards. However, since
completion of this monitoring, a progressive pretreatment
program has been established that should mitigate toxic
-------
MIDDLE G1LA RIVER BASIN PACE 121
discharges. Therefore, this monitoring data was not used
in this assessment.
The USDA is coordinating two projects: one in West
Maricopa Hydrologic Unit Area and the other in the Casa
Grande-Coolidge area. The purpose is to evaluate the
impact of agricultural practices on groundwater quality
and to assist local agricultural clientele with
implementation of Best Management Practices to minimize
potential for groundwater degradation. These projects are
a cooperative effort between the Soil Conservation
Service, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, Cooperative Extension Service, Arizona
Department of Water Resources, Natural Resource
Conservation Districts, and local producers.
In the Queen Creek and Eloy areas (New Magma and
Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage Districts), the
Soil Conservation Service is providing accelerated
technical and financial assistance to improve on-farm
chemical handling facilities and irrigation systems which
reduce deep percolation and runoff. The Soil
Conservation Service is cooperating on this project with
Natural Resource Conservation Districts, local Irrigation
and Drainage Districts, and ADWR in implementing land
treatment projects to address water quality and quantity
concerns. A similar land treatment project is in the
planning stage for the Hohokam Irrigation District.
-------
MIDDLE OLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 122
E
a
Sf
o
_«
O
Q,
i
-------
MIDDLE QUA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 123
Table 22. Middle Gila River Basin 1994 Assessment Statistics
STREAMS
Total Miles Assessed (72 reaches)
Full Support
Threatened
Partial Support
Non-support
Top Stressors/Causes
Metals
Salinity /TDS
Turbidity
Suspended solids
Pathogens
Dissolved oxygen
Pesticides
Top Sources
Agricultural activities
Natural
Hydromodification
Major/Minor municipal
Landfills
Urban runoff
Resource extraction
Major/Minor industrial
Stream Miles in Basin
Perennial
Non-perennial
On Indian Lands
Not Indian Lands
1,006
171
189
260
386
(miles impacted)
465
214
212
165
135
126
118
(miles impacted)
430
300
272
237
124
112
92
99
Total: 14,164
206
13,958
911
13,253
LAKES
Total Acres Assessed (7 lakes)
Full Support
Threatened
Partial Support
Non-support
Top Stressors/Causes
Metals
Pesticides
Salinity /TDS
Dissolved oxygen
Other habitat alterations
Top Sources
Agricultural activities
Natural
Hydromodification
Major/Minor industrial ,
Major/Minor municipal
Landfills
Lake Acres in Basin
Perennial
Non-perennial
On Indian Lands
Not Indian Lands
1,841
14
62
1,565
200
(acres impacted)
1,541
200
200
200
200
(acres impacted)
1,740
1,541
255
200
200
200
Total: 63,253
60,203
3,050
725
62,528
Miles and acres have been rounded to nearest whole number.
TDS = total dissolved solids.
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 124
I
i
per
i).
du
B
DEQ Ray Mine Investigation
pper, and rurbidity; partial su
ation 1989,1 sample: partial s
NPDES permils: l)Winkleman
2) Kearny POTW: full support.
c
st
sa
ial
of
A
du
sedi
.a
I
I
S2
W
w
w
w
II]
Ul
e
1
i
o
fi
.S
ill
1 *%
^3 W t^
i«l
8 .£
« kT •*
N ss o
•< O Q
s.s>
n * x
^5£
8 .?
R.i3
S* a
O!
•S
- f
o . <;
o o S
S •* S
111
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE J25
I
03
5
I
I
1
3 -i
.1*
8 s P
s -g i
•» c 9
i §2
II
E =
Ii
30
•
a*
.
W
P
/—* K
M
c
o
1
O . '
N S
I-I
I-'I
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 126
I
on
«
H
JK3WSS3SSVJOSISVI
g|
8
II
WATEX
QUALITY
LIMITED
y
& 1
N
,
g
a 5
£
FWS/ADEQ monitoring water, fish, and sediment 19SO-1%0 reveated fish &
turtle conumination by DDT metabolites and toxapbene in the Gia River
between the Salt River and Painted Rocks Lake (Borrow Pit). DDT
meubotites were also detected in the sediment. ADEQ Ctean Lakes prof ram
sediment borings in 1992 indicated DDT metabolites conlamlnatton at or below
detection limit. Upstream water monitoring revealed impairment (see AZ
15070101-007). Fish ban in place since 1991 ADHS risk assessment due to
DDT metabolites, toxaphene, chlordane, dteldrin, and mercury. The 1993
inundation of Tri-City Landfill with flood waters left debris coaling banks and
filled stream with debris (much debris still present). Evaluation also based on
upstream monitoring at Gillespie Dam (AZ15070101-007).
c
p
"
S
OS
1
T3
.1
o &
1 J
e
ADEQ complaint investigation (WQMS 212.251) 1992, 9 sites water samples
and 1 sediment: non-suppon of A&Ww due to copper and sulfide. ADEQ
investigations of 2 mines (Ray Mine and Gibson Mine) 1990-1992:
non-suppon A&Ww, FBC, AgL due to copper, zinc, and pH (low); threat
suppon of FC due to arsenic and beryllium. ADEQ fixed station 1993. 1 1
samples: non-suppon A&Ww due to copper. EPA sample (Copper Mines
Initiative) on tributary in 1992: panial suppon FC and FBC due to beryllium.
ADEQ priority pollutant monitoring of fish and sediment: arsenic and berylliur
above Health Based Guidance Levels (ADHS. 1992) for human ingestion of
sediment.
c
2
*
S
r-
~* IM
S 2 5
S ° -
|H f
Insufficient data to assess stream. NPDES permit Cyprus/Miami Mine at
Christmas: full compliance.
z
z
P;
JZ
a
S g>5
IAZ 15050100
Dripping Spri
hdwt-Gila Riv
BLM monitoring 1990-93, 3 samples: panial suppon of FBC, A&Ww, Agl,
AgL due to fecal coliform.
1
£
z
u
*>
a.
§
o
IAZISOSOIOO
Mescal Creek
3 NPDES permits. Magma Superior and Superior Sanitary Dist: full
compliance. Queen Valley Sanitary Dist.: non-suppon due to chlorine, fecal
coliform, suspended solids, and settlable solids.
e
Z
to
~
o
* 1
9 U
AZ15050100-
Queen Creek,
hdwi-Witlow
ADEQ investigation 1993, 2 sites: full suppon. 3 NPDES permits: Mining
Camp Restaurant and Roadhaven R.V. Park in full compliance; Williams Air
Force Base on tributary non-suppon due to zinc, mercury and bioassay.
I
^
z
to
?
en
at
2 ^
5 . §
IAZISOSOIOO
Queen Creek
Willow Cany
ADEQ priority pollutant monitoring 1992 fish and sediment: no exceedance o
Health Based Guidance Level (ADHS, 1992) or EPA fish criteria.
(f
Z
«
2
IAZ15050100
Weekes Wast
-------
MIDDLE GZLX RIVER BASIN
1
PAGE 127
'&
I
|
I
O.
3
s
•c
O 00
|
o
I
II]
III
111
ill
lii
§«3|
111
| i |
N I g
< u 5
I
i
I
. i
2 -g
JL
E
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
PACE 128
I
o
o
8
SQ
I
£
il
§
o <
III
ttt Iu
3*!
> 9
tt £
Ui *
io§
"*
1
IWATKKI ODY ID,
LOCATUM*
.
5-S.s
ADEQ priority polluunt monitoring 1993 (fish and sediment): beryllium
Health Based Guidance Level (ADHS, 1992) in sediment. ADEQ comp
investigation 1989: mercury would exceed FC level (not a protected use
drain, but sample Uken as it entered Salt River).
~^
z
w
'en
AZ15060106-001TD
Tempe Drain.
hdwt-Salt River
1
"1
ADEQ fixed sulion 1992-93, 6 samples: full suppon. USFS/ADEQ
cooperative monitoring 1991, 3 samples: full support. ADEQ/Kleinfelde
304(1) invesligalion © Maricopa Mine: sediment conumination by lead
zinc. This conuminalion threatens A&Ww, Agl, AgL uses. Spur Cros<
NPDES permit: full compliance.
I
z
w
o
AZ1S060I06-026
Cave Creek,
hdwt-Arizona Canal
Evaluation based on downstream moniloring (AZ15070102-023).
(2
z
Ul
en
IAZ15070102-032
Agua Fria River,
hdwt-Lynx Creek
.S
•f •*
Evaluation based on upstream and downstream moniloring. NPDES pern
full compliance: Soft Winds Mobile Home Park & Magma Copper McC
Mine.
.S
£
•
z
w
V3
1
AZI 5070102-031
Agua Fria River,
Lynx Creek-Yarber V
Evaluation based on downstream moniloring (AZ15070102-19) and
(AZ15070101-023) and upstream on Lynx Creek (AZ15070102-033).
1
S.
z
w
•fl
%
AZ15070102-029
Agua Fria River,
Yarber Wash-Ash Cn
e
1
Evaluation based on downstream monitoring (AZ 15070 102 -023) and ups
(AZ15070102-033).
1
£
z
01
_,
5
IAZ1S070I02-02S
Agua Fria River,
Ash Creek-Sycamore
j "S
Jf e
< o
BLM monitoring 1993, 1 sample: panial support FBC, A&Ww, DWS,
AgL due to fecal coliform source probably open range grazing. ADEQ
biocrileria site (phys/chem moniloring) 1 sample: full suppon. Evaluat
panial suppon FC due to arsenic based on upstream and downstream
monitoring (lab deteclion levels at these sites 3 times the standard).
3
£
<
z
u
o
u
1
AZIS070102-023
Agua Fria River.
Sycamore Creek-Big
1
4
Evaluation based on upstream monitoring (AZ15070101-023) and in trib
a
£
z
a
-
w
>
IAZ1S070102-022
Agua Fria River.
Big Bug Creek-Squav
Sf
9
S
| .
£
C
i
§
J
1
c
S,
z
2
en
e
o
1 AZI 5070102-020
Agua Fria River,
Squaw Ck.-Black Cai
-------
MIDDLE CILA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 129
1
I
CO
o
1
— e
gus
e pa
l su
Sp
Z
at
|
nitoring
ed tribut
n sulfid
llutant m
BGLs fo
Ev
Ba
a
(AZ1S
veral p
form, t
and co
ecal col
4?
support
I
1
£
u
i
tti
u
to
ta
U3
III
w
&
*> k.- S
3-83
g « .*
l.a w
1£§
3I«
< < 5
o
ao
-------
MIDDLE CJLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 130
«
5
^
3
S
BASIS OF ASSESSMENT
"i
& <
gb
WATER
QUALITY
LIMITED
y
> 2
M £
|*l
g*i
cot): sediment
ceding HBGLs (ADHS,
full support. Prcscott Natl.
pport. ADEQ compltiot
.nic would be high for fish
ance. Only Villages at
ilorinc.
ADEQ priority pollulant monitoring (fish and sedim
conumiiution with arsenic, lead, and beryllium exo
1992). USFS/ADEQ monitoring 1991. 2 samples:
Forest abandoned mine survey 1990. 5 sites: full *u
investigation (water and soil): full compliance (arse
constlmplion). 3 of 4 NPDES permits in full compl
Lynx Creek in non-support A&Ww due to excess c
1
z
w
v»
AZ15070102-033
Lynx Creek,
hdwt-Agua Fria River
i
|
1
o
M
-
a
1
1
|'
z
01
N
IAZ15070102-033OFF
Knapp Gulch,
hdwt-Lynx Creek
990-93: sediments
xceeds ADHS's Health
mples in cistern and below
AgL due to lead and
Magma Copper Co monitoring (Hargis & Assoc) 1
contaminated with chromium, lead and zinc (lead e
Based Guidance Level for consumption). Water sa
tailings ponds indicate non-support of A&Ww and
cyanide.
z
>
s
vO
AZ15070102-031OFF
Galena Gulch,
hdwt-Agua Fria River
1. 1 sample: full suppon. 1
port FBC due to fecal
ADEQ biocriteria site (phys/chem monitoring) 199"
BLM monitoring 1993. 1 sample 1993: partial sup
coliform believed caused by open range grazing.
£
z
01
*
IAZ15070102-028
Ash Creek,
hdwt-Yellow Jacket
M
g
Xl
ADEQ biocriteria site (phys/chem monitoring) 199
support A&Ww due to low dissolved oxygen.
1
£
z
01
—
IAZ15070102-026OFF
Uttle Ash Creek.
hdwt-Ash Creek
IA
«
M
ADEQ biocriteria site (phys/chem monitoring) 199
suppon.
1
z
01
—
IAZ15070102-024
Sycamore Creek,
hdwt-Agua Fria River
?BC due to fecal coliform |
BLM monitoring 1993, 1 sample: partial suppon
(probable source: open range grazing).
I
Z
Ui
"
IAZ15070102-022OFF
Lousy Canyon,
hdwt-Agua Fria
Z
1
o
I
I
2
'c
1
i
Z
01
2
IAZ15070102-0220FF
Silver Creek,
hdwt-Agua Fria
A&Ww, FBC, Agl. AgL
open range grazing). I]
BLM monitoring 1993, 2 samples: partial support
and DWS due to fecal coliform (probable source:
I
Z
01
rj
IAZ15070102-022OFF
Indian Creek.
hdwt-Agua Fria
i
w>
a
e
ADEQ station BCCi 1993, 2 samples: full suppo
sample (bacteria only): no exceedance.
1 :
z
01
"
AZ15070102-035
Black Canyon Ck..
hdwt-Aqua Fria River
-------
MIDDLE CILA RIVER BASIN PAGE Ut
l
1
• s
1
ri
1
t
1
BASIS OF ASSES
fe
'I
8
N
ill
*sa
|J
H
DYID.NAME,
ATTON
1
e
I
u
•a.
M monitoring 1993,
S
_
£
z
u
<*i
,
ill
1
s
1993. 2 samp
a use here).
r3 Ci
tigation (WQMS 212.
L due to arsenic (FC
>EQ complaint inves
jpon of PBC and Ag
3 8
•|
I
z
„
«n
111
IAZ15070102-0:
Rock Springs C
hdwi-Black Can
12 g
Is!
— ft *-*
S f s
t^-ia-
- I1
I" If
phys/chem monilorini
ve monitoring 1991.
Prescott Nad Forest:
ontinued violations dl
>EQ biocriteria site (
iFS/ADEQ cooperati
own King facility in
cility closed due to c
ow to
i
£
z
u
00
AZ15070102-03
Poland Creek,
hdwt-Black Can
e
\L
o * 2
* 'H •!
onitoring 3 site
Ww due to am
' FBC due to at
tupport.
e «s o "
s < s 1
t/Labat-Anderson 195
FBC. Agl. AgL. and
nd zinc; partial suppo
g 1991. 3 samples:
sscott National Fores
nples): non-support
jper. cyanide, lead a
FS/ADEQ monitorin
£ a f 3
g
z
>_
u
CO
* 1
AZ15070102-03
Turkey Creek.
hdwt-Poland Cr
M H
ADEQ biocrile
it FC due to an
e |
It
If
M monitoring 1993.
lys/chem monitoring
££
a.
z
-
oo
1
AZ15070102-01
Tute Creek.
hdwt-Agua Fria
g
£
9
M monitoring 1993.
^
_
*
Z
U
M
i .
N To
AZ150701Q2-04
Ad Wish.
hdwt-Castte Cre
1
O*
3
z
*
to assess. USBR Ns
1 enough information
compliance.
11
^
Z
S
» 1
ill
i
3
b
•s
ials investigation in 1
cadmium and lead.
IEQ hazardous mater
contamination widi
**
1
Z
.
M
i
« 3
AZ15070102-00
New River.
Skunk Wash-Act
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
PAGE 132
£
s
22
§ 2"
•So
P
fl
"5.Q
Ul
= 9-
\*\
> < <
•i u
M-
-------
MIDDLE GILA RIVER BASIN
1
PAGE 133
'i
CO
JS
5
u
1
1
cs
u
-------
MIDDLE GJLA RIVER BASIN
FACE 134
3
ii
si
?
11
lit
•3 .a
lit
8
a "^ V ^
III
Iff!
a.» S
'•a S •§
3 * a 2
I
-------
1
Appendix F
305(b) Reporting for Indian Tribes
-------
-------
1
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
APPENDIX F
305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
EPA encourages Tribes and Tribal groups with monitoring and assessment
programs to submit 305(b) reports. Benefits of participating in the 305(b)
process include
• The Tribe assesses its monitoring data in a way that is meaningful to
decisionmakers.
• The 305(b) report is a public information tool documenting Tribal actions
to protect waterbodies.
• The report calls national attention to special issues such as fish tissue
contamination from toxic chemicals and ground water contamination.
• The process offers an opportunity for Tribal and State technical staff
to coordinate assessments.
• The 305(b) report is a good vehicle for recommending actions to EPA to
achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act and protect Tribal
waterbodies.
This appendix describes a level of reporting that may be appropriate for a
Tribe's first-time 305(b) report. For details about the various topics, see the
main body of this Guidelines document. In addition, EPA has prepared a
booklet about Tribal 305(b) reporting - Knowing Our Waters: Tribal
Reporting Under Section 305(b) (EPA, 1995). The booklet is available from
the EPA Regional 305(b) Coordinators listed inside the front cover of these
Guidelines.
If all topics cannot be covered in a Tribal 305(b) report, EPA encourages
Tribes to present available information in whatever form is appropriate —
tabular, narrative, or graphical (map) format. EPA also encourages Tribes to
coordinate with State and Federal water quality agencies including the EPA
Regions on topics such as assessment methods, data sharing, and common
boundary waters. Each State and EPA Region has a 305(b) Coordinator.
State, Territory, and Tribal 305(b) Coordinators are listed inside the back
cover of these Guidelines.
F-1
-------
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
It may be mutually beneficial for Tribes and States to collaborate on
assessments and reporting. For example, common assessments would be
appropriate for shared water resources. Opportunities for collaboration
would need to be evaluated by each Tribe on a case-by-case basis.
Following are the major sections and contents of a Tribal 305(b) report. If the
terms are not familiar to you, please refer to Sections 3 through 5 of the
main body of these Guidelines and to Knowing Our Waters: Tribal Reporting
under Section 305(b) (EPA, 1995).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/OVERVIEW
Provide a brief narrative overview of surface and ground water quality on
Tribal lands, including:
• Summary of degree of designated use support
• Causes (pollutants/stressors) and sources of water quality impairments
• Programs to correct impairments
• Monitoring programs, issues of special concern, and Tribal initiatives
• A map showing reservation boundaries, waterbodies, monitoring sites
BACKGROUND
Complete as much of the Atlas table (Table F-1) as possible.
SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENT
Surface Water Monitoring Program
• Brief description of the program including:
- Monitoring design used by the Tribe (e.g., fixed stations; toxics
monitoring; biological monitoring)
- Parameters (e.g., pollutants) and sampling frequency for each type of
monitoring
- References for written protocols (field, lab, assessment)
- Description of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program
- Data management
- Changes in program since last assessment
- Reporting other than 305(b)
F-2
-------
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
- Cooperative efforts with State and Federal agencies
- Training received and given
- Volunteer monitoring
Assessment Methodology and Water Quality^ Standards
• Description of methods to assess water quality data for use support (fully,
partially, not supporting); use of a detailed flow chart is encouraged. See
Sections 3 - 5 of these Guidelines for recommended approaches.
• Description of water quality standards used for assessments* including
Tribal standards
Water Quality Assessment Summary
9
• For streams and rivers, complete Tables F-2, F-3, and F-4 for all
appropriate designated uses, causes, and sources of impairment. If
mileage cannot be quantified, describe causes and sources in narrative
form. (See Knowing Our Waters for examples; see Section 3 of these
Guidelines for details).
• For lakes, prepare tables similar to Tables F-2, F-3, and F-4 for all
appropriate designated uses, causes, and sources of impairment. Use
units of acres; if acreage cannot be quantified, describe causes and
sources in narrative form.
• Provide map/maps color coded or shaded to show degree of use support
(full, partial, threatened, not supporting) for waterbodies on Tribal lands.
Show designated uses of importance to the Tribe for which data are
available (e.g., aquatic life, fish consumption, swimming)
• For other waterbody types such as estuaries or coastlines for which
assessments are available, report in narrative form or in tables similar to
Tables F-2, F-3, or F-4.
• If information is available on wetlands (extent, degree of use support, or
impairment), report using tables from Section 7 (Part III Chapter 6) of the
Guidelines or in narrative form; report on any wetland protection activities
in narrative form
F-3
-------
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Public Health/Aquatic Life Concerns
To the extent possible, provide information on the public health and aquatic
life impacts of toxicants and non-toxic contamination including:
• Significant impairments from point and nonpoint sources
• Areas of special concern due to toxics in fish tissue
• Pollution-caused fish kills/abnormalities
• Sites of known sediment contamination
• Restrictions on surface drinking water supplies
• Incidents of waterborne disease during this reporting cycle
• Other aquatic life impacts of pollutants and stressors (e.g., reproductive
interference, threatened or endangered species impacts)
Tribes may present this information in narrative or tabular form (see
Section 7, Part Ill/Chapter 7). Tribes are encouraged to discuss the nature
and limits of the monitoring effort from which these data were derived, and
to place these impacts in perspective as compared to other water quality
problems.
Water Quality Inventory
Either in this section or in an appendix, provide a listing or inventory of Tribal
waterbodies, including waterbody name, identification number, size, degree
of use support, causes, sources, and needed control measures. Table F-5
shows the requested information with examples of waterbody-specific data.
Tribes may use EPA's PC Waterbody System (WBS) to track this information
and other data for management purposes. Contacts for WBS are the EPA
Regional 305{b) Coordinators and John Clifford, EPA National Waterbody
System Coordinator, (202) 260-3667.
GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
Provide narrative or tabular description of ground water aquifers under Tribal
lands, including:
• Major uses of ground water from each aquifer (e.g., Tribal- or State-
designated uses, if any)
• Numeric ground water standards, if any
F-4
-------
1
APPENDIX F: 305{b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
• Population using the aquifer
• Summary results of ground water monitoring, by parameter
Tribes should also describe the type and extent of ground water monitoring
on tribal lands, including maps if possible. Section 8 of these Guidelines
describes recommended indicators for different types of ground water
monitoring.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
Provide a narrative overview of point and nonpoint source control programs
in whatever level of detail the Tribe chooses. If this information is supplied
to EPA elsewhere, briefly summarize those documents. Also, discuss special
Tribal concerns and any strategies planned or implemented for addressing
these concerns. Give site-specific examples where possible. Finally, provide
recommendations to EPA regarding additional actions needed to achieve the
objectives of the Clean Water Act and protect tribal waterbodies. Examples
include additional monitoring, training in assessment or data management,
and improved methods for fish consumption advisories.
F-5
-------
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Table F-1. Atlas of Tribal Resources (complete to the extent possible)
Topic
Surface area of Tribal lands3
Tribal population residing on these lands
Total miles of rivers and streams on Tribal lands
- Miles of perennial rivers/streams (subset)
- Miles of intermittent (non-perennial) streams (subset)
- Miles of ditches and canals (subset)
- Border miles of shared rivers/streams (subset)
Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds on Tribal landsb
Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds on Tribal landsb
Acres of freshwater wetlands on Tribal lands
Acres of tidal wetlands on Tribal lands
Square miles of estuaries/harbors/bays
Miles of ocean coast
Miles of Great Lakes shore
Value
* Please define the boundaries of the land and waters under Tribal jurisdiction and
included in this report; use a map and/or text descriptions.
b Impoundments should be classified according to their hydrologic behavior,
either as stream channel miles under rivers, or as total surface acreage under
lakes/ponds, but not under both categories. In general, impoundments should
be reported as lakes/reservoirs/ ponds unless they are run-of-river
impoundments with very short retention times
F-6
-------
1
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Table F-2. Individual Use Support Summary8
Type of Waterbody: Rivers and Streams"
Use
Fish
Consumption
Shellfishing
Aquatic Life
Support
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
Drinking Water
Supply
Cultural/Cere-
monial Uses
Agriculture
Tribe Defined:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Size
Supporting
Size
Supporting
but Threat-
ened5
'•
Size
Partially
Supporting
Size
Not
Supporting
Size
Not
Attainable
Size
Un-
assessed
*
a Prepare one table for rivers and streams, a separate table for lakes, and others for estuaries,
coastline and wetlands, as appropriate.
b Reported in miles; in the other tables use acres for lakes, square miles for estuaries, miles for
coastal waters, and acres for wetlands.
0 Size threatened is a distinct category of waters and is not a subset of the size fully supporting
uses. See Section 3.2.
Note: Tribe defined codes should be established for any important uses that are not included
above. Examples of such uses could include Outstanding Resource Waters, Aesthetics, and
Industry. To the extent possible, attempt to group waters into the eight general categories
of use. Where waterbodies have multiple uses, the appropriate waterbody length/area
should be entered in each applicable category.
F-7
-------
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Table F-3. Total Sizes of Impaired Waters, by Cause Category3
Type of waterbody: Rivers and Streams3
Cause Category
Cause unknown
Unknown toxicity
Pesticides
Priority organics
Nonpriority organics
Metals
Ammonia
Chlorine
Other inorganics
Nutrients
PH
Siltation
Organic enrichment/low DO
Salinity /TDS/chlorides
Thermal modifications
Flow alterations
Other habitat alterations
Pathogen indicators
Radiation
Oil and grease
Taste and odor
Suspended solids
Noxious aquatic plants
Filling and draining
Total toxics
Turbidity
Filling and draining
Exotic species
Other (specify)
Size of Waters Impaired13
* Prepare one table for rivers and streams, a separate table for lakes, and others
for estuaries, coastlines, and wetlands as appropriate.
""Reported in miles for rivers and streams. When preparing similar tables for other
waterbody types, use the following units: lakes, acres; estuaries, square miles;
coastal waters and Great Lakes, shore miles; wetlands, acres.
F-8
-------
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Table F-4. Total Sizes of Impaired Waters Affected by Various Source Categories3
Type of Waterbody: (Rivers and Streams)
Source Category
Point Sources
Industrial Point Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Agricultural Point Sources (e.g., feedlots)
Combined Sewer Overflows
Nonpoint Sources
Agriculture
Silviculture
Construction
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Resource Extraction
Land Disposal
Hydromodification/Habitat Modification
Contaminated Sediments c
Atmospheric Deposition
Unknown Source
Natural Sources'1
Other (specify) 8
Size of Waters Impaired b
a Prepare one table for rivers and streams, a separate table for lakes, and others for
estuaries, coastlines, and wetlands as appropriate.
b Reported in miles for rivers and streams. When preparing this table for other
waterbody types, use the following units: lakes, acres; estuaries, square miles;
coastal waters and Great Lakes, shore miles; wetlands, acres.
c Bottom sediments contaminated with toxic or nontoxic pollutants; incJudes historical
contamination from sources that are no longer actively discharging. Examples of
contaminants are PCBs, metals, nutrients (common in lakes with phosphorus recycling
problems), sludge deposits.
d Sources not due to human influence; e.g., naturally-occurring low flow or drought,
natural deposits resulting in high metals or salinity. See Section 3 of Guidelines.
6 List additional sources known to cause impairment.
Note: See Sections 3 and 7 of the full 305(b) Guidelines for more information.
F-9
-------
APPENDIX F: 305(b) REPORTING FOR INDIAN TRIBES
1
ffl
BJ
MfB'E
i«i
l-tf
l
Njjl
i I "C~!
»M8
Q IK ;;j
^ Itfei?
C |ti|t>t«,
C IjBfi*1 *
tfl ll »,!»'! -'»»"£
1 1 ll
d 1 1 i=
4-3
.§u>
0 g
to _
> CO
> JQ
*O f-
(/>
* i
"O
^
f W
w
in
uL
CO
'• 1 s
l2S
•
IQ
- -.. -
i§
•*5 1
«3?
ii
1
1 J? '
zf §
Fixed-station
chemical
monitoring
• 0.
0 -f t
< I 5
^^1
sll
11
z z
•S *^
ll
1
(O
1
o
S
(D «.
0 5
w 1
8
jr
_v
o
I
Creel survey;
drinking water
data
t: t:
ao
0.
(O CO
11
O Q?
51
tQ (AC
§••§
< a
o
ra
0
e
o
in
o
J2
1
C
UJ
1
t:
Q>
J2
n
_J
V>
%
O
•= 1 f i -o
E01 o "a e J
o ro t .2
(U
a> 3
| 8
'*3 "°
il
U. T3
CO
(D ro O
5~ ^ 5?
«^ CO
tn
(D
IE o.
It
03 Q.
a 3
||
d
—
s
m
'Co
CO •»
•Q CO
s 1 1
« i? S
^m °>
£-S^
3 CD D.
g S E
m
* 0
-° 2
tj i ±
111
Ii
E ,2
CO C
11
w 173
o 3
Z u.
•**. O)
^ 'E
I E
^1
1
tn
1
in
o
If
<55§
8
i-
fl
o. 2
(/} CO
•
CO
-g
CO
D
"w
CO
,0
CO
.£
'E
CO
CO *
3
S
O?
^
CO
£
w
(D
§
Q?
.1
WJ ., V
CD ?=
H
ii
if
ro o
Q) ^
W QJ
60 5°
fc 5
-> £
'*- w
£ i
LO II
CO "
It
Q) <£
w <
o >
M
F-10
-------
1
Appendix G
Definitions of Selected Source
Categories
-------
-------
Selected Definitions of Source Categories
The following is a selection of Source Category definitions (from the list presented in Table 1-3
of the Guidelines Supplement).
0212, 0222 Dry Weather Discharges (Municipal Point Sources): All municipal point source
discharges except wet weather discharges.
0214,0224 Wet Weather Discharges (Municipal Point Sources): Municipal point source
discharges that occur during wet weather, caused by infiltration and inflow, operation and
maintenance problems, etc.
0500 Collection System Failure: Overflow from non-combined sewer systems, caused by
infrastructure problems, heavy loads during wet weather, etc.
1050 Crop-related Sources* (Agriculture): Land used for the production of adapted crops for
harvest, including row crops, small-grain crops, hay crops, nursery crops, orchard crops, and
other specialty crops. The land may be used continuously for these crops or they may be grown
in rotation with grasses and legumes.
1350 Grazing-related Sources (Agriculture):
1400 Pasture Grazing*: Land used primarily for production of introduced or native
forage plants for livestock grazing. Management usually consists of cultural treatments
— fertilization, weed control, reseeding, or renovation — and control of grazing.
1500 Range Grazing*: Land on which the climax or potential plant cover is composed
principally of native grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing and
browsing, and introduced forage species that are managed like rangeland. This would
include areas where introduced hardy and persistent grasses such as crested wheat grass
are planted and practices such as deferred grazing, burning, chaining, and rotational
grazing are used with little or no chemicals or fertilizers being applied.
1600 Intensive Animal Feeding Operations (Agriculture):
1620 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs; permitted point source): A
lot, yard, corral, building, or other area in which animals are confined, fed, and
maintained for some duration throughout the year where discharges are regulated through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
1640 Confined Animal Feeding Operations (nonpoint source): A lot, yard, corral,
building, or other area in which animals are confined, fed, and maintained for some
duration throughout the year that is considered a nondischarge system according to the
Clean Water Act.
5900 Abandoned Mining (Resource Extraction): Abandoned mining sites that persist as
sources of pollution, where the mines are no longer in use and no responsible party has been
identified.
-------
5950 Inactive Mining (Resource Extraction): Inactive mining sites that persist as a source of
pollution, where a responsible party has been identified.
6350 Inappropriate Waste Disposal/Wildcat Dumping (Land Disposal): Dumping or other
disposal of liquid or solid waste that runs off into waters.
7000 Hydromodification: Alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of coastal and noncoastal
waters, which in turn could cause degradation of water resources.
7550 Habitat Modification (other than Hydromodification): Changes in a habitat that make it
less suitable for the organisms inhabiting it, create conditions favorable to invasion by species
not present prior to the changes, or limits its ecosystem function.
8050 Erosion from Derelict Land: Erosion from land formerly used for another purpose, such
as cropland, pastureland, rangeland, etc.
8520 Debris and Bottom Deposits: Bottom debris deposited in waters by unknown parties (i.e.,
construction debris, car bodies, mattresses, grocery carts, etc.)
8530 Internal Nutrient Cycling (Primarily Lakes): The process by which historically
deposited nutrients are released into surface waters, causing periodic algal blooms or other water
quality impairment. The source of the nutrients has not been identified or no longer exists.
8540 Sediment Resuspension: The process by which historically deposited sediments
periodically re-enter the water column.
8600 Natural Sources: Those sources of pollution not due to past or present human activity.
Such sources include: natural mineral salt deposits; naturally occurring metal deposits; naturally
occurring poor aeration or natural organic materials; glacial till or glacial flour; catastrophic
floods that are excluded from water quality standards or other regulations; and catastrophic
droughts with flows less than design flows in water quality standards. The natural sources
category does not include, for example, water diversions; drainage from abandoned mines;
stormwater runoff; and other impacts where human-induced conditions are a factor.
9050 Sources Outside State Jurisdiction or Borders: Sources of pollution originating across
State lines or outside of a State's jurisdiction (i.e., BLM lands, USDA National Forests, Native
American reservations, etc.).
* Definitions adapted from the Instructions for Collecting 1992 Natural Resources Inventory
Sample Data
-------
1
Appendix H
Data Sources for 305(b) Assessments
-------
-------
APPENDIX H: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
APPENDIX H
DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
The main purpose of this appendix is to identify data sources that may be
useful for assessing use support in State waterbodies, including sources that
may not be commonly used by State water quality agencies.
The sources discussed below are Federal and nongovernmental data sources;
States will find additional data available from such State agencies as fish and
wildlife agencies, State planning offices, departments of health, and others.
H.1 EPA Databases
Table H-1 lists EPA databases that may prove useful for assessing use
support in State waterbodies. Each of these systems can be accessed
through EPA's National Computer Center mainframe computer. The national
data systems in Table H-1 vary in data completeness and data quality; such
characteristics should be evaluated for a given State before a system is used
for assessing use support. The most complete and reliable national data
systems tend to be those in which the State regularly updates information
(e.g., STORET, the WBS, and the Permit Compliance System (PCS) in many
States), and for which rigorous quality assurance features have been
incorporated (e.g., the Reach File and ODES). Most of the information in
Table H-1 is taken from the Office of Water Environmental and Program
Information Compendium FY92, EPA 800-B92-001.
EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division is distributing WBS96
shortly after distribution of these Guidelines. EPA specifically designed the
WBS to store use support assessments for individual waterbodies and
generate summary information requested in this guidance. The WBS differs
from other databases in that the WBS does not contain raw data. Instead,
the WBS contains use support assessment information resulting from
analysis of the raw monitoring data from the States.
H.2 Other Data Sources
Table H-2 lists sources of information available from agencies and
organizations other than EPA. Many of these sources are readily available
but may not be used by State water quality programs. Many State water
H-1
-------
APPENDIX H: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
quality agencies rely on a combination of EPA data systems and their own
systems for acquiring water quality data. Reliable data on rural sources are
especially difficult to obtain in many States. The best information often
comes from State departments of agriculture, which compile county
statistics annually and make them available relatively quickly (e.g., data on
crop and livestock production). Data on crop cover, agricultural BMPs, and
animal units are typically available only as county summaries, although hard
copy files and maps showing exact locations may be available at the Soil and
Water Conservation District level.
Databases maintained by the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) may be of
special interest to State water quality agencies; several are listed in
Table H-2. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Division
coordinates USGS databases through its National Water Data Exchange
(NAWDEX) Program Office. For more information, States may contact the
local NAWDEX Assistance Center in their USGS Water Resources District
Office, or call the national NAWDEX Program Office at (703) 648-5684.
The DOI's Fish and Wildlife Service has many relevant monitoring and
assessment programs including the National Wetlands Inventory and the
National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program. Table H-2 gives brief
descriptions and contacts for these and other programs.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through its National
Status and Trends Program, assesses the levels of 70 organic chemicals and
trace elements in bottom-dwelling fish, sediments and mollusks at more than
300 sites throughout the United States. Table H-2 presents some major
components of the Program and contacts.
H-2
-------
1
APPENDIX H: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table H-1. EPA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
Waterbody
System (WBS)
EPA, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds
(OWOW)
Reach File
EPA, OWOW
STORET Water
Quality File
EPA, OWOW
STORET Biological
System (BIOS)
EPA, OWOW
Ocean Data
Evaluation System
(ODES)
EPA, OWOW
North American
Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories
EPA, Office of
Science and
Technology (OST)
Index of
Watershed
Indicators
EPA, OWOW
Description
Database of
assessment
information drawn
from CWA 305 (b)
activities
Hydrologic
georeferencing and
routing system based
on USGS digital line
graph traces
Data analysis tool for
chemical monitoring
data from surface and
groundwater sites.
Also capabilities to
store sediment and
fish tissue data
A special component
of STORET for storing
information on
biological
assessments
Database and analysis
system for marine and
near coastal
monitoring
information
National database of
fish/wildlife
consumption
advisories and bans
from States
Web site describing
water quality in the
US and progress
toward national goals
and objectives
Primary Function
Provides waterbody-
specific information on
pollution causes and
sources, use
impairments, and status
of TMDL development
Integrates many
databases having
locational information on
water quality conditions
or pollutant causes ,
Major source of raw
ambient data for water
quality assessments
i
Simplifies storage and
analysis of biological
data or metrics, with
links to other EPA data
files
Permit tracking system
for NPDES discharges to
oceans and estuaries
and ocean dumping
programs
Identifies waterbodies,
species affected by
advisories and bans and
the problem pollutants
Public access to the 1 8
national water quality
indicators
Contact
Barry Burgan,
OWOW
(202) 260-7060
Tommy Dewald,
OWOW
(202) 260-2488
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Jeffrey Bigler,
OST
(202) 260-1305
Sarah Lehmann,
OWOW
(202) 260-7021
http://www.epa.
gov/surf
H-3
-------
APPENDIX H: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table H-1. EPA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
Surf Your
Watershed
EPA, OWOW
Permit Compliance
System (PCS)
EPA, Office of
Wastewater
Management
(OWM)
Industrial Facilities
Discharge File
(IFD)
EPA, Office of
Water
Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory
System (TRIS)
EPA, Office of
Prevention,
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Drinking Water
Supply File
EPA, OWOW
Safe Drinking
Water Information
System (SDWIS)
EPA, Office of
Ground Water and
Drinking Water
(OGWDW)
Gage File
EPA, OWOW
Description
Web site of
watershed-level water
quality information
Locations and
discharge
characteristics for
thousands of major
and minor NPDES
facilities
Information for about
1 20,000 NPDES
dischargers; also
Superfund sites
Database of
estimated and
measured releases by
industries of about
300 toxic chemicals
to all environmental
media
Information on public
and community
surface water
supplies
Information about
public supplies
Information on some
36,000 stream gage
locations
Primary Function
Public access to data for
various water quality
indicators
Compliance status
tracking system for
major dischargers
Locations, flows and
receiving waterbodies,
for industrial discharges
and POTWs
Inventory of toxic
chemical releases with
references to receiving
waters and methods of
waste treatment
Data on waterbody,
flow, and locations of
mainly surface water
intakes
Detailed data on
compliance with Safe
Drinking Water Act
requirements including
monitoring
Summaries of mean
annual and critical low
flows and other data
collected. Sites indexed
to Reach File
Contact
Sarah Lehmann,
OWOW
(202) 260-7021
http://www.epa.
gov/surf
Carol Galloway
OWM
(202) 564-2375
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Janette Petersen,
OPTS
(202) 260-1558
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Abe Siegel,
OGWDW
(202) 260-2804
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
H-4
-------
APPENDIX H: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table H-1. EPA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
City and County
Files
EPA, OWOW
Dam File
EPA, OWOW
Description
Location information
and census data for
53,000 municipalities
and all counties
Information on
locations of 68,000
dam sites and
associated reservoirs
Primary Function
Background data with
lists of streams for each
city, census population,
county land/water area
(coastal counties)
Information on
ownership, uses of
reservoir, size, and
stream reach
Contact
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
H-5
-------
APPENDIX H: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table H-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Water Data
Storage and
Retrieval System
(WATSTORE)
DOI, USGS, Water
Resources Division
National Wetlands
Inventory,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
National Irrigation
Water Quality
Program, DOI, Fish
and Wildlife
Service
Biornonitoring of
Environmental
Status and Trends
(BEST) Program,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
National Shellfish
Register,
NOAA,
Strategic
Environmental
Assessment
Division
Description
Database of water
quality data collected
at thousands of peak
flow and daily flow
data stations.
Computerized
mapping scheme for
entire United States.
Physical, chemical
and biological data
collected at about
200 areas consisting
of about 600
projects.
Data collection to
address effects on
migratory birds,
endangered species,
anadromous fish,
certain marine
mammals, and
habitats.
Tracks status of
shellfish harvesting
areas by State at 5-
year intervals (most
recent data is from
1995).
Primary Functions
Store data collected by
USGS, as well as
cooperating agencies in
DOI and the Corps of
Engineers; good source of
ground water data.
Shows locations of
vegetative community
types using a FWS
classification scheme.
To identify and address
irrigation-induced
contamination on DOI
irrigation and drainage
facilities, National Wildlife
Refuges, and other
wildlife management
areas.
Monitor and assess
environmental
contamination effects to
fish and wildlife and their
habitats, on and off
National Wildlife Refuges.
Detect trends in shellfish
growing waters and the
abundance of shellfish
resources.
Contacts
Dr. James S.
Burton, Chief
USGS, Water
Resources
Division,
NAWDEX
Program Office
(703) 648-5684
David Dall,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(703) 358-2201
Tim Hall,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service,
Division of
Environmental
Contaminants
(703) 358-2148
Tim Hall,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service,
Division of
Environmental
Contaminants
(703) 358-2148
Dan Farrow,
NOAA, National
Ocean Service
(301) 713-3000,
ext.156
H-6
-------
APPENDIX H: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table H-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Multi-State Fish
and Wildlife
Information
Systems Project,
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
American Rivers
Outstanding Rivers
List
Recreation
Information
Management
System,
USDA, Forest
Service
Biological and
Conservation Data
System,
The Nature
Conservancy
National Water
Quality
Technology
Development Staff
(NWQTDS),
USDA
Description
Database of life
history, habitat
needs, and
environmental
tolerances for inland
and marine fish and
wildlife.
Database on 15,000
river segments
possessing
outstanding scenic,
recreational and
ecological attributes.
Database of
recreational facilities
and areas in National
Forest System.
Listing by States of
rare species and key
habitat areas.
Four regional centers
provide database,
modeling, and GIS
technology assistance
to promote the
President's Water
Quality Initiative, the
Farm Bill, and other
programs.
Primary Functions
Central database to
facilitate review of
permits, regulatory
requirements, and
ecological preservation or
restoration programs.
Assembles information
from National Park
Service river surveys,
Northwest Power
Planning Council's
Protected Areas Program,
Nature Conservancy
Priority Aquatic Sites and
other major sources.
Contains data on types of
recreation, visitor days,
and participation by
activity.
For identifying waters
important for rare plant
and animal species
protection.
Will provide convenient
access to soil survey data
and a variety of models
(e.g., AGNPS) for use
with GIS systems to
support USDA HUA
projects and similar
initiatives.
Contacts
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(703) 358-1718
Carrie Collins,
American Rivers
(202) 547-6900
ext. 3013
USDA, Forest
Service
(2O2) 205-1706
Shara Howie,
The Nature
Conservancy
(703) 841-4886
Jackie Diggs
USDA, Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(202) 720-0136
H-7
-------
APPENDIX H; DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table H-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Benthic
Surveillance
Project, National
Status and Trends
Program,
Department of
Commerce, NOAA
Mussel Watch
Project, National
Status and Trends
Program, NOAA
Coastal
Contamination
Assessments,
National Status
and Trends
Program, NOAA
National Estuarine
Inventory and
Strategic
Assessment
Program
Description
Sampling at 79
estuarine sites for
PCBs, PAHs,
chlorinated pesticides,
butyltins, sewage
tracers, and trace
elements.
Mussels and oysters
collected annually at
about 240 sites and
analyzed for same
parameters as the
Benthic Surveillance
Project.
Quick-reference
reports for Long
Island Sound, Gulf of
Maine, Hudson-
Raritan area,
Narragansett Bay, and
Buzzards Bay done or
underway.
Source of
demographic,
economic, and natural
resource information
for 102 Estuarine
Drainage Areas
Primary Functions
Determine concentrations
of toxic chemicals in
sediments and bottom-
dwelling fish.
To determine
concentrations of toxic
chemicals in mussels and
similar bivalve mollusks
as "sentinel organisms" in
environmental monitoring.
To identify potential
toxicant problems and
compare local levels of
contamination with
national-scale results.
Provide data to support
NOAA initiatives related
to the Sea Grant and
Coastal Zone
Management Programs.
Contacts
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3028
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3028
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3028
John Klein
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3000
ext. 160
H-8
-------
Appendix I
305(b) Monitoring and Assessment
Design Focus Group Handouts
Section 1. Selected Features of Monitoring Designs
Section 2. Types of Questions That Different
Monitoring Designs Can Address
Section 3. Selected Definitions
Section 4. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Regarding Probability Design
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
Section 1.
Selected Features of Monitoring Designs
1-1
-------
Comion of Sample
Survey and Targeted
na
oring Design
or Targeted
Convention
o
o.
ex
ca
V)
ental Design
S
IM/
k
d
m
*J
en
—
g-8
o |
a
lit I
g 1
00
-------
1
.£f
jjk
W>
.S
JIM
•S
a
o
g
'o
8
u
>>
tf9 8
8 55
ill =
Xi 8
£ «
g- S
U
tj 09
•^ S S I§ S^M "SS'^'SS OT
lit Islll H&tsgl
al-f . § i-a « s o-g Its s^^
i|t! iifft
!«I| S: i.!|H|
So ° a & §3-t3S,3
OT
op
"S ^
II
^^ \^^
CO
||||
1|||
1 3 ts c
s S |*§
6 111
^3 o
•§ s
O, en
1 1
"^ O
O s«
cQ cd •
O F^3
P" 2? 1
w.f S
*"Q rt ^^
w 53 o
3> ji "S
Sf &
on £ 5
>."c3
^ '-g
.a a
^3 09
'•c S
S o
tn ^J
« i
i i
-5 •§
S3 « 09-
>. T3 'O
III
Will not identify new
problem sites unless they
happen to be selected
randomly.
09
o
Q 1
-------
I
Q
S
I
ti
s
Ci
on of Sample
nd Targeted
mbinati
o
S
C
§
I
o
I
5
o
c
.2
1
3
I
3
OT
o
"Ei
1
a
DO
gmenta
ign
Probability-Based
a.
O
^
ft
•— ^" e -S
fill
gi.g
|!i
8«S
•« .Si, o
.
0-
ui ll
o S o -S
ll^
Q .9
g
§
«« „ £
§9 § §
§ 1 £g
•a § o <»
« 8 t- d
ca to g>R3 S
s a '111
111 11
•2-3 wf W 2=
sll^J
i
is if
-------
1
a
•3?
O
w>
gj
'a
1
d-i
O
O.
H
1
E-|
S
0)
f3
•0 i*
S 3
O r/5
U
I
So
C3
H
o
"3
a
1
a
o
£
a
cc
O)
0,
S
£
u
g>
i
o
1
i
en
1-9
53
61)
S
Probability-Based D
4)
*3a e
S v
4) ^
ll
CU [«
a^
'
-'
O f I i
1 1 ^1 • "le-l ' 'g'tl ll
i! lit ifii fii fljii
CO
0> CO
SP 1
| "
Jig-
Ill
-------
(U
"S.'g
g "g
2 if
a is
il
•I t
1 a
•8
I
o
•a
•s
I
a
6
o
s.
I
CO
"5.
S
g
1
B
^ s.
*Q O
co o,cT S
co
« - i
1 "& §
8 S1 &
a.ai s
l|sts|
lisil
o
S
I
s o
eo fe
M 2
< S
fit
8.
« §)
»
Ifif
Pit
O w J3 3
ea
U)
1 - -
? S -g
•js iS S^
tSJ S *o
tw S fl
W ,0 3
vo
-------
s
s
o
o
W
§
o
-------
APPENDIX I
Section 2.
Types of Questions that Different Monitoring
Designs Can Address
1-8
-------
SS
&•
1/3
"ft
C3
S
M
"S
g
S
%
u
I
I
wa
§
1
&
I
X!
X
s
X
S-
~
CL|
S
00
W
•a
-------
§
A
O
i
Q
fa
O
M
fe
ITJ
r«
*
it
I
•-< ^ 13
0 J5> H
•111!
.a .a s £f
•Q f2< W W
a a •§ H
0 BJ 2
O (3JD
1 '^
Is
c Ef
O c3
&*
£
S
CO
OJ
"E,
a
ra
CQ
O
.SP
A
2
"S
o
a
BO
•n
*?
T3
. S> «''=> e S
i- 1 llsl ill |5 M
Si! ilili III II II
s'i ^s^-i ^ 1 8 1* "s - §
jjlj ||jj| j|js jl Ijl
-------
1
CC
H
O
g
g
o
5
£
b
O
W
h
| |
^rS
FEATURE
j|||
rO £L| OS A
S S -§H
« J8 2
«« a
o en
•3 8
a Q
o <~*
-*j 'S
§ •**
1 &
SS
1
!/l
Hi
a
R
1>J
a
_w>
Q
!
•a
"*
*2
«
P5
sa **5
0! "
o
£
•/>
•*
«
M
^
mprehensive Assessment
o
U
-
What proportion (or how many
miles) of streams in Delaware is
classified as priority or problem
waters? Are or should they be 303d
listed?
What is the location of the impaired
waters?
33 .J
"S •••
mporal Trend of Resource
0>
H
EW
X
X
X
i
s.
s.
U
!
in
' :
What is the trend in biointegrity in
Joe's Creek? Is it changing, and if
so, how?
Did agricultural BMPs or ecological
restoration in the Oxford Creek
drainage area improve biological
conditions? (also included under
"Measure Effectiveness...")
- =
X
•
I
'
X
X
s.
s.
1
§
Si
&
-
What percentage (with known
confidence) of impaired streams in
the basin have improved since the last
5-year rotating basin cycle?
•-
-------
Z
2
2
Q
P
K
O
Q
fa
O
w
k
*
s i
Jl
1
13 &1
£j£s
ISII
1 al£
O OS S
UWgj,
£ g>
€9
Site-Specific
•«•
,
"o
i. What are the predominant sources
impairment in Joe's Lake?
ii. What is the primary source of
mercury input to Joe's Lake?
iii.. What is causing excessive sediment
loading to Reservoir X?
X
X
X
s.
s
s.
s.
"at
•1
&
s
•
• ., a
i. How many lakes are impaired du«
to nutrients? Due to sedimentatio
etc.?
-------
1
S;"
o
o
gy
H
0
2
s.
w
H
« %
i'S
H o"
** 3
Pk
FEATURE
1
CO
eu
"S.
s
03
|
.2 i 5""
'ca t« a a>
.a^S £f
ja a, es ea
U <» ^
0 §D
TS 'g •
11
8 El"
o «
UH
1
S
S
V
WD
T3
•8
VI
a
r S3
.^•.SP
03
O
PM
f>
**
CO
«s
^.
hensive Assessment
o,
B
o
U
•
„.
,
'
""
'
s '
-
'
"" •
_,
-
, -
-• -.
-
'«i " i^sts - s
a *l |1 sl||l .-8. gj| • tt_|
III f! Hill li,ii.ii 111
iji P
Jill Hi 111 III!
.
:= =3 £ * ' -i ==
-------
S5
S
S
«
fP
O
O
S
o
(4
JM
*"*
,*
"g
1
1 31 8
a a-gf-1
o ra u
0 S)
n g
n p
33 13
S ft
Is •
>,
£
a
.S
I
.1
Q
S
B
g,
•o
^
1
Iff
JQ ^S
es '"'
2
in
•*
to
«
*«
1
S
1
ft
d.
s
5
' '
-
••
"
- •
'
viii. What proportion of the phosphorus
loadings comes from point vs.
nonpoint sources? What are the
specific non-point sources of
phosphorus?
ix. Where is the mercury
contamination coming from?
x. What is the source of toxics to
Delaware's streams? Elevated
ammonia?
ure Effectiveness of Individual :
rols (BMPs or Chemical Treatments)
2 *
Su
X
s
•>
s
Site Specific
1?
"S
g
K
S
X
X
X
s-
s.
rce Permits/Controls
-------
APPENDIX!
Section 3.
Selected Definitions
1-15
-------
Combined Probability and Targeted Design: A monitoring design that allows incorporation of
site specific assessment of known, targeted environmental problems with watershed-, region-, or
area-wide resource assessments based on probability design.
Comprehensive Assessment: An evaluation of resources that provides complete spatial and/or
demographic coverage of the geographic area or resource being studied; it provides information
on assessment value (condition of the resource), spatial and temporal trends in resource
condition, causes and sources of pollution, and locational information.
Conventional or Targeted Design: Targeted site selection is used to answer specific questions
regarding the condition of a site or set of sites with known stressors or sources.
Geographic Scale: Spatial breadth or size; can be based on political unit (e. g., state, county, or
municipality), watershed (e. g., the Potomac River Watershed, the San Francisco Bay Watershed,
the Columbia River Basin), region (e. g., the Huron-Erie Lake Plain ecoregion, the Pacific
Coastal Mountain ecoregion), or resource (e. g., the Okefenokee Swamp, the Everglades).
Judgmental (Sample Survey) Design: Nonrandom selection of sampling sites with the intent of
using assessment results for drawing inferences on a population as a whole.
Monitoring: The periodic or continual collection of data (measured parameters) using consistent
methods to determine the status of a waterbody (the condition of the ecological resources) and
the changes in those parameters overtime.
Probability-Based (Sample Survey) Design: A sampling design based on selection of sites or
sample locations using some aspect of randomization; allows statistically-valid assessments
inferences to be drawn on a population as a whole.
Resource Status: The condition of a specified natural resource at a particular point in time.
Sample Survey: An approach for site selection, also known as population sampling, that deals
with the selection and observation of a part of the population in order to infer the condition or
status of the population as a whole.
Spatial Pattern: Variations observed hi measured parameters that correspond to some
distribution of large or small-scale geographic features.
Target Population (Stratum): A group of potential sampling locations (or assessment units) that
is some subset of the total population of sampling units.
Temporal Trend: Variations hi a measured parameter over time.
1-16
-------
1
APPENDIX I
Section 4.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Regarding Probability Design
1-17
-------
-------
A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF
PROBABILITY BASED SURVEY SAMPLING
AND ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY
ASKED QUESTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Much of the material contained here was written by Jon H. Voistad, Steve Weisberg
(Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD 21045), Douglas Heinibuch, Harold Wilson, and John
Seibel (Coastal Environmental Services, Inc, Lmthicum, MD) in the preparation of a
document: Answers to commonly asked questions about R-EMAP sampling
designs and data analyses, under the guidance of Victor Serviess, U.S. EPA).
Changes and additions have been made to their document. Contact Steve Paulsen or
Phil Larsen (NHEERL, U.S. EPA, CorvalHs, OR) for further information.
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is an innovative,
long-term research, and monitoring program designed to measure the current and
changing conditions of the nation's ecological resources. EMAP achieves this goal by
using statistical survey methods that allow scientists to assess the condition of large
areas based on data collected from a representative sample of locations. Statistical
survey methods are very efficient because they require sampling relatively few
locations to make valid scientific statements about the condition of large areas (e.g.,
all wadable streams within an EPA Region).
Regional-EMAP (R-EMAP) is a partnership between EMAP, EPA Regional offices, states,
and other federal agencies to adapt EMAP's broad-scale approach to produce
ecological assessments at regional, state, and local levels (including watershed and
county levels). R-EMAP is based on the same statistical survey techniques used i n
EMAP, which have proven successful in many disciplines of science. Applying these
techniques effectively .requires recognizing several key principles of survey sampling
and using specialized, although not difficult, data analysis methods.
This document provides a nontechnical overview of the survey sampling and data
analysis concepts underlying these types of sample survey projects. It is intended for
1
-------
regional resource managers who have had little statistical training, but who feel they
would benefit from a better understanding of the statistical and scientific
underpinnings survey sampling. Familiarity with these concepts is helpful for
understanding the kinds of information survey sampling can provide.
This document is organized in two sections. The first section explains the general
principles of survey sampling and its application to determining ecological
condition. Terms such as target population, sampling frame, and random sampling
are defined. The second section addresses questions frequently asked about survey
sampling design and data analysis methods. Throughout the document, the concepts
of survey design are illustrated first with examples from everyday life, and then with
examples illustrating applications to water resource questions. The examples involve
a stream study; however, the concepts are equally applicable to assessing the
condition of other resources such as lakes, estuaries, wetlands, or forests.
PRINCIPLES OF SURVEY DESIGN ^
There are two generally accepted data collection schemes for studying the
characteristics of a population. The first is a census, which entails examining every
unit in the population of interest. For most ecological studies, however, a census is
impractical. For example, measuring fish assemblages everywhere to assess conditions
within a watershed that has 1000 kilometers of stream would be prohibitively
expensive.
A more practical approach for studying an extensive resource, such as a watershed, is
to examine parts of it through probability (or random) sampling. Studies based on
statistical samples rather than complete coverage (or enumeration) are referred to as
sample surveys. Sample surveys are highly cost-effective, and the principles
underlying such surveys are well developed and documented. The principles of
survey design provide the basis for (a) selecting a subset of sampling units from
which to collect data, and (b) choosing methods for analyzing the data.
One example of a sample survey is an opinion poll to estimate the percentage of
eligible voters who plan to vote Democratic in a presidential election. Such opinion
polls are based on interviews with only a small fraction of all eligible voters.
Nevertheless, by using statistically sound survey methods, highly accurate estimates
can be obtained by interviewing a representative sample of only around 1200 voters.
If 700 of the polled voters plan to vote Democratic, then the fraction 700/1200, or 58
percent, is a reliable estimate of the percent of all voters who plan to vote
Democratic.
The approach used in conducting a stream sample survey is basically the same as in
an opinion poll. Instead of collecting the opinions of a sample of people, a watershed
or ecoregion project might collect data about fish assemblages from a representative
sample of point locations along the stream length of in the watershed or ecoregion to
determine the percent of kilometers of streams in which ecological conditions are
degraded. If data are collected from plots of, say, 40 times the stream width in length
at each of 40 randomly selected sites, and 16 of the 40 sites exhibit degraded
-------
conditions, then the estimated proportion of degraded stream kilometers in the
watershed or ecoregion would be 40% (i.e., 16/40).
STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTING A SAMPLE SURVEY
The survey design is a plan for selecting the sample appropriately so that it provides
valid data for developing accurate estimates for the entire population or area of
interest. Planning and executing a sample survey involves three primary steps: (1)
creating a list of all units of the target population from which to select the sample,
(2) selecting a random sample of units from this list, and (3) collecting data from the
selected units. The same kinds of techniques used to select the sample of people t o
interview in an opinion poll are used to select the sample of sites from which t o
collect field data.
Developing a Sampling Frame
Before the sample survey can be conducted, a clear, concise description of the target
population is needed. In statistical terminology the target population (often
shortened to "population") does not necessarily refer to a population of people. It
could be a population of schools, area units of farm land, freshwater lakes, or the
network of streams.
The list or map that identifies every unit within the population of interest is the
sampling frame. Such a list is needed so that every individual member of the
population can be identified unambiguously. The individual members of the target
population whose characteristics are • to be measured are the sampling units.
For example, if we were conducting a sample survey to estimate the percentage of
students at a university who participate in intramural sports, the target population
would consist of all the enrolled students. The individual students would be the
sampling units, and the registrar's office could provide a list of students to serve as
the sampling frame. We could draw a representative (random) sample of students
from this list and interview them about their participation in sports. Their responses
would be "yes or no." The percentage of interviewed students who participate in
intramural sports would yield an estimate of the "true" percentage for all students.
For a stream survey, the target population might be all perennial, wadable streams in
a watershed. The sampling unit is a point along the stream length, and an associated
plot, e.g. 40 times the stream width in length. The response variable might be
"degraded" or "non-degraded" based on measures of water quality. Conceptually, the
collection of all possible point locations along these streams serve as a sampling
frame, similar to the list of students in the previous example. The sampling frame for
streams typically would be established by using the U.S. River Reach reach files
through a geographic information system (GIS).
-------
Selecting a Representative Sample
Survey sampling is intended to characterize the entire population of interest
therefore, all members of the target population must have a known chance of bein_
included in the sample. Conducting an election poll by asking only your neighbors'
opinions probably would not enable you to predict the outcome of a national
election accurately.
Simple random selection ensures that the sample is representative because all
members of the population have an equal chance of being selected. Random selection
can be thought of as a kind of lottery drawing to determine which stream reaches, for
example, are included in the sample. The selection is non-preferential towards any
particular reach or group of reaches. One way to make a random selection would be
to place uniquely numbered ping-pong balls (one for each sampling unit) into a
drum, blindly mix the drum, and then blindly pick one ball corresponding to each
stream reach (i.e., sampling unit) from which data are to be collected. In practice,
computers are used to make the random selections. Either way, the result is a subset
of sampling units randomly selected from the sampling frame.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Upon thoughtful consideration of the sample survey approach, several questions may
come to mind. This section answers several commonly asked questions. Some of them
concern survey sampling, and some of them concern data analysis. These questions
are addressed in fairly general terms. As noted in the introduction, additional
technical detail is in a series of methods manuals.
Why is it so important to select sampling sites randomly?
The way we select the sample (i.e., choose the units from which to collect data) is
crucial for obtaining accurate estimates of population parameters. We clearly would
not get a good estimate of the percentage of all students at a university who
participate in intramural sports if we polled students at the entrance to the
gymnasium. This preferential sample would, most likely, include a much higher
proportion of athletes than the general population of students.
Similarly in a stream study, preferential sampling occurs if the sample includes only
sites downstream of sewage outfalls in a watershed where sewage outfalls affect only a
small percentage of total stream length. This kind of sampling program may provide
useful information about conditions downstream of sewage outfalls, but it will not
produce estimates thai accurately represent the condition of the whole watershed.
Preferential selection can be avoided by taking random samples. Simple random
sampling ensures that no particular portion of the sampling frame (i.e., groups of
students or kinds of river reaches) is favored. Within streams, the chance of selecting
a sampling unit that has degraded ecological conditions would be proportional to
the number of sampling units within the target population that have degraded
4
-------
conditions. For example, if 30% of the target population has degraded conditions,
then on average 30% of the (randomly selected) units in the sample will exhibit
[degraded conditions. This property of random sampling allows estimates (based only
on the sample) to be used to draw conclusions about the target population as a
whole.
For 305b reports, I need to estimate the total number of stream miles i 0
my EPA Region that are degraded. Can I do this from sample survey data3
The number of degraded stream miles can be calculated in two steps. First, the
proportion of stream miles that are degraded is calculated as illustrated earlier.
Then, that fraction is multiplied by the total number of stream miles in the
population. The total number of stream miles is available from the sampling frame
(for example from EPA's River Reach File, Version 3), which delineates all members of
the target population.
Defining "degraded" is an important part of the calculation, regardless of whether it
is for percent or absolute number of stream miles. "Degraded" can be defined if a
threshold value or goal for each measurement variable can be established. Most of
the variables measured in stream surveys, such as an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI),
have continuous ranges of response. Calculating the proportion of stream miles that
are degraded requires converting this continuous data into binary, or yes/no (e.g.,
degraded or not degraded) form. The question of how many stream miles are
degraded, therefore, must be rephrased to include a threshold value for the relevant
measurement variable. For an IBI, the question might be rephrased as "What are the
total number of stream miles in my Region with IBI below a score of 45?"
I am accustomed to seeing estimates of average condition instead of
estimates of proportion. Can sample survey data be used to estimate
average condition?
Yes, estimates of average condition, such as the average IBI in a watershed, provide
valuable information and can be calculated with sample survey data as a simple
mean. The principles of survey sampling, particularly the emphasis on selecting a
representative sample, also apply to estimating a population mean. Just as a n
estimate of the percent of stream miles in a Region in which IBI is below 40 is biased
if data are collected only from sites downstream of sewage outfalls, so is the estimate
of mean IBI. Furthermore, estimates of various other properties can be made from
the sample survey results, such as median scores, various percentiles, or frequency
distributions and their shapes.
EMAP emphasizes estimating spatial extent (e.g., percent of river miles) .because it has
several advantages over estimating the mean alone. For instance, a Region with a n
average stream IBI of 45 might be composed entirely of streams with an IBI of 45;
however, the same average would occur if half the streams have an IBI of 55 and the
other half an Ibl of 35. Estimating the spatial extent of the resource that fails to meet
some standard (e.g., IBI of at least 45) provides more information about the
condition of the resource and is consistent with EPA initiatives to establish
environmental goals and measure progress toward meeting them.
5
-------
EMAP documents suggest that the sampling design is "flexible t o
enhancement." What does this mean?
One goal of a sample survey may be to compare two parts of a target population
(these could be described as sub-populations), or a part , of the population to the
whole population. For instance, an opinion poll might be used to determine if a
higher percentage of the people living in Rhode Island is likely to vote Democratic
than in the nation as a whole. Given its small size, Rhode Island probably would
receive very little attention in a national poll if samples are allocated by a simple
random process. One way to achieve a sample of people in Rhode Island that is
sufficient to make this comparison is to increase sampling effort for the nation as a
whole until enough people from Rhode Island are included in the randomly selected
national sample. This option is not very cost-effective because it requires
considerable, unnecessary sampling effort in other areas to achieve a desired sample
size in one small area.
Another, preferable, alternative would be to divide the entire target population into
two subpopulations,. Voters in the United States could be divided into (1.) those
living in Rhode Island, and (2) those living elsewhere, A simple random sample of
desired size could then be selected from each of these groups.
Stratified sampling could be used in a stream survey to enhance sampling effort in a
watershed of special interest so that its condition could be compared with that of a
larger area. In a study area with 1000 kilometers of streams, for example, an area of
special interest may contain 200 kilometers of streams. If budget constraints limit the
size of the total sample to 60 sampling units, 30 could be randomly selected from the
special interest area, and 30 from the rest of the sampling frame. If simple random
sampling is used, the area of special interest, which represents 20% of the area, will
contain only about 12 of the 60 selected sampling units. A sample of 12 would be
insufficient to estimate the condition of the special interest area reliably.
Doesn't enhancing the sampling intensity for an area of special interest
bias the overall estimate?
No. Sampling units inside an area of special interest usually have a higher chance of
being selected than sampling units outside the special interest area. Within each
stratum, however* the chance of selecting any location is equal; therefore, a separate
(unbiased) estimate can be computed for each stratum, as well as for the entire
resource.
With stratified random sampling, estimates are generated first for individual strata,
then the stratum-specific estimates are combined into an overall estimate for the
whole target population. Stratum-specific estimates are combined by weighting each
one by the fraction of all sampling units that are within the stratum. For the simple
two-stratum example given above, the weights would be 200/1000 for stratum 1 and
800/1000 for stratum 2. So, if the stratum-specific estimates are 0.5 for stratum 1 and
0.25 for stratum 2, the overall estimate is 0.30 [(O.5 x 2/10) + (0.25 x 8/10)]. This
-------
approach ensures that the overall estimate is corrected for the intentional selection
emphasis within a particular subpopulation.
EMAP's objectives state that estimates are made with known confidence.
What is "known confidence"?
An estimate of a population parameter is of limited value without some indication of
how confident one should be in it. Scientists typically describe the appropriate level
of confidence in an estimate derived from a sample survey by defining confidence
limits or margins of error. This description of statistical confidence is used frequently
in reporting the results of opinion polls using statements such as "this poll has a
margin of error of ± 4%". Provided random sampling is used, similar statements can
be made about estimates from biological sample surveys.
Sample surveys provide estimates that are used to make inferences about parameters
for the population as a whole. Two types of estimates are commonly provided: the
point estimate and the interval estimate. For example, the estimated proportion of
voters that support a party is a point estimate. It is important to know how likely it
is that such a point estimate deviates from the true population parameter by no
more then a given amount. An interval estimate for a parameter is defined by upper
and lower limits estimated from the sample values. A confidence interval is
constructed so that the probability of the interval containing the parameter of
interest can be specified. We do not know with certainty whether an individual
interval, specified as a sample estimate plus/minus a margin of error, includes the
true population parameter. For repeated sampling, however, the estimated 95%
confidence intervals would include the true parameter 95% of the times. The length
of the confidence intervals is a measure of how precise the parameter is being
estimated: a narrow interval signifies high precision. The margin of error is often
used for defining the upper and lower limits of the confidence interval; it is half the
width of the confidence interval. Thus, if a poll estimates that 55% of the population
will vote Democratic and the margin of error is ± 4%, then the estimated 95%
confidence interval ranges from 51% to 59%.
A great advantage of using a random sampling design is that statisticians have
developed procedures for calculating confidence intervals for the estimates. For most
sample surveys, in which the goal is to estimate the proportion of the resource that is
degraded, a standard probability distribution known as the binomial distribution can
be used as an estimate of the upper and lower bounds of confidence intervals.
What are the most important factors affecting the size of the confidence
interval?
The sample size (# of sampling units collected) and the proportion of yes answers are
the primary factors affecting the size of the confidence interval with binary (yes/no)
data. The effect of sample size can be illustrated with a pre-election poll of voters. If
only 30 people are sampled, and 14 indicate that they will vote Democratic, it would
be unwise to predict the winner. With such a small sample size, the margin of error
would be about ± 18% for a 95% confidence interval. The degree of confidence would
be higher if 140 people out of a sample of 300 say they will vote Democratic (47% ±
7
-------
6%), and higher still if 1400 people out of a sample of 3000 say they will vote
Democratic (47% ± 2%). In this example, the estimated proportion of sampled voters
who will vote Democratic stays the same (p = 47%), but the width of the confidence
interval decreases with increasing sample size.
Confidence intervals for estimated percentages (p) are affected to a lesser degree by
the proportion of yes answers (P) in the population. The widest confidence interval
occurs for P equal to 50%. For values of P ranging from 20% to 80%, the margin of
error will not vary much with P; it will be determined mainly by the sample size. The
fact that there is a maximum margin of error for binomial estimates of proportions is
very useful for planning a survey. If we plan for the worst case (i.e., when half of the
population is in the yes category) we can select a sample size that ensures that the
confidence interval for P will be smaller than a specified limit.
Doesn't the size of the target population affect confidence in the
estimates?
The size of the target population theoretically affects the precision of the estimates.
For most sample surveys, however, the effect is negligible because the sampled
fraction of the target population is so small. When the sampled fraction is small, the
size of the sample rather than the size of the target population determines the
precision of the estimate. Polling 1000 people in the state of Rhode Island, for
example, would yield as precise an estimate as polling 1000 people in the state of
Texas, or the nation as a whole. In these cases, a very small proportion of the total
population is polled.
If the sample includes a large proportion of the population, in contrast, the accuracy
of the estimate is improved. For instance, if a local town has a population of 1400
people, then a sample of 1200 people would produce a substantially more accurate
estimate than a sample of 1200 people from a population of 100 million. As the size
of the sample approaches the size of the population, statisticians adjust the
confidence interval using the finite population correction factor. In practice, however,
most sampling efforts don't sample a large enough fraction of the population for this
correction factor to become important. That is why pollsters interview approximately
the same number of people for a local election as for a presidential election.
For sample survey projects, the fraction of the population that is sampled is generally
very small. Fish assemblages, for example, are generally sampled from short
segments (100 - 400 meters). If 50 such samples are collected from a Region with
1000 kilometers of streams, the sampled fraction is 0.0001 - 0.0004.
States are required to identify or list waterbodies that are impaired, for
example, by the 303(d) listing process. How useful are sample surveys
for identifying those waterbodies?
Because survey sampling is intended to characterize the status of the resource as a
whole, it is generally not useful for enumerating a list of a specific type, for example,
8
-------
a list of all the impaired waterbodes. However, an important aspect of sample
surveys is that they can provide a check on the completeness of the list. Suppose
that a state agency had submitted a list of impaired waterbodies it had gathered
from ongoing moinitoring programs, and from reports from other agencies. This list
would presumably be a census of the impaired waterbodies. The state agency could
then compare the amount of the resource impaired against the magnitude of the
total resource to derive a percent of the resource impaired. The state agency could
check this proportion by conducting a sample survey and classifying the sample sites
into impaired/not impaired. It could then check the proportion impaired based on
the sample survey with the proportion calculated from the inventory. Consistency
between the two estimates would indicate that the census of the impaired sites is
reasonably complete (within the uncertainty of the sample survey); inconsistency
between the two estimates would provide information on how good the impairment
census was (again within the confidence limits of the sample survey).
States conduct targeted monitoring for many purposes; the locations
were selected for various reasons. How can the data from these
monitoring programs be integrated with probability sample survey data?
To characterize the status of aquatic resources in a watershed, ecoregion, or state, an
unbiased site selection process is important so that valid inferences about the
resource can be made. Sites selected for targeted monitoring are usually selected with
a good purpose in mind, often to answer very site specific questions. Consequently,
they might be very biased relative to the resource as a whole. In general, we do not
know what the bias might be in using targeted monitoring sites to make population
estimates.
One path toward resolving this issue is to divide the population of interest into two
parts. One part is the set of sites (or proportion of the resource) that has been
censused through the targeted monitoring. The other part is the portion of the
population that is uncensused and can be surveyed though a sample survey.
Combining the results of the two parts produces an estimate of the condition of the
entire resource. The extent to which targeted monitoring will influence the outcome
of the picture of the resource as a whole will depend on the proportion of the
resource that is censused through targeted monitoring. In general, this is a relatively
small part of the entire resource, consequently the results of targeted monitoring
won't influence the overall description of the resource.
Many states are moving toward a rotating basin design for conducting
their waterbody assessments and water resource planning. How can
sample surveys be incorporated into this approach?
One aspect of a rotating basin design is to describe the condition of the basin as a
whole. Unless the basin will be censused, a sample survey can be used to characterize
the overall status of the basin. A combination of a sample survey and targeted
monitoring as outlined above can be used to produce an overall description of the
basin. In addition, the rotating basin design could be embedded in a state wide
sample survey by intensifying the sampling on the particular basin or set of basins
for the year(s) that basin or set of basins was under study. A routine ongoing
9
-------
Statewide survey could be conducted at some baseline level of intensity, along with
intensified sampling in the targeted basins. In this way, a state could track statewide
progress as well as progress in individual basins as they are revisited, and determine
the condition of the basin relative to the condition of the state as a whole.
CLOSING COMMENTS
The approaches and concepts described in this overview document are generally
applicable to a variety of sample surveys. They are appropriate whether the purpose
of sampling is to estimate the proportion of the number of resource units (e.g.,
numbers of lakes), the proportion of total length of a resource (e.g., miles of streams),
the proportion of area of a resource (e.g., square miles of an estuary), or the
proportion of volume of a resource (e.g., cubic meters of one of the Great Lakes). The
approaches and concepts can be applied without modification to each of these
situations.
This overview document purposefully was written nontechnically; it does not contain
enough detail to help someone analyze data. A companion document (EMAP
Statistical Methods Manual by Diaz-Ramos, Stevens, and OJsen ~ EPA/620/R-96XXX
Revision 0, May 1996) describes some of the technical detail. The manual is
intended for scientists with some statistical training. Technical documentation
targeted for statisticians is also available from the EMAP Statistics and Design Team
in Corvallis, Oregon.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
Gilbert, R. 0. 1 987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Monitoring. Van
Nostrand Reinhold. New York.
lessen, R.J. 1978. Statistical Survey Techniques, John Wiley and Sons. New York.
Stuart, A. 1994, The Ideas of Sampling. MacMillan Publishing Company. New York.
10
-------
Appendix J
Example Description of State
Assessment Methods: Illinois
-------
KtVERSAND STREAMS
project. In the future, data collected by these volunteers will be used for the
educational purposes of school age groups as well as adult volunteer organizations
and to assist the IEPA in updating stream use assessments for the Illinois Water
Quality Report. For the current 305(b) reporting cycle, IEPA reviewed water
chemistry data from rivers and streams collected by high schools throughout the
state to assist in use support determinations.
B. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Traditionally, designated use support assessments for rivers and streams in Illinois
have focused on attainment of aquatic life use. In this report for the 1992 reporting
cycle, multiple uses based on current water quality standards have been assessed
(See Tables 4 and 5). These standards protect various uses including aquatic life,
fish consumption, swimming, drinking water supply and secondary contact where
applicable. Specific criteria for determining attainment of these individual uses are
described in detail below. Minor revisions to the assessment methodology for
aquatic life use attainment have been incorporated in accordance with the Federal
guidance (U.S. EPA, 1991}. These assessments, however, are comparable to those
in previous reporting cycles. An overall use support summary for rivers and streams
is also provided. The degree of use support attainment is described as: Full, Full/
Threatened, Partial/Minor impairment, Partial/Moderate impairment, and Nonsupport
Aquatic Life
Aquatic life use assessments were based on a combination of biotic and abiotic data
generated from IEPA monitoring programs (See Section A). Biotic data consist of
fishery and macroinvertebrate information which were evaluated using the Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI) and the IEPA Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI), respec-
tively. Types of abiotic data utilized in Aquatic Life Use attainment assessments
included water chemistry, fish tissue analysis, sediment chemistry and physical
habitat. Stream habitat included metrics such as depth, velocity, substrate and
instream cover. Habitat daia were> used to estimate biotic potential in the form of
a Predicted Index of Biotfc Integrity value (PIBI) generated from a multiple
regression equation. Water chemistry data were evaluated by categories identified
as conventionals (dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature) and toxicants (priority
pollutants, chlorine, ammonia). Fish tissue and sediment chemistry were based
largely on the presence of heavy metals and/or organochlorine compounds. -
A few waterbodies were assessed for aquatic life use based only on abiotic data
(water or sediment chemistry). In the case of water chemistry only data, a toxicity
based criteria for acute and chronic water quality standards were applied (Table 6).
For waterbodies where only sediment chemistry data were available, aquatic life use
assessments were made utilizing general criteria provided in Table 7. Where
appropriate, documented impairments, such as habitat degradation, were also
factored into these assessments.
A summary of abiotic and Aquatic Life Use Assessment Criteria, as well as general
descriptors of water quality conditions are depicted in Table 8. Also included in Table
26
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
TABLE 6. CRITERIA FOR WATER CHEMISTRY USED FOR ASSESSING AQUATIC LIFE USE IN RIVERS
AND
Degree of Aquatic Life
Use Support .
Criteria
Full
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
0 or 1 violation per parameter of acute standard within 5 year period or no more than 10% of
the total individual samples may exceed chronicstandard.
2 violations per parameter of acute standard within 5 year period or > 10% to 18% of the total
individual samples may exceed chronic standard.
2 violations per parameter of acute standard within 3 consecutive year period or 18% to 25%
of the total individual samples may exceed chronicstandard.
3 or more violations per parameter of acute standards within 5 year period or > 25% of trie
total individual samples exceed the chronic standard.
TABLE 7. CRITERIA FOR SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY USED FOR ASSESSING AQUATIC LIFE USE
IN ILLINOIS RIVERS AND STREAMS.
Degree of Aquatic
Life Use Support
Sediment Chemistry
Full
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
Metals and organochlorine compounds generafyfound at
nonetevated levels, althoughsomemetalororganochlorine
compounds may be present at slightly elevated concentrations.
Organochlorine compounds or metals occur in stream sediments
at elevated levels.
Organochlorine compounds or metals present in stream
sediment at highly elevated levels.
Organochkxine compounds or metals consistently found at
extreme concentrations.
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF USE SUPPORT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR ILLINOIS STREAMS.
U.S. EPA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
IEPA/1DOC BIOLOGICAL
Stream Characterization (BSC)
FISH/lndex of Biotic
Integrity (IBI/AIBI)
BENTHOS/Macroinvertebrate
Biotic Index (MBI)
STREAM Potential Index of
HABITAT/Biotic Integrity (PIBI)
STREAM IEPA Stream Sediment
SEDIMENT/Classrfication
PARTIAL SUPPORT NON-
FULL SUPPORT MINOR MODERATE SUPPORT
Good
Unique
Aquatic
Resource
51-60
<5.0
51-60
Nonelevated
Good
Highly
Valued
Resource
41-50
5.0-5.9
41-50
Nonelevated
-Slightly
Elevated
Fair
Moderate
Aquatic
Resource
31-40
6.0-7.5
31-40
Slightly
Elevated
Fair
Limited
Aquatic
Resource
21-30
7.6-8.9
<31
Elevated
-Highly
Elevated
Poor
Restricted
Aquatic
Resource
<20
>8.9
Extreme
27
-------
M VtK5
8 are descriptors for Illinois' stream classification process or Biological Stream
Characterization (BSC). The overall assessment process for Aquatic Life Use
attainment is presented in Figure 3. Field observations were selectively factored
into the aquatic life use assessment process through a review of comments and
observations of pollution sources and causes of impairment recorded on stream
survey field forms. When available, volunteer stream monitoring data was reviewed
and incorporated into the assessment process. Professional judgement and
knowledge of the study area were required for assessments where various index
values appeared to be based upon unrepresentative samples or when conflicts in
data needed to be resolved.
•Threatened waters" refers to those waters that fully support their designated use
but may not fully support uses in the future (unless pollution control action taken)
because of anticipated sources or adverse pollution trends (U.S. EPA 1993). For
the 1992-1993 Illinois Water Quality Report the threatened determination was made
with the use of available chemical, physical, and biological date and/or information
on land use activities. Stream reaches previously assigned full aquatic life use
ratings were considered to be threatened when:
- compared to previous monitoring data, current chemical, biological, or
physical indicators for exceptional waters exhibited a slight decline in stream quality;
- compared to previous monitoring data, current chemical, biological, or
physical indicators exhibited a notable reduction in stream quality, which if contin-
ued, might result in a decline of the rating from full to partial support or lower; or
- current activities in the watershed or adjacent to the stream reach might
result in impairments and a reduction of the full use designation.
Fish Consumption
' The assessment of fish consumption use was based on fish tissue data and resulting
sport fish advisories generated by the Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (See
Public Health Chapter). The degree of use attainment for fish consumption was
assessed utilizing the criteria depicted in Table 9. All rivers and streams in Illinois,
including secondary contact waters, are considered to be attainable for fish
consumption use.
Swimming
The assessment of swimming use for primary contact recreation was based on fecal
coliform bacteria and water chemistry 'data from the AWQMN (See Section A). The
current Illinois Pollution Control Board (I PCS) bacterial water quality standard
specifies that fecal coliform levels below 200/100 ml of water, sampled during the
months of May through October should be adequate to protect the State's water for
general use and primary contact. Seasonal fecal coliform data and water chemistry
data for a period of the last five years from AWQMN stations were analyzed.
Geometric means for fecal coliform results were calculated using only those
samples collected during warm weather months when recreation in or on the water
is likely. Fecal coliform geometric means and individual sample values were
compared to the criteria in Table 10. Individual sample values were considered in
violation of the standard only if the corresponding total suspended solids value was
less than or equal to the fiftieth percentile total suspended solids value for that
28
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
Figure 3. Aquatic Life Use Support Assessment Flow Chart
for Fish, Habitat and Water Quality Data
f Non-u rTW YES |s the 181 < NO
VL w " h9~"y <2o?
NO
D^alnd?18/ ~
Full Support? 2 the PIBI?
Are
Bioassassment
and Habitat Data
Available?
O
Macroim
Data A
from
YES
r
nly
vertebrate
vaiiable.
FRSS •
te the PIBI
Minus
NO YES
! '
partial/Minor^ '
Does Water
™3 Data Indicate
Full Support?
C Full "Y< YES
Does Water
I Pnrtl*Til/MInnr \^ ^^ wcufl inCtCcttO
\L nia""VIinoV< Partial/Moderate
or Nonsupport?
IBI<-
>
*?
NO ^ Are
* Dat.
Aval
Water
a Only
(able?
YES
*" See Table 6
YES ^ Is the MBI
<5.9?
fsth
<7
NO
'
Is the PIBI
Minus 181 > 8?
YES
ir
Does Water
Data Indicate
Full or Partial/
Minor Support?
V 1
f Partial/ A
^Moderate ^/
(Partia!/Minor\<; —
f Partial/ \^ yes
NO
i
Does Water
Data Indicate
Partial/Moderate
Support?
>
(jtonsi
V^ Moderate J*'
NO
pport
>
Isth
x
*CP<"lial/M'rKV
NO
a MBI
1.9?
,»
rNonsupport^
NO
l
Does Water
Data Indicate
Fuii Support?
YES
1
YES jT Partial/ A
^^Moderate J
Does Water
w > Data Indicate
Partial/Moderate
or Nonsupport?
YES
. i r
i Full if i
NO
(Partial/Minor^
29
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS
station. These criteria provide only an indication of whether or not swimming use
attainment can be expected. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE CRITERIA
ARE ONLY USED AS INDICATORS. TO ASCERTAIN SPECIFIC PUBLIC
HEALTH IMPLICATIONS, MORE FREQUENT BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA WOULD
BE REQUIRED. Stream miles assessed for swimming included those reaches
represented by AWQMN stations. Rivers and streams not considered to be
attainable included those designated as secondary contact and indigenous aquatic
life use (See Figure 2) as well as those where disinfection exemptions have been
approved.
Drinking Water Supply
Drinking Water Supply use assessments for rivers and streams were determined on
the basis of water supply closures or advisories obtained from the lEPA's Public
Water Supply programs. Rivers and streams utilized as primary source for drinking
water supplies were identified. Assessments were based solely on water quality
conditions and not on physical closures or relocations due to flooding. The degree
of use attainment utilized the criteria identified in Table 11.
Secondary Contact
The assessment of secondary contact use was based on' water chemistiy data
generated from lEPA's monitoring programs (See Section A), primarily the AWQMN.
Secondary contact use is the most limited designated use with Illinois State
Standards and applies only to certain streams and canals in the Chicago area
(Figure 2). These few waters are not, therefore, required to attain primary contact
recreational uses such as swimming. All available water chemistry data for the last
five-year time period was compared to Secondary Contact Standards (Table 4).
Determination of the degree of uses support was based on the assessment criteria
in Table 12.
TABLE 9. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING FISH CONSUMPTION USE IN ILLINOIS RIVERS AND
STREAMS.
Use Support " Criteria
pull No fish advisories or bans are in effect.
Partial/Moderate 'Restricted Consumption" fish advisory or ban in effect for general
population 01 a subpopulation that could be at potentially greater nsk
(e.g. pregnant women, children). Restricted consumption is defined as
limits on the number of meals or size of meals consumed per unit time
for one or more fish species. In Illinois, this is equivalent to a Group II
advisory.
NonsuoDOrt "No consumption" fish advisory or ban in effect for general population
HK for one or more fish species; commercial fishing ban in effect. In Illinois,
this is equivalent to a Group III advisory.
30
-------
RIVERS AND STR£4Afy
TABLE 10. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING SWIMMING USE IN ILLINOIS RIVERS AND STREAMS.
Degree of ~~ " "
Use Support Criteria
Fu"
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
Geometric mean of samples comply with standard or standard
exceeded in < 10% of samples.
Geometric mean and > 1 0% but < 1 8% of samples exceed stan-
dard.
Geometric mean and > 1 8% but < 25% of samples exceed stan-
dard.
Geometric mean and > 25% of samples exceed standard.
ANDLST1R1EAMSTERIA F°R ASSESSING DRINKING WATER SUPPLY USE IN ILLINOIS RIVERS
Degree of
Use Support
Criteria
Fu"
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
No drinking water supply closures or advisories in effect during
reporting period; no treatment necessary beyond 'reasonable
levels'.
One or more drinking water supply advisory lasting 30 days or less;
or problems not requiring closures or advisories but adversely
affecting treatment costs and the quality of polished water, such as
taste and odor problems, color, excessive turbidity, high dissolved
solids, pollutants requiring activated charcoal filters, etc.
One or more drinking water supply advisories lasting more than 30
days per year.
One or more drinking water supply closures per year.
SECONDARY CONTACT USE 1N
Degree of
Use Support
Criteria
Fu"
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
< 10% violations in secondary contact
standards.
> 10% - 18% violations in secondary contact
standards.
> 18% - 25% violations in secondary contact
standards.
> 25% violations in secondary contact standards.
3 1
-------
Overall Use
The overall use support of rivers and streams was also assessed. In reviewing the
individual use assessments, aquatic life use was considered the best single indicator
of overall stream conditions. The overall use support was reported at two
assessment levels; monitored and evaluated.
Evaluated waters were those waterbodies for which the overall use support decision
was based on information other than current site-specific monitoring data. The
assessment basis included a combination of land use information and location of
sources, monitoring data more than five-years old, volunteer data, and/or best
professional judgement.
Monitored waters were those waterbodies for which the overall use support decision
was principally based on current site-specific monitoring data believed to accurately
portray water quality conditions. Waterbodies with chemical, physical or biological
monitoring data were used to make monitored assessments. Monitored assess-
ments were completed for each site sampled in conjunction with I EPA monitoring
(See Section A) conducted in the past five years (1989-1993); however, in certain
instances, intensive survey data prior to 1988 was considered representative and
used in the assessment process.
C. STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
For purposes of this report required by Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water
Act, the estimated number of navigable river and stream miles in and bordering
Illinois include a total of 32.190 miles (31,280 interior river miles; 910 border river
miles). Data results from over 1.500 river and stream monitoring stations were used
in the statewide assessment of overall and individual use supports. These stations
are part of ongoing monitoring programs which include the Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Network (AWQMN). Intensive River Basin Surveys, Facility-Related
Stream Surveys, and Special Surveys (see Section A).
Overall Use Support
A total of 14,159 of the 32,190 stream miles (44.0%) in Illinois were assessed for the
degree of overall use support (TabJe 13). Statewide assessments were based on
both evaluated (4,855.2 stream miles or 34.3%) and monitored (9,303.7 stream
miles or 65.7%) levels of assessment. Since overall use support assessments were
based on aquatic life use, the results are discussed collectively. Overall use (aquatic
life use) was rated as full support on 6.650.3 stream miles (47.0%); 251.7 stream
miles (1.8%) were rated as threatened. Partial support with minor impairments of
overall use were present on 5,847.9 stream miles (41.3%) and 1,232.4 stream miles
(8.7%) were rated as partial support with moderate impairments. Statewide, only
176.6 stream miles (1.2%) were rated as not supporting overall uses.
32
-------
1
AfVlf 31Kt-.AMS
TABLE 13. STATEWIDE SUMMARY OF DEGREE OF OVERALL USE SUPPORT
FOR ILLINOIS RIVERS AND STREAMS.
Degree of
Overall
Use Support
Full
Full/Threatened
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Nonsupport
TOTAL
Evaluated
Miles
2,551.6
53.8
1.801.3
396.7
51.8
4,855.2
Assessment Category
Monitored
Miles
4,098.7
197.9
4,046.6
835.7
124.8
9.303.7
Total
Assessed
6,650.3
251.7
5,847.9
1.232.4
176.6
14,158.9
Individual Use Supports
The fish consumption use was assessed on 2,832.5 stream miles (Table 14). Full
use support was present on 2,325.6 stream miles (82.1%). The remaining 506.9
stream miles (17.9%) were rated as not supporting fish consumption. These
nonsupport segments were limited to portions of the Des Plaines, Illinois, Sangamon
and Mississippi Rivers (see Public Health Chapter). Of the 2.907,1 stream miles
assessed for swimming, 787.9 (27.1%) were rated as full use support (Table 14).
Partial support with minor impairment of the swimming use occurred on 91.5 stream
miles (3.2%) and 462.2 stream miles (15.9%) were rated as partial support with
moderate impairment. The remaining 1,565.5 stream miles (46.2%) were not
supporting the swimming use. The swimming use was not applicable to 2,354.8
stream miles. This included secondary contact waters and streams where disinfec-
tion exemptions were present. The secondary contact use was applicable to 91.6
stream miles in the Des Plaines River basin. Of these, 24.0 stream miles were rated
as full use support. No data was available to assess the remaining 67.6 stream
miles. The drinking water use (PWS) was assessed on 822.5 stream miles. Of
these, 603.3 stream miles (73.4%) were rated as full use support. Partial support
with minor impairment was present on 150.8 stream miles (18.3%) and 68.4 stream
miles (8.3%) were rated as partial support with moderate impairment. There were
no stream miles rated as not supporting the drinking water use (Table 14).
Causes of Less Than Full Support of
Designated Uses
Stream miles impacted by specific cause categories statewide are summarized in
Table 15. Stream segments were generally impacted by multiple causes. A
comparison of individual cause categories weighted by miles of impairment is
shown in Figure 4. The primary cause categories which resulted in less than full
33
-------
-------
Appendix K
Section 106 Monitoring Guidance
and
Guidance for 303(d) Lists
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 17
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Section 106 Monitoring Guidance^
FROM: Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director ((<^4-r^fl/y -f/X
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (4503F)
TO: Regional Water Quality Branch Chiefs
Regional Field Branch Chiefs
Regional Monitoring Coordinators
Attached is the final Section 106 Guidance for Water Quality
Monitoring. This has been a long time in the making, as we
wanted to be sure the involved and affected parties had ample
chance to work with us to make this both a good product and a
consensus document likely to b« implemented. We have worked on
this guidance with members of the I'i-icevcovttrnmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality, whose framework for water quality
monitoring programs this incorporates, and also with members of
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators. We have worked with individual State staff, with
our Regional Monitoring Coordinators, Water Quality Branch Chiefs
and Field Branch Chiefs, and members of various water programs
within the Office of Water. In particular. Chuck Kanetsky of
Region III put long hours into working with various drafts, and
we owe him heartfelt thanks. I thank you all for your comments
and involvement.
This 106 monitoring guidance is a key tool in our extensive
efforts to work with our partners to improve the water quality
monitoring across the country. We are seeking to specifically
identify impaired waters across the country. We are seeking to
monitor more of our waters, but; do so more cost-effectively by
employed monitoring techniques appropriate to the condition of
and goals for the water. We are seeking greater comparability in
monitoring parameters and methods so we can all share data more
easily and aggregate it into various geographic scales, from
site-specific through watershed, regional and State/Tribal to
national. We are seeking to report water quality using common
indicators to measure our progress toward meeting our agreed-upon
water quality goals. We are seeking to work more closely and
share information more easily with our many public and private
monitoring partners, especially in a watershed context. This 106
guidance supports all these efforts, and is a tool we can
effectively use as we work with States to revitalize monitoring
programs and report core information in a comparable fashion.
R*cycle4TUcycliblt
-------
Section 106 and 604(b) Grant Guidance
Water Monitoring
I. 106/604(b) Monitoring Goals
Overall Goal Develop and implement a surface and ground
water monitoring strategy to help achieve the goals and
objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other
environmental initiatives. In doing so use a mix of
approaches that provide for the design, collection,
measurement, storage, retrieval, assessment, and
presentation of physical, chemical/toxicological,and
biological/ecological data necessary to implement this
monitoring efficiently and effectively, making best use of
multiple agency resources.
An overall monitoring strategy includes monitoring for the
purposes of 1) determining status and trends, 2)
identifying causes and sources of problems and ranking them
in priority order, 3) designing and implementing water
management programs, 4) determining compliance and program
effectiveness, and 5) responding to emergencies.
Among other management goals, monitoring supports the
development and attainment of water quality standards,
303(d) listings and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
development, NPDES permit limitations, nonpoint source
controls, geographic initiatives such as watershed and
ecosystem protection, and the measurement of chosen
environmental indicators.
Monitoring coverage and design goals. Assess all state
waters ^surface, ground, and coastal water and wetlands] on
a periodic basis (4 - 10 years as negotiated between the
Region and the State) using a monitoring design targeted to
the condition of and goals for the waters, and
incorporating various approaches (e.g. fixed station and
synoptic survey, intensive and screening-level monitoring,
probability sampling and design). For example, some States
use a five-year basin-by-basin monitoring cycle.
Data collection and methods goals. Collect
chemical/toxicological, physical, biological/ecological,
habitat, and land use/land cover data employing comparable
methods with other agencies so as to be able to share data.
Use multiple water quality assessment techniques (e.g.,
fish tissue, population and community surveys, habitat
assessments, sediment data, soils and geological data
analysis, and toxicity testing) as appropriate to meet the
goals and objectives of the monitoring program. Include
latitude and longitude with all samples following the
guidelines established under EPA's Locational Data Policy.
(See Attachment A.)
-------
Environmental indicator goals. Identify specific
environmental indicators to measure and report on progress
towards achieving the identified program goals.
Data and information sharing goals. Store the data in
automated systems that enable data to be easily shared,
analyzed, and portrayed. Put appropriate data into EPA's
STORET and the Waterbody System.
Analysis and reporting goals. Analyze the data and report
it in the State 305 (b) report supported by the Waterbody
System or comparable database and in other reports tailored
to the audiences who need to know the information.
Reference condition goals. Establish ecoregional reference
stations for biological monitoring programs in order to
provide baseline data for water quality assessments and
development of biocriteria.
Collaboration goals. Coordinate planned monitoring
activities with existing and planned monitoring programs in
other public and private organizations to gain maximum
benefit from sharing information.
II. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this guidance:
"State" covers States, Indian Tribes, and Territories in
this guidance.
"Water quality" refers to physical, chemical/toxicological,
and biological/ecological properties of water resources.
"Water .resources" include surface and ground waters,
coastal waters, associated aquatic communities and
habitats, wetlands, a~d
"Monitoring activities" include identification of program
objectives; selection of indicators; field data collection;
laboratory analysis; quality assurance/ quality control
(QA/QC) ; data storage, management and sharing; data
analysis; and information reporting.
III. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES:
A. Monitoring Strategy States should provide a" multi-year
(preferably 5-year) monitoring strategy with the 106 grant
application. This will provide the framework for
Regional/State agreement on an annual monitoring workplan.
For this the State can develop or revise its existing water
monitoring strategy in consultation with EPA Regional
monitoring staff and other affected State program managers.
The strategy should be consistent with related program
-------
"goals. To the extent possible, use information already
available, such as 305(b) report information.
Ambient and program-specific. The strategy should include
both ambient and program-specific monitoring. States
should summarize all program-specific monitoring activities
such as for nonpoint source, lakes, estuaries, wetlands,
groundwater (for which soil and geology characterization is
important), and wet weather surveys (CSO/stormwater),
NPDES, TMDL, 305(b) and 403(c) and describe how the ambient
and program-specific monitoring programs are integrated to
provide the total body of information necessary to support
water quality management programs.
B. Monitoring Program Workplan. States should describe their
monitoring program in the context of their multi-year
monitoring strategy, or revise the overall strategy as
needed each year to specify annual activities. The goal is
to integrate information from existing reports (305(b),
QAPPs, methods manuals) to avoid and eventually eliminate,
duplication. Where possible, the monitoring workplan
should include the following elements:
1. Purpose
a. Goals. List the goals of your monitoring
program, the specific objectives or questions you are
trying to answer, and who needs the information.
b. Data quality objectives. Specify data quality
objectives (a statement of the quality of
environmental information necessary to support the
goals you identify) . See Attachment B for list of
available EPA guidance on quality assurance plans.
c. Boundary delineation. If other than the entire
State, identify the boundaries of geographic areas you
target for monitoring, such as watersheds or
waterbodies, and the time frames in which you will
monitor them.
d. Environmental Indicators. Identify the
parameters or suites of physical, chemical, biological
and habitat parameters you are measuring to determine
if you are achieving your goals. Where possible,
include the indicators developed by the Office of
Water to measure national water goals.
e. Reference conditions. Establish reference
conditions for environmental indicators that can be
monitored to provide a baseline water quality
assessment.
-------
2. Coordination/Collaboration. Identify other agency
programs (e.g., nonpoint source, Clean Lakes, RCRA,
EMAP/REMAP etc.) or other separate agencies or groups
(such, as USGS, NOAA, or the Nature Conservancy) with
similar monitoring goals or information you can use to
support your management goals, and discuss how you
will collect and/or share information with them.
3. Design and Implementation.
a. Identify existing water quality problems and
information gaps.
b. Develop timelines to accomplish program
objectives.
c. Identify who is to collect, analyze, interpret,
and receive the water quality information.
d. Identify sampling approach (including fixed
station, synoptic, event sampling, intensive
surveys) for biological/ecological, physical,
chemical/toxicological, and habitat indicators.
Describe the approaches used, including the
number of surveys planned to be initiated or
completed during the fiscal year and for each:
1. Stream (or basin) name and study and
station locations.
2. Objective(s) of study;
3. Parameters monitored (physical,
chemical/toxicological ,
biological/ecological, habitat)
4. Sampling frequency of parameters
5. Reference to method of data collection and
analysis;
6. Reference to appropriate quality assurance
project plan;
7. Final report date.
e. Specify data collection methods.
1. A Standard Operating Procedures manual
should be prepared and submitted to the Regional
Quality Assurance Officer to document collection
methodologies.
This manual should identify field methods,
including sampling procedures for physical,
chemical/toxicological, biological/ecological,
and habitat monitoring activities.
-------
Report any modification to collection methods or
problems associated with the implementation of
the methods to the Regional Quality Assurance
Officer.
2. Ensure that all data is accompanied by the
latitude and longitude at which it was collected
(see Attachment A) to allow better sharing of
data and integration into spatial analysis
systems such as Geographic Information Systems
(CIS) .
f. Provide laboratory analytical support.
1. Provide for laboratory analytical support.
Employ laboratory analytical methods comparable
with the requirements of 40 CFR, Part 136, as
revised in October 1991.
2. State Laboratory personnel should continue
participation in EPA's Performance Evaluation
studies.
g. Prepare quality assurance and quality control
plans.
1. Review, revise, and implement the existing
Quality Management Plans (QMP) and Quality
Assurance Project Plans (QAPP) to reflect the
most effective parameters and methods, including
those for conventional parameters, toxicity
testing, biological surveys, fish tissue
analysis, habitat surveys and sediment
collection and analytical protocols. State QMP
and QAPP must be implemented in a manner
consistent with EPA regulations (see Attachment
B), Regional Grant conditions and EPA's
Guidelines.
For QA management plans, use guidance provided
in EPA's "Interim Guidelines for Preparing
Quality Assurance Program Plans" QAMS-00480 or
its updated version "EPA Requirements for
Quality Management Plans," EPA QA/R-2. (Choice
of documents currently dependent on the specific
EPA Region Policy).
For QA project plans, use guidance provided in
EPA's "Interim Guidelines and Specifications for
Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans,"
QAMS-005/80 or its updated version "EPA
Requirements for Quality Assurance Project
-------
Plans," EPA QA/R-5. (Choice of documents
currently dependent on the specific EPA Region
Policy). (See the new referenced documents
listed in Attachment B).
All QMP and QAPP revisions undertaken during the
fiscal year should be submitted to the Regional
Office for review and approval. Also, any
problems encountered in implementing the
approved QMP and QAPP should be reported.
States should submit an annual QA report as part
of their end-of-year report to include any
problems encountered in implementing the
approved QMP and QAPPs.
h. Provide for data storage, management and sharing
1. Store quality-assured data in a computerized
database that will enable data to be easily
accessed and shared. Provide hardcopy of
monitoring data within a reasonable time if
requested.
2. All monitoring data should be accompanied by
appropriate latitude/longitude information
according to EPA's Locational Data Policy. (See
Attachment A.) This will allow CIS portrayal and
analysis.
3. Water quality monitoring data should be
entered into STORET within 3-6 months after
data collection and analysis.
4. Fish tissue data (both freshwater and
saltwater) should be entered in Ocean
Data Evaluation System (ODES).
5. Toxicity test data should be entered into
ODES or comparable database.
i. Provide training and support.
1. Ensure necessary training of staff for field
and laboratory activities, data management, and
data assessment.
2. Provide support for volunteer monitoring
programs. Volunteer monitoring is valuable for
two reasons: 1) education and stewardship and 2)
provision of useful screening or other data if
volunteers are appropriately trained.
-------
Where volunteer data is to be used for government
decision-making, a quality assurance plan should
be prepared by the volunteer group and reviewed
for approval by the appropriate State agency.
4. Interpretation and Communication
a. Report all assessments of waterbodies for
designated use support including causes and
sources of impairments in the section 305(b)
Waterbody System or upload such information from
a compatible State system on an annual basis.
b. In order to use the section 305 (b) assessment
information for CIS and other spatial analyses,
States should £move towards} georeferencing the
waterbodies identified in the Waterbody System.
States should reference the waterbodies with
reach numbers at the Reach File 3 level. EPA
support is available.
c. Identify waters where water quality is known or
suspected of being impaired due to any physical,
chemical, or biological stressor and report such
information as appropriate in the 1996 305(b)
report and its supporting Wa±erbody System.
This report should be consistent with and draw
upon the information €rom reports in accordance
with the Clean Lakes (314), Nonpoint Source
(319), TMDL (303(d)) and other appropriate
assessment programs.
d. Work with your Region to have accessible
annually information on all final and ongoing
monitoring reports, site-specific evaluations,
biological surveys and special monitoring
projects. The information should include the
study objective, contact name, location of
study, and reference to the associated QA
project plan.
5. Program Evaluation
a. Annually review and update where necessary the
State monitoring strategy, wprkplan, and quality
assurance management and project, plans.
b. Provide a brief (no more than two pages)
assessment of the effectiveness' of the
monitoring program in providing data suitable to
meet program objectives as set forth in the State
monitoring strategy (e.g. what changes are needed
-------
1
in the monitoring program to evaluate new or
emerging problems or meet objectives that were
not achieved) . Include a list of the other
programs and agencies with which you have
coordinated to obtain your monitoring
information.
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT A
IRM POLICY MANUAL 2100 CHG 2
4/8/91
S 13 -
1. PURPOSE. This policy establishes the principles for
collecting and documenting latitude/longitude
coordinates for facilities, sites and monitoring and
observation points regulated or tracked under Federal
environmental programs within the jurisdiction of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . The intent of
this policy is to extend • environmental analyses and
allow data to be integrated based upon location, thereby
promoting the enhanced use of EPA's extensive data
resources for cross-media environmental analyses and
management decisions. This policy underscores EPA's
commitment to establishing the data infrastructure
necessary to enable data sharing and secondary data use.
2- SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY. .This 'policy applies to all
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) organizations and
personnel of agents (including- contractors and grantees)
of EPA who design, develop, compile, operate or maintain
t EPA information collections developed for environmental
program support. Certain requirements of this policy
apply to existing as well as new data collections.
3. BACKGROUND .
a. Fulfillment of EPA's mission to protect and improve
the environment depends upon improvements in cross-
programmatic, multi-media data analyses. A need
for available and reliable location identification
information is a commonality which all regulatory
tracking programs share.
b. Standard location identification data will provide
a return yet unrealized on EPA's sizable investment
in environmental data collection by improving the
utility of these data for a variety of value-added
secondary applications often unanticipated by the
original data collectors.
c. EPA is committed to implementing its .locatipnal
policy in accordance wit.** the requirements
specified by the Federal Interagency Coordinating
Committee for Digital Cartography (FICCDC) . The
FICCDC has identified the collection of
latitude/longitude as the most preferred coordinate
system for identifying location. Latitude and
longitude are coordinate representations that show
locations on the surface of the earth using the
earth's equator and the prime meridian (Greenwich,
England) as the respective latitude and longitude
origins .
13-1
-------
IRM POLICY MANUAL 2100 CHG 2
4/8/91
d. The State/EPA Data Management Program is a
successful multi-year initiative linking State
environmental regulatory agencies and EPA in
cooperative action. The Program's goals include
improvements in data quality and data integration
based on location identification.
e. Readily available, reliable and consistent location
identification data are critical to support the
Agencywide development of environmental risk
management strategies, methodologies and
assessments. •
f. OIRM is committed tto working with EPA Programs,
~_rions and Laboratories to apply spatially related
tools (e.'g., geographic information systems (CIS),
remote sensing, automated-mapping) and to ensure
these tools are supported by adequate and accurate
location identification data. Effective use of
spatial tools depends on the appropriate collection
and use of location identifiers, and on the
accompanying data and attributes to be analyzed.
g. OIRM's commitment to effective use of spatial data
is also reflected in the Agency's comprehensive CIS
Program and OIRM's coordination of the Agency's
National Mapping Requirement Program (NMRP) to
identify and provide for EPA's current and future
spatial data requirements.
4. AUTHORITIES.
a. 15 CFR, Part 6 Subtitle A, Standardization of Data
Elements and Representations
b. Geological Survey Cir<—-lar 878-B, £ "J.S. Geological
Survey Data Standard, Specifications for
Representation of Geographic Point Locations for
Information Interchange
c. Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on
Digital Cartography (FICCDC) /U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, Digital Cartographic Data
Standards: An Interim Proposed Standard
d. EPA Regulations 40 CFR 30.503 and 40 CFR 31.45,
Quality Assurance Practices under EPA's General
Grant Regulations
13-2
-------
IBM POLICY MANUAL 2100 CHG i
4/8/91
5. P31TCY.
a. It is EPA policy'that latitude/longitude
("lat/long") coordinates be collected and
documented with environmental and related data.
This is in addition to, and not precluding, other
critical location identification data that may be
needed to satisfy individual prograrr. or project
needs, such as depth, street address, elevation or
altitude.
b. This policy serves as a framework for collecting and
documenting location identification data. It
includes a goal that a 25 meter level of accuracy be
achieved; managers of individual~data collectior
efforts determine the exact levels of precision and
accuracy necessary to support their mission within
the context, of this goal. The use of global
positioning systems (GPS) is recommended to obtain
lat/longs of the highest possible accuracy.
c. To implement this policy, program data managers
must collect and document the following
information:
(1) Latitude/longitude coordinates in accordance
with Federal Interagency Coordinating
.Committee for Digital Cartography (FICCDC)
recommendations. The coordinates may be
present singly or multiple times, to define 3
point, line, or area, according to the most
appropriate data type for the entity being
represented.
The format for representing this information
• is: '•..•• • . • . .
+/-DD MM SS.SSSS (latitude)
+/-DDD MM SS.SSSS (longitude)
where:
Latitude is always presented before
longitude
DD represents degrees of latitude;
a two-digit.decimal number ranging
from 00 through 90
ODD represents degrees of
longitude; a three-digit decimal
*»**••> V ^ *» ^» a ^ ^ «!••*» ^r «• •»,«••» ^ ^ * ""*"*""** \I ? ^1 — • •
13.-3.
-------
IRM POLICY MANUAL 2100 CHG 2
4/8/91
• MM represents minutes of latitude
or longitude; a two-digit decimal
number ranging from 00 through 60
• SS.SSSS represents seconds of
latitude or longitude, with a format
allowing possible precision to the
ten-thousandths of seconds
• + specifies latitudes north of the
equator and longitudes east of the
prime meridian
• - specifies latitudes south of the
equator and longitudes west of the
prime meridian
(2) Specific method used to determine the lat/long
coordinates (e.g., remote sensing techniques,
map interpolation, cadastral survey)
(3) Textual description of the entity to which the
latitude/longitude coordinates refer (e.g.,
north-east corner of site, entrance to
facility, point of discharge, drainage ditch)
(4) Estimate of accuracy in terms of the most
precise units of measurement used (e.g., if
the coordinates are given to tenths-of-seconds
precision, the accuracy estimate should be
expressed in terms of the range of tenths-of-
seconds within which the true value should
fall, such as "+/- 0.5 seconds")
d. Recommended labelling of the above information is
as follows:
• "Latitude"
• "Longitude"
"Method"
• "Description"
• "Accuracy."
e. .This policy does not preclude or rescind more
stringent regional or program-specific policy and
guidance. Such guidance may require, for example,
additional elevation measurements to fully
characterize the location of environmental
observations.
f. Formats, standards, coding conventipns or other
specifications for the method, description and
accuracy information are forthcoming.
l'3-4
-------
IRM POLICY MANUAL 2100 CHG 2
4/8/91
6. RESPQNgTBTLTTTES.
a. The Office of Information Resources Management
(OIRM) shall:
(1) Be responsible for implementing and supporting
this policy
(2) Provide guidance and technical assistance
where feasible and appropriate in implementing
and improving the requirements of this policy
b. Assistant Administrators, Associate Administrators,
Regional Administrators, Laboratory Directors and
the General Counsel shall establish procedures
within their respective organizations to ensure
that information collection and reporting systems
under their direction are in compliance with this
policy.
While the value of obtaining locational coordinates
will vary according to individual program
requirements, the method, description and accuracy
of the coordinates must always be documented. Such
documentation will permit other users to evaluate
whether those coordinates can support secondary
uses, thus addressing EPA data sharing and
integration objectives.
7. WAIVERS. Requests for waivers from specified provisions
of the policy may be submitted for review to the
Director of the Office of Information Resources
Management. Waiver requests must be based clearly on
data quality objectives and must be signed by the
relevant Senior IRM Official prior to submission to the
Director, OIRM.
8. PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES. The Findings and
Recommendations of the Locational Accuracy Task Force
supplement this policy. More detailed procedures and
guidelines for implementing the policy ar_e issued under
separate cover as the Locational Data Policy
Implementation Guidelines.
-------
-------
Attachment B
QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDANCE INFORMATION
The Agency Quality Assurance (QA)Program is based in EPA Order
5360.1 "Policy and Program Requirements to Implement the QA
Program" April 17, 1984. This order and guidance documents for
preparing QA Project Plans and QA Programs plans have been the
principal agency guidance documents for some years. An extensive
EPA effort is now underway to update, codify and expand QA
guidance including replacement of the Order with an Order and
manual containing the new requirements and guidance documents.
The key new EPA QA documents for State use are:
EPA QA/R-2 EPA Requirements for guality Management Plans
QA/R-2 is the policy document containing the
reguirements for Quality Management. QA/R-2 is
the replacement for QAMS-004/80 and the sub-
sequent internal EPA guidance on QA Programs
Plans issued in 1987.
EPA QA/R-5 EPA Reguirements for Quality Assurance Project
Plans.
QA/R-5 is the replacement for QAMS-005/80. This
policy document establishes the requirements for
QA Project Plans prepared for activities con-
ducted by or funded by EPA. .
EPA QA/G-4 Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process
QA/G-4 provides non-mandatory guidance to help
organizations plan, implement, and evaluate the
Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process, with a
focus on environmental decision-making for
regulatory and enforcement decisions. This
guidance assists in the preparation of the DQO
section of EPA QA/R-2 and QA/R-5.
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT C
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Grant Administration
A. 40 CFR Part 130.11 stipulates the program management
aspects of these grant programs and the contents of the
State-work programs.
Monitoring
A. 40 CFR Part 130.4 requires that States must establish
appropriate monitoring methods and procedures necessary to
compile and analyze data on the quality of waters of the
United States.
B. 40 CFR Part 35.260 limits funding (if any) under Section
106 of the Clean Water Act if a State which fails to
monitor, compile, and analyze data, and report water
quality as described under Section 106 (e) (1) .
Reporting
A. 40 CFR Part 35.360 (b) does not allow funding under
Section 205(j)(l) to a State agency that fails to report
annually on the nature, extent and causes of water quality
problems in various areas of the State and Interstate
region.
B. 40 CFR Part 130.8 (d) specifies that in the years that the
section 305 (b) is not required, States may satisfy the
annual Section 205 (j) report requirement by certifying that
the most recently submitted section 305 (b) report is
current or by supplying an update of the sections of the
most recently submitted section 305 (b) report which require
updating.
Planning
A. 40 CFR Part 130.6 identifies the need for continuing water
quality planning and de'fines the content of the water
quality management plans. Continuing water quality planning
shall be based upon the water quality management plans and
the problems identified in the latest section 305 (b)
report. State water quality plans should focus annually on
priority issues and geographic areas and on development of
water quality controls leading to implementation measures.
Quality Assurance
A. 40 CFR Part 31.45 states that the grantee shall develop and
implement quality assurance practices consisting of
policies, procedures, specifications, standards, and
documentation sufficient to produce data of quality to
adequately meet project objectives and to minimize loss of
data due to out-of-control conditions or malfunctions.
-------
-------
EPA REGIONAL TMDL COORDINATORS
9/4/97
Region 1
Mark Voorhees
Water Quality Management Section
USEPA Region 1 (WQM-2103)
J.F. Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02203-0001
Phone: (617)565-4436
Fax: (617)565-4940
Region 2
Rosella O'Connor (M/W/TH)
Division of Envir. Planning and Protection
USEPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 24th floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Phone: (212)637-3823
Fax: (212)637-3889
Tom Henry
Water Management Division (3WM12)
USEPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215)566-5752
Fax: (215)566-2301
Region 4
Jim Greenfield
Water Quality Management Branch
USEPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (404)562-9238
Fax: (404)562-9318
Region 5
Donna Keclik .
USEPA Region 5 (5WQ-16J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: (312)886-6766
Fax: (312)886-7804
Region 6
Troy Hill
USEPA Region 6 (6WQ-EW)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Phone: (214)665-6647
Fax: (214)665-6689
Region 7
Cathy Tortorci (acting)
USEPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: (913)551-7435
Fax: (913)551-7765
Region 8
Bruce Zander
USEPA Region 8 (8EPR-EP)
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Phone: (303)312-6846
Fax: (303)312-6071
Others: Toney Ott (303)312-6909
Region 9
Dave W. Smith
Watershed Protection Branch (W-3-2)
SEPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Franciso, CA 94105
Phone: (415)744-2012
Fax: (415)744-1078
Region 10
Bruce Cleland
USEPA Region 10 (OW-134)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206)553-2600
Fax: (206)553-0165
-------
-------
1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
AUG 27 !99T
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: National Clarifying Guidance For 1998 State and Territory Section 303(d) Listing
Decisions
FROM: Robert H. Wayland III, Director /S/
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
TO: Water Division Directors, Regions I-X
Directors, Great Water Body Programs
Water Quality Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
States and Territories (referred to collectively in this memorandum as "States") have
made significant progress in developing their section 303(d) lists since the 1992 revision of the
water quality management and planning regulations (at 40 CFR Part 130). The attached
guidance clarifies several key policies related to listing of waters under section 303(d) for the
1998 listing cycle. The attached guidance is intended to supplement existing EPA section 303(d)
listing guidance; all existing national guidance is also applicable to development of the 1998
lists, except with regard to those issues that are explicitly addressed and clarified in today's
guidance.
Today's clarifying guidance applies only to the State section 303(d) lists of waters due on
April 1, 1998, as required by 40 CFR section 130.7. EPAhas convened an advisory committee
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to recommend long-term changes to the TMDL
program. After the Federal advisory committee on TMDLs presents its recommendations to the
Administrator in mid-1998, EPA may propose significant changes to current regulations, as well
as the policies presented in this guidance and other existing guidance, which would then govern
the development and approval of State section 303(d) lists for the year 2000 and beyond.
Today's guidance is one of several interim steps that EPA is taking to strengthen the
TMDL program while the Federal advisory committee deliberates. The attached guidance
addresses only a limited number of key issues that must be clarified before the 1998 section
303(d) lists are submitted to EPA. Other issues not addressed here will be addressed in future
guidance or regulations, after consideration of the advisory committee's recommendations.
Recycled/Recyclable .Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
Important Reminders
The increased scrutiny that we all face as we assist States in implementing the TMDL
program requires that we do our best to help States develop approvable and defensible section
303(d) lists in 1998. Therefore, in addition to the clarifications set out in the attached guidance, I
would like to highlight several issues that we have addressed in past guidance:
• First, I ask that you each work closely with your Regional Counsel's Office and with each
of your States to ensure that there is a complete administrative record supporting every
list approval and disapproval decision.
• Under 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(5), States must consider all "existing and readily
available water quality-related data and information" in compiling section 303(d) lists.
EPA regulations provide that such data and information should be actively solicited from
various sources, including local, State, or Federal agencies, the public, or academic
institutions (40 CFR section 130.7(b)(5)(iii)). In addition, the information contained in
EPA's Index of Watershed Indicators is appropriate to consider as part of the listing
process, but should not form the only documentation upon which a listing decision is
based. In making decisions to approve or disapprove State section 303(d) lists, EPA
should evaluate whether States have used all "existing and readily available water quality-
related data and information."
• EPA's regulations require a State to include an impaired waterbody on the State's section
303(d) list if pollution controls (including technology-based effluent limitations for point
sources and best management practices (BMPs) for nonpbint sources) are not stringent
enough to implement any applicable water quality standards (40 CFR section 130.7(b)).
EPA's Guidance for 1994 Section 303 (d) Lists (November 26,1993) clarifies that, if
"BMPs or [Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments] management measures have
been established or implemented and water quality standards have been attained or are
expected to be attained in the near future, then the waterbody need not be included on the
section 303(d) list." This 1993 guidance also clarifies that "near future" in this context
should normally be viewed as prior to the required date for the next section 303(d) list.
Consistent with EPA regulations (40 CFR section 130.7(b)(4)), States should include on
the 1998 section 303(d) lists an identification of the specific pollutant(s) causing or
expected to cause exceedances of applicable water quality standards. The 1998 lists
should also indicate whether the waterbody is impaired for one or more pollutants.
• Finally, several States have chosen to provide to EPA an annual update to their section
303(d) list. 40 CFR section 130.7(d) requires that States submit section 303(d) lists to
EPA "on April 1 of every even numbered year." EPA is therefore not required to take a
formal approval or disapproval action on an annual list update. However, I ask that each
-------
Region respond in some way to any such updates, if the update is provided prior to the
April 1, 1998 list submission deadline, either by informally advising the State of the
adequacy of the update or by advising the State that such an update should be
incorporated into the State's 1998 list submittal.
State Assistance
A number of efforts are underway to assist States in implementing the TMDL program.
Without your help, many of these efforts would not be possible.
First, the President's FY 1998 Budget requests substantially increased resources directly
aimed at helping States succeed in their section 303(d) listing and TMDL activities. EPA
technical and program assistance resources supporting section 303(d) activities would be
increased by 10 FTE and $8 million in available contract support. State 106 grants would also be
increased by $5 million for State section 303(d) responsibilities. EPA technical and program
assistance for nonpoint source management would be increased by $5 million in available
contract support. These funds have been requested by the President, but will not be available
unless appropriated by the Congress.
To provide additional technical assistance to the States, EPA's Office of Science and
Technology has begun a series of Regional workshops on BASINS, a tool that will allow States
to organize and display geographic information and model pollutant loadings to characterize the
overall condition of specific watersheds. In addition, OWOW's Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division is working with the Regional TMDL Coordinators and others to complete a
series of protocols for developing TMDLs for nutrients, bacteria, clean sediment, and variable
flow situations. These TMDL protocols will be peer reviewed in the Fall of 1997, at which tune
they will be made available to the States in draft form. We will also provide technical and
financial assistance to a number of States in FY 1998 to help establish Reach File 3
georeferencing capabilities for waterbodies on 1998 section 303(d) lists.
To help administer the TMDL program, we are currently developing a TMDL tracking
system — a data management system to track and analyze State and EPA activities and
commitments related to section 303(d), including the status of State lists, identification of listed
waters, TMDL development schedules, and any court ordered obligations. A prototype of the
system will be tested during the Fall of 1997.
-------
Thank you for your continued hard work and dedication. If you have any questions,
please call me or Geoff Grubbs, Director of the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
at (202) 260-7040, or ask your staffs to contact your Headquarters TMDL liaison or Don Brady,
Chief, Watershed Branch, at (202) 260-1261.
Attachment
cc: Mike Llewelyn, President, ASIWPCA
Alan Hallum, Chair, ASIWPCA Watershed Task Force
All Members, TMDL FACA Committee
TMDL Coordinators, Regions I-X
-------
NATIONAL CLARIFYING GUIDANCE FOR
1998 STATE AND TERRITORY CLEAN WATER ACT
SECTION 303(d) LISTING DECISIONS
The following guidance clarifies several key policies related to development of Clean
Water Act section 303(d) lists by States and Territories (referred to collectively in this guidance
as "States"). It applies only to the State lists of impaired waters1 due on April 1, 1998, as
required by 40 CFR section 130.7. It is very important that States meet this deadline since EPA
will be reviewing the State lists in April 1998 and taking appropriate action, consistent with
applicable regulations and guidance.
Today's guidance clarifies existing EPA section 303(d) listing guidance documents, i.e.,
Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process (April 1991); Supplemental'
Guidance on Section 303(d) Implementation (August 12, 1992); Approval of 303(d) Lists,
Promulgation Schedules/Procedures, Public Participation (October 30, 1992); and Guidance for
1994 Section 303(d) Lists (November 26, 1993). These national guidance documents remain
applicable to the development of the 1998 lists except with regard to those issues that are
explicitly addressed and clarified below.
Waterbodies Where Water Quality Standards Are in the Process of Being Revised
State section 303(d) lists and the subsequent development of TMDLs are linked to
applicable State water quality standards. 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(l) provides that waterbodies
included on State section 303(d) lists are those waterbodies for which pollution controls required
by local, State, or Federal authority, including technology-based or more stringent point source
effluent limitations or nonpoint source best management practices, are not stringent enough to
implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(3)
defines "water quality standard applicable to such waters" as "those water quality standards
established under section 303 of the [Clean Water] Act, including numeric criteria, narrative
criteria, waterbody uses, and antidegradation requirements."
1 EPA's regulations, at 40 CFR section 130.2(j), define "water quality-limited segment"
as "any segment where it is known that water quality does not meet applicable water quality
standards, and/or is not expected to meet applicable water quality standards, even after the
application of the technology-based limitations required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act"
(emphasis added). Therefore, for the 1998 listing cycle, States should consider both impaired
and threatened waters for inclusion on their 1998 section 303(d) lists. For ease of reference, the
phrase "impaired waters" as used in this guidance refers to both impaired and threatened waters.
-------
States may revise their water quality standards to address changes such as a Use
Attainability Analysis (as provided by 40 CFR section 131.10), development of a site-specific
criterion, or updated science. Several States have asked whether they may exclude waters from
the State section 303(d) lists if a water quality standard is in the process of being revised to be
less stringent than the standard that is in effect. They are concerned that once the water quality
standard has been revised, a waterbody that was water quality-limited under the old water quality
standard may not be water quality-limited under the revised water quality standard.
A decision not to list because a water quality standard is in the process of being revised
would be inconsistent with the regulations cited above and the Clean Water Act, which require a
State to identify "those waters within its boundaries" where controls "are not stringent enough to
implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters" (section 303(d)(l)(A) of the
Clean Water Act, emphasis added). Therefore, for the 1998 Mating cycle. States should include
on their section 303ftD lists waters that do not meet an applicable water quality standard at the
time of listing, even if the standard is in the process of being revised to be less stringent. If the
standard is in fact revised in the future, the water may be removed from the section 303(d) list at
that time provided the water no longer meets the listing requirements. States have the discretion,
of course, to assign a low priority to those waters where there is a likelihood that they may be
removed from the list in the near future.
Standards Exceedances Due to Atmospheric Deposition of Pollutants
In past section 303(d) lists submitted to EPA, some States have included waterbodies that
do not meet applicable water quality standards due to pollutants from atmospheric deposition,
while other States have not listed such waterbodies. 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(l), which requires
State section 303(d) lists to include water quality-limited waterbodies still requiring TMDLs,
does not differentiate between exceedances of applicable standards based on the source of
pollution.
Although EPA recognizes that controlling pollutants from atmospheric deposition may be
difficult, section 303(d) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR section 130.7 do not allow
the decision to Include a waterbody on a State section 303(d) list to depend upon the ease with
which a source of a pollutant can be controlled. Further, EPA's Guidance for 1994 Section
303(d) Lists (November 26,1993) specifies that "[tjhe section 303(d) list provides a
comprehensive inventory of waterbodies impaired by all sources, including point sources,
nonpoint sources, or a combination of both" (emphasis added).
For the 1998 State section 303(d) lists. States should include waterbodies that do not meet
an applicable water quality standard due entirely or partially to pollutants from atmospheric
deposition. For sources of the airborne pollutant located within State boundaries, States should
consider the extent to which existing air pollution control authorities in State Implementation
Plans adopted pursuant to the Clean Air Act and local ordinances could be used or enhanced to
-------
further reduce emissions of the air pollutant and abate the associated water quality problem. In
those cases where atmospheric deposition is associated with long-range transport of pollutants
across State boundaries and sources and effects are not completely understood at this time, EPA
Regional Offices should take a leadership role to join the air pollution and water pollution
programs of the Region and the involved States, and to create a regional research and abatement
strategy.
Waterbodies Impaired by Temperature
Even though State section 303(d) lists provide a comprehensive inventory of waterbodies
impaired by all sources, States have not listed waterbodies with temperature problems under
section 303(d) in a consistent manner. For the 1998 State section 303AD lists, waterbodies that
do not meet an applicable State water quality criterion for temperature or a designated use due to
temperature should be listed. Listing is appropriate because the applicable water quality standard
is not met. Heat, the cause of the impairment, is defined as a "pollutant" under section 502(6) of
the Clean Water Act and can be allocated. It is immaterial to the listing decision whether the
source of the temperature-related impairment is a thermal discharge or solar radiation. Both are
sources of heat, and the heat can be allocated through the TMt)L process.
Waterbodies Impaired bv an Unknown Source or an Unidentified Pollutant
40 CFR section 130.7(b)(l) provides that waterbodies included on State section 303(d)
lists are those waterbodies for which pollution controls required by local, State, or Federal
authority, including technology-based or more stringent point source effluent limitations or
nonpoint source best management practices, are not stringent enough to implement any water
quality standard applicable to such waters. In addition, 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(4) requires
States to identify, in each section 3 03 (d) list submitted to EPA, the "pollutants causing or
expected to cause violations of the applicable water quality standards."
These regulatory provisions apply even if the source of the pollutant cannot be identified
at the time of listing. Therefore, for the 1998 listing cvcle. waterbodies impaired by an unknown
source should be included on 1998 State section 303(d) lists, as long as there is a pollutant
associated with the impairment. Listing may be based on pollutant loadings from unknown point
and nonpoint sources, and includes situations where a pollutant is found in fish tissue such that
there is an exceedance of applicable water quality standards, but the pollutant is not traceable to a
particular source.
In addition, 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(4) requires States to include on their lists an
identification of the specific pollutant(s) causing or expected to cause exceedances of applicable
water quality standards. In some situations, however, a specific pollutant has not been identified
at the time of listing. Therefore, for the 1998 listing cvcle. where a water is impaired hut a
specific pollutant has not been identified. States should, if possible, indicate on the 1998 State
-------
section 303ftT> lists the class of pollutants (e.?~ metals or nutrients^ causing, or believed to be
causing, the impairment. Moreover, for the 199R listing cvcle. States should indicate whether the
wafer fc impaired for one or more pollutants.
Watcrbodics Impaired Solely bv Physical Barriers to Fish Migration
If a waterbody is not meeting its designated use, the applicable water quality standard is
also not met and the waterbody is therefore unpaired. In some situations, a physical barrier to
fish migration (e.g., a culvert) can result hi an impairment to a waterbody's use as an aquatic
fishery. The TMDL process may be used to establish load allocations for pollutants that are
preventing the attainment of water quality standards. In the specific case of a physical barrier to
fish migration such as a culvert, however, there is no pollutant to allocate and the TMDL process
is not appropriate. Therefore, for the 1998 section 303Cd1 lists. States are not required to list
waterbodies where the use impairment results solely from a physical barrier to fish migration.
Waterbodies "Not Expected to Meet" Water Quality Standards
40 CFR section 130.20) defines water quality-limited segments as those waterbodies
"where it is known that water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards, and/or is
not expected to meet applicable water quality standards" (emphasis added). 40 CFR section
130.7(b)(4) requires States to identify, hi each section 303(d) list submitted to EPA, the
"pollutants causing or expected to cause violations of the applicable water quality standards"
(emphasis added). In addition, 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(5)(l) requires States to consider waters
identified in the State's most recent section 305(b) report as "threatened" as part of the "existing
and readily available water quality-related data and information" considered when developing the
section 303(d) list.
Therefore, States should consider inclusion of both impaired and threatened waters on
their 1998 section 303(d) lists. EPA's Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL
Process (1991) also recommended that threatened waters be included on State section 303(d)
lists. However, EPA has never articulated a time frame for this expectation that water quality
standards will be exceeded in the future.
For the 1998 section 303(d) lists, a reasonable time frame is the two-year section 303(d)
listing cycle itself. States should therefore include a waterbodv on the 1998 section 303(d) lists if
the waterbndv presently meets an applicable water quality standard, but is expected to exceed
that standard before the next list submission deadline, i.e.. April 2000.
4
-------
In making determinations whether waterbodies are expected to continue to meet water
quality standards, States should use the definition of "threatened" in the Guidelines for
Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports), issued in May 1995.
These guidelines state on page 3-3 that:
A waterbody is fully supporting but threatened for a particular designated use
when it fully supports that use now but may not in the future unless pollution
prevention or control action is taken because of anticipated sources or adverse
pollution trends . . . States should use this category to describe waters for which
actual monitoring or evaluative data indicate an apparent declining water quality
trend (i.e., water quality conditions have deteriorated, compared to earlier
assessments, but the waters still support uses).
EPA and States are currently in the final stages of revising the section 305(b) guidelines
for the 1998 section 305(b) reporting cycle. This definition has not been changed for 1998, and
should be used as the basis for determining whether a waterbody is expected to continue to
exceed a water quality standard before April 2000.
Removal of Previously Listed Waterbodies from Section 303(d) Lists
EPA's Guidance for 1994 Section 303(d) Lists (November 26, 1993) describes two
instances when a previously listed waterbody may be removed from a State's section 303(d) list
prior to TMDL development: (1) if such waterbody is meeting all applicable water quality
standards (including numeric and narrative criteria and designated uses) or is expected to meet
these standards in a reasonable timeframe (e.g., two years) as a result of implementation of
required pollutant controls; or (2) if, upon re-examination, the original basis for listing is
determined to be inaccurate.
EPA's Guidance for 1994 Section 303 (d) Lists (November 26, 1993) also describes
several circumstances under which a previously listed waterbody could be retained on a State's
section 303(d) list after a TMDL had been established (and approved by EPA) for that
waterbody. 40 CFR section 130.7(b)(l) describes the section 303(d) list as "water quality-
limited segments still requiring TMDLs." This regulatory language is best interpreted to mean
that, once a TMDL has been established (and approved by EPA) for a waterbody, that waterbody
may be removed from the State's next section 303(d) list.
For purposes of the 1998 listing cycle, the State may (but is not required to) remove a
previously listed waterbody from its 1998 section 303^ list if a TMDL has been approved bv
EPA for that waterbody. However, if a waterbody is listed for more than one pollutant and a
TMDL for one of the pollutants has been approved, that waterbody may be removed from the
-------
1998 section 303(d) listybr that pollutant, but not for the remaining pollutants.
Tracking the implementation of TMDLs is crucial. EPA and States should ensure that
mechanisms are in place to track previously listed waterbodies that have been removed from a
subsequent section 303(d) list. Such mechanisms may include reporting under section 305(b)
and updates to State Water Quality Management Plans under 40 CFR section 130.6.
Waterbodies Impaired by Nonpoint Sources Only
EPA has consistently interpreted section 303(d)(l)(A) to apply to all waterbodies that do
not meet applicable water quality standards, except for those where certain technology-based or
other requirements will achieve standards. Consistent with long-standing EPA policy.
regulations^aQd-practige^States should include waterbodies impaired by nonpoint sources alone
on 1998 section 303(d)(l)(A) lists, including such waterbodies on Federal lands.
Gcorcfcrencing Listed Waterbodies
It is important to accurately identify the location and extent of waterbodies on State
section 303(d) lists. EPA's Reach File Version 3.0 (RF3) is a data base that interconnects and
uniquely identifies the 3.2 million stream segments or "reaches" that comprise the Nation's
surface water drainage system. The process of geographically referencing (georeferencing)
involves the assignment of reach addresses to these waterbodies in order to establish their
locations relative to one another hi a manner similar to street addresses.
To the extent possible. States should use RF3 for georeferencing 1998 State section
303(d) listed waterbodies in a nationally consistent manner. When georeferencing to RF3 is not
possible. States should provide the latitude and longitude of the start and end of the listed
waterbody: when such waterbody is a lake or reservoir. States should use the latitude and
longitude of the center of the waterbody. By georeferencing 1998 State section 303(d) lists to
RF3, States and EPA will be able to analyze and track patterns, trends, and progress on local,
State, regional, and national scales. Also, States will be able to analyze upstream/downstream
relationships, as well as effectively link section 303(d) information to other water quality
information, such as industrial dischargers, drinking water supplies, streams affected by fish
consumption advisories, wild and scenic rivers, and section 305(b).
While some States have already assigned RF3 addresses to section 303(d) listed
waterbodies, others have used a stream addressing system other than RF3 or have not yet
georeferenced their section 303(d) lists. In FY 1998, EPA will provide technical and financial
assistance to help a number of States who either have been using a stream addressing system
-------
1
other than RF3 or have not yet georeferenced their section 303(d) lists to assign RF3 addresses to
section 303(d) lists.
Indian Tribes
Protection of Tribal treaty rights and historic and accustomed uses can be an important
consideration as States develop their section 303(d) lists. Therefore, when identifying State
waters needing TMDLs. EPA strongly encourages States to cooperate closely with Tribes to
assure that appropriate attention is given to Tribal concerns.
In addition, several States have included waters in Indian country on their section 303(d)
lists in previous listing cycles. For the 1998 listing cvcle. EPA's approval actions will extend to
all the waterbodies on 1998 State section 3Q3rd^ lists with the exception of those waters that are
within Indian country, as defined at 18 USC section 1151. For 1998, EPA will take no action to
approve or disapprove State section 303(d) lists with respect to those waters within Indian
country. EPA or eligible Indian Tribes, as appropriate, will retain responsibilities under section
303(d) for those waters. In addition, EPA approval actions of State section 303(d) lists do not
constitute a finding of State and/or Tribal jurisdiction over particular waters.
Finally, this guidance does not address other section 303(d) listing requirements for
waters in Indian country because circumstances are different from those of most States.
However, a long-term approach, including new policies and guidance, is needed for developing
section 303(d) lists for waterbodies in Indian country, as well as for developing and
implementing TMDLs. The Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds is working with EPA's
American Indian Environmental Office and others to develop specialized TMDL policies and
guidance for these waterbodies.
-------
-------
1
Appendix L
Information for Determining Sources of
Designated Use Impairment
-------
-------
APPENDIX L: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Table L-1. Some Types of Information Useful in Determining Sources of Water
Quality Impairment
Industrial Point Sources
Municipal Point Sources
Combined Sewer
Overflows
_,
Permit Compliance Records
• analysis of DMRs
• compliance monitoring or special monitoring in permits
• WET or TIE bioassay tests
Monitoring/Modeling Studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, and habitat
monitoring
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/TMDL modeling
• complaint investigations
• data from volunteer monitoring
Permit compliance records
• analysis of routine DMRs
• compliance monitoring or special monitoring in permits
• WET or TIE toxicity bioassay tests
Monitoring/modeling studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, or physical
monitoring
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/TMDL modeling
• complaint investigations
* data from volunteer monitoring
Permit compliance records
• records of nonachievement of targets for frequency of
wet weather overflows
• implementation of other minimum control and pollution
prevention methods (as in EPA CSO Control Policy)
Monitoring/modeling studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, or physical
monitoring comparing wet weather and normal flow
conditions
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/TMDL modeling
» complaint investigations
L-1
-------
APPENDIX L: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Source Category
Agricultural Point Sources
(e.g., CAFOs)
Agriculture (NPS)
Example Types of Information
Permit compliance records
• Observation of overflows from total retention (non-
discharge) facilities
• Compliance with provisions for off-site disposal of
animal wastes (e.g., land application, composting)
Monitoring studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, or physical
monitoring (especially for nutrients and pathogens)
• complaint investigations '
Information from monitoring and field observations (e.g., to
document bad actors)
• edge of field monitoring of runoff from animal holding
areas, cropped areas, or pastures
• monitoring of inputs from irrigation return flows, sub-
surface drains, or drainage ditches
• proper installation of screens or other measures to avoid
fish losses in drainage/irrigation ditches
• serious rill or gully erosion in agricultural fields
• sedimentation problems in agricultural watersheds
• indications of unmanaged livestock in streamside
management zones
• complaint investigations or data from volunteer
monitoring or inventories
Records on watershed BMP implementation status
• documented low implementation level (e.g., less than a
70% target) of recommended water quality BMPs
• documented problems with specific agricultural
operators
Modeling
• Use of such models as AGNPS, SWAT or ANSWERS to
estimate pollutant loads and improvement from BMP
implementation
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/TMDL modeling
L-2
-------
1
APPENDIX L: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
' s ^ /•"? ^^ •
Source -Category^
Silviculture (NFS)
Construction
Example Ty.pds.vof Inforrnatlioh
Monitoring and field observations documenting instances of
high sediment delivery to receiving waters
• BMPs not followed on logging road, skid paths, or
stream crossings
• BMPs not followed to protect streamside management
zones
• serious sedimentation problems (cobble embeddedness
or interstitial D.O. problems) in watersheds that are
largely silvicultural
Records on watershed BMP/management measure)
implementation status
• documented low implementation level of recommended
water quality-oriented BMPs
Results of modeling or cumulative effects analyses
• Use of such models as WRENSS to estimate pollutant
loads and likely improvement from BMP implementation
• Use of water temperature models to help quantify
impacts on cold water fisheries
• use of landscape analysis techniques (e.g., the RAPID
method or Integrated Riparian Area Evaluation method)
to document cumulative effects
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/ TMDL modeling
Information from monitoring and field observations (primarily
to document problem areas or bad actors)
• sedimentation problems documented in watersheds with
major construction activity
• complaint investigations and volunteer monitoring data
Information from sediment control management agencies
• records of implementation of sediment control
measures
L-3
-------
APPENDIX L: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Source Category
Example Types of Information
Urban Runoff & Storm
Sewers'
Monitoring/modeling studies
• upstream/downstream chemical, biological, or habitat
monitoring comparing wet weather and normal flow
conditions near outfalls
• special monitoring for BMP effectiveness-wet ponds,
artificial wetlands, grass swales
• intensive surveys combined with WLA/ TMDL modeling
and catchment models such as SWMM
• complaint investigations
Information from management agencies
• documented low implementation level of
recommended/required water quality-oriented BMPs
• documented problems with BMP operation and
maintenance
Resource Extraction
(Petroleum)
Information from monitoring and field observations (primarily
to document problem areas or bad actors)
• evidence of oil and brine spills affecting sizable areas
near receiving waters; elevated TDS, toxicity, oil and
grease aesthetic impacts; increased erosion and
sedimentation problems
• complaint investigations and volunteer monitoring.data
Information from petroleum management agencies
• records of recurrent problems with spills, pipeline
breaks, over-berming of reserve pits, waste-hauler
dumping
Resource Extraction
(mainly surface mining)
Information from monitoring and field observations (primarily
to document problem areas or bad actors)
• evidence of decreases in pH, toxicity from heavy
metals, excessive sedimentation, or stream reaches with
iron bacteria in watersheds with active mining
• complaint investigations and volunteer monitoring data
Information from mining management agencies
• records of recurrent permit violations (e.g., over-berming
of settling ponds, failure to contain leachates, or failure
to revegetate or restore mined areas)
L-4
-------
APPENDIX L: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
SjOur,ce'.Category^
Example Types of Information
Land Disposal
Monitoring and field observations (primarily to document
problem areas or bad actors)
• monitoring indicates leachate migration from disposal
area or industrial or domestic leach field failures
• complaint investigations and volunteer monitoring
Modeling
• solute transport or plume models {e.g., PRIZM) indicate
high potential for pollutants to reach receiving water
Hydromodification
(Dams, flow regulation)
Monitoring and field observations
• recurring problems with'inadequate instream flows (e.g.,
dewatering of streams, reduced pollutant assimilation,
unnatural water temperatures)
• documented interference with fish migration and
spawning movements (e.g., for such anadromous fish
as salmon or rockfish but also for inland fish that seek
spawning habitat outside lakes or large rivers)
Modeling
• Analysis using PHABSIM or other instream flow models
to document adverse impacts
• Analysis related to FERC permit renewal and State 401
Certification, habitat recovery plans under the ESA, or
TMDL studies (e.g., problems with anoxic or nutrient-
laden releases from hydrostructures)
Hydromodification
(Channelization, dredging,
removal of riparian
vegetation, streambank
modification,
draining/filling of
wetlands)
Monitoring (usually over considerable period of time)
documenting adverse changes:
• severe channel downcutting or widening
• elimination of vegetation in streamside management
zones
• excessive streambank erosion and sloughing
• loss of significant wetland area in watershed
• failure of wetland mitigation projects
Modeling studies
• decreases in pollutant assimilation from habitat
modification
• adverse impacts on hydrology, water temperatures, or
habitat
L-5
-------
APPENDIX L: INFORMATION FOR DETERMINING SOURCES
Source Category
Natural Sources
Example Types of Information
Monitoring and field observations of the presence of sources
that are clearly not anthropogenic.
• Saline water due to natural mineral salt deposits
• Low DO or pH caused by poor aeration and natural organic
materials
• Excessive siltation due to glacial deposits
• High temperatures due to low flow conditions or drought
Note: the Natural Sources category should be reserved for
waterbodies impaired due to naturally occurring conditions.
L-6
-
-------
Appendix M
Section 319 v. Section 314 Funding
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
November 1996
Questions and Answers on the Relationship
Between the Sec. 319 Nonpoint Source Program
and the Sec. 314 Clean Lakes Program
1. What is the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program?
Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987 to establish the section 319 Nonpoint
Point Source (NPS) Management Program because it recognized the need for greater federal
leadership to help focus state and local NPS control efforts. Under section 319, States, Territories
and Indian Tribes (hereinafter referred to as just "States") follow a two-step process to qualify for
grant money under section 319(h). First, States must complete a NPS assessment report,
identifying NPS water quality problems. Second, States are to develop NPS management
programs describing what they are going to do about their nonpoint water quality problems over
the next 4 years. As of Nov. 1994, all States, as well as six Tribal governments and six
Territories, have completed assessments and management programs.
Since 1990, EPA Regional offices have funded projects under section 319(h) to supplement
States' ongoing NPS management programs. As of the end of fiscal year 1996, EPA has
awarded about $470 million nationwide in grants to States to implement NPS management
programs. These funds support a wide variety of activities including nonregulatory or regulatory
programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training,
technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific NPS
implementation projects. Notably, a portion of the section 319 grant funds has been used by
States to support implementation of NPS controls in lake watersheds and to monitor the
effectiveness of such controls.
2. What is the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program?
The Clean Lakes Program is a Federal grant program which was established in 1972 as
section 314 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (now known as the CWA), to provide
financial and technical assistance to States in restoring publicly-owned lakes. The early focus of
the program was on research, development of lake restoration techniques, and evaluation of lake
conditions (Lake Classification Studies). The Clean Lakes Program regulations (40 CFR 35
Subpart H), promulgated in 1980, redirected program activities to diagnose the current condition
of individual lakes and their watersheds, determine the extent and sources of pollution, develop
-------
feasible lake restoration and protection plans ("Phase I Diagnostic^Feasibility Studies), and to
implement these plans (Phase H Restoration/Protection Implementation Projects).
With the passage of the 1987 Amendments to the CWA, the Agency expanded the program to
include Statewide assessments of lake conditions (Lake Water Quality Assessment grants). The
Agency has encouraged States to use these assessment funds to also develop the institutional and
administrative capabilities to carry-out their lakes programs. The Agency also established Phase
III Post Implementation Monitoring studies to evaluate the longevity and effectiveness of various
restoration and protection techniques (including watershed best management, practices) imple-
mented under Phase II grants.
The Clean Lakes Program has funded a total of approximately $ 145 million of grant activities
since 1976 to address lake problems but there have been no appropriations for the program since :
1994. EPA has not requested funds for the Clean Lakes Program in recent years, but rather has
encouraged States in its recent section 319 guidance to use section 319 funds to fund "eligible
activities that might have been funded in previous years under Section 314."
3. What does the new section 319 nonpoint source guidance say about the
use of 319 funds to do work that was previously done under 314?
On May 16, 19'95, EPA issued new guidance for implementing effective State NPS
management programs under section 319 and for awarding section 319(h) grants to States. Key
aspects of the guidance include: States are encouraged to update their NPS management
programs; the guidance eliminates the competitive grants process starting in FY 1997; and the
guidance allows the use of section 319 funds to update State NPS assessment reports and
management programs. The guidance also includes a new section on "Lake Protection and
Restoration Activities" which reads as follows:
"5. Lake Protection and Restoration Activities
Lake protection and restoration activities are eligible for funding under Section
319(h) to the same extent, and subject to the same criteria, as activities to protect and
restore other types of waterbodies from nonpoint source pollution. States are
•encouraged to use Section 319 funding for eligible activities that might have been
funded in previous years under Section 314 of the Clean Water Act. However, Section
319 funds should not be used for in-lake work such as aquatic macrophyte harvesting or
dredging, unless the sources of pollution have been addressed sufficiently to assure that
the pollution being remediated will not recur."
-------
4. Can work which was previously done under the section 314 Clean
Lakes Program be funded under section 319 grants?
The May 1996 section 319 grants guidance clearly states that "States are encouraged to use
Section 319 funding for eligible activities that might have been funded in previous years under
Section 314 of the Clean Water Act." Thus, Phase I, II, and III projects, and lake water
quality assessments which were previously done under the section 314 Clean Lakes
Program are eligible for funding under section 319(h) grants. However, the section 319
guidance further states that "(l)ake protection and restoration activities are eligible for funding
under Section 319(h) to the same extent, and subject to the same criteria, as activities to protect
and restore other types of waterbodies from nonpoint source pollution." Thus, for example,
following are several key criteria that lakes-related work will need to meet in order to be eligible
for funding under section 319:
1. Section 319(h) of the C WA provides that section 319(h) grants are to be made
"for the purpose of assisting the State in implementing such (NPS) management
program." Thus, in order for an activity to be eligible for funding under section
319(h) the activity must be included in a State NPS management program. State
lake managers and lake communities will need to ensure that critical lake NPS
control needs are included in any updated State NPS management programs so
that such activities will be eligible for funding under section 319(h).
2. The May 1996 guidance allows States to use section 319 funds to update State
NPS management programs and NPS assessments, including Phase I Clean Lakes
Diagnostic-Feasibility Studies and statewide lake water quality assessments,
subject to the following limitations. The guidance provides that "States may use
up to 20 percent of their section 319(h) funds or $250,000, whichever is less, to
update and refine their programs and assessments."
3. The May 1996 guidance continues the national monitoring program to evaluate
the effectiveness of watershed implementation projects funded under section 319
projects. In fact, a number of the national monitoring projects include lakes.
5. What about in-Iake work such as aquatic macrophyte harvesting and
dredging, etc.?
The May 1996 guidance states that "(s)ection 319 funds should not be used for in-lake work,
such as aquatic macrophyte harvesting or dredging, unless the sources of pollution have been
addressed sufficiently to assure that the pollution remediated will not occur." Restrictions were
put on in-lake work such as aquatic macrophyte harvesting and dredging due to concerns that the
sources of the pollution need to be addressed first and also due to cost considerations. The May
1996 guidance is consistent with the Clean Lakes Program regulations at 40 CFR Part 35.1650-2
-------
which state that projects may not include:
"...costs for harvesting aquatic vegetation, or for chemical treatment to alleviate
temporarily the symptoms of eutrophication, or for operating and maintaining lake
aeration devices, or for providing similar palliative methods and procedures... Palliative
approaches can be supported only where pollution in the lake watershed has been
controlled to the greatest extent, and where such methods and procedures are a necessary
part of a project during the project period..."
6. How can we assure that work that was previously done under section
314 is supported under section 319 in the future?
EPA Regional Clean Lakes Coordinators and EPA Regional Nonpoint Source
Coordinators and their counterparts at the State/local level will need to work together to assure
that critical lake NPS management needs are addressed through section 319. Key actions include
assuring that lake management needs are included in updated State NPS assessment and
management programs so that these activities are grant eligible and assuring that high priority
lake management activities including Phase I, H, III and statewide lake water quality assessment
activities are included in annual work programs for section 319(h) grants.
-------
1
Appendix N
Examples of 305(b) Wetlands
Information
-------
-------
1994 Wisconsin Water Quality Report To Congress
Kewaunee County—Mapped Wetlands Two Acres Or More In Size*
WETLAND TYPE
Aquatics
Emergents
Scrub/Shrub, Deciduous
Scrub/Shrub, Coniferous
Forested, Deciduous
Forested, Conifereous
Open Water
Class Unknown***
TOTALS
1978 REPORTED
ACREAGE (Second Most
Recent Acreage)
20
1,261
710
22
5,389
92
22
24,411
31,927
MOST
RECENT
ACREAGE
(1989)
0
1,832
2,599
4
20,031
3,240
49
0
27,755
ACREAGE**
LOSS/GAIN
-20
571
1,889
-18
14,642
3,148
-27
•24.41 1
-4. 172
PERCENT
CHANGE
-100
31
72
-81
73
97
55
•100
•13
Manitowoc County—Mapped Wetlands Two Acres Or More In Size*
WETLAND TYPE
Aquatics
Emergents
Scrub/Shrub, Deciduous
Scrub/Shrub, Coniferous
Forested, Deciduous
Forested, Conifereous
Open Water
Class Unknown***
TOTALS
1978 REPORTED
ACREAGE (Second Most
Recent Acreage)
49
4,853
2.937
30
21,828
502
186
24,824
55,209
MOST
RECENT
ACREAGE
(1989)
0
7,811
6,635
25
30,072
3,932
393
0
48.868
ACREAGE**
LOSS/GAIN
-49
2,958
3,698
-5
8,244
3,430
207
•24,824
-6,341
PERCENT
CHANGE
-100
38
56
•17
27
87
53
•100
-11
* Wetland acreage estimates are based on the 1978 Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Maps and the 1989 map revi-
sions.
**Wetland acreage increases are due to improved aerial photography and interpretation techniques and rever-
sion of farmed wetlands back to wetland vegetation. Wetland acreage losses are due to improved aerial photogra-
phy and interpretation techniques and the draining or filling of areas mapped as wetland in 1978.
***The unknown class represents the acreage of large wetland complexes whose internal boundaries were too
detailed to digitize undertime and budget contraints imposed on the project.
202
-------
DRAFT
Table O.E. Development of State Wetland Water Quality Standards
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Campo Indian Reservation
Colorado
Connecticut
Coyote Tribe
Delaware
Dataware River Basin
District of Columbia
Rortda
Georgia
Guam
UwaK
Hoopa Tribo
Idaho
Mac la
ndiana
Iowa
Cansas
Kentucky
.cu-juna
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
UiSStSSippt
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Now York
tcnh Carolina
"Jorth Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Kcot
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
^
i I ! 1 1 i
5 " 3 * a -
3 1 « I -8 1
U « « s e "°
XX X
X
x x- x
X X X X X
X XX
XXX
XXX X
X
X XX
X'
x
X
X XX
X XX
X
XXX
a 5 4 7 0 15
Under Development
•S .S
.2 .§ a 2 « c
I I 1 1 1 1
'« CJ CO a
3 i S -i -8 ?
.a .1 .a , 5,
" 1 1 S 1 ' 1
X X
X X
X
X
x x
X
X X
X
20043 3
Source; 1994 State Section 305(b| Reports.
X«State reported program status.
* In-pttce but revisions under development. Revisions include expanding coveraga.
-------
1
DRAFT
Tabto D-5 (continiMd)
Slit*
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Campo Indian Reservation
Colorado
Connecticut
Coyote Tribe
Delaware
Delaware River Basin
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Hoopa Tribe
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Mew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon '
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Totals
Implementation Process
Waters in wetlands are waters of the State, but wetlands are not defined for inharant values, e.g. habitat.
Waters of the Stata, protected by standards for adjacant waters only.
Arkansas does not have a definition of wetlande, standards for wetlands, or legislation to protect them.
No information.
Municipal jurisdiction
Some uses defined, but incomplete. Narrative biocritieria will be developed as funding permits.
Wetlands are waters of the Stata; now developing criteria and uses for wetlands.
District does not identify wetlands as waters of the District, but has narrative standards for wetlands?
Wetlands are waters of the State, regulated using the same standards as other waterbodies.
Include wetlands as waters of the State.
Some uses defined, but incomplete. Narrative biocritieria will be developed as funding permits.
Wetlands are waters of the state so standards apply to wetlands.
Section 401 , wastsload allocations, specific wetlands identified in State standards.
Waters of the State, minimum designations for noncontact recreation and aquatic life support.
Wetlands are waters of the State, but standards do not have specific wetlands criteria.
No regs for implementing Section 401 .
Will consider specific definition of wetlands as waters of the State in next triennial review.
Wetlands-specific standards under consideration.
Wetlands not defined in State standards.
Standards for lakes and rivers apply to wetlands, but may not be technically appropriate.
Specific wetlands standards in 1 993, incl designated uses, narrative criteria, numeric toxics criteria.
No information
Wetlands are waters of the State but criteria have not been defined for wetlands.
Wetlands are waters of the State; in the near future. New Jersey will develop standards for wetlands.
Wetlands are waters of the State, designated for livestock and wildlife use. Specific standards in 1 996-97.
Developing wetlands specific criteria.
Currently, there are no specific water quality standards for wetlands.
Existing surface water standards apply to wetlands, but may not protect special wetlands functions.
Waters of the Commonwealth, but no specific standards for wetlands until EPA provides guidance.
No standards or designated uses for wetlands, but antidegradation applies to wetlands.
State Section 401 Wetland Permit
Wetlands assume standards of adjacant waterbodias; SC is considereing wetlands-specific standards.
Wetlands are waters of the State, desianated for wildlife propaqation and stock waterina.
Waters of the State; considering wetlands standards and clarifying general criteria applied to wetlands. .
Antidegradation applies to wetlands, watars of the State.
Inlcude wetlands as waters of the Stats; will consider including wetlands in narrative standards next review
Some criteria in place, some proposed
Waters in wetlands defined as waters of the State, so wetlands quality is protected but not their existence.
Page
Number
75
47
38
3-26
Comments
111-20
85
91-92
148-49
30
III-96
372
3-233-235
36
2-4
73
177
III-22, 26
54
32
185
III-6-5
V-27
175
45
145
3-54
104
99
III.F-3
99
168
142
93
293
Source: 1994 State Section 3O5(b) Reports.
-------
1) Define wetlands in tho water quality standards.
2) Assign water use classifications for wetlands.
3) Adopt narrative nondegradation standards to
protect wetlands from harmful or otherwise
objectionable conditions resulting from human
activities.
4) Apply nondegradation standards to wetlands
through wetland mitigation sequencing (avoid,
minimize and mitigate).
Minnesota Rules ch. 7050 defines wetlands as:
'those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.
Constructed wetlands designed for wastewater
treatment are not waters of the state. Wetlands
must include the following attributes:
1 ) A predominance of hydric soils.
2) Inundated or saturated by surface water or
ground water at a frequency and duration suffi-
cient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic
vegetation typically adapted for life in a saturated
soil condition.
3) Under normal circumstances support a preva-
lence of such vegetation."
Wetlands have been assigned the following
designated uses in the water quality standards:
Class 2D wetland waters are protected In support
of aquatic life and recreational uses. Dissolved
oxygen levels in backgrounds less than 5.0 mg/l
daily minimum must be maintained at background
pH and temperature must be maintained at
background levels. Glass 3D wetland waters are
protected in support of industrial uses. Chlorides,
/ Standards and
f.
Wetland Water Quali
Authorities
=" « « %. • •£ "°
Soil -|Sfsl
Ililisll^n
S|2o-S|gll=|
ll|i|iil!l§ .
Ow5c£<8'S
*^ A «*- rt ;r nJ ® -« O* *•' *r* ro
&J2££.*.2«iJlc
1®«r.e0'at;:-K£'5jc3
ill'SegssPMs-
MflllijIHI
-D 5 CC o a. cs 5 T- J= CC 3
CM
CJ.
-^ ~ ^ -. S 3 o
WCA Implementation
The Board of Water and Soil Resources
(BWSR) completed Minnesota Rules ch, 8420
which regulate the implementation of the WCA
of 1991 by Local Government Units (LGU).
Local government units include cities, counties,
townships, soil and water conservation districts
and watershed management agencies. The rule
which took effect January 1 , 1994 requires the
LGU to regulate drain and fill activities in all
wetlands that are not included as public waters
wetlands. Public waters wetlands are the
wetlands listed on the Protected Waters Inven-
tory regulated by the MDNR under Minnesota
Statute 1 03G. Under the WCA. certain wetland
types, sizes and activities are exempted from
regulation by the LGU. Regulations Implement-
Ing the WCA provide authority to the LGU to
grant one or more of 25 exemptions for certain
project types. These exemptions principally
apply to proposed land use activities on smaller
-------
1
1 £
O O
5 g»
O5 g T3 W
== "m "O "C
3 O d.
IE O CO
O
CO
CD
I
O
E
o
CO
CO
o
.
a> Jl
II
II
Q. o
PJ
-------
a
O
c
"c
CO
0_
•o
c
JC
^E
03
.C
t.
1
O
linnesota began
5
8
O)
T-
"o
.>.
c
CD
C
'c
c
'!>
m
c
»nd conservatio
vw
a>
3
»
>
'at
C
1
£
(V
h.
O)
o
S
o.
iral wetland
a
"O
Q,
-a
eg
j?
nd resources. I
JS
1
"o
c
managers
effective
rail statewide
e
O
b.
o
«
lis planning
j_
*o
I
5
d and guidance
goals with local
S
ra
3
O
C
«
A
goals will b<
wetland
o
to
CD
ra
c
.*:
_c
,0
T3
8
-------
•o
3
E
•= o
U) O
T3 LU
CO to
O
U.
,
I -
3 e
.£ 3
ffi T3
dant on the rich invertebrate food sourc
lands. One small reference wetland hai
en
81
~l
o 2
1 .000 clam shrimp per sample. 23 taxa
and five species of young frogs. This pi
._
c «
_D> •£
< °
but temporary wetland was dry by July.
cant relationship exists between the siz
£
'§
Q
•Si
u
3
wetlands and the amount of frog reprod
CD
Q.
a
in
smaller sites having more tadpoles per
than larger wetlands.
o
"to
32
'5
Present work involves determining 'g
(0
« Sr
J= -C
*•• W
o §
c '~
groups of taxa that indicate the conditioi
habitat. There are some significant rela
0 J!
ji
S g
between crustaceans, mayflies and dan
some water quality indicators. The dive
O
if C
D)
2 'o
(8 3
o 73
sedge family may be another useful indi
variety of Indicators of wetland health Im
(S
•o
•i
just invertebrates, but vegetation diversi
W e*
£ 2
en
lit
densities of amphibians is being evalual
will lead toward the multimetric or sever.
o
eter approaches advocated by USEPA f
biological criteria.
u:
cv
c
•Q
C
lied districts a
to
S
1
?
C
c
<0
•3.
1
^
2
Highway Admlnisi
tale's wetland
t a,
C *
~n o»
° S
"O k.
quality monitoring information >
lands. Therefore, one of the pi
provide consistent monitoring i
wetlands. Efforts are being for
MPCA for initial water quality n
lands in priority watersheds of
One benefit of this effort Is to d
tiered approach for assessing <
the wetland as part of these mi
This multiple tiered assessmer
would include working with loc;
and citizens.
• v>
•o
c
^0
eference Wet
cc
CD
(D
J£
2
by USEPA throu
•a
CD
73
CO
"ffl
u
O)
Q
"o
m
o
Q.
O
0
>
O
Q
C
CO
a
O)
nt because char
a
8.
-------
n
0
en
1
estoration
•c
CO
fitlanri Monito
o
-
lift
5 O CO -J
CO
CD
CD
T3
co
CM
CJ
CO
T™*
O>
C.
T3
CB
"o
W
CD
C
2
c
c
0
'5>
CD
DC
^^
j3 ***r^
wft
CD O
§W
< ®
E ~
Jl
•5 «o
0. Restored W
of the USFWS
T- >s
_L eft
— CD
«?
J3 0
ITt ^ "\
m
< co cr> m
f^ CO T^
S w-«
a co
If"
n
£
rf O CO T-
r*^ o co
C4 CO CO
8 «
o
a>
CD
cr
c
_o
15
1
Tn c
Region
Pothole Region
Hardwood Fore:
ast Forest Regloi
o « «r ^ c
a I 5
§> §
or
I
1-ss*
111?
j a l.
• s ^s s. = 1
.
k-s n» *» o «;*••••
«Om-amcco-2Tl»«
a«SgS.Eo •»«£«.>
S28o83-3~g»2.2,o
-<8«732^S«»I02®
|l§2J8ilf2S.8-
-------
Appendix O
National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations
-------
-------
APPENDIX O. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(October 1996)
Contaminants
%•- , ^'ags:.,;*-,^ '%
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
cis-1,2-
Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,2-
Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Monochlorobenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes (total)
MCLG
(mg/L)
-'*• ^
zero
zero
0.6
0.075
zero
0.007
0.07
0.1
zero
zero
0.7
0.1
0.1
zero
1
0.07
0.2
0.003
zero
zero
10
MCL
(mg/L)
-,,4 .^
0.005
0.005
0.6
0.075
0.005
0.007
0.07
0.1
0.005
0.005-
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.005
1
0.07
0.2
0.005
0.005
0.002
10
Potential Health Effects
from Ingestion of Water
V£&'^***, ' '"^fS',; ' •£?%%:?•
• Wife- , '• 'iff'; "• .We . • t'.«ia*,
Cancer
Cancer
Liver, kidney, blood cell
damage
Cancer
Cancer
Cancer, liver and kidney
effects
Liver, kidney, nervous,
circulatory
Liver, kidney, nervous,
circulatory
Cancer
Liver, kidney effects, cancer
Liver, kidney, nervous system
Liver, nervous system
damage
Cancer
Liver, kidney, nervous,
circulatory
Liver, kidney damage
Liver nervous system effects
Cancer
Cancer
Nervous system effects
Sources of Contaminant in
Drinking Water
< •,•>.-*, f, . ii--
\~^Sgt ~*3':' - • , "-*•', sm*. , -**,:, '-f^, '
Some foods; gas, drugs,
pesticide, paint, plastic
industries
Solvents and their degradation
products
Paints, engine cleaning
compounds, dyes, chemical
wastes
Room and water deodorants,
"mothballs"
Leaded gas, fumigants, paints
Plastics, dyes, perfumes, paints
Waste industrial extraction
solvents
Waste industrial extraction
solvents
Paint stripper; metal degreaser,
propellant, extraction
Soil fumigant, waste industrial
solvents
Gasoline; insecticides; chemical
manufacturing wastes
Plastics, rubber, resin, drug
industries; leachate from city
landfills
Improper disposal of dry
cleaning and other solvents
Gasoline additive; manufacturing
and solvent operations
Herbicide production; dye carrier
Adhesives, aerosols, textiles,
paints, inks, metal degreasers
Textiles, adhesives and metal
degreasers
May leach from PVC pipe;
:ormed by solvent breakdown
Gasoline, metal degreasers, and
jesticides
O-1
-------
APPENDIX O. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
SOCs:
Acrylamide1
Alachlor
Atrazine
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAHs)
Carbofuran
I Chlordane
1 Dalapon
1
J Dibromochloropropane
(DBCP)
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
adipate
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
j phthalate
1 Dinoseb
Diquat
Ethylene Dibromide
(EDB)
IEndothall
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin1
Glyphosate
Heptachlor
1 Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopenta
diene
Lindane
MCLG
zero
zero
0.003
zero
0.04
zero
0.2
zero
0.4
zero
0.007
0.02
zero
0.1
0.002
zero
0.7
zero
zero
zero
0.05
0.0002
MCL
(mg/L)
TT2
0.002
0.003
0.0002
0.04
0.002
0.2
0.0002
0.4
0.006
0.007
0.02
0.00005
0.1
0.002
TT2
0.7
0.0004
0.0002
0.001
0.05
0.0002
Potential Health Effects
from Ingestion of Water
Cancer, nervous system
effects
Cancer
Mammary gland tumors
Cancer
Nervous, reproductive system
Cancer
Liver, kidney
Cancer .
Decreased body weight; liver
and testes damage
Cancer
Thyroid, reproductive organ
damage
Liver, kidney, eye effects
Cancer
Liver, kidney, gastrointestma
Liver, kidney, heart damage
Cancer
Liver, kidney damage
Cancer
Cancer
Cancer
Kidney, stomach damage
Liver, kidney, nerve, immune
circulatory system
Sources of Contaminant in
Drinking Water
...- ••;- '
Polymers used in
ewage/wastewater treatment
Runoff from herbicide used on II
orn, soybeans, peanuts, and
other crops
Runoff from use as herbicide on
corn and non-cropland
Coal tar coatings; burning
organic matter; volcanoes, fossil
uels
Soil fumigant on corn and
cotton; restricted in some areas
Leaching from soil treatment for
ermites
Herbicide used on orchards,
beans, coffee, lawns,
road/railways
Soil fumigant used on soybeans,
cotton, pineapple, orchards
Synthetic rubber, food
packaging, cosmetics
PVC and other plastics
,
Runoff of herbicide from crop
and non-crop applications
Runoff of herbicide on land and
aquatic weeds
Leaded gas additives; leaching
of soil fumigant
Herbicide on crops, land/aquatic
weeds; rapidly degraded
Pesticide on insects, rodents,
birds; restricted since 1 980
Water treatment chemicals; II
waste epoxy resins, coatings II
Herbicide used on grasses,
weeds, brush
Leaching of insecticide for
termites, very few crops
Biodegradation of heptachlor
Pesticide production waste by-
product
Pesticide production
intermediate
Insecticide used on cattle,
lumber, gardens; restricted since
1983
O-2
-------
APPENDIX O. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Contaminants
Methoxychlor
Oxamyl (Vydate)
PCBs
Pentachlorophenol
Picloram
Simazine
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
;,,
Antimony
Arsenic (Interim)
Asbestos (>10/^m)
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Copper1
Cyanide
Fluoride
MCLG
(mg/L)
0.04
0.2
zero
zero
0.5
0.004
zero
0.07
0.05
zero
'%?•„ %S
0.006
0.05
7 MFL3
2
0.004
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.2
4.0
MCL
(mg/L)
0.04
0.2
0.0005
0.001
0.5
0.004
0.003
0.07
0.05
0.00000
003
^ ^^f::,
0.006
0.05
7 MFL3
2
0.004
0.005
0.1
TT2
0.2
4.0
Potential Health Effects
from Ingestion of Water
Growth, liver, kidney, nerve
Kidney damage
Cancer
Cancer; liver and kidney
effects
Kidney, liver damage
Cancer
Cancer
Liver and kidney damage
Liver and kidney damage
Cancer
' ?'ty ''*''" ^ITS* ' *'' '^i^'^'i?*,* '*"^"'<,*
fn •'/'-* --ftpMfjff^.,, ' ~'*%^?ff-ff~kj ^-/3$
Cancer
Skin, nervous system toxicity
Cancer
Circulatory system effects
Bone lung damage
Kidney effects
Liver, kidney, circulatory
disorders
Gastrointestinal irritation
Thyroid, nervous system
damage
Skeletal and dental fluorosis
Sources of Contaminant in
Drinking Water
Insecticide used on fruits,
vegetables, alfalfa, livestock,
pets
Insecticide on apples, potatoes,
tomatoes
Coolant oils from electrical
transformers; plasticizers
Wood preservatives, herbicide,
cooling tower wastes
Herbicide used on broadleaf and
woody plants
Herbicide used on grass sod,
some crops, aquatic algae
Insecticide used on cattle,
cotton, soybeans; cancelled in
1982
Runoff from herbicide on wheat,
corn, rangelands, lawns
Herbicide used on crops, right-
of-ways, golf courses; cancelled
in 1983
Chemical production by-product;
impurity in herbicides
' ^V ''l:>.',{ "2'l,-- -• >Mjj '•£.,, ''':£.,,,
". •' - ••-•• ••-•'• -. • -;.!,•« jt
Fire retardants, ceramics,
electronics, fireworks, solder
Natural deposits; smelters,
glass, electronics wastes;
orchards
Natural deposits; asbestos
cement in water systems
Natural deposits; pigments,
epoxy sealants, spent coal
Electrical, aerospace, defense
industries
Galvanized pipe corrosion;
natural deposits; batteries,
paints
Natural deposits; mining,
electroplating, pigments
Natural/industrial deposits;
wood preservatives, plumbing
Electroplating, steel, plastics,
mining, fertilizer
Natural deposits; fertilizer,
aluminum industries; water
additive
O-3
-------
APPENDIX O. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Contaminants
Lead1
Mercury (inorganic)
Total Nitrate/Nitrate
(as Nitrogen)
Nitrite
Selenium
Thallium
Microbiological and
Surface Water
Treatment'.
Cryptosporidium
Glardia lamblia
Legionella
Standard Plate Count
Total Coliform
Turbidity
Viruses
Radioactive;
Beta/photon emitters
(Interim and Proposed)
Alpha emitters (Interim
and Proposed)
Combined Radium
226/228 (Interim)
Disinfection
Byproducts:
Total Trihalomethanes1
(Interim)
MCLG
(mg/L)
zero
0.002
10
1
0.05
0.0005
N/A
zero
zero
N/A
zero
N/A
zero
zero
zero
zero
zero
MCL
(mg/L)
TT2
0.002
10
1
0.05
0.002
N/A
TT2
TT2
TT2
<5% +
TT2
TT2
4
mrem/yr
1 5 pCi/L
5 pCi/L
0.10
Potential Health Effects
from Ingestion of Water
Kidney, nervous system
damage
Kidney, nervous system
disorders
Methemoglobulinemia
Methemoglobulinemia
Liver damage
Kidney, liver, brain, intestinal
Gastroenteric disease
Legionnaire's disease
Indicates water quality,
effectiveness of treatment
Indicates gastroenteric
pathogens
Interferes with
disinfection/filtration
Gastroenteric disease
• •
Cancer
Cancer
Bone cancer
Cancer
Sources of Contaminant in
Drinking Water
Natural/industrial deposits;
plumbing; solder, brass alloy
faucets
Crop runoff; natural deposits;
batteries, electrical switches
Animal waste, fertilizer, natural
deposits, septic tanks, sewage
Same as nitrate; rapidly
converted to nitrate
Natural deposits; mining,
smelting, coal/oil combustion
Electronics, drugs, alloys, glass
/
* *
Human and animal fecal waste
Natural waters; can grow in
water heating systems
N/A
Human and animal fecal waste
Soil runoff
Human and animal fecal waste
Decay of radionuclides in natural
and man-made deposits
Decay of radionuclides in natural
deposits
Natural deposits
Drinking water chlorination
byproducts
1 Contaminants generally created during treatment by the public water system (e.g., during disinfection) or
caused by actions in the distribution system (e.g., corrosion byproducts).
2 Treatment Technique (TT) required. EPA develops a TT for a contaminant when it is not feasible to set a
numerical limit (an MCL) for that contaminant. A TT is a procedure or series of procedures that a PWS
automatically follows to comply with a drinking water regulation.
3 Million Fibers per Liter.
0-4
-------
State and Territorial 305(b) Coordinators
For State-specific water quality
information, contact:
Michael J. Rief
Alabama Department of
, Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Branch
P.O. Box 301263
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463
(334) 271-7829
Drew Grant
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
410 Willowby Street - Suite 10S
)uneau,AK 99801-1795
(907) 46S-26S3
Patricia Young
Project Officer for American Samoa
U.S. EPA Region 9 MC E-4
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1591
Diana Marsh
Arizona Department of
Environmental Qualify
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 207-4545
Bill Keith
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501) 682-0744
Nancy Richard
California State Water Resources
Control Board, M&A
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 94244-1530
(916)657-0642
John Farrow
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3575
Donald Conyea
Bureau of Water Management
Planning Division
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860) 424-3827
Brad Smith
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4590
Robert Kausch
Delaware River Basin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
West Trenton, N| 08628
(609) 883-9500
Dr. Hamid Karimi
Environmental Regulations
Administration (DQ
Water Quality Monitoring Branch
2100 Martin Luther King jr.
Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20020
(202)645-6611
Rick Copeland
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Mail Stop 3525
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 921-9421
W. M. Winn, III
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
Water Quality Management
Program
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Floyd Towers, East
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4905
Eugene Akazawa
Hawaii Department of Health
Clean Water Branch
919 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309
Don Zaroban
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Statehouse Mail
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5860
Mike Branham
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-3362
Dennis Clark
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Office of Water Management
100 N. Senate Avenue
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)233-2482
John Olson
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Water Qualify Section
900 East Grand Avenue
Wallace State Office Building
DesMoines, IA 50319
(515)281-8905
Mike Butler
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Office of Science and Support
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913)296-5580
Tom VanArsdall
Kentucky Department
for Environmental Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort Office Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
Albert E. Hindrichs
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Qualify
Water Qualify Management
Division
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
(504)765-0511
Jeanne Difranco
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7728
Sherm Garrison
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment
Tawes State Office Building, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)974-2951
Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection
Office of Watershed Management
40 Institute Road
North Grafton, MA 01536
(508) 792-7470
Sandra Kosek
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Surface Water Qualify Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909-7528
(517)335-3307
Elizabeth Brinsmade
MPCA, Division of Water Quality
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
'(612)296-8861
Randy Reed
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
Office of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
lackson, MS 39289-0385
(601)961-5158
John Ford
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
Water Pollution Control Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
(573) 751-7024
Christian). Levine
Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Science
Water Quality Division
Metcalf Building
P.O. Box 20091
1520E. 6th Avenue
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-5342
Mike Callam
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 98922
1200 N. Street, Suite 400
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402)471-2875
Glen Gentry
Nevada Bureau of Water Quality
Planning
Division of Environmental
Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670
Greg Comstock
New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Division
64 N. Main Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2457
-------
Kevin Berry
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Office of Land and Water Planning
401 East State Street. CN-418
Trenton, N| 08625
(609)633-1179
Erik Galloway
New Mexico Environment
Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fc,NM 87502-6110
(505) 827-2923
Fred Van Alstyne
New York Department of
Environmental Conservation
Monitoring and Assessment Bureau
SOWbtfRoad
Albany, NY 12233
(SI 8) 457-0893
OrotMetz
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-053S
(919) 733-5083
Mike EH
North Dakota Department
of Health
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, NO 58502-5520
(701)328-5210
EdRankin
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Division of Surface Water
1685 Wcstbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 728-3385
John Dyer
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
(405) 271-5205
Robert Baumgartner
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5323
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 8465
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)789-3638
Eric H. Morales
Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board
Water Quality Area
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce,PR 00910
(809) 751-5548
Connie Carey
Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management
Water Resources Division
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
(401)277-6519
David Chestnut
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental
Control
Bureau of Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-5393
Andrew Repsys
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Watershed Protection Division
523 East Capitol, Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
(605) 773-3882
Greg Denton
Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation
Division of Water Pollution Control
401 Church St, L&C Annex,
6th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0699
Steve Twidwell
Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 239-4607
Thomas W. Toole
Utah Department of Environmental
Quality
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake Gty, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6859
Jerome McArdle
Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Division
103 South Main Street
Building 10 North
Waterbury,VT 05671-0408
(802) 241-3776
Ronald A. Gregory
Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality -
Water Division
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 698-4471
U.S. Virgin Islands Division
of Environmental Protection
Water Gut Homes 1118
Christiansted, St Thomas,
VI 00820-5065
(809) 773-0565
Steve Butkus
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(360) 407-6482
Michael A. Arcuri
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)558-2108
Meg Turville-Heitz
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
(608) 266-0152
Phil Ogle
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Building - 4th West
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-5622
-------
1
Interstate Gommission 305(b) Coordinators
Howard Golub
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
(212)582-0380
Tribal 305(b) Contacts
Blackfeet Environmental Program
Attn: Gerald Wagner .
P.O. Box 2029
Browning, MT 59417-2029
(406) 338-7421
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Campo EPA
Attn: Michael L Connolly
36190 Church Road, Suite 4
Campo, CA 91906
(619)478-9369
The Coyote Valley Reservation
Attn: Jean Hunt
P.O. Box 39
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
Jason Heath
ORSANCO
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228-1112
(513)231-7719
Gila River Indian Community
Attn: Glen Stark
Water Quality Planning Office
Comer of Main and Pima Streets
Sacaton,AZ 85247
(602) 562-3203
Hoopa Valley Reservation
Attn: Ken Norton
P.O. Box 1348
Hoopa, CA 95546
(916)625-4275
Hopi Tribe
Water Resources Program
Attn: Ron Morgan
P.O. Box 123
Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039
(520)714-1886
Robert Edwards
Susquehanna River Basin
, Commission
1721 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391
(71.7) 238-0423
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
Attn: R. Jake Decker
P.O. Box 610
Hopland, CA 95449
(707)744-1647
Pauma Band of Mission Indians
Attn: Chris Devers
P.O. Box 86
Pauma, CA 92061
.(619)742-3579 .
San Carlos Tribal EPA
Attn: Lynette Patten
35 West Tonto, #1
San Carlos, AZ 85550
(520)475-2218
Soboba Band of Mission Indians
Attn: Jamie S. Megee
P.O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA 92581
(909) 654-2765
Three Affiliated Tribes
Attn: Jim Heckman
Environmental Div., HC3 Box 2
3 miles west of New Town
New Town, ND 58763
(701)627-3627
»U.S. COVEHHMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997-522-2.15/90341
-------
-------
1
*
v**V
-------
------- |