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

                              Section 101 (a) of the Clean Water Act

-------
&EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
              Office of Water
              (4305)
EPA-823-B-94-005b
August 1994
Water  Quality Standards
Handbook: Second  Edition
            Appendixes

   Contains update
   August 1994
                     "... to restore and maintain the chemical,
                     physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
                     waters."

                           Section 101 (a) of the Clean Water Act

-------
         APPENDIX A
    Water Quality Standards Regulation
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




          SECOND EDITION


-------
                                                                 Appendix A - Water Quality Standards Regulation
                                 Water Quality Standards  Regulation
              (40 CFR 131; 48 FR 51405, Nov. 8,1983; Revised through July 1,1991; amended at
         56  FR 64893, Dec. 12,  1991;  57 FR 60910, Dec. 22, 1992)
    TITLE 40—PROTECTION
       OF ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER I-ENVIRONMENTAL
     PROTECTION AGENCY

   SUBCHAPTER D—WATER
           PROGRAMS

  PART 131—WATER QUALITY
          STANDARDS
                                        Subparl D— Federally Promulgated Water Quali-
                                          ty Standards
                                        131.31    Arizona.
                                        131.33— 131 34 [Reserved)
                                        131.35    Colville Confederated Tribes Indian
                                 12,
  Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 *t seq.

(Amended  at  56  FR  64893,  Dec.
1991; 57 FR 60910, Dec. 22, 1992]

Subparl A—General Provisions
Sec.
131.1     Scope
131.2     Purpose.
131.3     Definitions.
131.4     Stale authority.
131.5     EPA authority.
131.6     Minimum requirements for water
          quality standards submission.
131.7     Dispute resolution mechanism.
131.8     Requirements for Indian Tribes to be
          treated as States for purposes of
          water quality standards.

Subpart B—Establishment of Water Quality
  Standards
131.10    Designation of uses.
131.11    Criteria.
131.12    Antidegradation policy.
131.13    General  policies.

Subpart C—Procedures for Review and Revision
  of Water Quality  Standards
131.20    State review and revision of water
          quality standards.
131.21    EPA review and approval of water
          quality standards.
131.22    EPA promulgation of water quality
          standards.
   Subpart A— General Provisions

§131.1 Scope.
  This part describes  the  requirements
and procedures for developing, reviewing,
revising and approving water quality stan-
dards by  the States as authorized by sec-
tion 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. The
reporting or recordkeeping  (information)
provisions in  this  rule were approved  by
the Office of Management and Budget un-
der 3504(b) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (Approv-
al number 2040-0049).

§131. 2 Purpose.
  A water quality standard defines the
water quality goals of a water body, or
portion thereof, by designating the use or
uses to be made of the water and by set-
ting criteria necessary to protect the uses.
States adopt  water quality standards to
protect public health or welfare, enhance
the quality of water and serve  the pur-
poses of the Clean Water Act (the Act).
"Serve the purposes  of the Act" (as de-
fined  in sections 101(a)(2)  and 303(c) of
the Act) means that water quality stan-
dards should, wherever attainable, pro-
vide water  quality for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and  wildlife
and for recreation in and on the water and
take into consideration their use and value
of public water supplies, propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife,  recreation in
and on the  water, and agricultural, indus-
trial, and other purposes including naviga-
tion.
Such standards serve the dual purposes of
establishing the water quality goals for a
specific water body and serve as the regu-
latory basis for the establishment of wa-
ter-quality-based treatment controls and
strategies beyond  the technology-based
levels of treatment required  by sections
301 (b) and 306 of the Act.

§131.3 Definitions.

  (a) The Act  means  the  Clean  Water
Act (Pub.  L. 92-500 , as amended, (33
U.S.C. 1251 et  seq.)).
  (b) Criteria are elements of State water
quality standards,  expressed  as  constitu-
ent concentrations,  levels, or  narrative
statements, representing a quality  of wa-
ter that supports a particular use.  When
criteria are met, water quality will  gener-
ally protect the designated use.
   (c) Section 304(a) criteria are  devel-
oped  by  EPA under authority of section
304(a) of the Act based on the  latest sci-
entific information  on the relationship
that the effect of a constituent concentra-
tion has  on  particular aquatic species
and/or human health. This information is
issued periodically to the States as guid-
ance for use in  developing criteria.
   (d) Toxic pollutants are those   pollu-
tants listed by the Administrator  under
section 307(a) of the Act.
   (e) Existing uses are those uses actual-
ly attained in the water body on or after
November 28, 1975, whether or not they
are included in the water quality stan-
dards.
   (f) Designated uses are those  uses spec-
ified in water quality standards for each
      (9/14/93)

-------
water body  or  segment  whether or not
they are being attained.
  (g) Use attainability analysis is a struc-
tured scientific  assessment of the factors
affecting the attainment of the use which
may include physical, chemical, biologi-
cal, and economic factors as described  in
§131.10(g).
  (h) Water quality  limited segment
means any segment where it is known that
water quality does not  meet  applicable
water quality standards, and/or is not ex-
pected to  meet applicable  water quality
standards, even after the application  of
the  technology-bases  effluent  limitations
required by sections  301(b) and 306  of
the Act.
  (i) Water  quality standards are provi-
sions of State or Federal law  which con-
sist  of a designated use or uses for the
waters of the  United States  and water
quality criteria for such waters based up-
on such uses.. Water quality standards are
to protect the  public health or welfare,
enhance the quality of  water and serve
the purposes of the Act.

[§131.3(j)—(I) added at 56  FR  64893,
Dec. 12, 1991]
   (j) States include:  The 50  States, the
District of  Columbia, Guam,  the  Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, the Trust Territory  of
the  Pacific Islands, the Commonwealth of
the  Northern Mariana Islands, and  Indi-
an Tribes that  EPA determines qualify
for  treatment as States for  purposes  of
water quality standards.
   (k) Federal Indian Reservation, Indian
Reservation, or  Reservation  means  all
land within  the limits of  any Indian reser-
vation under the jurisdiction of the United
States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including
rights-of-way running through the reser-
vation."
   (I) Indian Tribe or Tribe means any  In-
dian Tribe, band,  group, or  community
recognized by the Secretary of the Interi-
or and exercising governmental  authority
over a Federal Indian reservation.

 §131.4 State authority.
   (a) States (as defined in §131.3) are  re-
sponsible  for reviewing,  establishing, and
 revising water quality standards. As rec-
ognized by  section  510 of the Clean Wa-
ter Act, States may develop water quality
standards more stringent than  required by
 this  regulation. Consistent with  section
101(g) and  518(a) of the Clean Water
Act, water quality standards shall not be
construed to superseder or abrogate rights
to quantities of water.
  (b) States (as defined  in §131.3) may
issue certifications pursuant  to the  re-
quirements of Clean  Water Act section
401. Revisions adopted by States shall be
applicable for use in issuing State certifi-
cations consistent with the  provisions  of
§131.21(c).
  (c) Where EPA  determines  that a
Tribe qualifies  for treatment  as a  State
for  purposes of water quality standards,
the Tribe likewise qualifies for treatment
as a  State for  purposes  of certifications
conducted under Clean Water  Act section
401.
[§131.4 revised at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12,
1991]

§131.5 EPA authority.

[§131.5  former paragraphs (a)—(e) re-
designated as new (a) and (a)(l)—(a)(5)
at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12, 1991]
  (a) Under section  303(c) of the Act,
EPA is to review and to approve or  disap-
prove State-adopted  water  quality stan-
dards. The  review involves a  determina-
tion of:
  (1) Whether the State has adopted wa-
ter uses  which  are consistent with the re-
quirements of the Clean  Water Act;
  (2) Whether the state  has adopted cri-
teria that protect the designated  water
uses;
  (3) Whether the State  has  followed its
legal procedures for revising  or adopting
standards;
  (4) Whether the State standards  which
do not include the uses specified in section
 101(a)(2) of the Act are based upon ap-
propriate technical and scientific data and
analyses, and
  (5) Whether  the State   submission
meets  the   requirements  included  in
§131.6 of this part.  If EPA  determines
that  State  water quality standards are
consistent  with  the factors listed  in
paragraphs  (a) through (e) of  this section,
EPA approves the standards. EPA must
disapprove  the State water quality stan-
dards under section 303(c)(4) of the Act,
if State  adopted  standards are not consis-
tent with the factors listed in paragraphs
(a)  through (e) of this section. EPA may
also promulgate a new or revised standard
where necessary  to meet  the requirements
of the Act.
  (b) Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
authorizes EPA to issue certifications pur-
suant to  the requirements of section 401
in any case where  a State or interstate
agency has no authority for issuing such
certifications.

[§131.5(b) added at 56  FR 64893, Dec.
12, 1991]

§131.6 Minimum requirements for water
  quality  standards submission.

  The following elements must be includ-
ed in each State's water quality standards
submitted to EPA for  review:
  (a) Use designations consistent with the
provisions of  sections  101(a)(2)  and
303(c)(2) of the  Act.
  (b) Methods  used and  analyses  con-
ducted to support water quality standards
revisions.
  (c) Water  quality criteria sufficient to
protect the designated uses.
   (d) An antidegradation  policy  consis-
tent with §131.12.
   (e) Certification by  the State Attorney
General  or other appropriate legal author-
ity within the State that  the water quality
standards were duly adopted  pursuant to
State law.
   (0 General information  which will aid
the Agency in  determining the  adequacy
of  the scientific basis of  the standards
which do not include the uses specified in
section  101(a)(2) of the Act as well as
information on general policies applicable
to State  standards which may affect their
application and implementation.

§131.7 Dispute resolution mechanism.

   (a) Where disputes  between States and
Indian Tribes arise as  a  result of differing
water quality standards on common bod-
ies of water, the lead  EPA Regional Ad-
ministrator,  as  determined  based upon
OMB circular A-105,  shall be responsible
for acting in accordance with the provi-
sions of  this  section.
   (b) The Regional Administrator  shall
attempt  to resolve such  disputes where:
   (l)The difference in  water quality
standards  results in unreasonable conse-
quences;
   (2) The dispute is between a State (as
defined  in §131.3(j) but exclusive of all
 Indian Tribes)  and a Tribe  which  EPA
has determined qualifies to be treated as a
State for purposes of  water quality stan-
dards;

-------
  (3) A reasonable effort to resolve the
dispute without  EPA  involvement has
been made;
  (4) The requested  relief  is consistent
with the provisions of the Clean  Water
Act and other relevant law;
  (5) The differing State and Tribal wa-
ter quality standards have been adopted
pursuant to State and Tribal law and ap-
proved by EPA: and
  (6) A valid written request  has been
submitted  by either the Tribe or the
State.
  (c) Either a State or a Tribe may re-
quest EPA to resolve any dispute which
satisfies the criteria of  paragraph  (b)  of
this section. Written requests for EPA in-
volvement should  be submitted to the lead
Regional  Administrator  and  must  in-
clude:
  (1) A concise statement of the  unrea-
sonable consequences that are alleged  to
have  arisen  because of differing water
quality standards;
  (2) A concise description of the actions
which have been taken to resolve the dis-
pute without  EPA involvement;
  (3) A concise indication of the water
quality standards provision which has re-
sulted in the  alleged unreasonable conse-
quences;
  (4) Factual data  to support the alleged
unreasonable consequences; and
  (5) A statement of the relief sought
from the alleged  unreasonable  conse-
quences.
  (d) Where, in the Regional Administra-
tor's judgment, EPA involvement is ap-
propriate  based on  the factors of para-
graph  (b) of this section, the  Regional
Administrator shall, within 30 days, noti-
fy the parties in  writing  that  he/she  is
initiating  an  EPA dispute resolution ac-
tion and solicit their written response. The
Regional Administrator shall also make
reasonable efforts to ensure that other in-
terested individuals or groups have notice
of this action. Such efforts shall include
but not be limited to the following:
  (1) Written notice to responsible Tribal
and  State Agencies,  and other affected
Federal Agencies,
  (2) Notice  to the specific individual  or
entity that is alleging that an  unreason-
able  consequence  is resulting from differ-
ing standards having been adopted on a
common body of water,
  (3) Public  notice in local  newspapers,
radio, and television, as  appropriate,
  (4) Publication in trade journal news-
letters, and
  (5) Other means  as appropriate.
  (e) If  in  accordance  with  applicable
State and Tribal law an Indian Tribe and
State have entered into an agreement that
resolves the dispute or establishes a mech-
anism for resolving a dispute, EPA shall
defer to this agreement where  it  is consis-
tent with the Clean Water Act and where
it has been approved by EPA.
  (0 EPA dispute resolution actions shall
be consistent with one or a combination of
the following options:
  (1) Mediation. The Regional Adminis-
trator may appoint a mediator to mediate
the dispute.  Mediators shall be EPA em-
ployees,  employees  from other  Federal
agencies, or other individuals with appro-
priate qualifications.
  (i) Where the State and Tribe agree to
participate in  the dispute resolution pro-
cess, mediation with the  intent  to estab-
lish  Tribal-State agreements, consistent
with  Clean Water  Act  section 518(d)
shall normally be pursued as a first effort.
  (ii) Mediators  shall  act  as  neutral
facilitators whose function is to encourage
communication and negotiation between
all parties to the dispute.
  (iii) Mediators may establish  advisory
panels,  to consist  in  part of  representa-
tives from the affected parties,  to study
the problem and recommend an appropri-
ate solution.
  (iv) The procedure  and schedule  for
mediation of individual disputes shall  be
determined  by the  mediator in  consulta-
tion with the parties.
  (v) If formal public hearings are held in
connection with the actions taken under
this  paragraph,  Agency  requirements  at
40 CFR 25.5 shall be followed.
  (2) Arbitration.  Where the parties  to
the dispute agree to participate in the dis-
pute resolution process, the Regional Ad-
ministrator may appoint an arbitrator  or
arbitration panel to arbitrate the dispute.
Arbitrators and panel members shall  be
EPA employees, employees  from other
Federal  agencies,  or  other  individuals
with appropriate qualifications.  The Re-
gional administrator shall select as arbi-
trators and arbitration panel members in-
dividuals who are agreeable to all parties,
are  knowledgeable  concerning  the  re-
quirements of the water quality standards
program,  have a basic understanding  of
the  political  and  economic interests  of
Tribes and  States involved,  and are ex-
pected to fulfill the duties fairly and im-
partially.
  (i) The arbitrator or arbitration panel
shall conduct one or more private or pub-
lic meetings with the parties  and actively
solicit  information  pertaining to  the ef-
fects of differing water quality permit re-
quirements on upstream and  downstream
dischargers, comparative  risks  to public
health and the environment, economic im-
pacts,  present and  historical water  uses,
the quality of the waters  subject to such
standards, and other factors relevant to
the dispute such as whether proposed wa-
ter quality  criteria are  more  stringent
than necessary to support designated uses,
more stringent than natural  background
water quality or whether  designated uses
are reasonable given natural background
water quality.
  (ii) Following  consideration of relevant
factors as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(i)
of this section, the arbitrator or arbitra-
tion panel shall have  the authority and
responsibility to provide  all  parties and
the Regional Administrator  with  a  writ-
ten recommendation for resolution of the
dispute.  Arbitration panel recommenda-
tions shall, in general, be  reached by ma-
jority vote.  However,  where the  parties
agree to binding arbitration,  or where re-
quired by the Regional  Administrator,
recommendations  of such  arbitration
panels  may be  unanimous decisions.
Where binding or non-binding arbitration
panels cannot reach a unanimous recom-
mendation after  a reasonable period  of
time, the Regional Administrator may di-
rect the panel to issue a non-binding deci-
sion by majority vote.
  (iii) The arbitrator or arbitration.panel
members  may consult with EPA's Office
of General  Counsel on legal issues, but
otherwise shall have no ex parte commu-
nications pertaining to the dispute. Feder-
al employees who are arbitrators or arbi-
tration panel members shall be neutral
and shall not be predisposed for or against
the position of any disputing party based
on  any  Federal  Trust   responsibilities
which their  employers may have with re-
spect to the Tribe. In addition, arbitrators
or arbitration panel members  who are
Federal employees shall act independent-
ly from the normal hierarchy within their
agency.
  (iv) The parties  arc not obligated  to
abide by  the  arbitrator's  or arbitration

-------
panel's recommendation  unless they vol-
untarily entered into a binding agreement
to do so.
  (v) If a party to the  dispute believes
that the arbitrator or arbitration  panel
has recommended an action contrary to or
inconsistent  with the Clean  Water Act,
the party may appeal the arbitrator's rec-
ommendation  to  the  Regional Adminis-
trator. The request for appeal must be in
writing and  must include a description of
the statutory basis for altering the arbi-
trator's recommendation.
  (vi) The procedure and schedule for ar-
bitration of individual disputes shall  be
determined  by the arbitrator or  arbitra-
tion panel in consultation with parties.
  (vii) If formal public hearings are held
in connection with the actions taken un-
der this paragraph. Agency requirements
at 40 CFR 25.5 shall be followed.
  (3) Dispute Resolution Default Proce-
dure. Where one or more parties  (as de-
fined in paragraph (g) of this section)  re-
fuse to participate in either the mediation
or arbitration dispute  resolution  process-
es,  the Regional Administrator may ap-
point a single official or panel to review
available  information pertaining to the
dispute and to issue a written recommen-
dation for resolving the dispute.  Review
officials shall be EPA employees, employ-
ees from other Federal agencies, or other
individuals with  appropriate qualifica-
tions.  Review panels shall include appro-
priate members to be selected by  the Re-
gional Administrator in  consultation with
the participating  parties.  Recommenda-
tions of such  review  officials or  panels
shall, to the extent possible given the lack
of participation by one or more parties, be
reached in a manner identical to that  for
arbitration of  disputes  specified  in
paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (f)(2)(vii) of
this section.
   (g)  Definitions. For the purposes of this
section:
   (1) Dispute  Resolution  Mechanism
 means the  EPA  mechanism established
 pursuant to the  requirements  of Clean
 Water Act  section 518(e)  for resolving
 unreasonable consequences that arise as a
 result of differing water  quality standards
 that may be set  by  States and  Indian
 Tribes located on common bodies of wa-
 ter.
   (2) Parties to a State-Tribal dispute in-
 clude the State and the Tribe and may, at
 the discretion of the Regional Administra-
tor, include an NPDES permittee, citizen,
citizen group, or other affected entity.
[§131.7 added at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12,
1991]

§131.8 Requirements for Indian Tribes to
  be treated  as States  for  purposes of
  water quality standards.
  (a) The Regional Administrator, as de-
termined based on OMB Circular A105,
may treat an Indian Tribe as a State for
purposes of the water  quality standards
program if the Tribe meets the following
criteria:
  (I) The Indian Tribe is recognized by
the Secretary of the Interior and meets
the definitions in §131.3(k) and (1),
  (2) The Indian Tribe has a governing
body carrying out substantial governmen-
tal  duties and powers,
  (3) The  water quality standards  pro-
gram  to be administered by the Indian
Tribe  pertains to the  management  and
protection  of  water resources which are
within the borders of the Indian reserva-
tion and held by the  Indian Tribe, within
the borders of the Indian reservation and
held by the United States in trust for In-
dians, within  the borders of the Indian
reservation and held  by a member of the
Indian Tribe if such property interest is
subject to a trust restriction on alienation,
or  otherwise within the borders of the In-
dian  reservation, and
   (4) The  Indian Tribe is reasonably ex-
pected to be capable, in the Regional Ad-
ministrator's judgment,  of  carrying out
the functions of an effective water quality
standards program in a manner consistent
with the terms and  purposes of the Act
and applicable regulations.
   (b) Requests by Indian Tribes for treat-
 ment as States for purposes of water qual-
ity standards should be submitted to the
lead  EPA Regional Administrator.  The
application shall include the following in-
 formation:
   (1) A statement that the Tribe is recog-
 nized by the Secretary of the Interior.
   (2) A descriptive  statement  demon-
 strating that the Tribal governing body is
 currently carrying out substantial govern-
 mental duties  and powers over a defined
 area. The statement shall:
    (i) Describe the form of the Tribal gov-
 ernment;
    (ii) Describe the types of governmental
 functions  currently  performed  by  the
 Tribal governing body such as,  but not
limited  to, the exercise of police  powers
affecting (or relating to) the  health, safe-
ty, and welfare of the affected population,
taxation, and the exercise of the power of
eminent domain; and
  (iii) Identify the source of the Tribal
government's  authority to carry out the
governmental  functions currently being
performed.
  (3) A descriptive statement of the Indi-
an  Tribe's authority  to  regulate water
quality. The statement shall  include:
  (i) A  map or  legal  description of the
area over which  the Indian Tribe asserts
authority to regulate surface water quali-
ty;
  (ii) A statement by the Tribe's  legal
counsel (or equivalent official) which de-
scribes  the basis for the Tribes assertion
of authority;
  (iii) A  copy of all documents such as
Tribal constitutions, by-laws, charters, ex-
ecutive  orders, codes,  ordinances, and/or
resolutions which support the Tribe's as-
sertion  of authority; and
  (iv) an identification of the surface wa-
ter for  which  the Tribe proposes to estab-
lish water quality standards.
  (4) A  narrative statement describing
the capability  of the Indian  Tribe to
administer an effective water quality stan-
dards program.  The narrative  statement
shall include:
  (i) A description of the Indian Tribe's
previous  management experience includ-
ing, but not limited to, the administration
of  programs  and services authorized by
the Indian Self-Determination  and Edu-
cation  Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et
seq.), the Indian  Mineral  Development
Act (25 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.), or the Indi-
an  Sanitation Facility  Construction Activ-
ity Act (42 U.S.C. 2004a);
   (ii) A list of existing environmental  or
public  health  programs administered by
the Tribal governing  body and copies of
related Tribal laws, policies, and regula-
 tions;
   (iii)  A description of the entity  (or enti-
 ties) which exercise the executive, legisla-
 tive, and judicial functions of the Tribal
 government;
   (iv) A description of the existing or pro-
 posed,  agency of the  Indian  Tribe  which
 will assume primary responsibility for es-
 tablishing,  reviewing,  implementing and
 revising water quality standards;
   (v) A description of the technical and
 administrative capabilities of the staff to

-------
administer and manage an effective water
quality standards  program or  a  plan
which proposes how the Tribe will acquire
additional administrative and  technical
expertise. The plan  must address how the
Tribe will obtain the funds to acquire the
administrative and technical expertise.
  (5) Additional documentation required
by the Regional Administrator which,  in
the judgment of the Regional Administra-
tor, is necessary to support a Tribal re-
quest for treatment as a State.
  (6) Where  the Tribe has  previously
qualified for treatment as a State under a
Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water
Act program, the Tribe need only provide
the required information  which  has not
been submitted in a previous treatment  as
a State application.
  (c) Procedure  for processing an Indian
Tribe's application  for  treatment  as  a
State.
  (l)The Regional Administrator  shall
process an application of an Indian Tribe
for treatment as a State submitted pursu-
ant to 131.8(b)  in a  timely manner. He
shall promptly notify  the Indian Tribe  of
receipt of the  application.
  (2) Within 30 days after receipt of the
Indian Tribe's application  for treatment
as a State,  the  Regional Administrator
shall  provide  appropriate notice. Notice
shall:
  (i) Include  information  on  the  sub-
stance and basis of the Tribe's assertion  of
authority to regulate the quality of reser-
vation waters; and
  (ii) Be provided to all appropriate gov-
ernmental entities.
  (3) The Regional Administrator  shall
provide 30 days  for comments to be sub-
mitted on the Tribal application. Com-
ments shall be limited to the Tribe's asser-
tion of authority.
  (4) If  a Tribe's asserted authority  is
subject to  a  competing or conflicting
claim, the Regional Administrator, after
consultation with the Secretary of the In-
terior, or his  designee,  and in consider-
ation  of other comments received,  shall
determine whether the  Tribe  has ade-
quately demonstrated that  it meets the
requirements of  131.8(a)(3).
  (5) Where the Regional Administrator
determines  that a  Tribe meets  the re-
quirements  of  this  section,  he shall
promptly  provide written notification  to
the Indian Tribe that the Tribe has quali-
fied to be treated as a State for purposes
of water quality  standards and that  the
Tribe may initiate the formulation and
adoption of water quality standards  ap-
provable under this part.
[§131.8 added at 56 FR 64893, Dec. 12,
1991]

Subpart B—Establishment of Water
          Quality Standards

§131.10 Designation of uses.
  (a) Each State must  specify appropri-
ate water uses to be achieved and protect-
ed. The classification of the waters of the
State must take into consideration the use
and value of water for public water sup-
plies, protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on
the water, agricultural,  industrial, and
other purposes including navigation. In no
case shall a State adopt waste transport or
waste assimilation as a designated use for
any waters of the United  States.
  (b) In  designating uses of a water body
and the appropriate criteria  for  those
uses,  the State shall  take into consider-
ation the water quality standards of down-
stream waters and shall  ensure  that its
water quality standards provide for  the
attainment and maintenance  of the water
quality standards of downstream  waters.
  (c) States may adopt sub-categories of
a use and set the appropriate criteria to
reflect varying needs of such sub-catego-
ries of uses, for instance, to  differentiate
between  cold water and warm water fish-
eries.
  (d) At a minimum, uses are deemed at-
tainable  if they can be achieved by  the
imposition of effluent limits required  un-
der sections 301(b) and 306 of  the Act
and cost-effective and reasonable  best
management practices  for  nonpoint
source control.
  (e) Prior to adding or removing any
use, or establishing sub-categories of  a
use, the State shall provide notice and an
opportunity for  a public hearing under
§131.20(b) of this regulation.
  (0 States may adopt seasonal  uses as
an  alternative  to  reclassifying  a water
body or segment thereof to uses requiring
less stringent water quality criteria. If
seasonal  uses are adopted, water quality
criteria should be  adjusted to reflect  the
seasonal uses, however, such criteria shall
not preclude  the attainment  and  mainte-
nance of a more  protective use in  another
season.
  (g) States may remove a designated use
which is not an existing use, as defined in
§131.3, or establish sub-categories  of  a
use if the State can demonstrate that at-
taining  the designated use is not feasible
because:
  (1) Naturally occurring pollutant con-
centrations prevent the attainment of the
use; or
  (2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or
low flow conditions or water levels prevent
the attainment  of the use, unless these
conditions may be compensated for by the
discharge of sufficient volume of effluent
discharges without violating  State  water
conservation  requirements to enable uses
to be met; or
  (3) Human  caused  conditions or
sources of pollution prevent  the  attain-
ment of the use and cannot be remedied
or would cause more environmental dam-
age to correct than to  leave in place; or
  (4) Dams,  diversions or other types of
hydrologic modifications preclude the at-
tainment of the use, and it is not feasible
to restore the water body to  its  original
condition or to operate such modification
in a way that would result in the attain-
ment of the use; or
  (5) Physical  conditions related  to the
natural features of the water body, such
as the lack  of a proper substrate, cover,
flow,  depth, pools, riffles, and the like, un-
related  to water quality, preclude attain-
ment of aquatic life protection uses; or
  (6) Controls more stringent than those
required by sections  301(b)  and 306 of
the Act would  result  in  substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
  (h) States may  not  remove designated
uses if:
  (1) They are existing uses, as defined in
§131.3, unless a use requiring more strin-
gent criteria is added;  or
  (2) Such uses will be attained by imple-
menting effluent  limits required under
sections 301 (b) and 306 of the Act and by
implementing cost-effective and  reason-
able  best management  practices  for
nonpoint source control.
  (i)  Where existing water quality stan-
dards specify designated uses less  than
those which are presently being attained,
the State shall revise its standards  to re-
flect the uses actually  being attained.
  (j)  A  State must conduct a use attaina-
bility analysis as described in  §131.3(g)
whenever:

-------
  (l)The State designates or has desig-
nated uses that do not include  the  uses
specified in section  101(a)(2) of the  Act,
or
  (2) The State wishes to remove a desig-
nated  use that is specified  in  section
101(a)(2) of the Act or to adopt subcate-
gories  of uses  specified  in  section
101(a)(2) of the Act which  require less
stringent criteria.
  (k) A State is not required to conduct a
use attainability analysis under this regu-
lation  whenever designating uses which
include  those specified  in  section
I01(a)(2) of the Act.

§131.11 Criteria.
  (a) Inclusion of pollutants:
  (I) States must adopt those water qual-
ity  criteria  that  protect the  designated
use. Such criteria must be based  on sound
scientific rationale and must contain suffi-
cient  parameters or constituents to pro-
tect the designated use. For waters  with
multiple  use  designations, the  criteria
shall support the most sensitive use.
  (2) Toxic pollutants.  States  must re-
view water quality data and information
on  discharges  to  identify  specific water
bodies where toxic pollutants may be ad-
versely affecting water  quality or the at-
tainment  of the designated water use or
where the levels of toxic pollutants are at
a level to  warrant concern and must adopt
criteria for such toxic pollutants applica-
ble to the water body sufficient to protect
the designated  use. Where  a State adopts
narrative criteria  for toxic pollutants to
protect designated uses, the State must
provide information identifying the meth-
od  by which the State intends to regulate
point source discharges of toxic pollutants
on  water quality limited segments based
on  such narrative  criteria.  Such informa-
tion may  be included as part of the stan-
dards  or  may  be  included in documents
generated by the State in response to the
Water  Quality Planning  and  Manage-
ment Regulations  (40 CFR part 35).
  (b) Form of criteria: In establishing cri-
teria, States should:
  (1) Establish numerical values based
on:
  (i) 304(a) Guidance; or
  (ii) 304(a) Guidance modified to reflect
site-specific conditions; or
  (iii) Other  scientifically  defensible
methods;
  (2) Establish narrative criteria or crite-
ria based upon  biomonitoring  methods
where numerical criteria cannot be estab-
lished or to supplement numerical  crite-
ria.

§131.12 Antidegradation policy.

  (a) The State shall develop and adopt a
statewide  antidegradation  policy  and
identify  the  methods  for  implementing
such policy pursuant to this subpart. The
antidegradation  policy  and implementa-
tion methods shall, at a minimum, be con-
sistent with the following:
  (1) Existing instream water uses and
the level of water quality necessary to pro-
tect the existing uses shall  be maintained
and protected.
  (2) Where the quality of the waters ex-
ceed levels necessary to support propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife  and rec-
reation  in and on the water, that quality
shall be  maintained and protected unless
the State finds,  after full  satisfaction of
the intergovernmental  coordination and
public  participation  provisions of  the
State's continuing planning process, that
allowing lower water quality is necessary
to accommodate important economic or
social development in  the  area  in which
the waters are  located.  In allowing such
degradation  or lower water quality, the
State shall assure water quality adequate
to protect existing uses fully. Further, the
State  shall  assure that there  shall  be
achieved the highest statutory and regula-
tory  requirements for all new and existing
point sources and  all  cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices for
nonpoint source  control.
  (3) Where high  quality waters consti-
tute  an  outstanding  National  resource,
such  as waters of National and  State
parks and  wildlife  refuges and waters of
exceptional recreational or ecological sig-
nificance,  that  water  quality  shall  be
maintained and  protected.
  (4) In those cases where potential wa-
ter quality impairment associated with a
thermal discharge is  involved,  the an-
tidegradation policy  and  implementing
method  shall be consistent  with section
316 of the Act.

§131.13 General policies.

  States may, at their discretion, include
in their State standards, policies generally
affecting their application and implemen-
tation,  such as  mixing  zones, low flows
and variances. Such policies are subject to
EPA review and approval.
 Subpart C—Procedures for Review
   and Revision of Water  Quality
              Standards

§131.20 State review and revision of water
 quality standards.
  (a) State review. The State shall from
time to time, but at least once every three
years, hold  public  hearings  for the pur-
pose of reviewing applicable water quality
standards and, as appropriate, modifying
and adopting standards.  Any water body
segment with water quality standards that
do not include the uses specified in section
101(a)(2) of the Act shall be  re-examined
every three years to determine if any new
information has become available. If such
new  information indicates that the uses
specified in  section 101(a)(2) of the Act
are attainable, the State shall revise  its
standards accordingly. Procedures States
establish  for  identifying and  reviewing
water bodies for review should be incorpo-
rated into their Continuing Planning Pro-
cess.
  (b) Public  participation. The  State
shall hold a public hearing for the purpose
of reviewing water quality standards, in
accordance  with provisions of State law,
EPA's water quality management regula-
tion  (40  CFR  130.3(b)(6)) and public
participation  regulation  (40 CFR part
25). The proposed water quality stan-
dards revision and supporting analyses
shall be made available to the public prior
to the hearing.
  (c) Submittat to EPA. The State shall
submit the results of the review, any sup-
porting  analysis for the use  attainability
analysis, the methodologies used for site-
specific criteria development, any general
policies applicable  to water  quality stan-
dards and any revisions of the standards
to the Regional  Administrator for review
and  approval, within  30 days of  the final
State action to adopt  and certify the  re-
vised standard, or if no revisions are made
as a result of the review, within 30 days of
the completion of the review.

§131.21 EPA review and approval of water
  quality standards.
  (a) After the State submits its officially
adopted revisions, the Regional Adminis-
trator shall  either:
  (1) Notify  the  State within  60 days
that the revisions are approved, or
  (2) Notify  the  State within  90 days
that the revisions are disapproved.  Such

-------
 notification of disapproval shall  specify
 the changes needed to assure compliance
 with the requirements of the Act and this
 regulation, and  shall  explain  why the
 State standard is not in compliance with
 such  requirements.  Any  new or  revised
 State standard must be accompanied by
 some type of supporting analysis.
   (b) The Regional  Administrator's ap-
 proval or  disapproval of  a  State water
 quality standard shall be based on the re-
 quirements of the  Act as described in
 §§131.5, and  131.6.
   (c) A State water quality standard re-
 mains in effect, even though disapproved
 by EPA, until the State revises it or EPA
 promulgates  a rule that supersedes the
 State water quality  standard.
   (d) EPA shall, at least  annually, pub-
 lish in the  FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of
 approvals under this section.

 §131.22 EPA promulgation  of  water
  quality standards.
   (a) If  the  State  does not adopt the
 changes specified by the Regional Admin-
 istrator within 90 days after notification
 of the  Regional Administrator's  disap-
 proval, the Administrator  shall  promptly
 propose and promulgate such standard.
   (b) The  Administrator  may also  pro-
 pose and  promulgate a regulation, appli-
 cable to one or more States, setting forth
 a new or revised standard upon determin-
 ing such a standard is necessary to meet
 the requirements of the Act.
   (c) In promulgating water quality stan-
 dards, the Administrator is subject to the
 same policies, procedures, analyses, and
 public participation requirements  estab-
 lished for States in these regulations.

 Subpart D—Federally Promulgated
      Water  Quality Standards

 §131.31 Arizona.
   (a) Article 6, Part 2 is amended as fol-
 lows:
   (I) Reg. 6-2-6.11  shall read:
  Keg.  6-2-6.11  Nutrient  Standards.  A. The
 mean annual total phosphate and  mean annual
 total nitrate concentrations of the following waters
 shall not exceed  the values given below nor shall
 the total phosphate or total nitrate concentrations
of more than 10 percent of the samples in any year
exceed the 90 percent values given below. Unless
otherwise specified, indicated values also  apply to
 tributaries to the named waters.

1 . Colorado River from Utah
border to Willow Beach
(main stem) 	
2 Colorado River from Wil-
low Beach to Parker Dam
3 Colorado River from Par-
ker Dam to Imperial Dam
(main stem) 	
4. Colorado River from Im-
perial Dam to Morelos
Dam (main stem) 	
5. Gila River from New Mex-
ico border to San Carlos
Reservoir (excluding San
6. Gila River from San Car-
los Reservoir to Ashurst
Hayden Dam (including
San Carlos Reservoir).
7 San Pedro River
8. Verde River (except Gran-
ite Creek)
9 Salt River above Roose-
velt Lake 	
10. Santa Cruz River from
international boundary
near Nogales to Sahuanta
11 Little Colorado River
above Lyman Reservoir ..
Mean 90 pet annual value
Total
phosphates
as PCvng/l
0.04-0.06
0.06-0.10
0.08-0.12
0.10-0 10
0.50-0.80
0 30-0 50
0 30-0 50
0.20-0.30
0 20-0.30
0 50-0 80
0 30-0 50
Total ni-
trates as
NCvng/l
4-7
5
5-7
5-7
  B. The above standards are intended to protect
the beneficial uses of the named waters. Because
regulation of nitrates and phosphates alone may
not be adequate to protect waters from eutrophica-
tion, .no substance shall be added to any surface
water which produces aquatic growth to the extent
that such growths create a public nuisance or in-
terference with beneficial uses of the water defined
and designated in Reg 6-2-6.5.

   (2) Reg. 6-2-6.10 Subparts A and B are
amended  to include Reg.  6-2-6.11 in se-
ries with  Regs. 6-2-6.6,  6-2-6.7 and 6-2-
6.8.

§131.33  [Reserved]

§131.34  [ReservedJ

§131.35CoIville  Confederated  Tribes
  Indian Reservation.
  The water quality standards applicable
to the waters  within the Colville Indian
Reservation,  located in  the  State  of
Washington.
  (a) Background.
  (1) It is the  purpose of these Federal
water quality standards to prescribe mini-
mum  water quality requirements  for the
surface waters  located within the exterior
boundaries of the Colville Indian Reserva-
 tion to ensure  compliance  with section
 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.
   (2) The  Colville  Confederated Tribes
 have a primary  interest in the protection,
 control,  conservation, and utilization  of
 the water resources of the Colville Indian
 Reservation. Water  quality standards
 have been enacted into tribal law by the
 Colville  Business  Council of the Confed-
 erated Tribes of the Colville Reservation,
 as the Colville Water Quality Standards
 Act, CTC  Title  33 (Resolution No.  1984-
 526 (August 6, 1984) as amended by Res-
 olution No. 1985-20 (January 18, 1985)).
   (b) Territory  Covered.  The provisions
 of these  water quality standards shall ap-
 ply to all surface waters within the exteri-
 or boundaries of the Colville Indian Res-
 ervation.
   (c) Applicability, Administration and
 Amendment.
   (1) The  water quality standards in this
 section shall be  used by the Regional Ad-
 ministrator  for establishing any water
 quality based  National   Pollutant  Dis-
 charge  Elimination  System   Permit
 (NPDES)  for point sources  on  the Col-
 ville Confederated Tribes  Reservation.
   (2) In  conjunction with  the issuance of
 section  402  or  section 404  permits,  the
 Regional Administrator  may designate
 mixing zones in the waters of the United
 States on  the reservation on a case-by-
 case basis. The size of such mixing  zones
 and the in-zone water quality in such mix-
 ing zones shall be consistent with the ap-
 plicable  procedures and guidelines  in
 EPA's Water Quality  Standards Hand-
 book and  the Technical  Support Docu-
 ment for  Water  Quality Based Toxics
 Control.
  (3) Amendments  to the section at  the
 request of  the Tribe shall proceed in  the
 following manner.
  (i) The requested amendment shall first
 be duly  approved by the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation (and so
certified  by  the Tribes Legal Counsel)
and  submitted to  the Regional Adminis-
trator.
  (ii) The  requested amendment shall be
reviewed by EPA  (and  by  the State  of
Washington, if the action  would affect a
boundary water).
  (iii) If deemed in compliance with the
Clean Water Act,  EPA will  propose and
promulgate an appropriate change to this
section.

-------
  (4) Amendment of  this  section  at
EPA's initiative will  follow consultation
with the Tribe and other appropriate enti-
ties. Such amendments will  then  follow
normal EPA rulemaking procedures.
  (5) All other  applicable provisions of
this part 131 shall apply on  the Colville
Confederated Tribes Reservation. Special
attention  should  be  paid  to  §§131.6,
131.10, 131.11 and 131.20 for any amend-
ment to these standards to be initiated by
the Tribe.
  (6) All numeric criteria contained in
this  section  apply at all  in-stream flow
rates  greater than or  equal  to  the flow
rate calculated as the  minimum 7-consec-
utive  day average  flow with a recurrence
frequency of once in ten years (7Q10);
narrative criteria ( §131.35(e)(3)) apply
regardless of flow. The 7Q10  low flow
shall be calculated using methods recom-
mended by the  U.S. Geological  Survey.
  (d) Definitions.
  (1) "Acute toxicity" means a deleteri-
ous response  (e.g., mortality, disorienta-
tion,  immobilization)  to a  stimulus ob-
served in 96 hours or  less.
  (2) "Background conditions" means
the biological, chemical, and physical con-
ditions of a water body, upstream from
the point  or  non-point  source  discharge
under consideration.  Background  sam-
pling location  in an enforcement  action
will  be upstream from  the  point of dis-
charge, but not  upstream from other in-
flows. If several discharges to any water
body  exist, and an enforcement  action is
being taken  for  possible violations  to the
standards, background sampling will be
undertaken immediately upstream  from
each discharge.
  (3) "Ceremonial and Religious  water
use" means activities involving traditional
Native  American spiritual practices
which involve, among other things, prima-
ry (direct) contact with water.
  (4) "Chronic Toxicity" means the low-
est concentration of a  constituent causing
observable effects (i.e., considering lethal-
ity, growth, reduced  reproduction, etc.)
over a relatively long period of time, usu-
ally a 28-day test period for small fish test
species.
  (5) "Council" or  "Tribal Council"
means the  Colviile Business Council of
the Colville Confederated Tribes.
  (6) "Geometric mean"  means  the
"nth" root of a product of "n" factors.
  (7) "Mean retention time"  means  the
time  obtained  by dividing  a  reservoir's
mean annual minimum total  storage by
the non-zero 30-day,  ten-year  low-flow
from  the reservoir.
  (8) "Mixing  Zone" or "dilution zone"
means a limited area or volume of water
where initial dilution of a discharge takes
place; and where numeric water quality
criteria  can be exceeded but acutely toxic
conditions are prevented from  occurring.
  (9) "pH" means the negative logarithm
of the hydrogen ion concentration.
  (10) "Primary  contact  recreation"
means activities  where a  person would
have  direct contact with  water to  the
point of complete submergence, including
but not limited  to skin diving,  swimming,
and water skiing.
  (11) "Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of EPA's Region X.
  (12) "Reservation"  means all  land
within the limits of the Colville Indian
Reservation, established on  July 2, 1872
by Executive Order, presently containing
1,389,000 acres more or less,  and under
the jurisdiction  of the United  States gov-
ernment, notwithstanding the  issuance of
any  patent, and  including  rights-of-way
running through the reservation.
  (13) "Secondary contact recreation"
means activities where a  person's water
contact  would  be limited  to  the extent
that bacterial infections of eyes, ears, res-
piratory, or digestive systems  or urogeni-
tal areas would  normally be avoided  (such
as wading or fishing).
  (14) "Surface water" means all water
above the surface of the ground within the
exterior boundaries of the Colville Indian
Reservation including but not limited to
lakes, ponds,  reservoirs,  artificial im-
poundments, streams, rivers,  springs,
seeps and wetlands.
  (15) "Temperature" means  water tem-
perature expressed in Centigrade degrees
(C).
  (16) "Total  dissolved  solids" (TDS)
means the  total  filterable  residue  that
passes through a standard glass fiber filter
disk and remains after evaporation and
drying to a constant weight at 180 degrees
C. it is considered to be a measure of the
dissolved salt content of the water.
  (17) "Toxicity" means acute  and/or
chronic  toxicity.
  (18) "Tribe"  or  "Tribes"  means the
Colville Confederated Tribes.
  (19) "Turbidity" means the clarity of
water expressed as nephelometric turbidi-
ty units (NTU) and measured with a cali-
brated turbidimeter.
  (20) "Wildlife habitat" means the wa-
ters  and surrounding  land  areas of the
Reservation used  by fish, other aquatic
life and wildlife at any stage of their life
history or activity.
  (e) General considerations. The follow-
ing general guidelines shall apply to the
water quality standards and classifications
set forth in the use designation Sections.
  (1) Classification  Boundaries. At the
boundary  between  waters of  different
classifications, the  water quality stan-
dards for  the higher  classification  shall
prevail.
  (2) Antidegradation Policy.  This an-
tidegradation policy shall be applicable to
all surface waters of the  Reservation.
  (i) Existing in-stream  water  uses  and
the level of water quality necessary to pro-
tect  the existing uses shall be  maintained
and  protected.
  (ii) Where the quality of the waters ex-
ceeds levels necessary to support propaga-
tion  of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and rec-
reation  in and on the water, that quality
shall be maintained  and  protected unless
the  Regional  Administrator finds, after
full satisfaction of the inter-governmental
coordination and public participation pro-
visions of the Tribes' continuing planning
process, that allowing lower water quality
is necessary to  accommodate important
economic or social  development  in  the
area in  which the waters are  located. In
allowing such degradation or lower water
quality, the Regional Administrator  shall
assure water quality adequate to protect
existing uses fully. Further, the  Regional
Administrator shall assure  that there
shall be achieved the highest  statutory
and  regulatory requirements for all  new
and  existing point  sources and  all  cost-
effective and reasonable best  manage-
ment practices for nonpoint source  con-
trol.
  (iii) Where high  quality  waters  are
identified  as constituting  an outstanding
national or reservation resource, such as
waters within areas designated as unique
water quality management areas and wa-
ters  otherwise of exceptional recreational
or ecological significance, and are desig-
nated as special resource  waters, that wa-
ter quality shall be maintained  and  pro-
tected.

-------
  (iv) In those cases where potential wa-
ter quality impairment associated with a
thermal  discharge  is involved,  this an-
tidegradation  policy's implementing
method shall be  consistent  with section
316 of the Clean  Water Act.
  (3) Aesthetic  Qualities.  All  waters
within the Reservation, including  those
within mixing zones, shall be free from
substances, attributable to wastewater
discharges or  other pollutant  sources,
that:
  (i) Settle to form objectionable depos-
its;
  (ii) Float as debris, scum, oil, or other
matter forming nuisances;
  (iii) Produce objectionable color, odor,
taste, or turbidity;
  (iv) Cause injury to, are toxic to,  or
produce  adverse  physiological  responses
in humans, animals, or  plants; or
  (v) Produce  undesirable  or  nuisance
aquatic life.
  (4) Analytical  Methods.
  (i) The analytical testing methods used
to measure or otherwise evaluate compli-
ance with water quality standards shall to
the extent practicable,  be in accordance
with  the "Guidelines Establishing  Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants"
(40 CFR part 136). When a testing meth-
od  is not available for a particular sub-
stance, the most  recent edition of "Stan-
dard  Methods for the Examination  of
Water  and Wastewater" (published  by
the American Public Health Association,
American Water Works Association, and
the Water Pollution Control Federation)
and other or superseding  methods pub-
lished and/or approved by EPA shall  be
used.
   (f) General  Water  Use and  Criteria
 Classes. The following criteria shall apply
to the various classes of surface waters on
 the Colville Indian Reservation:
   (1) Class I {Extraordinary)—
   (i) Designated uses.  The  designated
 uses  include,  but are not limited to, the
 following:
   (A) Water supply (domestic, industrial,
agricultural).
   (B) Stock watering.
   (C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
 tion,  rearing, spawning, and  harvesting;
other fish migration,  rearing,  spawning,
and harvesting.
   (D) Wildlife habitat.
   (E) Ceremonial  and religious  water
 use.
  (F) Recreation (primary contact recre-
ation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic
enjoyment).
  (G) Commerce and navigation.
  (ii) Water quality criteria.
  (A) Bacteriological Criteria—The geo-
metric mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period shall not exceed 8  per  100 millili-
ters, nor shall any single sample exceed an
enterococci density of 35  per  100 millili-
ters. These  limits are calculated as  the
geometric mean of the collected samples
approximately equally spaced over a thir-
ty day period.
  (B) Dissolved oxygen—The dissolved
oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg/1.
  (C) Total                 dissolved
gas—concentrations shall not exceed  110
percent of the  saturation value for gases
at the existing atmospheric and hydrostat-
ic pressures at any point of sample collec-
tion.
  (D) Temperature—shall  not  exceed
 16.0 degrees C due to human activities.
Temperature increases shall not, at  any
time, exceed t=23/(T+5).
  (/) When  natural  conditions exceed
 16.0 degrees C, no  temperature increase
will be allowed which will raise the receiv-
ing water by greater than 0.3 degrees C.
   (2) For purposes hereof, "t" represents
the permissive  temperature change  across
the dilution zone; and "T" represents the
 highest existing temperature in this water
classification outside of any dilution zone.
   (3) Provided that temperature increase
 resulting from nonpoint source activities
 shall not exceed 2.8 degrees  C, and the
 maximum water temperature shall not ex-
 ceed 10.3 degrees C.
   (E) pH shall be within  the range of 6.5
 to 8.5 with a human-caused variation of
 less than 0.2 units.
   (F) Turbidity shall  not exceed 5 NTU
 over background turbidity when the back-
 ground turbidity  is 50 NTU or less, or
 have more than a  10 percent increase in
 turbidity when the  background turbidity
 is more than 50 NTU.
   (G) Toxic,  radioactive,  nonconvention-
 al, or  deleterious  material concentrations
 shall be less than  those of public  health
 significance, or which may cause acute or
 chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
 ota, or which may adversely affect desig-
 nated water uses.
   (2)  Class II (Excellent).—
  (i) Designated uses. The designated
uses include  but are not  limited to,  the
following:
  (A) Water supply (domestic, industrial,
agricultural).
  (B) Stock watering.
  (C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
tion, rearing, spawning,  and harvesting;
other fish  migration, rearing, spawning,
and harvesting; crayfish  rearing, spawn-
ing, and harvesting.
  (D) Wildlife habitat.
  (E) Ceremonial  and  religious water
use.
  (F) Recreation (primary contact recre-
ation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic
enjoyment).
  (G) Commerce and  navigation.
  (ii) Water  quality criteria.
  (A) Bacteriological Criteria—The geo-
metric  mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over  a 30  day
period  shall  not exceed  16/100 ml,  nor
shall any single sample exceed an entero-
cocci density of 75  per  100 milliliters.
These limits are calculated as the geomet-
ric  mean of the collected samples approxi-
mately  equally  spaced over a thirty  day
period.
  (B) Dissolved  oxygen—The  dissolved
oxygen shall exceed 8.0 mg/1.
  (C) Total  dissolved gas—concentra-
tions shall not exceed 110 percent of the
saturation  value for gases at the existing
atmospheric  and hydrostatic pressures at
any point of sample collection.
   (D) Temperature—shall  not exceed
 18.0 degrees C due to human  activities.
Temperature increases shall not, at  any
time, exceed t=28/(T+7).
   (I) When  natural conditions exceed 18
degrees C  no temperature increase will be
allowed which will raise the receiving wa-
ter temperature by greater than 0.3 de-
grees C.
   (2) For  purposes hereof, "t" represents
the permissive temperature change across
the dilution zone; and "T" represents the
highest existing temperature in  this water
classification outside of any dilution zone.
   (3) Provided that temperature increase
 resulting from non-point source activities
shall not exceed 2.8 degrees C, and the
maximum water temperature shall not ex-
ceed 18.3  degrees C.
   (E) pH  shall  be within the range of 6.5
to  8.5  with a human-caused variation of
less than 0.5 units.

-------
  (F) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU
over background turbidity when the back-
ground  turbidity is  50 NTU or less, or
have more than a 10 percent increase in
turbidity when the background turbidity
is more than 50 NTU.
  (G) Toxic, radioactive, nonconvention-
al, or deleterious material concentrations
shall  be less than those of public health
significance, or which may cause acute or
chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
ota, or  which  may adversely affect desig-
nated water uses.
  (3) Class III (Good).—
  (I) Designated  uses.  The designated
uses include but are not limited to, the
following:
  (A) Water  supply (industrial, agricul-
tural).
  (B) Stock watering.
  (C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
tion,  rearing, spawning,  and harvesting;
other fish migration,  rearing,  spawning,
and harvesting; crayfish  rearing, spawn-
ing, and harvesting.
  (D) Wildlife habitat.
  (E) Recreation (secondary contact rec-
reation, sport  fishing, boating and aesthet-
ic enjoyment).
  (F) Commerce and  navigation.
  (ii) Water quality criteria.
   (A) Bacteriological  Criteria—The geo-
metric  mean  of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period  shall not exceed  33/100 ml,  nor
shall any single sample exceed  an entero-
cocci density of 150  per  100  milliliters.
These limits are calculated as the geomet-
ric mean of the collected samples approxi-
mately equally spaced over a  thirty day
period.
   (B) Dissolved oxygen.

7 day mean 	

Early life
stages1.1
9.5(65)
8 0 (5 0)

Other life
stages
»NA
65

  1 These are water column concentrations recommended
 to achieve the required intergravel dissolved oxygen con-
 centrations shown in parentheses. The 3 mg/L differential
 is discussed in the dissolved oxygen criteria document
 (EPA 440/5-66-003, April 1986). For species that have ear-
 ly Me stages exposed directly to the water column, the
 figures in parentheses apply.
  * Includes all embryonic and larval stages and all juve-
 nile forms to 30-days following hatching
  1 NA (not applicable)
  4 All minima should be considered as instantaneous
 concentrations to be achieved at all times
   (C) Total dissolved gas  concentrations
 shall not exceed  110 percent of the satura-
tion value for gases at the existing atmo-
spheric  and hydrostatic  pressures at any
point  of sample collection.
  (D) Temperature shall not exceed 21.0
degrees C due to human activities.  Tem-
perature increases shall  not, at any time,
exceed t=34/(T+9).
  (/) When natural  conditions  exceed
21.0 degrees C no temperature  increase
will be allowed which will raise the receiv-
ing water temperature by greater than 0.3
degrees C.
  (2) For purposes hereof, "t" represents
the permissive  temperature change across
the dilution zone; and "T"  represents the
highest existing temperature in this  water
classification outside of any dilution zone.
  (3) Provided that temperature increase
resulting from nonpoint  source activities
shall  not exceed 2.8  degrees C, and the
maximum water temperature shall not ex-
ceed  21.3 degrees C.
  (E) pH shall be within the range  of 6.5
to 8.5 with a  human-caused variation of
less than 0.5 units.
  (F) Turbidity shall not exceed 10 NTU
over background turbidity when the back-
ground turbidity is 50  NTU  or  less, or
have  more  than a  20 percent  increase in
turbidity when the background turbidity
is more than 50 NTU.
   (G) Toxic,  radioactive, nonconvention-
al,  or deleterious material concentrations
shall  be less than  those of public health
significance, or which may cause acute or
chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
ota, or which may adversely affect  desig-
nated water uses.
   (4) Class IV (Fair)—
   (i) Designated  uses.  The  designated
uses  include  but  are not limited  to, the
following:
   (A) Water supply  (industrial).
   (B) Stock watering.
   (C) Fish (salmonid and  other  fish mi-
gration).
   (D) Recreation (secondary contact rec-
reation, sport fishing, boating and aesthet-
ic enjoyment).
   (E) Commerce  and navigation.
   (ii) Water quality criteria.
   (A) Dissolved oxygen.







During
periods of
saimomd and
other fish
migration
4.0


During all
other time
periods

3.0




30 day mean . .
7 day mean.
7 day mean minimum 	
During
periods of
salmonid and
other fish
migration
65
'NA
50
During all
other time
periods

5.5
'NA
4.0
 1 NA (not applicable).
 'All minima should be considered as Instantaneous
concentrations to be achieved at all times.
  (B) Total  dissolved  gas—concentra-
tions shall not  exceed 110 percent of the
saturation value for gases at  the existing
atmospheric and hydrostatic  pressures at
any point of sample collection.
  (C) Temperature shall not  exceed 22.0
degrees C due to  human activities. Tem-
perature increases shall  not, at any time,
exceed t=20/(T+2).
  (/) When natural  conditions exceed
22.0 degrees C, no temperature increase
will be allowed which will raise the receiv-
ing water temperature by greater than 0.3
degrees C.
  (2) For purposes hereof, "t" represents
the permissive temperature change across
the dilution zone; and "T" represents the
highest existing temperature in this water
classification outside of any dilution zone.
  (D) pH shall be within the range of 6.5
to 9.0 with a  hum^n-caused  variation of
less than 0.5 units.
  (E) Turbidity shall not exceed 10 NTU
over background turbidity when the back-
ground turbidity  is 50  NTU or less, or
have  more than a 20 percent increase in
turbidity when the background turbidity
is more than 50 NTU.
  (F) Toxic,  radioactive,  nonconvention-
al, or deleterious  material concentrations
shall  be less than those of public health
significance, or which may cause acute or
chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic bi-
ota, or  which may adversely affect desig-
nated water uses.
  (5) Lake Class—
   (i) Designated  uses. The designated
uses  include  but  are not limited  to, the
following:
   (A) Water supply (domestic, industrial,
agricultural).
   (B) Stock watering.
   (C) Fish and shellfish: Salmonid migra-
tion,  rearing,  spawning, and harvesting;
other  fish migration, rearing, spawning,
and harvesting;  crayfish  rearing,  spawn-
ing, and  harvesting.
   (D) Wildlife habitat.
   (E) Ceremonial and religious  water
use.

-------
  (F) Recreation (primary contact recre-
ation, sport fishing, boating and aesthetic
enjoyment).
  (G) Commerce and navigation.
  (ii) Water quality criteria.
  (A) Bacteriological  Criteria.  The  geo-
metric  mean of the enterococci bacteria
densities in samples taken over a 30 day
period  shall not  exceed  33/100 ml,  nor
shall any single sample exceed an entero-
cocci density of  ISO  per 100 milliliters.
These limits are calculated as the geomet-
ric mean of the collected  samples approxi-
mately  equally spaced over  a thirty day
period.
  (B) Dissolved oxygen—no  measurable
decrease from natural conditions.
  (C) Total dissolved gas concentrations
shall not exceed 110 percent of the satura-
tion value for gases at the existing atmo-
spheric  and hydrostatic  pressures at any
point of sample collection.
   (D) Temperature—no   measurable
change from natural conditions.
  (E) pH—no  measurable  change from
natural  conditions.
   (F) Turbidity shall  not exceed 5  NTU
over natural conditions.
   (G) Toxic, radioactive, nonconvention-
al,  or deleterious material concentrations
shall be less than those which may affect
public health, the natural aquatic environ-
ment, or the desirability of the water  for
any use.
   (6) Special  Resource Water  Class
(SRW)—
   (i) General characteristics. These  are
fresh or saline waters which comprise a
special and unique resource to the Reser-
vation. Water quality of this class will be
varied  and unique as determined by the
Regional Administrator in  cooperation
with the Tribes.
   (ii) Designated uses.  The designated
uses include, but are not limited to, the
following:
   (A) Wildlife habitat.
   (B) Natural  foodchain maintenance.
   (iii) Water quality criteria.
   (A) Enterococci bacteria densities shall
not exceed natural conditions.
   (B) Dissolved  oxygen—shall  not show
any measurable decrease  from  natural
conditions.
   (C) Total dissolved gas shall not  vary
from natural conditions.
   (D) Temperature—shall not  show any
measurable change from natural  condi-
tions.
  (E) pH shall not show any  measurable
change from natural conditions.
  (F) Settleable solids shall not show any
change from natural conditions.
  (G) Turbidity shall not exceed  5 NTU
over natural conditions.
  (H) Toxic,  radioactive,  or  deleterious
material concentrations shall  not  exceed
those found under natural conditions.
  (g) General Classifications. General
classifications applying to various surface
waterbodies not specifically classified un-
der §131.35(h) are as follows:
  (1) All surface waters  that are tribu-
taries to Class  I  waters are  classified
Class I, unless otherwise classified.
  (2) Except for those specifically classi-
fied otherwise, all lakes with existing aver-
age concentrations less than  2000  mg/L
TDS and their feeder streams on the Col-
ville  Indian Reservation are classified as
Lake Class and Class I, respectively.
  (3) All  lakes  on  the Colville  Indian
Reservation with existing average concen-
trations of TDS  equal to or exceeding
2000 mg/L and  their feeder  streams are
classified as  Lake  Class and  Class I re-
spectively  unless  specifically  classified
otherwise.
  (4) All reservoirs  with  a mean deten-
tion time of greater than 15 days are clas-
sified Lake Class.
  (5) All reservoirs  with  a mean deten-
tion time of  15 days or less are classified
the same  as  the river section in  which
they  are located.
  (6) All reservoirs established on pre-ex-
isting lakes are classified  as Lake  Class.
  (7) All  wetlands are  assigned  to the
Special Resource Water Class.
  (8) All other waters not specifically as-
signed to a  classification of the reservation
are classified as Class II.
  (h) Specific Classifications.  Specific
classifications  for surface waters of the
Colville Indian Reservation are as follows:
(1) Streams:
  Alice Creek	    Class III
  Anderson Creek	    Class III
  Armstrong Creek	    Class III
  Barnaby Creek    	    Class II
  Bear Creek	    Class III
  Beaver Dam Creek	     Class II
  Bridge Creek	    Class II
  Brush Creek	    Class III
  Buckhorn Creek	    Class III
  Cache Creek 	    Class III
  Canteen Creek	    Class I
  Capoose Creek   	      Class III
  Cobbs Creek	    Class III
  Columbia River from Chief Joseph
   Dam to Wells Dam
Columbia River from northern Res-
  ervation boundary to Grand Cou-
  lee Dam (Roosevelt Lake)
Columbia River from Grand Coulee
  Dam to Chief Joseph Dam
Cook Creek	     .    Class I
Cooper Creek	    Class III
Cornstalk Creek	    Class III
Cougar Creek	    Class I
Coyote Creek	     Class II
Deerhorn Creek	    Class III
Dick Creek	    Class III
Dry Creek	    Class I
Empire Creek	    Class III
Faye Creek	    Class I
Forty Mile Creek	    Class III
Gibson Creek	     . .       Class I
Gold Creek	         Class II
Granite Creek	     .     ..     Class II
Grizzly Creek	    Class III
Haley Creek	     Class III
Hall Creek	     Class II
Hall Creek, West Fork	        Class I
Iron Creek.    ....               Class III
Jack Creek  	      .           Class III
Jerred Creek	         Class I
Joe Moses Creek	    Class III
John Tom Creek	        Class III
Jones Creek	    Class I
Kartar Creek	     Class III
Kincaid Creek	    Class III
King Creek	    Class III
Klondyke Creek	    Class I
Lime Creek	    Class III
Little Jim Creek	    Class III
Little Nespelem 	      .        Class II
Louie Creek	      ....    Class III
Lynx Creek	    Class II
Manila Creek  	      ...        Class III
McAllister Creek	     .    Class III
Meadow Creek	     .          Class III
Mill Creek	      .         Class II
Mission Creek	         Class III
Nespelem River	       ...        Class II
Nez Perce Creek	       .       Class III
Nine Mile Creek	          Class II
Nineteen Mile Creek  .       .     Class III
No Name Creek   	      Class II
North Nanamkin Creek  	     Class III
North Star Creek	       Class III
Okanogan River from Reservation   Class II
  north boundary to Columbia River
Olds Creek 	    Class I
Omak Creek 	    Class II
Onion Creek	    Class II
Parmenter Creek	   Class III
Peel Creek	      Class III
Peter Dan Creek	    Class III
Rock Creek	    Class I
San Poll River  	    Class I
Sanpoil, River West Fork            Class II
Seventeen Mile Creek 	   Class III
Silver Creek	      	     Class III
Sitdown Creek	      ....     Class III
Six Mile Creek	    Class III
South Nanamkin Creek    	    Class III
Spring Creek	         Class III
Stapaloop Creek..                 Class III
Stepstone Creek                  Class III
Stranger Creek   ...  .          Class II
Strawberry Creek	      Class III
Swimptkin Creek	    Class III
Three Forks Creek	    Class I
Three Mile Creek	      .    Class III
Thirteen Mile Creek	     Class II
Thirty Mile Creek	       	   Class II
Trail Creek	        Class III
Twentyfive Mile Creek	   Class III
Twentyone Mile Creek	        Class III
Twentythree Mile Creek	      Class III
Wannacot Creek ...  .       .       Class III

-------
  weiis creak	   class i           LaReur Lake	   ic             §131.36 Toxics  criteria for  those states
  Whilelaw Creek	   Class III          Little Goose Lake	   LC             3           • •      •*!_  /-i      n, i.    A  »
  wiimont creek	   class ii          Little OWN Lake	   LC              n°t  complying  with  Clean  Water  Act
(2) Lakes.                                        McGinnisLake	   LC              Section 303(cX2XB).
  Apex Lake	   LC             Nicholas Lake	   LC
  Big Goose Lake	   LC             Omak Lake	   SRW                        _,.      .   .               .
  BourgeauLake	   LC             Oww Lake	   SRW             (a) Scope. This section is not a general
  Buffalo Lake	   LC             Peniey Lake	   SRW           promulgation of the section 304(a) crite-

  c^^a^es""::..:::::':::::   £             SSKI!!!	::.:::::..::::::::   tS             ria for priority toxic pollutants but is re-
  Gamine Lake	   LC             Simpson Lake	   LC             stricted to  specific  pollutants  in specific
  Elbow Lake	     LC             Soap Lake	   LC
  Fish Lake	     LC             Sugar Lake  	       ....      LC
  Gold Lake 	       LC             Summit Lake	   LC               /h\ i, \  p p.,-.  ?fr,inn  V)4ln\ Criteria
  Great Western Lake	   LC             Twin Lakes	   SRW             (0)(l)tf/lS  Section M*[a) Criteria
  Johnson Lake	    LC                                                          for Priority Toxic Pollutants.

-------
A

(*) COMPOUND CAS
Number
B
FRESHWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
B1 B2
C
SALTWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
C1 C2
D
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms-
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
D1 D2
1 Antimony
2 Arsenic
3 Beryllium
4 Cadmium
5a Chromium (III)
b Chromium (VI)
6 Copper
7 Lead
8 Mercury
9 Nickel
10 Selenium
11 Silver
12 Thallium
13 Zinc
14 Cyanide
15 Asbestos
16 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
17 Acrolein
18 Acrylonitrile
19 Benzene
20 Bromoform
21 Carbon Tetrachloride
22 Chlorobenzene
23 Chlorodibromomethane
24 Chloroethane
25 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
26 Chloroform
27 D i ch 1 orobromomethane
7440360
7440382
7440417
7440439
16065831
18540299
7440508
7439921
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440280
7440666
57125
1332214
1746016
107028
107131
71432
75252
56235
108907
124481
75003
110758
67663
75274

360 in 190 m

3.9 e,m 1.1 e,m
1700 e,m 210 e,m
16 m 11m
18 e,m 12 e,m
82 e,m 3.2 e,m
2.4 m 0.012 i
1400 e,m 160 e,m
20 5
4.1 e,m

120 e,m 110 e,m
22 5.2













! H
69 m 36 m | 0.018
!
43 m 9.3 m | n
!
1100 m 50 m ! n
2.9 m 2.9 m j
220 m 8.5 m j n
2.1 m 0.025 i j 0.14
75 m 8.3 m | 610
300 m 71 m | n
2.3 m j
! 1-7
95 m 86 m J
1 1 | 700
! 7.000.000
| 0.000000013
j 320
j 0.059
! 1.2
! 4.3
! 0.25
I 680
! 0.41
i
i
i
! 5.7
I 0.27
a 4300 a
a,b,c 0.14 a,b,c
n
n
n
n

n
0.15
a 4600 a
n

a 6.3 a

a 220000 a,j
fibers/L k
c 0.000000014 c
780
a,c 0.66 a,c
a,c 71 a,c
a.c 360 a.c
a,c 4.4 a,c
a 21000 a,j
a,c 34 a,c


a,c 470 a,c
a,c 22 a,c

-------
1
FRESH
1
I
Criterion
Maximum
(#) C 0 M P 0 U N D CAS Cone, d
Number (ug/L)
.. .. ! B1
WATER

Criterion
Cont i nuous
Cone, d
(ug/L)
B2
\*
SALTWATER

Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
C1 C2
U
H U_M A N HEALTH
(10" risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
D1 D2
28 1,1-Dichloroethane
29 1,2-Dichloroethane
30 1,1-Dichloroethylene
31 1,2-Dichloropropane
32 1.3-Dichlorooropylene
33 Ethyl benzene
34 Methyl Bromide
35 Methyl Chloride
36 Methylene Chloride
37 1.1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane
38 Tetrachloroethylene
39 Toluene
40 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
41 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
42 1,1.2-Trichloroethane
43 Trichloroethylene
44 Vinyl Chloride
45 2-Chlorophenol
46 2,4-Dichlorophenol
47 2.4-DimethylDhenol
48 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
49 2,4-Dinitrophenot
50 2-Nitrophenol
51 4-Nitrophenol
52 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
53 Pentachlorophenol
54 Phenol
55 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
56 Acenaphthene
75343
107062
75354
78875
542756
100414
74839
74873
75092
79345
127184
108883
156605
71556
79005
79016
75014
95578
120832
105679
534521
51285
88755
100027
59507
87865
108952
88062
83329

























20 f 13 f



i
j 0.38 a.c
! 0.057 a.c
i
i
1 10 a
] 3100 a
| 48 a
!
| 4.7 a.c
| 0.17 a.c
j 0.8 c
I 6800 a
i
i
! n
| 0.60 a.c
j 2.7 c
! 2 c
|
| 93 a
i
| 13.4
| 70 a
i
i
i
i
i
13 7.9 | 0.28 a.c
| 21000 a
! 2.1 a.c
1
t

99 a.c
3.2 a.c

1700 a
29000 a
4000 a
n
1600 a,c
11 a.c
8.85 c
200000 a

n
42 a.c
81 c
525 c

790 a.j

765
14000 a



8.2 a.c
4600000 a.j
6.5 a.c


-------
#) COMPOUND CAS
Number
FRESHWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
B1 B2
SALTWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
C1 C2
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
D1 D2
57 Acenaphthylene 208968
58 Anthracene 120127
59 Benzidine 92875
60 Benzo( a) Anthracene 56553
61 Benzo(a)Pvrene 50328
62 Benzo(b)Fluoranthene 205992
63 Benzo(ghi)Perylene 191242
64 Benzo(k)Fluoranthene 207089
65 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane 111911
66 Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether 111444
67 Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether 108601
68 Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 117817
69 4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether 101553
70 Butylbenzyl Phthalate 85687
71 2-Chloronaohthalene 91587
72 4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether 7005723
73 Chrysene 218019
74 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 53703
75 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501
76 1.3-Dichlorobenzene 541731
77 1,4-Oichlorobenzene 106467
78 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91941
79 Diethyl Phthalate 84662
80 Dimethyl Phthalate 131113
81 Di-n-Butvl Phthalate 84742
82 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121142
83 2',6-Dinitrotoluene 606202
84 Di-n-Octyl Phthalate 117840
85 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122667





























i
! 9600 a
| 0.00012 a,c
| 0.0028 c
| 0.0028 c
| 0.0028 c
i
| 0.0028 c
i
i
! 0.031 a.c
| 1400 a
| 1.8 a, c
i
i
i
i
i
i
| 0.0028 c
| 0.0028 c
| 2700 a
! 400
! 400
! 0.04 a,c
| 23000 a
I 313000
| 2700 a
| 0.11 c
i
i
i
i
! 0.040 a,c

110000 a
0.00054 a.c
0.031 c
0.031 c
0.031 c

0.031 c

1.4 a.c
170000 a
5.9 a,c




0.031 c
0.031 c
17000 a
2600
2600
0.077 a,i
120000 a
2900000
12000 a
9.1 c


0.54 a, i

-------
#) COMPOUND CAS
Number
FRESHWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
B1 82
SALTWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
C1 C2
H U_M A N HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
D1 D2
86 Ftuoranthene
87 Fluorene
88 Hexach I orobenzene
89 Hexachlorobutadiene
90 Hexach t orocyc 1 ooentadi ene
91 Hexachloroethane
92 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
93 Isophorone
94 Naphthalene
95 Nitrobenzene
96 N-Nitrosodimethylamine
97 N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine
98 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
99 Phenanthrene
100 Pyrene
101 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
102 Aldrin
103 alpha-BHC
104 beta-BHC
105 gamma-BHC
106 delta-BHC
107 Chlordane
108 4-4' -DOT
109 4, 4' -DOE
110 4.4'-DDD
111 Dieldrin
112 alpha-Endosulfan
113 beta-Endosulfan
206440
86737
118741
87683
77474
67721
193395
78591
91203
98953
62759
621647
86306
85018
129000
120821
309002
319846
319857
58899
319868
57749
50293
72559
72548
60571
959988
33213659
i















3 g


2 g 0.08 q

2.4 g 0.0043 g
1.1 g 0.001 g


2.5 g 0.0019 g
0.22 g 0.056 g
0.22 g 0.056 g
| I 300 a
| 1300 a
! 0.00075 a,c
! 0.44 a,c
! 240 a
! 1.9a,c
| 0.0028 c
| 8.4 a,c
i
! 17 a
] 0.00069 a,c
i
i
| 5.0 a.c
i
i
! 960 a
i
i
1.3 g ! 0.00013 a,c
| 0.0039 a,c
| 0.014 a,c
0.16 g ! 0.019 c
i
i
0.09 g 0.004 g | 0.00057 a,c
0.13 g 0.001 g j 0.00059 a,c
| 0.00059 a,c
i 0.00083 a.c
0.71 g 0.0019 g | 0.00014 a.c
0.034 g 0.0087 g | 0.93 a
0.034 g 0.0087 g ] 0.93 a
370 a
14000 a
0.00077 a,c
50 a,c
17000 a.j
8.9 a,c
0.031 c
600 a,c

1900 a.j
8.1 a,c

16 a,c

11000 a

0.00014 a,c
0.013 a,c
0.046 a.c
0.063 c

0.00059 a.c
0.00059 a,c
0.00059 a,c
0.00084 a.c
0.00014 a.c
2.0 a
2.0 a

-------
#) COMPOUND CAS
Number
FRESHWATER
Criterion Criterion
Max i nun Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
B1 BZ
SALTWATER
Criterion Criterion
Maximum Continuous
Cone, d Cone, d
(ug/L) (ug/L)
C1 C2
HUMAN HEALTH
(10 risk for carcinogens)
For Consumption of:
Water & Organisms
Organisms Only
(ug/L) (ug/L)
01 02
114 Endosulfan Sulfate
115 Endrin
116 Endrin Aldehyde
117 Heptachlor
118 Heotachlor Epoxide
119 PCB-1242
120 PCB-1254
121 PCB-1221
122 PCB-1232
123 PCS -1248
124 PCB-1260
125 PCB-1016
126 Toxaphene
1031078
72208
7421934
76448
1024573
53469219
11097691
11104282
11141165
12672296
11096825
12674112
8001352

0.18 g 0.0023 g

0.52 g 0.0038 g
0.52 g 0.0038 g
0.014 g
0.014 g
0.014 g
0.014 g
0.014 g
0.014 g
0.014 g
0.73 0.0002

0.037 g 0.0023 g

0.053 g 0.0036 g
0.053 g 0.0036 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.03 q
0.03 g
0.03 g
0.21 0.0002
0.93 a
0.76 a
0.76 a
0.00021 a,c
0.00010 a.c
0.000044 a,c
0.000044 a,c
0.000044 a,c
0.000044 a,c
0.000044 a.c
0.000044 a.c
0.000044 a,c
0.00073 a,c
2.0 a
0.81 a.j
0.81 a.j
0.00021 a.c
0.00011 a.c
0.000045 a.c
0.000045 a.c
0.000045 a.c
0.000045 a.c
0.000045 a.<
0.000045 a.c
0.000045 a,<
0.00075 a,(
Total No.  of Criteria (h) =
24
29
                          23
                                       27
                                                        91
                                                                        90

-------
  Footnotes:
  a.  Criteria revised to reflect current
agency qi* or RfD,  as  contained in the
Integrated  Risk  Information  System
(IRIS). The  fish tissue  bioconcentration
factor (BCF) from the 1980 criteria docu-
ments was retained in all cases.
  b.  The criteria refers to the  inorganic
form only.
  c. Criteria in the matrix based on carci-
nogenicity (10-6  risk). For a risk level of
10-s, move the decimal point in the matrix
value one place to the right.
  d. Criteria Maximum Concentration
(CMC) = the highest concentration of a
pollutant to which aquatic life can be ex-
posed for a short period of time  (1-hour
average) without deleterious effects. Cri-
teria Continuous Concentration  (CCC) =
the highest concentration of a pollutant to
which  aquatic life can be exposed for an
extended period of time (4 days)  without
deleterious effects, ug/L =  micrograms
per liter
  e. Freshwater aquatic life criteria  for
these metals are expressed as a function
of total hardness (mg/L), and  as a func-
tion of the pollutant's water  effect ratio,
WER,  as  denned  in  §131.36(c). The
equations  are  provided  in matrix  at
§131.36(b)(2).  Values displayed above in
the matrix correspond to a total hardness
of 100 mg/L and a water effect ratio of
 1.0.
   f. Freshwater aquatic life criteria  for
pentachlorophenol  are  expressed as  a
function of pH, and  are calculated as  fol-
lows. Values displayed  above in  the ma-
trix correspond  to a  pH of 7.8.
CMC = exp(1.005(pH)  - 4.830) CCC =
     exp(1.005(pH)  - 5.290)
   g. Aquatic life criteria for these com-
 pounds were issued  in  1980  utilizing  the
 1980 Guidelines for  criteria development.
The acute values shown are final acute
 values  (FAV) which by the  1980 Guide-
lines are  instantaneous  values  as con-
trasted with a CMC which is a one-hour
average.
  h. These totals simply sum the criteria
in each column. For aquatic life, there are
30  priority toxic  pollutants with some
type of freshwater or saltwater,  acute or
chronic criteria. For human  health, there
are 91 priority toxic pollutants with either
"water -I-  fish" or "fish  only"  criteria.
Note that these totals count  chromium as
one pollutant even though EPA has devel-
oped criteria based on two valence states.
In the matrix, EPA has assigned numbers
5a and 5b to the criteria for chromium to
reflect the fact that the list of 126 priority
toxic pollutants includes only a single list-
ing for chromium.
  i. If the CCC for total mercury exceeds
0.012 ug/L more than once in  a  3-year
period in the ambient water, the edible
portion of aquatic species of concern must
be  analyzed  to determine  whether the
concentration of methyl mercury exceeds
the FDA action level (1.0 mg/kg). If the
FDA action level is exceeded, the State
must notify the appropriate  EPA Region-
al Administrator, initiate a  revision of its
mercury  criterion in its water quality
standards so as to protect designated uses,
and take other appropriate action such as
issuance of a fish consumption advisory
for the affected area.
  j. No  criteria for protection  of  human
health from consumption of aquatic orga-
nisms (excluding water)  was presented in
the 1980 criteria document or in the 1986
Quality Criteria for Water.  Nevertheless,
sufficient  information was  presented  in
the 1980 document to allow a calculation
of  a criterion, even  though  the  results of
such a calculation were not shown in the
document.
   k.  The  criterion for asbestos is  the
 MCL (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).
  1. This letter not used as a footnote.
  m.  Criteria for these metals are ex-
pressed  as a function of the water effect
ratio,  WER, as  defined in  40 CFR
131.36(c).
CMC = column Bl or Cl value X WER
CCC = column B2 or C2 value X  WER
  n. EPA  is  not promulgating human
health criteria for this contaminant. How-
ever,  permit authorities should address
this  contaminant in NPDES  permit  ac-
tions  using the State's existing narrative
criteria for toxics.
  General Notes:
  1. This chart lists all of EPA's priority
toxic pollutants whether  or  not criteria
recommendations are  available.  Blank
spaces indicate the absence of criteria rec-
ommendations. Because of variations  in
chemical nomenclature systems, this list-
ing of toxic pollutants does not duplicate
the listing in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part
423.  EPA  has added  the  Chemical Ab-
stracts  Service (CAS)  registry  numbers,
which provide a unique identification for
each chemical.
  2. The following chemicals have organ-
oleptic  based criteria  recommendations
that are not included on this  chart (for
reasons which are discussed in the  pream-
ble): copper, zinc, chlorobenzene,  2-chlo-
rophenol,  2,4-dichlorophenol,  acenaph-
thene,  2,4-dimethylphenol,  3-methyl-4-
chlorophenol, hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
pentachlorophenol, phenol
   3.  For purposes  of this  rulemaking,
freshwater criteria and saltwater criteria
apply as specified in 40 CFR 131.36(c).
   (2) Factors  for  Calculating Metals
Criteria
CMC=WER exp|mA[ln(hardness)]-l-bA|
     CCC=WER
     exp(mc[ln(hardness)]+bc)

-------
                          CMC=WER exp|mA[ln(hardness)]+bAl • CCC=WER exp|mc[ln(hardness)]+bcl

Cadmium
Coooer . .
Chromium (III)
Lead 	
Nickel 	 ... .... 	

Zinc

nix
1.128
0.9422
08190
1.273
0.8460
1 72
08473

bA
-3.828
-1.464
3.688
-1.460
3.3612
6 52
0.8604

me
0.7852
0.8545
0.8190
1.273
0.8460

0.8473

be
-3.490
-1.465
1.561
-4.705
1 1645

0.7614

  Note: The term "exp" represents the base e exponential function
  (c) Applicability.
  (\) The criteria in paragraph (b) of this
section  apply to the States' designated
uses cited in paragraph (d) of this section
and supersede any criteria adopted by the
State, except when State regulations con-
tain criteria which are more stringent for
a particular use  in which case the State's
criteria  will continue to  apply.
  (2) The criteria established in this sec-
tion  are subject to  the State's general
rules of applicability  in the same way and
to the same extent as are the other numer-
ic toxics criteria  when applied to the same
use classifications including mixing zones,
and low flow values below which numeric
standards  can  be exceeded in  flowing
fresh waters.
  (i) For all waters with mixing zone reg-
ulations or implementation  procedures,
the criteria apply at the appropriate loca-
tions  within  or  at the  boundary  of the
mixing zones; otherwise the criteria apply
throughout  the  waterbody including  at
the end of any  discharge  pipe, canal or
other discharge  point.
  (ii) A State shall  not use a low  flow
value below which numeric standards can
be exceeded that is less stringent than the
following for waters suitable for the estab-
lishment of low  flow return frequencies
(i.e., streams and rivers):
              Aquatic Life
Acute criteria (CMC)    1 Q 10 or 1  B 3
Chronic criteria (CCC)   7QlOor4B3
              Human Health
Non-carcinogens
Carcinogens
30 Q 5
Harmonic mean flow
Where:
  CMC—criteria maximum  concentra-
tion—the water quality criteria to protect
against acute effects in aquatic life and is
the' highest instream concentration  of a
priority  toxic pollutant  consisting  of a
one-hour average not to be exceeded more
than once every three years on the aver-
age;
  CCC—criteria continuous  concentra-
tion—the water quality criteria to protect
against chronic effects in aquatic life is
the highest  instream concentration  of a
priority toxic pollutant consisting of a 4-
day average not to be exceeded more than
once every three years on the  average;
  1 Q 10 is the lowest one day flow with
an average recurrence frequency of once
in 10 years determined hydrologically;
  I B 3 is biologically based and indicates
an allowable exceedence of once every 3
years. It is determined by EPA's comput-
erized method (DFLOW model);
  7 Q 10 is the lowest average 7 consecu-
tive day low  flow with an average recur-
rence frequency of once in 10 years deter-
mined hydrologically;
  4 B 3 is biologically based and indicates
an allowable exceedence for 4  consecutive
days once every 3 years.  It is  determined
by   EPA's  computerized  method
(DFLOW model);
  30 Q 5 is the lowest average 30 consec-
utive day low flow with an average recur-
rence frequency of once in 5  years deter-
mined hydrologically; and the harmonic
mean flow is a long term  mean flow value
calculated by dividing the number of dai-
ly  flows analyzed  by the sum of the
reciprocals of those daily flows.
  (iii) If a State does not have such a low
flow value for numeric standards compli-
ance, then none shall apply and the crite-
ria  included in  paragraph (d)  of this sec-
tion herein apply at all flows.
  (3) The aquatic life criteria in the ma-
trix in paragraph (b) of this section  apply
as follows:
  (i) For waters  in which  the salinity is
equal to or less than 1 part per thousand
95% or more of the time, the applicable
criteria are the  freshwater criteria in Col-
umn B;
  (ii) For waters in  which the salinity is
equal to or greater than 10 parts per thou-
sand 95% or  more of the time, the appli-
cable criteria are the saltwater criteria in
Column C; and
  (iii) For waters in which the salinity  is
between  1 and 10 parts per  thousand as
defined in paragraphs (c)(3) (i) and (ii) of
this section, the applicable criteria are the
more stringent  of the  freshwater  or
saltwater criteria. However, the Regional
Administrator may  approve the use of the
alternative  freshwater  or saltwater crite-
ria if scientifically defensible information
and  data demonstrate  that on  a site-spe-
cific  basis the biology of the waterbody  is
dominated by freshwater aquatic life and
that  freshwater  criteria  are more appro-
priate; or conversely,  the biology of the
waterbody  is dominated  by  saltwater
aquatic life and that saltwater criteria are
more appropriate.
  (4) Application of metals criteria.
  (i) For purposes of calculating freshwa-
ter aquatic  life  criteria  for metals  from
the equations in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, the  minimum  hardness allowed
for use in those equations shall  not be less
than 25 mg/1, as calcium carbonate, even
if the actual ambient hardness is less than
25 mg/1 as calcium carbonate.  The maxi-
mum hardness  value for use in those
equations shall  not  exceed  400 mg/1 as
calcium carbonate,  even  if the actual am-
bient hardness is greater than 400 mg/1
as calcium  carbonate. The  same  provi-
sions apply for calculating the metals cri-
teria  for the comparisons provided for in
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section.
  (ii) The hardness values used shall  be
consistent with the  design discharge con-
ditions established in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section  for flows and mixing zones.
  (iii) The criteria for metals (compounds
#1-#I3  in paragraph (b) of this section)
are expressed as total recoverable.  For
purposes of calculating aquatic life crite-
ria for metals from the equations in foot-
note   M. in  the criteria matrix  in para-
graph (b)(l) of this section and the equa-
tions  in paragraph  (b)(2) of this section,
the water-effect ratio  is computed  as  a

-------
specific pollutant's acute or chronic toxici-
ty values measured in water from the site
covered by  the  standard,  divided by the
respective acute or chronic toxicity value
in laboratory dilution water. The water-
effect  ratio  shall be  assigned  a value of
1.0, except where the permitting authori-
ty assigns a  different value  that protects
the designated  uses of the water  body
from the toxic effects of the pollutant, and
is derived from  suitable tests on sampled
water  representative of conditions in the
affected  water body, consistent with the
design discharge conditions established in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For pur-
poses  of this paragraph,  the  term acute
toxicity value is the toxicity test results,
such  as  the C#fle
-------
  Use classification
Delaware River zones
  1C, 1D, 1E, 2. 3, 4, 5
  and  Delaware  Bay
  zone 6
  Applicable criteria

Column C1—all except
  #102, 105, 107, 108,
  111, 112, 113, 115,
  117, and 118.
Column C2—all except
  #105, 107, 108, 111,
  112, 113. 115, 117,
  118, 119, 120, 121,
  122, 123, 124, and
  125.
Column  D2—all at a
  10-* risk level except
  #23, 30, 37. 38,  42,
  68, 89,  91, 93, 104,
  105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
  42, 68, 89,  91,  93,
  104, 105; at a 10-»
  risk level.
These  classifications
  are assigned the  cri-
  teria in'

Column B1—all
Column B2—all
Column 01—all at a
  10-' risk level except
  #23, 30, 37, 38,  42,
  68. 89, 91, 93, 104,
  105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
  42,  68,  89,  91,  93,
  104, 105, at  a 10-«
  risk level.
Column D2—all at a
  10-* risk level except
  #23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
  68, 89, 91, 93, 104,
  105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
  42,  68,  89, 91,  93,
  104,  105, at  a 10-'
  risk level.
These classifications
  are assigned the cri-
  teria in:
Column C1—all
Column C2—all
Column D2—all at a
  10-* risk level except
  #23, 30, 37, 38, 42,
  68,  89, 91. 93, 104,
  105; #23, 30, 37, 38,
  42, 68,  89, 91,  93,
  104,  105, at a 10-«
  risk level.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
 applied at the State-proposed  10'6 risk lev-
 el  for EPA  rated  Class A,  Bi, and  B2
 carcinogens;  EPA rated Class C carcino-
 gens shall be applied at  10'5 risk level.  To
 determine appropriate value  for carcino-
 gens, see footnote c. in the matrix in para-
 graph (b)(l) of this section.
   (4) Puerto Rico, EPA Region 2.
   (i) All waters assigned to the  following
 use classifications in the Puerto Rico Wa-
 ter  Quality Standards  (promulgated  by
 Resolution Number  R-83-5-2) are sub-
Delaware River zones
  3,4, and 5, and Dela-
  ware Bay zone 6
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(4)(ii)
of this section, without exception.
   Article 2.2.2—Class SB
   Article 2.2.3—Class SC
   Article 2.2.4—Class SD
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph  (b)(l) of  this  section
apply  to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section:

   Use classification       Applicable criteria

Class SD               This Classification is
                        assigned the criteria
                        in:
                       Column B1—all,  ex-
                        cept:  10, 102, 105,
                        107, 108, 111, 112,
                        113, 115,  117, and
                        126.
                       Column B2—all,  ex-
                        cept: 105,  107, 108,
                        112,  113,  115. and
                        117.
                       Column D1—all,  ex-
                        cept: 6, 14,105, 112,
                        113, and 115.
                       Column D2—all,  ex-
                        cept:  14, 105, 112,
                        113, and 115.
 Class SB, Class SC      This Classification is
                        assigned the criteria
                        in:
                       Column C1—all,  ex-
                        cept 4, 5b,  7, 8, 10.
                        11,13,102,105,107,
                        108,  111,  112, 113,
                        115, 117, and  126.
                       Column C2—all, ex-
                        cept:  4.  5b, 10, 13,
                        108,  112,  113, 115,
                        and 117.
                       Column D2—all, ex-
                        cept:  14,  105, 112,
                        113, and 115.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
 applied at the State-proposed 10'5 risk lev-
 el.  To  determine  appropriate value for
 carcinogens, see footnote c, in the criteria
 matrix in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section.
   (5) District of Columbia. EPA Region
 3.
   (i) All waters assigned to the following
 use classifications  in chapter  11  Title 21
 DCMR, Water Quality  Standards of the
 District  of  Columbia are  subject to the
 criteria in paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this sec-
 tion, without exception:
   1101.2 Class C waters
   (ii) The following criteria from  the ma-
 trix in  paragraph (b)(l)  of  this section
 apply to the use classification identified in
 paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section:
  Use classification       Applicable criteria

Class C                This classification  is
                        assigned  the  addi-
                        tional criteria in:
                      Colum  B2—#10, 118,
                        126.
                      Colum  D1—#15,  16,
                        44,67,68,79,80,81.
                        88, 114, 116, 118.
                      Colum  D2—-all.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10'6 risk lev-
el.
   (6) Florida, EPA Region 4.
   (i) All  waters assigned to the  following
use  classifications in Chapter 17-301  of
the  Florida  Administrative  Code  (i.e.,
identified in Section 17-302.600) are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph  (d)(6)(ii)
of this section, without exception:
   Class I
   Class II
   Class III
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix paragraph (b)(l) of this section apply
to the use  classifications identified  in
paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section:
                                                                                          Use classification

                                                                                        Class I
                                                                                        Class II
                         Applicable criteria

                       This  classification is
                        assigned the criteria
                        in.
                       Column D1— #16
                       This  classification is
                        assigned the criteria
 Class III (marine)
 Class III (fresh water)
This classification  is
  assigned the criteria
  in:
Column D2— #16
    (iii) The human health criteria shall be
 applied at  the State-adopted 10"6 risk  lev-
 el.
   (7) Michigan.  EPA Region 5.
   (i) All waters assigned to the following
 use classifications  in the  Michigan  De-
 partment of Natural Resources Commis-
 sion General Rules, R 323.1100 designat-
 ed uses, as defined at R 323.1043. Defini-
 tions; A to N, (i.e.,  identified in Section
 (g) "Designated use") are subject to  the
 criteria in paragraph (d)(7)(ii) of this  sec-
 tion, without exception:
   Agriculture
   Navigation
   Industrial Water Supply
   Public Water Supply at the  Point of
     Water Intake
   Warmwater Fish

-------
                                                         Re-
  Other Indigenous Aquatic Life  and     Use classification
    Wildlife
  Partial Body Contact Recreation
  (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in  paragraph  (b)(l) of this  section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section

  Use classification       Applicable criteria

Public Water supply
                                                                 Applicable criteria
                                                                                       Use classification
                                                                  Applicable criteria
                     This  classification  is
                       assigned the criteria
                       in:
                        Column  B1—all,
                          Column B2—all,
                          Column D1—all.
All other designations    These classifications
                       are assigned the cri-
                       teria in.
                        Column B1—all,
                        Column  82—all,
                          and
                        Column D2—all.
  (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied  at the State-adopted 10'5 risk lev-
el. To determine appropriate value  for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
  (8) Arkansas. EPA Region 6.
  (i) All waters assigned to the following
use   classification   in   section  4C
(Waterbody uses) identified in Arkansas
Department  of  Pollution  Control  and
Ecology's Regulation No.  2 as amended
and  entitled, "Regulation  Establishing
Water  Quality Standards  for  Surface
Waters of the State of Arkansas" are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(8)(ii)
of this section, without  exception:
Extraordinary Resource Waters
Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody
Natural and  Scenic Waterways
Fisheries:
(1) Trout
(2) Lakes and Reservoirs
(3) Streams
  (a) Ozark  Highlands Ecoregion
  (b) Boston Mountains Ecoregion
  (c) Arkansas  River Valley Ecoregion
  (d) Ouachita  Mountains  Ecoregion
  (e) Typical Gulf Coastal  Ecoregion
  (f)  Spring   Water-influenced  Gulf
    Coastal Ecoregion
  (g) Least-altered  Delta Ecoregion
  (h) Channel-altered Delta Ecoregion
Domestic Water Supply
  (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix  in  paragraph (b)(l) of this section
apply to the use classification identified in
paragraph  (d)(8)(i) of this  section:
Extraordinary
 source Waters
Ecologically  Sensitive
 Waterbody
Natural  and Scenic
 Waterways
Fisheries:
   (1) Trout
   (2) Lakes and Res-
     ervoirs
   (3) Streams
     (a)  Ozark  High-
      lands Ecore-
      gion
     (b) Boston Moun-
      tains Ecoregion
     (c) Arkansas Riv-
      er    Valley
      Ecoregion
     (d)  Ouachita
      Mountains
      Ecoregion
     (e)  Typical Gulf
      Coastal Ecore-
      gion
     (f) Spring Water-
      influenced Gulf
      Coastal Ecore-
      gion
     (g)  Least-altered
      Delta Ecore-
      gion
     (h) Channel-al-   These uses are each
      tered  Delta     assigned the criteria
      Ecoregion         in—
                        Column  B1— #4,
                          5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9,
                          10, 11, 13, 14
                        Column  B2— #4,
                          5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9,
                          10, 13, 14
                                             (9) Kansas. EPA Region 7.
                                             (i) All waters assigned to the following
                                           use  classification  in  the  Kansas  Depart-
                                           ment of Health and  Environment regula-
                                           tions, K.A.R. 28-16-28b through K.A.R.
                                           28-16-28f, are subject to the criteria in
                                           paragraph (d)(9)(ii)  of this section, with-
                                           out exception.
                                           Section 28-16-28d
                                             Section  (2)(A)—Special Aquatic Life
                                               Use Waters
                                             Section  (2)(B)—Expected  Aquatic
                                               Life Use Waters
                                             Section   (2)(C)—Restricted  Aquatic
                                               Life Use Waters
                                             Section  (3)—Domestic Water Supply
                                             Section   (6)(c)—Consumptive Recre-
                                               ation  Use.
                                             (ii) The  following criteria from the ma-
                                           trix  in  paragraph  (b)(l)  of  this section
                                           apply to the use classifications identified
                                           in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section:
    Sections (2)(A),   These  classifactions
      (2)(B),  (2)(C),     are each assigned all
      (6)(C)             criteria in
                          Column  B1,  all
                           except  #9, 11,
                           13,  102, 105,
                           107,     108,
                           111-113, 115,
                           117, and 126,
                          Column  B2,  all
                           except  #9, 13,
                           105,  107. 108,
                           111-113, 115,
                           117,  119-125,
                           and 126; and
                          Column  D2,  all
                           except  #9,
                           112,  113, and
                           115.
Section (3)             This classification is
                       assigned all criteria
                       in.
                          Column  D1,  all
                           except  #9, 12,
                           112,  113, and
                           115.


  (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed I0'6 risk lev-
el.
  (10) California, EPA Region 9.
  (i) All waters assigned any aquatic life
or human health use classifications in the
Water Quality Control Plans for the vari-
ous Basins of the State ("Basin Plans"),
as amended,  adopted  by the California
State  Water  Resources Control  Board
("SWRCB"),  except  for ocean waters
covered by the  Water Quality Control
Plan  for  Ocean  Waters of California
("Ocean Plan") adopted by the SWRCB
with resolution Number 90-27 on  March
22, 1990,  are  subject  to the criteria  in
paragraph  (d)(10)(ii)  of this  section,
without exception. These criteria amend
the portions of the  existing  State stan-
dards contained in the  Basin Plans. More
particularly these criteria amend  water
quality criteria contained  in  the  Basin
Plan  Chapters  specifying water  quality
objectives (the State equivalent of federal
water quality criteria) for the toxic pollu-
tants  identified in paragraph (d)(10)(ii)
of this section. Although the State has
adopted several use  designations for each
of these waters, for  purposes of this ac-
tion, the specific standards to be applied
in paragraph  (d)(10)(ii) of this section
are based on the presence in all waters of
some   aquatic  life designation  and the
presence or absence of the MUN use des-
ignation (Municipal and domestic sup-
ply). (See  Basin Plans for more detailed
use definitions.)

-------
All other designations
  Other Indigenous  Aquatic Life  and
    Wildlife
  Partial Body Contact Recreation
  (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in  paragraph (b)(l) of this  section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(7)(i) of this section

  Use classification       Applicable criteria

Public Water supply     This classification is
                      assigned the criteria
                      in:
                        Column  B1—all,
                          Column  B2—all.
                          Column D1—all.
                     These  classifications
                      are assigned the cri-
                      teria in:
                        Column B1—all,
                        Column  B2—all,
                          and
                        Column D2—all.
  (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted 10'5 risk lev-
el.  To  determine appropriate value  for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
  (8) Arkansas, EPA  Region 6.
  (i) All waters assigned to the following
use  classification   in  section  4C
(Watcrbody uses) identified in Arkansas
Department of  Pollution  Control  and
Ecology's Regulation  No. 2 as amended
and entitled, "Regulation  Establishing
Water  Quality  Standards  for  Surface
Waters of the State of Arkansas" are sub-
ject to the criteria in paragraph (d)(8)(ii)
of this section, without exception:
Extraordinary Resource Waters
Ecologically Sensitive  Waterbody
Natural and Scenic Waterways
Fisheries:
(1) Trout
(2) Lakes and  Reservoirs
(3) Streams
  (a) Ozark Highlands  Ecoregion
  (b) Boston Mountains Ecoregion
  (c) Arkansas River  Valley Ecoregion
  (d) Ouachita Mountains  Ecoregion
  (e) Typical Gulf Coastal Ecoregion
  (f)  Spring   Water-influenced  Gulf
     Coastal Ecoregion
  (g) Least-altered  Delta Ecoregion
  (h) Channel-altered Delta Ecoregion
Domestic Water Supply
  (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in  paragraph (b)(l) of this section
apply to the use classification identified in
paragraph  (d)(8)(i) of this section:
  Use classification

Extraordinary  Re-
 source Waters
Ecologically Sensitive
 Waterbody
Natural  and Scenic
 Waterways
Fisheries:
   (1) Trout
   (2) Lakes and Res-
     ervoirs
   (3) Streams
     (a)  Ozark  High-
      lands Ecore-
      gion
     (b) Boston Moun-
      tains Ecoregion
     (c) Arkansas Riv-
      er    Valley
      Ecoregion
     (d)   Ouachita
      Mountains
      Ecoregion
     (e) Typical Gulf
      Coastal Ecore-
      gion
     (f) Spring Water-
      influenced Gulf
      Coastal Ecore-
      gion
     (g) Least-altered
      Delta Ecore-
      gion
     (h) Channel-al-
      tered  Delta
      Ecoregion
                                                                 Applicable criteria
                                                                These  uses are each
                                                                 assigned the criteria
                                                                 in—
                                                                  Column B1— #4,
                                                                    5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9,
                                                                    10. 11, 13, 14
                                                                  Column B2— #4,
                                                                    5a, 5b, 6, 7, 8, 9,
                                                                    10, 13, 14
                                             (9) Kansas, EPA Region 7.
                                             (i) All waters assigned to the following
                                           use  classification  in the Kansas  Depart-
                                           ment of Health and Environment regula-
                                           tions, K.A.R. 28-16-28b through K.A.R.
                                           28-16-28f, are subject to the criteria in
                                           paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this section, with-
                                           out exception.
                                           Section 28-16-28d
                                             Section  (2)(A)—Special Aquatic Life
                                               Use Waters
                                             Section  (2)(B)—Expected  Aquatic
                                               Life Use Waters
                                             Section   (2)(C)—Restricted  Aquatic
                                               Life Use Waters
                                             Section  (3)—Domestic Water Supply
                                             Section   (6)(c)—Consumptive Recre-
                                               ation  Use.
                                             (ii) The  following criteria from the ma-
                                           trix in  paragraph  (b)(l)  of  this section
                                           apply to the use classifications identified
                                           in paragraph (d)(9)(i) of this section:
  Use classification       Applicable criteria

    Sections (2)(A),   These  classifactions
      (2)(B),  (2)(C),     are each assigned all
      (6)(C)             criteria in-
                          Column 81,  all
                           except #9, 11,
                           13,  102,  105,
                           107,    108,
                           111-113,  115,
                           117, and 126,
                          Column B2,  all
                           except #9, 13,
                           105,  107, 108,
                           111-113,  115,
                           117,  119-125,
                           and 126; and
                          Column D2,  all
                           except   #9,
                           112,  113, and
                           115.
Section (3)             This classification is
                       assigned all criteria
                       in;
                          Column D1,  all
                           except #9, 12,
                           112,  113, and
                           115
  (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed 10'6 risk lev-
el.
  (10) California, EPA Region 9.
  (i) All waters assigned any aquatic life
or human health use classifications in the
Water Quality Control Plans lor the  vari-
ous Basins of the State ("Basin Plans"),
as amended,  adopted  by the California
State  Water Resources Control  Board
("SWRCB"), except  for  ocean waters
covered  by the  Water Quality Control
Plan  for Ocean  Waters  of  California
("Ocean Plan") adopted by the SWRCB
with resolution Number 90-27 on March
22, 1990,  are subject to the  criteria in
paragraph  (d)(10)(ii)  of this section,
without exception. These criteria amend
the portions of the  existing  State  stan-
dards contained in the Basin Plans. More
particularly  these  criteria  amend water
quality criteria contained  in  the Basin
Plan  Chapters  specifying  water  quality
objectives (the State equivalent of federal
water quality criteria) for the toxic pollu-
tants  identified in paragraph  (d)(10)(ii)
of this  section. Although  the State has
adopted several use designations for  each
of these waters, for purposes  of this ac-
tion, the specific standards to be applied
in paragraph (d)(10)(ii) of this section
are based on the presence in all waters of
some aquatic life  designation  and the
presence or absence of the MUN use des-
ignation (Municipal  and  domestic  sup-
ply).  (See  Basin Plans for  more detailed
use definitions.)

-------
   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-   defined in  paragraph (d)(10)(i) of  this
trix  in paragraph  (b)(l) of  this  section   section and identified below:
apply  to  the water  and use  classifications

                                  Water and use classification

Waters of the State defined  as  bays or estuaries except the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San
  Francisco Bay
Waters of the Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta and waters of the State defined as inland (i.e., all surface
  waters of the State not bays or estuaries or ocean) that include a MUN use designation
Waters of the State defined as inland without an MUN use designation
Waters of the San Joaquin River from the mouth of the Merced River to Vernahs
Waters of Salt Slough, Mud Slough (north) and the San Joaquin  River,  Sack Dam to the mouth of the
  Merced River
 Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta
 All inland waters of the United States or enclosed bays and estuaries that are waters of the United States
  that include an MUN use designation and that the State has either excluded or partially excluded from
  coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or
  its Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has
  deferred applicability of  those tables (Category (a), (b), and (c) waters described on page  6 of Water
  Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or page 6 of its Water Quality Control Plan for
  Enclosed Bays and  Estuaries of California.)
 All inland waters of the United States that do not include an MUN use designation and that the State has
   either  excluded or partially excluded from coverage under  its Water Quality Control  Plan  for Inland
   Surface Waters of California, Tables 1 and 2, or has deferred applicability of these tables. (Category (a),
   (b), and (c) waters described on page 6 of Water Quality Control Plan Inland Surface Waters of California )
             Applicable criteria
                                                                                                  These waters are assigned the criteria in:
                                                                                                       Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
                                                                                                       Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
                                                                                                       Column C1—pollutant 14
                                                                                                       Column C2—pollutant 14
                                                                                                       Column D2—pollutants 1, 12,  17, 18, 21,
                                                                                                         22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46, 48,
                                                                                                         49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90,
                                                                                                         91. 93, 95, 96. 98
These waters are assigned the criteria in'
     Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
     Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
     Column D1—pollutants, 1, 12, 15, 17, 18,
       21, 22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-48. 49,
       59, 66, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95,
       96, 98

These waters are assigned the criteria in:
     Column B1—pollutants 5a and 14
     Column B2—pollutants 5a and 14
     Column D2—pollutants 1,  12, 17, 18, 21,
       22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46, 48,
       49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90,
       91, 93, 95, 96, 98

In addition to the criteria assigned to these wa-
  ters elsewhere in this rule, these waters are
  assigned the criteria in:
     Column B2—pollutant 10
In addition to the criteria assigned to these wa-
  ters elsewhere in this rule, these waters are
  assigned the criteria in:
     Column B1—pollutant 10
     Column B2—pollutant 10

These waters are assigned the criteria in:
     Column B1—pollutants 5a, 10' and 14
     Column B2—pollutants 5a, 10' and 14
     Column C1—pollutant 14
     Column C2—pollutant 14
     Column D2—pollutants 1,  12, 17, 18, 21,
       22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46, 48,
       49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90,
       91,93,95,96,98
                                                                                                   These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
                                                                                                    lutants for which the State does not apply
                                                                                                    Table 1 or 2 standards. These criteria are:
                                                                                                        Column B1—all pollutants
                                                                                                        Column B2—all pollutants
                                                                                                        Column D1—all pollutants except #2

-------
                                Water and use classification
                                                                                                       Applicable criteria

                                                                                           These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
                                                                                             lutants for which  the State does not apply
                                                                                             Table 1 or 2 standards. These criteria are:
                                                                                                Column B1—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column B2—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column 02—all pollutants except #2
All enclosed bays and estuaries that are waters of the United States-and that the State has either excluded
  or partially excluded from coverage under its Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of
  California, Tables 1 and 2, or its Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California,
  Tables 1 and 2, or has deferred applicability of those tables. (Category (a), (b), and (c) waters described
  on page 6 of Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters of California or page 6 of its Water
  Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.)
                                                                                           These waters are assigned the criteria for pol-
                                                                                             lutants for which  the State does not apply
                                                                                             Table 1 or 2 standards. These criteria are:
                                                                                                Column B1— all pollutants
                                                                                                Column B2—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column C1—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column C2—all pollutants
                                                                                                Column 02—all pollutants except #2
  • The fresh water selenium criteria are included for the San Francisco Bay estuary because high levels of bioaccumulation of selenium in the estuary indicate
that the salt water criteria are underprotective for San Francisco Bay.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-adopted \Q* risk lev-
el.
   (11) Nevada. EPA Region 9.
   (i) All  waters assigned the use classifi-
cations in Chapter 445 of the Nevada Ad-
ministrative Code (NAC), Nevada Water
Pollution Control Regulations, which are
referred to  in  paragraph (d)(ll)(ii) of
this section, are subject to the criteria in
paragraph  (d)(ll)(ii)  of this section,
without  exception.  These criteria  amend
the existing State standards contained in
the Nevada Water Pollution Control Reg-
ulations. More  particularly, these criteria
amend or supplement the table of numer-
                                Water and use classification

Waters that the State has included in NAC 445 1339 where Municipal or domestic supply is a designated
  use
ic standards  in NAC  445.1339 for the
toxic pollutants identified  in paragraph
(d)OO(ii) of this  section.
  (ii) The following criteria from matrix
in paragraph (b)(l) of this section apply
to  the  waters defined  in   paragraph
(d)(ll)(i) of this section and identified
below:

              Applicable criteria
Waters that the State has included in NAC 445.1339 where Municipal or domestic supply is not a designat-
  ed use
                                                                                            These waters are assigned the criteria in:
                                                                                                 Column B1—pollutant #118
                                                                                                 Column B2—pollutant #118
                                                                                                 Column 01—pollutants #15, 16, 18, 19,
                                                                                                  20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 37,38, 42,
                                                                                                  43, 55, 58-62, 64, 66, 73, 74, 78, 82, 85,
                                                                                                  87-89, 91, 92, 96, 98, 100, 103, 104,
                                                                                                  105, 114, 116. 117, 118
                                                                                            These waters are assigned the criteria in:
                                                                                                Column B1—pollutant #118
                                                                                                Column B2—pollutant #118
                                                                                                Column 02—all pollutants except #2.
   (iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied  at the lO'5  risk  level,  consistent
with State policy. To determine appropri-
ate value for carcinogens, see footnote c in
the criteria matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of
this section.
   (12) Alaska. EPA  Region 10.
   (i) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Alaska Adminis-
trative Code  (AAC),  Chapter 18  (i.e.,
identified in  18 AAC 70.020) are subject
to the  criteria in paragraph (d)(12)(ii) of
this section,  without exception:
70.020.(1) (A) Fresh Water
70.020.(l) (A) Water Supply
  (i) Drinking,  culinary,  and  food pro-
     cessing,
  (iii) Aquaculture;
70.020.(1) (B) Water Recreation
  (i) Contact recreation,
  (ii) Secondary recreation;
70.020.(1) (C) Growth  and  propagation
     of  fish,  shellfish, other aquatic life,
     and wildlife
70.020.(2) (A) Marine Water
70.020.(2) (A) Water Supply
  (i) Aquaculture,
70.020.(2) (B) Water Recreation
  (i) contact recreation,
  (ii) secondary recreation;
70.020.(2)  (C) Growth and  propagation
     of fish, shellfish, other aquatic  life,
     and wildlife;
70.020.(2)  (D) Harvesting for consump-
     tion  of raw  mollusks or other  raw
     aquatic life.
  (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix  in paragraph  (b)(l)  of  this  section
apply  to the  use  classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(I2)(i) of this section:

  Use classification        Applicable criteria

                           Column B1—all
                           Column
                            B2—#10
                           Column 01

-------
  Use classification
(1KA) m
(1MB) i, (1XB) ii, (1)(C)
 (2)(A)i, (2)(B)i, and
  (2KB)ii, (2XC). (2XD)
plicable criteria
#'s 2, 16, 18-21,
23, 26, 27, 29,
30, 32, 37, 38,
42-44, 53, 55,
59-62, 64, 66,
68, 73, 74, 78,
82, 85, 88, 89,
91-93, 96, 98.
102-105,
1 O7 111
I U / — I I I ,
117-126
Column B1 — all
Column
B2— #10
Column DX
#'s 2, 14, 16,
18-21, 22, 23,
26, 27, 29, 30,
32, 37, 38,
42-44, 46, 53.
54, 55, 59-62,
64, 66, 68, 73,
74, 78, 82, 85,
88-93 95 96
98, 102-105]
107-111,
115-126
Column B1 — all
Column
B2— #10
Column D2
#'s 2, 14, 16.
18-21, 22, 23,
OR O7 OQ Oft
to, £.1 , &y, ou,
32, 37, 38,
42-44. 46, 53,
54, 55, 59-62,
64, 66 68 73
74] 78! 821 B5,
88-93, 95, 96,
QO 4 f\ry •« ft C
yo, i Ut— i uo,
107-111,
115-126
Column C1 — all
Column
C2 — #10
Column D2
#'s 2, 14, 16,
1ft— 91 w ?i
IO tl, ££, £O,
26, 27, 29, 30,
32, 37, 38,
42-44, 46, 53,
54, 55, 59-62,
64, 66, 68, 73,
74, 78, 82, 85,
88-93, 95, 96,
98, 102-105,
107-111,
115-126
(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the State-proposed risk level of
10'5. To determine appropriate value for
carcinogens, see footnote c in the criteria
matrix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
(13) Idaho, EPA Region 10.
(i) All waters assigned to the following
use classifications in the Idaho Adminis-
trative Procedures Act (IDAPA), Chap-
ter 16 (i.e., identified in IDAPA
16.01. 2100,02-16.01. 2100,07) are subject
to the criteria in paragraph (d)(13)(ii) of
this section, without exception:
16.01. 2100.01. b. Domestic Water Sup-
plies
16.01.2100.02.a. Cold Water Biota
16.01. 2100.02.b. Warm Water Biota
16.01.2100.02cc. Salmonid Spawning
16.01.2100.03.a. Primary Contact Recre-
ation

16.01.2100.03.b Secondary Contact Rec-
reation
(ii) The following criteria from the ma-
trix in paragraph (b)(l) of this section
apply to the use classifications identified
in paragraph (d)(13)(i) of this section:

Use classification Applicable criteria

01 .b This classification is
assigned the criteria
in.
Column D1 — all

except #14
and 115
02. a 02. b 02.cc These classifications
are assigned the en-
tns in
Column B1 — all
Column B2— all
Column D2 — all
03. a This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column D2 — all
03. b This classification is
assigned the criteria
in:
Column D2 — all


(iii) The human health criteria shall be
applied at the 10"6 risk level, consistent
with State policy.
   (14) Washington,  EPA Region 10.

   (i) All waters assigned to the following
 use classifications in the Washington Ad-
 ministrative  Code  (WAC),  Chapter
 173-201   (i.e.,  identified  in  WAC
 173-201-045)  are subject to the criteria
 in  paragraph  (d)(14)(ii) of this section,
 without exception:

 173-201-045
   Fish and Shellfish

   Fish

   Water Supply (domestic)

   Recreation

   (ii) The following criteria from the ma-
 trix  in  paragraph (b)(l) of  this  section
 apply to the use  classifications  identified
 in  paragraph (d)(14)(i) of this section:
                                                                                         Use classification

                                                                                      Fish and Shellfish; Fish
fa
  Applicable criteria

These classifications
  are assigned the cri-
  teria in:
     Column B1
 Water Supply (domes-   These  classifictions
   tic)                   are assigned the cri-
                        teria in:
                            Column D1—all
 Recreation             This  classification is
                        assigned the criteria
                        in:
                            Column  D2 —
                             Marine waters
                             and
                             freshwaters
                             not protected
                             for domestic
                             water supply
                                                                                         (iii) The human health criteria shall be
                                                                                       applied  at the State proposed risk level of
                                                                                       io-6.

                                                                                       [§131.36 added at 57 FR 60910,  Dec. 22,
                                                                                       1992]

-------
          APPENDIX B
        Chronological Summary of
      Federal Water Quality Standards
          Promulgation Actions
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
                                    Appendix B - Summary of Federal Promulgation Actions
     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
            STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION

                             JANUARY 1993

                   CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF
              FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
                      PROMULGATION ACTIONS

   STATE        DATE    STATUS REFERENCE      ACTION
I.Kentucky       12/2/74   Final   39 FR 41709 Established statement in WQS
                                            giving EPA Administrator authority
                                            to grant  a temporary exception to
                                            stream classification and/or criteria
                                            after case-by-case studies. Also,
                                            established statement that streams
                                            not listed in the WQS are
                                            understood to be classified as
                                            Aquatic Life and criteria for this
                                            use to be met.

2*.  Arizona       6/22/76   Final   41 FR 25000 Established nutrient standards for
                                            11 streams.

3.   Nebraska      6/6/78    Final   43 FR 24529 Redesignated eight stream segments
                                            for full body contact recreation and
                                            three for partial body contact
                                            recreation and the protection of fish
                                            and wildlife.

4.   Mississippi     4/30/79   Final   44 FR 25223 Established dissolved oxygen
                                            criterion  for all water uses
                                            recognized by the State.
                                            Established criterion for a daily
                                            average of not less than 5.0 mg/1
                                            with a daily instantaneous minimum
                                            of not less than 4.0 mg/1.
(9/15/93)                                                               B-l

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
5.  Alabama        11/26/79 Proposed   44 FR 67442 Proposal to reestablish previously
                                                     approved use classifications for
                                                     segments of four navigable
                                                     waterways, Five Mile Creek,
                                                     Opossum Creek, Valley Creek,
                                                     Village Creek, and upgrade the use
                                                     designation of a segment of Village
                                                     Creek from river mile 30 to its
                                                     source.

6.  Alabama        2/14/80    Final    45 FR 9910  Established beneficial stream use
                                                     classification for 16 streams: 8
                                                     were designated for fish and
                                                     wildlife, 7 were upgraded to a fish
                                                     and wildlife classification,  1 was
                                                     designated as  agricultural and
                                                     industrial water supply. Proposed
                                                     streams classification rulemaking
                                                     for 7 streams  withdrawn.

7.  North Carolina  4/1/80     Final    45 FR 21246 Nullified a zero dissolved oxygen
                                                     standard variance in a segment of
                                                     Welch Creek and reestablished the
                                                     State's previous standard of 5 mg/1
                                                     average, 4 mg/1 minimum, except
                                                     for lower concentrations caused by
                                                     natural swamp conditions.

8.  Ohio           11/28/80   Final    45 FR 79053 (1) Established water use
                                                     designation, (2) establish a DO
                                                     criterion of 5  mg/1 for warmwater
                                                     use, (3) designated 17 streams as
                                                     warmwater habitat, (4) placed 111
                                                     streams downgraded by Ohio into
                                                     modified warmwater habitat, (5)
                                                     revised certain provisions relating
                                                     to mixing zones (principally on
                                                     Lake Erie), (6) revised low flow
                                                     and other exceptions to standards,
                                                     (7) amended sampling and
                                                     analytical protocols, and (8)
                                                     withdrew EPA proposal to establish
                                                     a new cyanide criterion.

9.  Kentucky       12/9/80    Final    45 FR 81042 Withdrew  the Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)               action of 12/2/74 after adoption of
                                                     ppropriate water quality standards
                                                     by the State.


B-2                                                                             (9/15/93)

-------
                                           Appendix B - Summary of Federal Promulgation Actions
 10.  North Carolina  11/10/81  Final     46 FR 55520  Withdrew the Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)                action of 4/1/80 following State
                                                     adoption of a dissolved oxygen
                                                     criterion consistent with the
                                                     Federally promulgated standard.

 11.  Ohio           2/16/82   Final     47 FR 29541  Withdrew Federal promulgation of
                          (withdrawal)                11/28/80 because it was based on a
                                                     portion of the water quality
                                                     standards regulation that has been
                                                     determined to be invalid.

 12.  Nebraska       7/26/82   Final     47 FR 32128  Withdrew Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)                action of 6/6/78 after adoption of
                                                     appropriate water quality standards
                                                     by the State.

 13.  Alabama        11/26/82  Final     47 FR 53372  Withdrew the Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)                action of 2/14/80 following State
                                                     adoption of requirements consistent
                                                     with the Federally promulgated
                                                     standard.

 14.  Idaho          8/20/85   Proposed  50 FR 33672  Proposal to replace DO criterion
                                                     downstream from dams, partially
                                                     replace Statewide ammonia
                                                     criterion, replace ammonia criterion
                                                     for Indian Creek, and delete
                                                     categorical exemption of dams from
                                                     Antidegradation Policy.

 15.  Mississippi      4/4/86    Final     51 FR 11581  Withdrew the Federal promulgation
                          (withdrawal)                of 4/30/79 following State adoption
                                                     of requirements consistent with the
                                                     Federally promulgated standard.

 16.  Idaho          7/14/86   Final     51 FR 25372  Withdrew portions of proposed rule
                          (withdrawal)                to replace DO criterion
                                                     downstream from dams and delete
                                                     categorical exemptions of dams
                                                     from antidegradation rule since
                                                     State adopted acceptable standards
                                                     in both instances.

 17.  Kentucky        3/20/87   Final    50 FR 9102   Established a chloride criterion of
                                                     600 mg/1 as a 30-day average, not
                                                     to exceed a maximum of 1,200
                                                     mg/1 at any time.


(9/15/93)                                                                           B-3

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
18. Idaho
19*.Coleville
    Indian
    Reservation

20. Kentucky
21*. 12 States
    2 Territories
22. Washington
7/25/88   Final     53 FR 27882  Withdrew portion of proposed rule
      (withdrawal)               which would have established a
                                Statewide ammonia criterion and a
                                site-specific ammonia criterion
                                applicable to lower Indian Creek
                                since State adopted acceptable
                                standards.
7/6/89    Final
54 FR 28622  Established designated uses and
             criteria for all surface waters
             on the Reservation.
4/3/91     Final    56 FR 13592  Withdrew the Federal promulgation
      (withdrawal)               of 3/20/87 after adoption of
                                appropriate WQS by the State.
12/22/92  Final
57 FR 60848  Established numeric water quality
             for toxic pollutants (aquatic life and
             human health).
7/6/93    Final    58 FR 36141  Withdrew, in part, the Federal
      (withdrawal)               Promulgation of 12/22/92 after
                                adoption of appropriate criteria by
                                the State.
* Final federal rule remains in force
          SUMMARY OF FEDERAL PROMULGATION ACTIONS
    Total Number of Proposed or Final Rules

    Final Standards Promulgated

    Withdrawal of Final Standards

    Federal Rules Remaining In Force

    No Action Taken on Proposals or Proposal Withdrawn
                                                   22

                                                   10

                                                   8

                                                   3

                                                   3
B-4
                                                         (9/15/93)

-------
          APPENDIX C
           Biological Criteria:
       National Program Guidance            jj
           for Surface Waters               *
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
vvEPA
United States       Office of Water          EPA-440/5-90-004
Environmental Protection  Regulations and Standards (WH-585) April 1990
Agency	Washington. DC 20460	



Biological Criteria
                 National Program Guidance

                 For Surface Waters

-------
Biological Criteria
National Program Guidance for
         Surface Waters
          Criteria and Standards Division
        Office of Water Regulations and Standards
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
             401 M Street S.W.
           Washington D.C. 20460

-------
                           Contents
Acknowledgments   	iv
Dedication	iv
Definitions	v
Executive Summary	^vii

Parti: Program Elements
1.   Introduction	3
    Value of Biological Criteria   	4
    Process for Implementation   	6
    Independent Application of Biological Criteria	7
    How to Use This Document	7
2.   Legal Authority  	9
    Section 303  	9
    Section 304  	10
    Potential Applications Under the Act	10
    Potential Applications Under Other Legislation   	10
3.   The Conceptual Framework	13
    Premise for Biological Criteria	13
    Biological Integrity	14
    Biological Criteria   	14
       Narrative Criteria  *	15
       Numeric Criteria   	16
    Refining Aquatic Life Use Classifications  	17
    Developing and Implementing Biological Criteria   	18

-------
4.   Integrating Biological Criteria in Surface Water Management   	21
    Implementing Biological Criteria	21
    Biological Criteria in State Programs   	22
    Future Directions	24

Part II: The Implementation Process
5.   The Reference Condition	27
    Site-specific Reference Condition	28
        The Upstream-Downstream Reference Condition	28
        The Near Field-Far Field Reference Condition   	28
    The Regional Reference Condition  	29
        Paired Watershed Reference Condition   	29
        Ecoregional Reference Condition	29
6.   The Biological Survey   	33
    Selecting Aquatic Community Components	34
    Biological Survey Design   	35
        Selecting the Metric	35
        Sampling Design  	36
7.   Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the Scientific Method   	37
    Hypothesis Testing	37
    Diagnosis   	38
References	43
Appendix A: Common Questions and Their Answers	45
Appendix B: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria—Technical Reference Guide	49
Appendix C: Table of Contents; Biological Criteria—Development By States	51
Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers   	53
                                           Hi

-------
                               Acknowledgments
   Development of this document required the combined effort of ecologists, biologists, and policy makers from States, EPA
Regions, and EPA Headquarters. Initial efforts relied on the 1988 document Report of the National Workshop on Instream
Biological Monitoring and Criteria that summarizes a 1987 workshop sponsored by the EPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, EPA Region V, and EPA Environmental  Research Laboratory-Corvallis. In December 1988, contributing and
reviewing committees were established (see Appendix D). Members provided reference materials and commented on drafts.
Their assistance was most valuable.
   Special recognition goes to the Steering Committee who helped develop document goals and made a significant contribu-
tion toward the final guidance. Members of the Steering Committee include:
                       Robert Hughes, Ph.D.              Chris Voder
                       Susan Davies                    Wayne Davis
                       John Maxted                     Jimmie Overton
                       James Plafkin, Ph.D.               Dave Courtemanch
                       Phil Larsen, Ph.D.
   Finally, our thanks go to States that recognized the importance of a biological approach in standards and pushed forward
independently to incorporate biological criteria into their programs. Their guidance made this effort possible. Development of
the program guidance document was sponsored by the U.S. EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards and developed, in
part, through U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3533 to Dynamac Corporation.  Thanks to Dr. Mark Southerlandfor his technical
assistance.
                                      Suzanne K. Macy Marty, Ph.D.
                                      Editor
                                       In Memory of

                          James  L.  Plafkin, Ph.D.
                                                iv

-------
                              Definitions
       To effectively use biological criteria, a clear understanding of how these criteria are developed and ap-
       plied in a water quality standards framework is necessary. This requires, in part, that users of biological
       criteria start from the same frame of reference. To help form this frame of reference, the following defini-
tions are provided. Please consider them carefully to ensure a consistent interpretation of this document.
Definitions
3 An AQUATIC COMMUNITY is an association of in-
  teracting populations of aquatic organisms in a given
  waterbody or habitat.

Q A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation of
  the biological condition of a waterbody using biologi-
  cal surveys and other direct measurements of resi-
  dent biota in surface waters.

Q BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA, or biocriteria, are numeri-
  cal values or narrative expressions that describe the
  reference biological integrity of aquatic communities
  inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life
  use.

Q BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY is functionally defined as
  the condition  of the aquatic community inhabiting
  unimpaired waterbodies of a specified habitat as
  measured by community structure and function.

Q BIOLOGICAL MONITORING is the use of a biologi-
  cal entity as a detector  and its  response as a
  measure to determine environmental conditions.
  Toxicity tests.and biological  surveys  are common
  biomonitoring methods.

Q A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY, or biosurvey, consists of
  collecting, processing and analyzing representative
  portions of a  resident aquatic community to deter-
  mine the community structure and function.

3 A COMMUNITY COMPONENT is any portion of a
  biological  community.  The community component
  may pertain to the taxomonic group (fish, inver-
  tebrates, algae), the  taxonomic category (phylum,
  order, family, genus, species), the  feeding strategy
  (herbivore, omnivore,  carnivore) or organizational
  level (individual, population, community association)
  of a biological entity within the aquatic community.

Q REGIONS OF ECOLOGICAL SIMILARITY describe
  a relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity
  of climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegeta-
  tion, hydrology, or other ecologically relevant vari-
  able. Regions of ecological similarity help define the
  potential  for  designated  use  classifications  of
  specific waterbodies.

3 DESIGNATED USES  are those uses specified in
  water quality standards for each waterbody or seg-
  ment whether or not they are being attained.

Q An IMPACT is a change in the chemical, physical or
  biological quality or condition of a waterbody caused
  by external sources.

Q An  IMPAIRMENT is  a detrimental effect on the
  biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an im-
  pact that prevents attainment of the designated-use.

d A POPULATION is an aggregate of interbreeding in-
  dividuals of a biological species within a specified
  location.

0 A WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT is an evaluation
  of the condition of a waterbody using biological sur-
  veys, chemical-specific analyses  of  pollutants  in
  waterbodies, and  toxicity tests.

Q An ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT is an evaluation
  of the condition of a waterbody using water quality
  and physical habitat assessment methods.

-------
             Executive   Summary
       The Clean Water Act (Act) directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop
       programs that will evaluate, restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological in-
       tegrity of the Nation's waters. In response to this directive, States and EPA implemented
chemically based water quality programs that successfully addressed significant water pollution
problems. However, these programs alone cannot identify or address all surface water pollution
problems. To create a more comprehensive program, EPA is setting a new priority for the develop-
ment of biological water quality criteria. The initial phase of this program directs State adoption of
narrative biological criteria as part of State water quality standards.  This effort will help States and
EPA achieve the objectives of the Clean Water Act set forth in Section 101 and comply with statutory
requirements under Sections 303 and 304. The Water Quality Standards Regulation provides additional
authority for biological criteria development.
   In accordance with priorities established in the FY 1992 Agency Operating Guidance, States are to
adopt narrative biological criteria into State water quality standards during the FY 1991-1993 trien-
nium. To  support this priority, EPA is developing a Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and
Criteria in the Water Quality Program and is providing this program guidance document on biological
criteria.
   This document provides guidance for development and implementation of narrative biological
criteria. Future guidance documents will provide  additional technical information  to  facilitate
development and implementahon of narrative and numeric criteria for each of the surface water
types.
   When implemented, biological criteria will  expand  and improve water quality standards
programs, help identify impairment of beneficial uses,  and help set program priorities. Biological
criteria are valuable because they directly measure the condition  of the resource  at risk, detect
problems that other methods may miss  or underestimate, and provide a systematic process for
measuring progress resulting from the implementation of water quality programs.
                                         vii

-------
Biologic*! Criteria: National Program Guidanct

   Biological criteria require direct measurements of the structure and function of resident aquatic
communities to determine biological integrity and ecological function. They supplement, rather than
replace chemical and toxicological methods. It is EPA's policy that biological survey methods be fully
integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific assessment methods and that chemical-specific criteria,
whole-effluent toxicity evaluations and biological criteria be used as independent evaluations of non-
attainment of designated uses.
   Biological criteria are narrative expressions or numerical values that describe the biological in-
tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a  given aquatic life use. They are  developed
under the assumptions that surface waters impacted by antnropogenic activities may contain im-
paired aquatic communities (the greater the impact the greater the expected impairment) and that
surface waters not impacted by anthropogenic activities are generally not impaired. Measures of
aquatic community structure and function in unimpaired surface waters functionally define biologi-
cal integrity and form the basis for establishing the biological criteria.
   Narrative biological criteria are definable statements of condition or attainable goals  for a given
use designation. They establish a  positive  statement about aquatic community characteristics ex-
pected to occur within a waterbody (e.g., "Aquatic life shall be as it naturally occurs" or "A natural
variety of aquatic life shall be present and all functional groups well represented"). These criteria can
be developed using existing information. Numeric criteria describe the expected attainable com-
munity attributes and establish values based on  measures such as species richness, presence or ab-
sence of indicator taxa, and distribution of classes of organisms. To implement narrative criteria and
develop numeric criteria, biota in reference waters must be carefully assessed. These are used as the
reference values to determine if, and to what extent, an impacted surface waterbody is impaired.
   Biological criteria support designated aquatic life use classifications for application in standards.
The designated use determines the benefit or purpose to be derived from the waterbody; the criteria
provide a measure to determine if the use is impaired. Refinement of State water quality standards to
include more detailed language about aquatic life is essential to fully implement a biological criteria
program. Data collected from biosurveys can identify consistently distinct characteristics among
aquatic communities inhabiting different waters with the same  designated use. These biological and
ecological characteristics may be used to  define separate categories within a designated use, or
separate one designated use into two or more use classifications.
   To develop values for biological criteria, States should (1) identify unimpaired reference water-
bodies to establish the reference condition and (2) characterize the aquatic communities inhabiting
reference surface waters. Currently, two principal approaches are used to establish reference sites: (1)
the site-specific approach, which may require upstream-downstream or near field-far field evalua-
tions, and (2) the regional approach, which identifies  similarities in the  physico-chemical charac-
teristics of watersheds that influence aquatic ecology. The basis for choosing reference sites depends
on classifying the habitat type and locating unimpaired (minimally impacted) waters.
                                            viii

-------
                                                                             Extcutivf Summary

   Once reference sites are selected, their biological integrity must be evaluated using quantifiable
biological surveys. The success of the survey will depend in part on the careful selection of aquatic
community components (e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, algae). These components should serve as ef-
fective indicators of high biological integrity, represent a range of pollution tolerances, provide pre-
dictable, repeatable results, and be readily identified by trained State personnel. Well-planned quality
assurance protocols are required to reduce variability in data collection and to assess the natural
variability inherent in aquatic communities. A quality survey will include multiple community com-
ponents and may be measured using a variety of metrics. Since multiple approaches are available,
factors to consider  when choosing possible approaches for assessing biological  integrity  are
presented in this document and will be further developed in future technical guidance documents.
   To apply biological criteria  in a water quality standards program, standardized sampling
methods and statistical protocols must be used. These procedures must be sensitive enough to iden-
tify significant differences between established criteria and tested communities. There are three pos-
sible outcomes from hypothesis testing using these analyses: (1) the use is impaired, (2) the biological
criteria are met,  or (3) the outcome is indeterminate. If the use is impaired, efforts to diagnose the
cause(s) will help determine appropriate action. If the use is not impaired, no action is required based
on these analyses. The outcome will be indeterminate if the study design or evaluation was incom-
plete. In this case, States would need to re-evaluate their protocols.
   If the designated  use is impaired, diagnosis is the next step. During diagnostic evaluations three
main impact categories must be considered: chemical, physical, and biological stress. Two questions
are posed during initial diagnosis: (1) what are obvious potential causes of impairment, and (2) what
possible causes do the biological data suggest?  Obvious potential causes of impairment are often
identified during normal field biological assessments. When an impaired use cannot be easily related
to an obvious cause,  the diagnostic process becomes investigative and iterative. Normally the diag-
noses of biological impairments  are relatively straightforward; States can use biological criteria to
confirm impairment from a known source of impact.
   There is considerable State interest in integrating biological assessments and criteria in water
quality management programs. A minimum of 20 States now use some form of standardized biologi-
cal assessments to determine the status of biota in State waters. Of these, 15 States are developing
biological assessments for future criteria development.  Five States use biological  criteria to define
aquatic life use classifications and to enforce water quality standards. Several States have established
narrative biological criteria in their standards. One State has instituted numeric biological criteria.
    Whether a State is just beginning to establish narrative biological criteria or is developing a fully
integrated biological approach, the programmatic expansion  from source control to resource
management represents a natural progression in  water quality programs. Implementation of biologi-
cal criteria will provide new options for expanding the scope and application of ecological perspec-
tives.
                                             IX

-------
           Parti
Program Elements

-------
                                  Chapter  1
                         Introduction
       The principal objectives of the Clean Water
       Act are "to restore and maintain the chemi-
       cal, physical and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters" (Section 101). To achieve these ob-
jectives, EPA, States, the regulated community, and
the public need comprehensive information about
the ecological  integrity of aquatic  environments.
Such information will help us identify waters requir-
ing special protection and those that will benefit most
from regulatory efforts.
    To meet the objectives of the Act and to comply
with statutory requirements under Sections 303 and
304, States are to adopt biological criteria in State
standards. The Water Quality Standards Regulation
provides  additional authority  for this effort.  In ac-
cordance  with the FY  1991 Agency  Operating
Guidance, States and  qualified Indian tribes are to
adopt narrative biological criteria into State water
quality standards during  the FY  1991-1993 trien-
nium. To support this effort,  EPA is developing a
Policy on the Use of  Biological Assessments and
Criteria in the Water Quality Program and providing
this program  guidance  document  on  biological
criteria.
    Like other water quality criteria,  biological cri-
teria identify  water quality  impairments,  support
regulatory controls that  address  water quality
problems, and assess  improvements  in water
quality from regulatory efforts. Biological criteria are
numerical values or  narrative  expressions  that
describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic
communities  inhabiting waters of a  given desig-
nated aquatic life use. They are developed through
Anthropogenic impacts, including point source
discharges, nonpoint runoff, and habitat degradation
continue to impair the nation's surface waters.
the direct measurement of aquatic community com-
ponents inhabiting unimpaired surface waters.
   Biological criteria  complement  current pro-
grams. Of the three objectives identified in the Act
(chemical, physical, and biological integrity), current
water quality programs focus on direct measures of

-------
Sfefegfca/Criteria; Nittorul Program Guidance
chemical integrity (chemical-specific and whole-ef-
fluent toxicity)  and, to some degree,  physical  in-
tegrity through several conventional criteria (e.g.,
pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen). Implementation of
these programs  has significantly  improved  water
quality.  However, as we leam more about aquatic
ecosystems  it  is apparent that other sources of
waterbody impairment exist. Biological impairments
from diffuse sources and habitat degradation can be
greater than those caused by point source dischar-
ges (Judy  et al.  1987;  Miller  et al. 1989). In Ohio,
evaluation of instream  biota indicated that 36 per-
cent of impaired stream  segments could not  be
detected using chemical criteria alone (see Fig. 1).
Although   effective  for their  purpose,  chemical-
specific criteria and whole-effluent toxicity provide
only indirect evaluations and protection of biological
integrity (see Table 1).
    To  effectively address our  remaining  water
quality  problems we need to develop  more  in-
tegrated and comprehensive evaluations. Chemical
and physical integrity are necessary, but not suffi-
cient  conditions  to attain biological integrity,  and
only when chemical, physical,  and biological  in-
tegrity are achieved, Is ecological integrity possible
(see Fig. 2). Biological criteria provide an essential
third  element  for water  quality management  and
serve  as   a  natural  progression  in  regulatory
programs. Incorporating biological criteria  into a
fully integrated program directly protects the biologi-
cal integrity of  surface waters and  provides indirect
protection  for chemical and physical integrity (see
Table 2).  Chemical-specific criteria, whole-effluent
toxicity evaluations, and  biological  criteria,  when
used together, complement the relative strengths
and weaknesses of each approach.
Figure 1.—Ohio Blosurvey Results Agree with
Instream Chemistry or Reveal Unknown Problems

             Impairment Identification
Chemical Evaluation Indicate
No Impairment: Biosurvey
Show Impairment
Biosurvey Show No
Impairment; Chemical
Evaluation Indicates
Impairment
Chemical Prediction
& Biosurvey Agree
Fig. 1: In an intensive survey, 431 sites in Ohio were assessed
using instream chemistry and biological surveys. In 36% of
the cases, chemical evaluations implied no impairment but
biological survey evaluations showed impairment. In 58% of
the cases the chemical and biological assessments agreed.
Of these, 17% identified waters with no impairment, 41%
identified waters which were considered impaired. (Modified
from Ohio EPA Water Quality Inventory,  1988.)

    Biological  assessments  have been used in
biomonitoring programs by States for many years.
In this respect,  biological criteria support earlier
work.  However, implementing biological criteria in
water  quality  standards  provides  a  systematic,
structured,  and  objective process  for  making
decisions  about  compliance with  water  quality
standards. This distinguishes biological criteria from
earlier use of biological information and increases
the value of biological data in regulatory programs.
Table 1.—Currant Water Quality Program Protection of the Three Elements of Ecological Integrity.
ELEMENTS OF ECOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY
Chemical Integrity
Physical Integrity
Biological Integrity
PROGRAM THAT DIRECTLY
PROTECTS
Chemical Specific Criteria (toxics)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (toxics)
Criteria for Conventionals
(pH, DO. turbidity)

PROGRAM THAT INDIRECTLY
PROTECTS i
i
i
I
I
I
Chemical/Whole Effluent Toxicity
(biotic response in lab)
 Table 1: Current programs focus on chemical specific and whole-effluent toxicity evaluations. Both are valuable approaches
 for the direct evaluation and protection of chemical integrity. Physical integrity is also directly protected to a limited degree
 through criteria for conventional pollutants. Biological integrity is only indirectly protected under the assumption that by
 evaluating toxicity to organisms in laboratory studies, estimates can be made about the toxicity to other organisms inhabiting
 ambient waters.

-------
                                                                                    Chapter 1: Introduction
Table 2.—Water Quality Programs that Incorporate Biological Criteria to Protect Elements of Ecological Integrity.
ELEMENTS OF
ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Chemical Integnty
Physical Integrity
Biological Integrity
DIRECTLY PROTECTS
Chemical Specific Criteria (toxics)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (toxics)
Criteria for conventionais (pH, temp.,
DO)
Biocriteria (biotic response in surface
water)
INDIRECTLY PROTECTS
Biocriteria (identification of
impairment)
Biocriteria (habitat evaluation)
Chemical/Whole Effluent Testing
(biotic response in lab)
Table 2: When biological criteria are incorporated into water quality programs the biological integrity of surface waters may
be directly evaluated and protected. Biological criteria also provide additional benefits by requiring an evaluation of physical
integrity and providing a monitoring tool to assess the effectiveness of current chemically based criteria.
Figure 2.—The Elements of Ecological Integrity
Fig. 2: Ecological Integrity is attainable when chemical,
physical, and biological integrity occur simultaneously.
Value of Biological

Criteria

    Biological criteria provide an effective tool for
addressing  remaining water quality problems by
directing  regulatory efforts  toward  assessing  the
biological resources at risk from chemical, physical
or biological  impacts. A primary strength of biologi-
cal criteria is the detection of water quality problems
that other methods may miss or  underestimate.
Biological criteria can be used to determine to what
extent current regulations are protecting the use.
    Biological  assessments   provide  integrated
evaluations  of water quality. They can identify im-
pairments from contamination of the water column
and sediments from unknown or unregulated chemi-
cals,  non-chemical impacts, and altered  physical
habitat.  Resident  biota  function  as  continual
monitors of environmental  quality,  increasing the
likelihood of detecting the effects of episodic events
(e.g., spills,  dumping, treatment plant malfunctions,
nutrient enrichment), toxic nonpoint source pollution
(e.g., agricultural pesticides), cumulative  pollution
(i.e., multiple impacts over time or continuous low-
level stress), or other impacts that periodic chemical
sampling is unlikely to detect. Impacts on the physi-
cal habitat such as sedimentation from stormwater
runoff and  the effects  of physical or  structural
habitat  alterations  (e.g.,  dredging, filling,  chan-
nelization) can also be detected.
    Biological criteria require the direct measure of
resident aquatic community structure  and function
to determine biological integrity and ecological func-
tion.  Using  these  measures,  impairment can  be
detected and evaluated without knowing the im-
pact(s) that may cause the impairment.
    Biological criteria provide  a regulatory frame-
work for addressing water quality  problems  and
offer additional benefits, including providing:
    • the basis for characterizing high quality
      waters and identifying habitats and
      community components requiring special
      protection under State anti-degradation
      policies;

    • a framework for deciding 319 actions for best
      control of nonpoint source pollution;

    • an evaluation of surface water impairments
      predicted by chemical analyses, toxicity

-------
Biological Crtttrtx  National Progrun Guidanct
     testing, and fate and transport modeling (e.g.,
     wasteload allocation);.
    • improvements in water quality standards
     (including refinement of use classifications);

    • a process for demonstrating improvements in
     water quality after implementation of pollution
     controls;

    • additional diagnostic tools.

    The role of biological criteria as a regulatory tool
is being realized in some States (e.g., Arkansas,
Maine, Ohio, North  Carolina, Vermont). Biological
assessments  and  criteria  have  been  useful for
regulatory, resource protection, and monitoring and
reporting  programs. By  incorporating biological
criteria in programs, States can improve standards
setting  and  enforcement,  measure  impairments
from permit violations, and refine wasteload alloca-
tion models.  In addition, the location,  extent, and
type of biological impairments measured in a water-
body provide valuable information needed  for iden-
tifying  the cause of impairment  and  determining
actions required to improve water quality. Biological
assessment and criteria programs provide a cost-
effective method for evaluating water quality when a
standardized, systematic approach to study design,
field methods,  and  data analysis  is  established
(Ohio EPA 1988a).
 Process for
 Implementation
    The implementation of biological criteria will fol-
 low the same process used for current chemical-
                                specific and whole-effluent toxicity applications: na-
                                tional guidance produced by U.S. EPA will support
                                States working to establish State standards for the
                                implementation of regulatory programs (see  Table
                                3). Biological criteria differ, however, in the degree
                                of  State  involvement required. Because  surface
                                waters vary significantly from region to region, EPA
                                will provide guidance on acceptable approaches for
                                biological criteria development rather than specific
                                criteria with numerical limitations. States are to es-
                                tablish  assessment  procedures,  conduct   field
                                evaluations, and determine criteria values  to imple-
                                ment biological criteria in State standards and apply
                                them in regulatory programs.
                                    The degree  of State involvement required in-
                                fluences how biological criteria will be implemented.
                                It is  expected that  States wiH implement  these
                                criteria in phases.

                                    • Phase I includes the development and  adop-
                                      tion of narrative  biological criteria into State
                                      standards for  all surface waters (streams,
                                      rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries). Definitions
                                      of  terms and  expressions in  the narratives
                                      must be included  in these standards (see the
                                      Narrative Criteria  Section, Chapter 3). Adop-
                                      tion of narrative  biological  criteria in  State
                                      standards provides the legal  and  program-
                                      matic basis for using ambient biological  sur-
                                      veys and assessments in regulatory actions.

                                    • Phase II includes the development  of an im-
                                      plementation  plan. The plan should include
                                      program objectives,  study design,  research
                                      protocols, criteria for selecting reference  con-
                                      ditions  and community components, quality
                                      assurance and  quality control  procedures,
 Table 3.—Process for Implementation of Water Quality Standards.
 CRITERIA
EPA GUIDANCE
STATE IMPLEMENTATION
STATE APPLICATION
 Chemical Specific
Pollutant specific numeric criteria
 Narrative Free Forms    Whole effluent toxicity guidance
 Biological
Biosurvey minimum requirement
guidance
State Standards
• use designation
• numenc criteria
• antidegradation

Water Quality Narrative
• no toxic amounts translator
State Standards
• refined use
• narrative/numeric cntena
• antidegradation
Permit limits Monitoring
Best Management Practices
Wasteload allocation

Permit limits Monitonng
Wasteload allocation
Best Management Practices
Permit conditions Monitoring
Best Management Practices
Wasteload allocation
 Table 3: Similar to chemical specific criteria and whole effluent toxicity evaluations, EPA is providing guidance to States for
 the adoption of biological criteria into State standards to regulate sources of water quality impairment.

-------
                                                                                Chapter 1: Introduction
     and training for State personnel. In Phase II,
     States are to develop plans necessary to im-
     plement  biological criteria for each surface
     water type.

     Phase III requires full implementation and in-
     tegration of biological criteria in water quality
     standards. This requires using biological sur-
     veys to derive biological criteria for classes of
     surface waters and designated uses.  These
     criteria are then  used to  identify nonattain-
     ment of designated uses and make regulatory
     decisions.
    Narrative biological criteria can  be developed
for all five surface water classifications with little or
no data collection. Application of narrative criteria in
seriously degraded waters is possible in the short
term. However, because of the diversity of surface
waters and the biota that inhabit these waters, sig-
nificant planning, data collection, and evaluation will
be needed to fully implement the program. Criteria
for  each type  of surface  water are  likely  to be
developed at different rates.  The order and rate of
development will depend,  in part, on the  develop-
ment of EPA guidance for  specific types of surface
water. Biological criteria  technical  guidance  for
streams will be produced during FY 1991. The ten-
tative order for future technical guidance documents
includes  guidance for rivers (FY 1992), lakes (FY
1993), wetlands (FY 1994)  and estuaries (FY 1995).
This order and timeline for guidance does not reflect
the relative importance of these surface waters, but
rather indicates the relative availability of research
and  the  anticipated  difficulty of   developing
guidance.
 Independent Application

 of Biological Criteria

    Biological  criteria  supplement,  but  do  not
 replace, chemical and toxicological methods. Water
 chemistry methods are necessary to predict risks
 (particularly to human health and wildlife), and to
 diagnose,  model, and regulate  important  water
 quality  problems.  Because biological criteria  are
 able to detect different types of water quality impair-
 ments and, in particular, have different levels of sen-
 sitivity  for detecting  certain types  of  impairment
compared to toxicological methods, they are not
used in lieu of, or in conflict with, current regulatory
efforts.
    As with all criteria, certain limitations to biologi-
cal criteria make independent application essential.
Study design  and use influences how sensitive
biological criteria are for detecting community im-
pairment. Several factors  influence sensitivity:  (1)
State decisions about what is significantly different
between reference and test communities, (2) study
design, which may include community components
that are not sensitive to the impact causing impair-
ment, (3) high natural variability that makes it dif-
ficult  to detect real differences,  and (4)  types  of
impacts that may  be detectable  sooner  by other
methods (e.g., chemical criteria may provide earlier
indications  of  impairment from a bioaccumulative
chemical because aquatic communities require ex-
posure over time to incur the full effect).
    Since each type of criteria (biological criteria,
chemical-specific criteria, or  whole-effluent toxicity
evaluations)  has different sensitivities and pur-
poses, a criterion may fail to detect real impairments
when used alone. As a result, these methods should
be used together in an integrated water quality as-
sessment,  each providing an independent evalua-
tion of nonattainment of a designated  use.  If any
one type of criteria indicates  impairment of the sur-
face water, regulatory  action can be taken  to  im-
prove water quality. However, no one type of criteria
can be used to confirm attainment  of  a  use  if
another form  of criteria  indicates  nonattainment
(see Hypothesis Testing: Biological Criteria and the
Scientific  Method, Chapter 7). When these three
methods are used together, they provide a powerful,
integrated, and  effective foundation for waterbody
management and regulations.
 How to Use  this

 Document

    The purpose of this document is to provide EPA
 Regions, States and  others with the conceptual
 framework  and assistance  necessary to develop
 and  implement narrative and  numeric  biological
 criteria and to promote national consistency in ap-
 plication. There are two main parts of the document.
 Part  One (Chapters 1, 2, 3,  and 4) includes the es-
 sential concepts about what biological criteria are

-------
Sfetogfca/ CrHtrtx Nrtormi Pmgrun Gufctac*
and how they are used in regulatory programs. Part
Two (Chapters 5, 6, and 7) provides an overview of
the process that  is essential for implementing a
State  biological criteria program.  Specific chapters
include the following:


Parti: PROGRAM ELEMENTS

  Q Chapter 2, Legal Authority, reviews the legal
    basis for biological criteria under the Clean
    Water Act and includes possible applications
    under the Act and other legislation.

  Q Chapter 3, Conceptual Framework,
    discusses the essential program elements for
    biological criteria, including what they are and
    how they are developed and used within a
    regulatory program. The development of
    narrative biological criteria is discussed in this
    chapter.

  Q Chapter 4, Integration, discusses the use of
    biological criteria in regulatory programs.


Part II:  THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

  Q Chapter 5, The Reference Condition,
    provides a discussion on alternative forms of
    reference conditions that may be developed by
    a State based on circumstances and needs.

  Q Chapter 6, The Biological Survey, provides
    some detail on the elements of a quality
    biological survey.

  a Chapter 7, Hypothesis Testing: Biological
    Criteria and the Scientific Method, discusses
    how biological surveys are used to make
    regulatory and diagnostic decisions.

  Q Appendix A includes commonly asked
    questions and their answers about biological
    criteria.
   Two additional documents are planned in the
near term to supplement this program guidance
document.

   1. "Biological  Criteria   Technical  Reference
      Guide* will contain a cross reference of tech-
      nical  papers on available approaches and
      methods  for developing  biological criteria
      (see tentative table of contents in Appendix
      B),

   2. 'Biological Criteria Development by States?
      will provide a summary of different mecha-
      nisms several States have used to implement
      and apply biological criteria in water quality
      programs (see tentative outline in Appendix
      C).

   Both  documents are planned for FY 1991. As
previously discussed, over the next triennium tech-
nical guidance for specific systems (e.g., streams,
wetlands) will be developed to provide guidance on
acceptable biological assessment procedures to fur-
ther  support State implementation of comprehen-
sive programs.
   This biological criteria program guidance docu-
ment supports development and implementation of
biological criteria by providing guidance to States
working to  comply with  requirements  under the
Clean Water Act and the Water Quality Standards
Regulation. This guidance is not regulatory.

-------
                                 Chapter  2
                     Legal Authority
      The Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution
      Control  Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of
      1977, and the Water Quality Act of 1987)
mandates State development of criteria based on
biological assessments of natural ecosystems.
   The  general authority for biological  criteria
comes from Section 101 (a) of the Act which estab-
lishes as the objective of the Act the restoration and
maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal integrity of the Nation's waters. To meet this ob-
jective, water quality criteria must  include criteria to
protect  biological integrity. Section  101(a)(2) in-
cludes the  interim water quality goal for the protec-
tion and  propagation of  fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Propagation includes the full range of biological
conditions  necessary  to  support  reproducing
populations of all forms of aquatic life and other life
that depend on aquatic systems. Sections 303 and
304 provide specific directives for the development
of biological criteria.
Balancing th9 legal authority for biological criteria.
Section 303

   Under Section 303(c) of the Act, States are re-
quired to adopt protective water quality standards
that consist of uses, criteria, and antidegradation.
States are to review these standards every three
years and to revise them as needed.
   Section 303(c) (2) (A)  requires the adoption of
water quality standards that"... serve the purposes
of the  Act," as  given in Section 101. Section
303(c)(2)(B), enacted in  1987, requires States to
adopt numeric criteria for toxic pollutants for which
EPA has published 304(a) (1) criteria. The section
further requires that, where numeric 304(a) criteria
are not available, States should adopt criteria based
on biological assessment and monitoring methods,
consistent with information published by EPA under
304(a)(8).
   These specific directives do not serve to restrict
the use of biological criteria in other settings where
they may be  helpful.  Accordingly, this guidance
document  provides assistance  in  implementing
various sections of the Act, not just 303(c) (2) (B).

-------
Sfofegfca/ CWttri* NaOonal Prognm QuUanct
Section 304

   Section 304(a) directs EPA to develop and
publish water quality criteria and  information on
methods for measuring water quality  and estab-
lishing water quality criteria for toxic pollutants on
bases other than pollutant-by-pollutant,  including
biological  monitoring and  assessment  methods
which assess:

   • the effects of pollutants on aquatic community
     components ("... plankton, fish, shellfish,
     wildlife, plant life...") and community
     attributes (V .. biological community diversity,
     productivity, and stability...");  in any body of
     water and;

   • factors necessary"... to restore and
     maintain the chemical, physical, and
     biological integrity of all navigable waters ..."
     for"... the protection of shellfish, fish, and
     wildlife for classes and categories of receiving
     waters..."
Potential Applications

Under the Act

    Development and use of biological criteria will
help States to meet other requirements of the Act,
including:

  Q setting planning and management priorities for
     waterbodies most in need of controls
     [Sec. 303(d)];

  a determining impacts from nonpoint sources
     [i.e., Section 304(f) '(1) guidelines for
     identifying and evaluating the nature and
     extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and
     (2) processes, procedures, and methods to
     control pollution..."].

  Q biennial reports on the extent to which waters
     support balanced biological communities
     [Sec. 305(b)];

  a assessment of lake trophic status and trends
     [Sec. 314];
  Q lists of waters that cannot attain designated
    uses without nonpoint source controls
    [Sec. 319];

  a development of management plans and
    conducting monitoring in estuaries of national
    significance [Sec. 320];

  Q issuing permits for ocean discharges and
    monitoring ecological effects [Sec. 403(c) and
    301(h)(3)];

  Q determination of acceptable sites for disposal
    of dredge and fill material [Sec. 404];
Potential Applications

Under Other Legislation

   Several legislative acts require an assessment
of risk to the environment (including resident aquatic
communities) to determine the need for regulatory
action. Biological criteria can be used in this context
to support EPA assessments under:

  a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976

  a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
    (RCRA),

  a Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
    (CERCLA),

  Q Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
    Act of 1986 (SARA),

  Q Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
    Rodenticide Act (FIFRA);

  a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);

  a Federal Lands Policy and Management Act
    (FLPMA).

  a The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980

  a Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
    Act

  a Coastal Zone Management Act
                                              10

-------
                                                                              Chapter 2: Legal Authority
  a Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

  a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
    Amended in 1965

   A summary of the applicability of these Acts for
assessing ecological impairments may be found in
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund-Environ-
mental Evaluation Manual (Interim Final) 1989.
   Other federal  and State agencies  can also
benefit from using biological criteria to evaluate the
biological  integrity of  surface  waters  within their
jurisdiction and to the effects of specific practices on
surface water quality. Agencies that could benefit in-
clude:

  3 Department of the Interior (US. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
    Bureau of Mines, and Bureau of Reclamation,
    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
    Management, and National Park Service),

  a Department of Commerce (National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, National
    Marine Fisheries Service),

  3 Department of Transportation (Federal
    Highway Administration)

  D Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest
    Service, Soil Conservation Service)

  3 Department of Defense,

  a Department of Energy,

  3 Army Corps of Engineers,

  a Tennessee Valley Authority.
                                                11

-------
                              Chapter  3
    The  Conceptual  Framework
      Biological integrity and the determination of
      use impairment through assessment of am-
      bient biological communities form the foun-
dation for biological  criteria development.  The
effectiveness  of a biological criteria program will
depend on the development of quality criteria, the
refinement of use  classes to support narrative
criteria, and careful application of scientific prin-
ciples.
Premise for Biological

Criteria

   Biological criteria are based on the premise that
the structure and function of an aquatic biological
community within a specific habitat provide critical
information about the quality of surface waters. Ex-
isting aquatic communities in pristine environments
not  subject to anthropogenic impact exemplify
biological integrity and serve as the best possible
goal for water quality.  Although pristine environ-
ments are  virtually non-existent  (even  remote
waters are impacted by air pollution), minimally im-
pacted waters exist. Measures of the structure and
function of aquatic communities inhabiting unim-
paired (minimally impacted)  waters provide the
basis for establishing a reference condition that may
be compared to the condition of impacted surface
waters to determine impairment.
   Based on this premise, biological criteria are
developed under the assumptions that: (1) surface
waters subject to  anthropogenic disturbance may
contain impaired  populations or communities of
aquatic organisms—the greater the anthropogenic
Aquatic communities assessed in unimpaired
waterbodies (top) provide a reference for evaluating
impairments in the same or similar waterbodies suffering
from increasing anthropogenic impacts (bottom).
                                        13

-------
StofegfcafOttwfe: NatonlPngnmQukitnc
disturbance, the greater the likelihood and mag-
nitude  of impairment; and  (2) surface waters not
subject to anthropogenic disturbance generally con-
tain  unimpaired (natural)  populations and com-
munities of aquatic organisms exhibiting biological
integrity.
the basis for establishing water  quality  goals  for
those waters. When  tied to the development of
biological criteria, the realities of limitations  on
biological integrity can be considered and incor-
porated  into a  progressive  program  to improve
water quality.
Biological Integrity

    The expression "biological integrity" is used in
the Clean Water  Act to define the Nation's objec-
tives for water quality. According to Webster's New
World Dictionary (1966), integrity is, "the quality or
state of being complete; unimpaired." Biological in-
tegrity has been defined as "the ability of an aquatic
ecosystem to support and maintain a balanced, in-
tegrated, adaptive community of organisms having
a species composition, diversity, and functional or-
ganization comparable to that of the natural habitats
within a region" (Karr and Dudley  1981). For the pur-
poses of biological criteria, these  concepts are com-
bined  to  develop  a  functional  definition for
evaluating  biological  integrity  in  water  quality
programs.  Thus,  biological integrity is functionally
defined as:

      the condition of the aquatic community
      inhabiting the unimpaired waterbodies
      of a specified habitat as measured by
      community structure and function.

    It will often be difficult to find unimpaired waters
to define biological integrity and establish the  refer-
ence condition. However, the structure and function
of aquatic communities of high quality waters can be
approximated in  several ways.  One is to charac-
terize aquatic  communities  in the most protected
waters  representative of  the regions  where such
sites exist. In  areas where few or no unimpaired
sites are available, characterization  of least im-
paired systems approximates unimpaired systems.
Concurrent analysis  of historical records should
supplement descriptions of the condition of least im-
paired systems. For some systems, such as lakes,
evaluating paleoecological information (the record
stored in sediment profiles) can  provide a measure
of less disturbed conditions.
    Surface waters, when  inhabited by aquatic com-
munities, are exhibiting a degree of  biological in-
tegrity.   However,  the   best   representation  of
 biological integrity for a surface water should form
Biological Criteria

    Biological criteria are  narrative expressions or
numerical values that describe the biological  in-
tegrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a
given designated aquatic  life use. While biological
integrity  describes  the  ultimate goal for water
quality, biological criteria are based on aquatic com-
munity structure and function for waters within a
variety of designated uses. Designated aquatic life
uses serve as general statements of attained or at-
tainable uses of State waters. Once established for
a designated use, biological criteria are quantifiable
values used to determine whether a use is impaired,
and if so, the level of impairment. This is done by
specifying what aquatic community structure and
function should exist in waters of a given designated
use, and then comparing this condition with the con-
dition of  a site under evaluation.  If  the  existing
aquatic  community measures  fail  to meet the
criteria, the use is considered impaired.
    Since  biological  surveys  used  for  biological
criteria  are  capable of  detecting  water  quality
problems  (use impairments)  that  may  not  be
detected by chemical or toxicity testing, violation of
biological criteria is sufficient cause for States to in-
itiate regulatory action. Corroborating chemical and
toxicity testing data are not required (though they
may be desirable) as supporting evidence to sustain
a determination of use impairment. However, a find-
ing that biological criteria fail to indicate use impair-
ment does  not  mean the  use is  automatically
attained. Other evidence, such as violation of physi-
cal or chemical criteria, or results from toxicity tests,
can also be used to identify impairment. Alternative
forms of criteria provide independent assessments
of nonattainment.
     As stated above, biological criteria may be nar-
 rative statements or numerical values. States can
 establish general narrative biological criteria early in
 program development without conducting biological
 assessments. Once established in State standards,
 narrative  biological  criteria form  the  legal and
                                                 14

-------
                                                                        Chapter 3: Th« Conceptual Framework
programmatic basis for expanding biological as-
sessment and biosurvey programs needed to imple-
ment  narrative  criteria   and  develop  numeric
biological  criteria  Narrative  biological   criteria
should become part of State regulations and stand-
ards.
Narrative Criteria

    Narrative  biological criteria are general state-
ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and  water  quality for a given  use
designation.  Although similar  to the  "free from"
chemical water quality criteria,  narrative biological
criteria establish a positive statement about what
should occur within a water body. Narrative criteria
can take a number of forms but they must contain
several attributes to support the goals of the Clean
Water Act to provide for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Thus, narrative
criteria  should  include  specific  language about
aquatic community  characteristics  that  (1)  must
exist in a waterbody to meet a particular designated
aquatic life use, and (2) are quantifiable. They must
be written to protect the use. Supporting statements
for the criteria should  promote  water quality  to
protect the most natural community possible for the
designated use. Mechanisms should be established
in the standard to  address potentially conflicting
multiple  uses.  Narratives  should  be  written  to
                                      protect  the most sensitive  use and support an-
                                      tidegradation.
                                          Several States currently use narrative criteria.
                                      In Maine, for example, narrative criteria were estab-
                                      lished for four classes of water quality for streams
                                      and  rivers (see Table 4). The classifications were
                                      based on the range of goals in the Act from "no dis-
                                      charge"  to "protection  and  propagation  of fish,
                                      shellfish,  and wildlife"  (Courtemanch and Davies
                                      1987). Maine separated its "high quality water" into
                                      two categories, one that reflects the highest goal of
                                      the  Act  (no discharge, Class  AA)  and one that
                                      reflects high integrity but is minimally impacted by
                                      human  activity  (Class  A).  The  statement "The
                                      aquatic life... shall be as naturally occurs" is a nar-
                                      rative biological criterion  for both Class AA and A
                                      waters. Waters in Class B meet the use when the
                                      life stages of all indigenous aquatic species are sup-
                                      ported and no detrimental changes  occur  in com-
                                      munity  composition  (Maine DEP   1986).  These
                                      criteria  directly support refined designated aquatic
                                      life uses (see Section 0,  Refining Aquatic Life Use
                                      Classifications).
                                          These narrative criteria are effective only if, as
                                      Maine  has  done, simple  phrases  such  as "as
                                      naturally occurs"  and "nondetrimental" are clearly
                                      operationally defined.  Rules for  sampling proce-
                                      dures and data analysis and interpretation should
                                      become  part  of  the  regulation  or  supporting
                                      documentation. Maine  was  able to  develop these
                                      criteria  and their supporting statements using avail-
Table 4.—Aquatic Life Classification Scheme for Maine's Rivers and Streams.
RIVERS AND
STREAMS
MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
LEVEL OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
Class AA       High quality water for preservation of
               recreational and ecological interests. No
               discharges of any kind permitted. No
               impoundment permitted.

Class A        High quality water with limited human
               interference. Discharges restricted to noncontact
               process water or highly treated wastewater of
               quality equal to or better than the receiving
               water. Impoundment permitted.

Class B        Good quality water. Discharges of well treated
               effluents with ample dilution permitted.
Class C        Lowest quality water. Requirements consistent
               with interim goals of the federal Water Quality
               Law (fishable and swimmable).
                                              Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.
                                              Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.
                                              Ambient water quality sufficient to support life
                                              stages of all indigenous aquatic species. Only
                                              nondetnmental changes in community
                                              composition may occur.

                                              Ambient water quality sufficient to support the
                                              life stages of all indigenous fish species
                                              Changes in species composition may occur but
                                              structure and function of the aquatic community
                                              must be maintained.
                                                  15

-------
Biologic*! CrittrtK National Program Guidance
able data from water quality programs. To  imple-
ment the criteria, aquatic life inhabiting unimpaired
waters must  be measured to  quantify the criteria
statement.
    Narrative criteria can take  more specific forms
than illustrated  in the Maine  example.  Narrative
criteria may include specific classes and species of
organisms that will occur in waters for a given desig-
nated use. To develop these narratives, field evalua-
tions of  reference conditions are necessary to
identify biological community  attributes that differ
significantly between designated uses. For example
in the Arkansas use class Typical  Gulf Coastal
Ecoregion (i.e., South Central  Plains)  the narrative
criterion reads:

     "Streams supporting diverse
     communities of indigenous or adapted
     species offish and other forms of
     aquatic life. Fish communities are
     characterized by a limited proportion of
     sensitive species; sunfishes are
     distinctly dominant, followed by darters
     and minnows. The community may be
     generally characterized by the following
     fishes: Key Species—Redftn shiner,
     Spotted sucker, Yellow bullhead,  Flier,
     Slough darter, Grass pickerel; Indicator
     Species—Pirate perch, Warmouth,
     Spotted sunfish, Dusky darter, Creek
     chubsucker. Banded pygmy sunfish
     (Arkansas DPCE 1988).

    In  Connecticut,  current designated  uses are
supported  by narratives  in the standard. For ex-
ample, under Surface Water Classifications, Inland
Surface Waters Class AA, the Designated  Use is:
"Existing or proposed  drinking water supply;  fish
and wildlife habitat; recreational use; agricultural, in-
dustrial supply, and other purposes (recreation uses
may be restricted)."
    The supporting narratives include:

     Benthic invertebrates which inhabit lotic
     waters: A wide variety of
     macroinvertebrate taxa should normally
     be present and all functional groups
     should normally be well represented...
     Water quality shall be sufficient to
     sustain a diverse macroinvertebrate
     community of indigenous species. Taxa
     within the Orders Plecoptera
     (stoneflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
     Coleoptera (beetles), Tricoptera
     (caddisflies) should be well represented
     (Connecticut DEP 1987).

    For these narratives to be effective in a biologi-
cal criteria program  expressions such as "a wide
variety" and "functional groups  should normally be
well represented" require  quantifiable definitions
that became part of the standard or supporting
docurr,    -.tion. Many States  may find such narra-
tives in .  -ir standards already.  If so, States should
evaluate  current language to determine if it meets
the requirements  of quantifiable narrative criteria
that support refined aquatic life uses.
    Narrative biological criteria  are similar  to the
traditional narrative  "free froms" by providing the
legal basis for standards applications. A sixth "free
from" could be  incorporated into standards to help
support narrative  biological criteria such  as "free
from activities that would  impair the aquatic com-
munity as it naturally occurs." Narrative biological
criteria can be used immediately to address obvious
existing problems.
Numeric Criteria

    Numerical  indices  that  serve  as  biological
criteria should  describe expected attainable com-
munity attributes for different designated  uses. It is
important to note that full  implementation of narra-
tive criteria will require similar data as that  needed
for developing numeric criteria. At this time, States
may or may not choose to  establish numeric criteria
but may find it an effective  tool for regulatory use.
    To derive a numeric criterion, an aquatic com-
munity's structure and function is measured  at refer-
ence sites  and  set  as  a  reference  condition.
Examples of relative measures include similarity in-
dices,  coefficients of  community loss,  and com-
parisons of lists  of dominant taxa.  Measures of
existing community structure such as species rich-
ness, presence or absence of indicator  taxa, and
distribution of trophic feeding groups are useful for
establishing the normal range  of community com-
ponents to be expected in unimpaired systems. For
example,  Ohio  uses  criteria  for the warmwater
habitat use class based on multiple measures in dif-
ferent  reference sites  within  the same ecoregion.
Criteria are  set as the 25th percentile of  all biologi-
cal index scores recorded at  established reference
                                                 16

-------
                                                                     Chapter 3: 77i» Conceptual Framework
sites within the ecoregion. Exceptional warmwater
habitat index criteria are set at the 75th  percentile
(Ohio EPA 1988a). Applications such as this require
an extensive data base and multiple reference sites
for each criteria value.
    To  develop numeric biological criteria, careful
assessments of  biota in  reference  sites must be
conducted  (Hughes  et   al.  1986).  There  are
numerous ways to assess community structure and
function  in  surface waters.  No single  index or
measure is universally  recognized as free  from bias.
It is important to evaluate the strengths and weak-
nesses of different assessment approaches. A multi-
metric  approach that  incorporates information on
species richness, trophic composition, abundance
or  biomass,  and  organism  condition  is  recom-
mended. Evaluations  that measure multiple com-
ponents  of  communities  are also  recommended
because they  tend to be  more  reliable  (e.g.,
measures of fish and macroinvertebrates  combined
will provide more information than measures of fish
communities  alone).  The  weaknesses of  one
measure or index can often be compensated by
combining it with the strengths of other community
measurements.
    The particular indices used to develop numeric
criteria  depend  on the  type of surface waters
(streams, rivers,  lakes, Great Lakes, estuaries, wet-
lands, and nearshore marine) to which they must be
applied.  In general, community-level indices such
as the  Index of  Biotic Integrity developed for mid-
western streams (Karr et al.  1986) are more easily
interpreted and less variable than fluctuating num-
bers such as population size. Future EPA technical
guidance documents will include evaluations of the
effectiveness of  different biological survey and as-
sessment approaches for measuring the biological
integrity  of  surface  water  types and  provide
guidance on acceptable approaches for biological
criteria development.
Refining Aquatic Life Use

Classifications

    State  standards  consist  of  (1)  designated
aquatic life uses, (2) criteria sufficient to protect the
designated  and  existing  use,  and  (3)  an  an-
tidegradation  clause.  Biological  criteria  support
designated aquatic life use  classifications for ap-
plication in State standards. Each State develops its
own designated use classification system based on
the generic uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection
and  propagation of fish,  shellfish, and  wildlife).
Designated uses are intentionally general.  How-
ever, States may develop subcategories within use
designations  to  refine and clarify the use class.
Clarification of the use class is particularly helpful
when a variety of surface waters with distinct char-
acteristics fit within the same use class, or do not fit
well into any  category. Determination of nonattain-
ment in these waters may be difficult and open to al-
ternative interpretations.  If a  determination  is  in
dispute, regulatory  actions will be difficult to ac-
complish. Emphasizing aquatic community structure
within the designated use focuses the evaluation of
attainment/nonattainment on the resource of con-
cern under the Act.
    Flexibility inherent in the  State  process  for
designating uses allows the development of sub-
categories  of  uses  within   the Act's   general
categories. For example, subcategories of aquatic
life uses may be on the basis of attainable habitat
(e.g.,  cold  versus warmwater  habitat); innate dif-
ferences in community structure and function, (e.g.,
high versus low species richness or productivity); or
fundamental  differences  in important community
components  (e.g.,  warmwater fish  communities
dominated  by bass versus catfish). Special uses
may also be  designated to protect particularly uni-
que, sensitive,  or valuable aquatic species,  com-
munities, or habitats.
    Refinement  of  use  classes  can   be  ac-
complished within current State use classification
structures. Data collected from biosurveys as part of
a developing  biocriteria program may reveal unique
and  consistent  differences among aquatic  com-
munities inhabiting different waters with the same
designated use.  Measurable biological attributes
could then be used to separate one class into two or
more classes. The result  is a refined aquatic life
use. For example, in Arkansas the beneficial use
Fisheries "provides for the protection and  propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and other forms of aquatic life"
(Arkansas DPCE 1988). This use is subdivided into
Trout, Lakes  and Reservoirs, and  Streams. Recog-
nizing that stream characteristics across regions of
the State differed ecologically, the State further sub-
divided the stream designated uses into eight addi-
tional uses based on  regional characteristics (e.g
Springwater-influenced  Gulf  Coastal  Ecoregion,
Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion).  Within this clas-
sification system, it was relatively straightforward for
                                                17

-------
Sfefegfci/CrMwta: NaHormt Prognm Guidanct
Arkansas to establish detailed narrative biological
criteria that list aquatic community components ex-
pected in each ecoregion (see Narrative  Criteria
section).  These narrative criteria can then be used
to establish whether the use is impaired.
    States can refine very general designated uses
such as  high, medium, and low quality to  specific
categories that include measurable ecological char-
acteristics. In Maine, for example, Class AA waters
are defined as 'the highest classification and shall
be applied to waters which are outstanding natural
resources and which should be preserved because
of their ecological, social, scenic, or recreational im-
portance.' The designated use includes 'Class AA
waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable
... as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The
habitat shall be characterized as free  flowing and
natural.'  This  use supports development of narra-
tive criteria based on biological characteristics of
aquatic  communities  (Maine DEP  1986; see  the
Narrative Criteria section).
    Biological  criteria that include lists  of dominant
or typical species expected to live in  the  surface
water are particularly effective. Descriptions of im-
paired conditions  are more difficult  to interpret.
However, biological criteria may contain statements
concerning which species dominate disturbed sites,
as well as those species expected at minimally im-
pacted sites.
    Most States collect biological data in  current
programs. Refining aquatic life use classifications
and incorporating biological criteria into standards
will enable States to evaluate these data more ef-
fectively.
Developing and

Implementing Biological
Criteria

    Biological criteria development and implemen-
tation in standards require an understanding of the
selection and evaluation of reference sites,  meas-
urement of aquatic community structure and func-
tion, and  hypothesis testing under the scientific
method. The developmental process is important for
State water quality managers and their staff to un-
derstand to promote effective planning for resource
and staff needs. This major program element deser-
ves careful consideration and has been separated
out in Part II by chapter for each developmental step
as noted below. Additional guidance will be provided
in future technical guidance documents.
    The developmental process is illustrated in Fig-
ure 3. The first step is establishing narrative criteria
in standards. However, to support these narratives,
standardized  protocols need to  be developed to
quanitify the narratives for criteria implementation.
They should  include  data collection  procedures,
selection of reference sites, quality assurance and
quality control  procedures, hypothesis testing, and
statistical protocols. Pilot  studies should be con-
ducted  using these standard protocols  to ensure
they meet  the needs of the program, test  the
hypotheses, and provide effective measures  of the
biological integrity of surface waters in the State.

Figure 3.—Process (or the Development and
Implementation of Biological Criteria
            Develop Standard Protocols
             (Test protocol sensitivity)
         Identify and Conduct Biosurveys at
            Unimpaired Reference Sites
            Establish Biological Criteria
                       I
       Conduct Biosurveys at Impacted Sites
              (Determine impairment)
                                                       Impaired Condition
                              Not Impaired
    Diagnose Cause of
       Impairment
 No Action Required
Continued Monitoring
   Recommended
    Implement Control
Fig. 3: Implementation of biological criteria requires the in-
itial selection of reference sites and characterization of resi-
dent aquatic communities inhabiting those sites to establish
the reference condition and biological criteria. After criteria
development, impacted sites  are evaluated using the same
biosurvey procedures to assess resident biota. If impairment
is found, diagnosis of cause will lead to the implementation
of a control. Continued monitoring should accompany con-
trol  implementation to determine the effectiveness of in-
tervention. Monitoring is also recommended where no im-
pairment is found to ensure that the surface water maintains
or improves in quality.
                                                 18

-------
                                                                      Chapter 3: 77>« Conceptual Framework
    The next step is establishing the reference con-
dition for the surface water being tested. This refer-
ence  may  be site  specific  or regional  but must
establish the unimpaired  baseline for  comparison
(see Chapter 5, The  Reference Condition).  Once
reference sites are selected, the biological integrity
of the site must be evaluated using carefully chosen
biological surveys. A quality biological survey will in-
clude multiple community components and  may be
measured using a variety of metrics (see Chapter 6,
The Biological Survey). Establishing the reference
condition and conducting  biological surveys at the
reference locations provide the necessary informa-
tion for establishing the biological criteria.
    To apply biological criteria, impacted  surface
waters with comparable habitat characteristics are
evaluated using the same procedures as those used
to establish the criteria. The  biological survey must
support standardized sampling methods and statis-
tical protocols that are sensitive enough to  identify
biologically  relevant  differences between   estab-
lished criteria and the community under evaluation.
Resulting data  are  compared through hypothesis
testing to determine  impairment (see  Chapter 7,
Hypothesis Testing).
    When water quality impairments are detected
using biological criteria, they can only be applied in
a regulatory setting if the cause for impairment can
be identified. Diagnosis is iterative and investigative
(see Chapter 7, Diagnosis). States must then deter-
mine  appropriate actions to  implement controls.
Monitoring  should remain a part of the biological
criteria program whether impairments are found or
not. If an impairment exists, monitoring provides a
mechanism to determine if the control  effort (inter-
vention)  is  resulting in improved water  quality. If
there  is no impairment,  monitoring ensures the
water quality is maintained and documents  any im-
provements. When  improvements  in water quality
are detected through monitoring programs  two ac-
tions are recommended. When reference condition
waters improve, biological criteria values should be
recalculated to reflect this higher level of integrity.
When  impaired  surface  waters improve,  states
should reclassify  those waters to reflect a refined
designated use with a higher level of biological in-
tegrity.  This provides a mechanism for  progressive
water quality improvement.
                                                 19

-------
                           Chapter 4
         Integrating  Biological
   Criteria Into Surface  Water
                    Management
   Integrating biological criteria into existing water
   quality programs will help to assess use attain-
   ment/nonattainment,  improve  problem  dis-
covery in specific waterbodies,  and characterize
overall water resource condition within a region.
Ideally, biological criteria function in an iterative man-
ner. New biosurvey information can be used to refine
use classes.  Refined use classes will help support
criteria development and improve the value of data
collected in biosurveys.
Implementing Biological

Criteria

   As biological survey data are collected, these
data will  increasingly support  current use of
biomonitoring  data to  identify  water  quality
problems, assess their severity, and set planning
and management priorities for remediation. Monitor-
ing data and biological criteria should be used at the
outset to help make regulatory decisions, develop
appropriate controls, and evaluate the effectiveness
of controls once they are implemented.
   The value of incorporating biological survey in-
formation in regulatory programs is illustrated by
evaluations conducted by  North  Carolina. In
To integrate biological criteria into water quality
programs, states must carefully determine where and
how data are collected to assess the biological integrity
of surface waters.

response to amendments of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act requiring secondary effluent limits
for all wastewater treatment plants, North Carolina
became embroiled in a debate over whether meet-
ing secondary effluent limits (at considerable cost)
would result in better water quality. North Carolina
chose to test the effectiveness of additional treat-
ment by conducting seven chemical and biological
surveys before and after facility upgrades (North
                                   21

-------
              Nritontf Program Gutianc*
Carolina ONRCD1984). Study results indicated that
moderate  to substantial  in-stream improvements
were observed at six of seven facilities. Biological
surveys were used  as an efficient,  cost-effective
monitoring  tool for assessing in-stream improve-
ments after facility modification. North Carolina has
also conducted comparative studies of benthic mac-
roinvertebrate surveys and  chemical-specific and
whole-effluent evaluations to assess sensitivities of
these   measures   for   detecting   impairments
(Eaglesonetal. 1990).
    Narrative biological criteria  provide a scientific
framework for evaluating biosurvey, bioassessment,
and biomonitoring data collected in most States. Ini-
tial application of narrative biological criteria may re-
quire only an evaluation of current work. States can
use available data to define variables for choosing
reference sites, selecting  appropriate  biological sur-
veys, and assessing the response of local biota to a
variety of impacts. States should also consider the
decision criteria that will be used for determining ap-
propriate State action when impairment is found.
    Recent  efforts by several  States to develop
biological criteria for freshwater streams provide ex-
cellent examples  for how biological criteria can be
integrated into water quality programs. Some of this
work is described in the  National Workshop on In-
stream Biological Monitoring and Criteria proceed-
ings which recommended  that  "the  concept of
biological sampling should be integrated into the full
spectrum  of  State  and Federal surface water
programs"  (U.S.  EPA  1987b).  States are  actively
developing  biological assessment   and  criteria
programs; several have programs in place.
Biological Criteria in State

Programs

    Biological  criteria  are  used  within  water
programs  to  refine  use designations,  establish
criteria for determining use attainment/nonattain-
ment,   evaluate  effectiveness  of  current water
programs, and detect and characterize previously
unknown impairments. Twenty States are currently
using some form of standardized ambient biological
assessments to determine the status of biota within
State waters:  Levels of effort vary from bioassess-
ment studies  to fully developed biological  criteria
programs.
    Fifteen  States  are  developing  aspects  of
biological  assessments  that  will support  future
development df biological criteria. Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee,  and
Virginia conduct biological  monitoring to evaluate
biological conditions, but are not developing biologi-
cal  criteria.  Kansas is considering using a com-
munity  metric  for water  resource assessment.
Arizona is planning to refine ecoregions  for the
State. Delaware, Minnesota, Texas, and Wisconsin
are developing sampling and evaluation methods to
apply to future biological criteria  programs. New
York is proposing to use biological criteria for site-
specific evaluations of water quality impairment.
Nebraska and Vermont use informal  biological
criteria to support  existing aquatic life narratives in
their water quality  standards and other regulations.
Vermont  recently   passed   a law requiring  that
biological criteria be used to regulate through  per-
mitting the indirect  discharge of sanitary effluents.
    Florida  incorporated  a  specific   biological
criterion   into   State  standards for  invertebrate
species diversity. Species diversity within a water-
body, as measured by a Shannon diversity index,
may not fall below 75 percent of reference values.
This criterion has been used in enforcement cases
to  obtain injunctions and  monetary settlements.
Florida's approach is very specific and limits alter-
native applications.
    Four States—Arkansas, North  Carolina,  Maine,
and Ohio—are currently  using biological criteria to
define aquatic  life use classifications and  enforce
water quality standards. These  states have made
biological criteria an integral part of comprehensive
water quality programs.

  • Arkansas rewrote its aquatic life use classifica-
tions for each of the State's ecoregions. This has al-
lowed many cities to design wastewater treatment
plants to meet realistic attainable dissolved oxygen
conditions as determined by the new criteria.

  • North Carolina developed biological criteria to
assess impairment to aquatic life  uses written as nar-
ratives in the State water quality standards. Biologi-
cal data and criteria are used extensively to  identify
waters of special concern or those with exceptional
water quality. In addition to the High Quality Waters
(HQW) and Outstanding Resource Waters  (ORW)
designations,  Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) at
risk for eutrophication are assessed using biological
                                                 22

-------
                                                                       Chapter 4: Integrating Biological Criteria
 criteria. Although specific  biological measures are
 not in the regulations, strengthened use of biological
 monitoring data  to  assess water  quality  is being
 proposed for incorporation  in North Carolina's water
 quality standards.

   • Maine has  enacted a revised Water Quality
 Classification  Law specifically designed to facilitate
 the  use of biological assessments.  Each of  four
 water classes contains descriptive aquatic life condi-
 tions necessary  to  attain  that class.  Based on a
 statewide database of macroinvertebrate  samples
 collected  above  and below outfalls, Maine is now
 developing a set  of dichotomous keys that  serve as
 the  biological criteria. Maine's program  is not ex-
 pected to have a significant role in permitting, but will
 be used to assess the degree of protection afforded
 by effluent limitations.

   • Ohio has instituted the most extensive  use of
 biological criteria  for defining use classifications and
 assessing  water  quality.  Biological  criteria were
 developed for Ohio rivers and streams  using  an
 ecoregional reference site approach. Within each of
 the State's five ecoregions, criteria for three biologi-
 cal indices (two  for fish communities  and one for
 macroinvertebrates) were derived. Ohio successfully
 uses biological criteria to demonstrate attainment of
 aquatic life uses and discover previously unknown or
 unidentified environmental  degradation (e.g., twice
 as many  impaired waters were  discovered using
 biological criteria  and water chemistry together than
 were found using chemistry alone). The upgraded
 use  designations based on biological criteria were
 upheld in Ohio courts and the Ohio EPA successfully
 proposed their biological criteria for inclusion in the
 State water quality standards regulations.

    States and EPA have learned a great deal about
 the effectiveness of  integrated biological  assess-
 ments through the development of biological criteria
for freshwater streams. This  information  is par-
ticularly valuable  in providing  guidance on develop-
ing biological criteria for other surface water types.
As previously discussed, EPA plans to produce sup-
porting  technical  guidance for biological  criteria
development  in streams and  other  surface waters.
Production of these guidance documents will be
contingent on technical progress made on each sur-
 face water type by researchers in EPA, States and
 the academic community.
    EPA  will  also be developing  outreach work-
 shops to provide technical assistance to Regions
 and States working toward the implementation of
 biological criteria programs in  State water quality
 management programs.  In  the  interim,  States
 should use the  technical guidance currently avail-
 able in the Technical Support Manuals): Waterbody
 Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At-
 tainability Analysis (U.S.  EPA1983b, 1984a,b).
    During the next triennium,  State effort will be
 focused on developing narrative biological criteria.
 Full  implementation  and  integration of  biological
 criteria will  require several years.  Using available
 guidance, States can complement the  adoption of
 narrative  criteria by developing  implementation
 plans that include:

    1.  Defining program  objectives, developing
       research protocols, and setting priorities;

    2.  Determining the process for establishing
       reference conditions, which includes
       developing a process to evaluate habitat
       characteristics;

    3.  Establishing biological survey protocols that
       include justifications for surface water
       classifications and selected aquatic
       community components to be evaluated;
       and

    4.  Developing a formal document describing
       the research design, quality assurance and
     .  quality control protocols, and required
       training for staff.

    Whether a State begins with narrative biological
criteria or moves to fully implement numeric criteria,
the shift of the. water quality program  focus from
source control to resource management represents
a natural progression  in the evolution from the tech-
nology-based to water quality-based approaches in
water  quality management.  The  addition  of  a
biological perspective allows water quality programs
to more directly address the objectives of the Clean
Water Act and to place their efforts in a context  that
is more meaningful to the public.
                                                 23

-------
              NrionrtPrognmGuktanct
Future Directions

    Biological criteria now focus on resident aquatic
communities  in  surface waters. They have  the
potential to expand in scope toward greater ecologi-
cal  integration. Ecological  criteria may encompass
the ambient aquatic communities in surface waters,
wildlife species that use the same aquatic resour-
ces, and  the aquatic  community  inhabiting  the
gravel and sediments underlying the surface waters
and adjacent land (hyporheic zone); specific criteria
may apply to physical habitat. These areas may rep-
resent  only a few  possible options for biological
criteria in the future.
    Many wildlife species depend on aquatic resour-
ces. If  aquatic population levels  decrease or if the
distribution of species changes,  food sources may
be sufficiently altered to cause problems for wildlife
species using aquatic resources. Habitat degrada-
tion that impairs aquatic species will  often impact
important wildlife habitat as well.  These kinds of im-
pairments are likely to be detected using biological
criteria  as currently formulated. In  some cases,
however,  uptake  of  contaminants  by  resident
aquatic organisms may not result in altered struc-
ture and function of the aquatic  community. These
impacts may go undetected  by  biological criteria,
but could  result in wildlife impairments because of
bioaccumulation.  Future  expansion  of biological
criteria to include  wildlife  species that depend  on
aquatic resources could provide  a more integrative
ecosystem approach.
    Rivers may have a subsurface  flood plain ex-
tending as far as two kilometers from the river chan-
nel. Preliminary  mass transport  calculations made
in the Flathead River basin in Montana indicate that
nutrients  discharged  from this   subsurface flood
plain may be crucial to biotic productivity in the river
channel (Stanford and Ward 1988). This is an unex-
plored dimension in the ecology of gravel river beds
and potentially in other surface waters.
    As discussed in Chapter 1, physical integrity is a
necessary condition for biological integrity. Estab-
lishing the reference condition for biological criteria
requires evaluation of habitat. The rapid bioassess-
ment protocol provides  a good example of the im-
portance  of  habitat  for interpreting  biological
assessments (Plafkin et al. 1989). However, it may
be useful to more fully integrate habitat charac-
teristics into the regulatory process by establishing
criteria based on the necessary physical structure of
habitats to support ecological integrity.
                                                 24

-------
            Part II
The Implementation
           Process

-------
Biological CrHwix National Progrtm Guktonc
    The implementation of biological criteria requires: (1) selection of unimpaired
    (minimal impact) surface waters to use as the reference condition for each desig-
    nated use, (2) measurement of the structure and function of aquatic communities in
    reference surface waters to establish biological criteria, and (3) establishment of a
    protocol to compare the biological criteria to biota in impacted waters to determine
    whether impairment has occurred. These elements serve as an interactive network
    that is  particularly important  during early  development of biological  criteria
    where rapid accumulation of information is effective for refining both designated
    uses and developing biological criteria values. The following chapters describe
    these three essential elements.
                                         26

-------
                                 Chapter  5
         The  Reference  Condition
A        key step in developing values for support-
        ing narrative and creating numeric biologi-
        cal  criteria  is  to  establish  reference
conditions; it is an essential feature of environmental
impact evaluations (Green  1979).  Reference condi-
tions are critical for environmental assessments be-
cause standard experimental controls are rarely
available. For most surface waters, baseline data
were not collected prior to an impact, thus impair-
ment must be inferred from differences between the
impact site and established references. Reference
conditions describe the characteristics of waterbody
segments least impaired by human activities and are
used to define attainable biological or habitat condi-
tions.
   Wide variability among natural surface waters
across the country resulting from climatic, landform,
and  other geographic  differences prevents  the
development of nationwide reference conditions.
Most States are also too heterogeneous for single
reference conditions. Thus, each State, and when
appropriate, groups of States, will be responsible for
selecting and evaluating reference waters within the
State to establish biological criteria for a given sur-
face  water type or category of designated use. At
least seven methods for estimating attainable condi-
tions for streams have been identified (Hughes et al.
1986). Many of these can apply to other surface
waters. References may be established by defining
models of attainable conditions based on historical
data  or  unimpaired  habitat (e.g., streams in old
growth forest). The reference condition established
as before-after comparisons  or  concurrent mea-
Reference conditions should be established by
measuring resident biota in unimpaired surface waters.
sures of the reference water and impact sites can be
based on empirical data (Hall et al. 1989).
   Currently, two principal approaches are used for
establishing  the reference condition. A State may
opt to (1) identify site-specific reference sites for
each evaluation of impact or (2) select ecologically
similar regional reference sites for comparison with
impacted sites within the same region. Both  ap-
proaches depend on evaluations of habitats to en-
sure that waters with similar habitats are compared.
The designation  of discrete habitat types is more
fully developed for streams and rivers. Development
of habitat types for lakes, wetlands, and estuaries is
ongoing.
                                            27

-------
Biological CritHiK NtHorml Program Guidance
Site-Specific  Reference

Condition

   A site-specific  reference condition, frequently
used to evaluate the impacts from a point discharge,
is best for surface waters with a strong directional
flow such as in streams and rivers (the upstream-
downstream approach). However, it can also  be
used for other surface  waters where gradients in
contaminant   concentration  occur   based   on
proximity to a source (the  near field-far field ap-
proach). Establishment  of a site-specific reference
condition requires  the  availability of  comparable
habitat within the same waterbody in both the refer-
ence location and the impacted area.
   A site-specific reference condition is difficult to
establish if (1) diffuse nonpoint source pollution con-
taminates most of the water body; (2) modifications
to the channel, shoreline, or bottom substrate are
extensive; (3) point sources occur at multiple loca-
tions on the waterbody; or (4) habitat characteristics
differ significantly between possible reference loca-
tions and the impact site (Hughes et al. 1986; Plaf-
kin  et  al.  1989).  In  these cases,  site-specific
reference conditions could result in underestimates
of impairment. Despite  limitations, the use of site-
specific reference conditions is often the method of
choice for  point source discharges  and certain
waterbodies, particularly when  the relative impair-
ments from different local impacts need to be deter-
mined.
The Upstream-Downstream
Reference Condition

    The upstream-downstream reference condition
is best applied to streams and rivers where the
habitat characteristics of the waterbody above the
point of discharge are similar to the habitat charac-
teristics of the stream below the point of discharge.
One standard procedure is to characterize the biotic
condition just above the discharge point (accounting
for possible upstream circulation) to establish the
reference condition.  The condition below the dis-
charge is also measured at  several sites.  If sig-
nificant  differences   are  found  between   these
measures, impairment of the biota from the dis-
charge is indicated.  Since measurements of resi-
dent biota taken in any two sites are  expected  to
differ because of natural variation, more than one
biological  assessment  for  both  upstream  and
downstream sites is often needed to be confident in
conclusions drawn  from these data (Green,  1979).
However, as more data are collected by a State, and
particularly if  regional characteristics of the  water-
bodies are incorporated, the basis for determining
impairment from site-specific upstream-downstream
assessments  may require fewer individual samples.
The  same measures  made below the "recovery
zone"  downstream from the discharge will help
define where recovery occurs.
   The upstream-downstream reference condition
should be used with discretion since the reference
condition may be impaired from impacts upstream
from the point source of interest. In these cases it is
important  to discriminate between individual point
source impact versus overall impairment of the sys-
tem. When overall  impairment occurs, the resident
biota may be  sufficiently impaired to make it impos-
sible to detect the  effect of the target point source
discharger.
   The approach can be cost effective when one
biological  assessment of the upstream reference
condition adequately reflects the attainable  condi-
tion  of the impacted site. However,  routine com-
parisons  may  require  assessments of several
upstream  sites to adequately describe the natural
variability  of reference biota. Even so, measuring a
series of site-specific references will likely continue
to be the method of choice for certain point source
discharges, especially  where the  relative impair-
ments from different local impacts need to be deter-
mined.
 The Near Field-Par Field Reference
 Condition

    The near field-far field reference condition is ef-
 fective for establishing a reference condition in sur-
 face waters other than rivers and  streams and is
 particularly applicable for unique waterbodies (e.g.,
 estuaries such as Puget Sound may not have com-
 parable  estuaries for comparison). To apply this
 method,  two variables are  measured (1)  habitat
 characteristics, and (2) gradient of impairment. For
 reference waters to be identified within the same
 waterbody, sufficient size is  necessary to separate
 the  reference  from the impact area so  that  a
 gradient of impact exists. At  the same time, habitat
 characteristics must be comparable.
                                                28

-------
                                                                       CfapttrS: Tht Rtttnnct Condition
    Although not fully developed, this approach may
provide an effective way to establish  biological
criteria for estuaries, large lakes, or wetlands. For
example, estuarine habitats could be defined and
possible reference waters identified using physical
and chemical variables like those selected by the
Chesapeake Bay  Program (U.S. EPA 1987a, e.g.,
substrate type, salinity, pH) to establish comparable
subhabitats in an estuary. To determine those areas
least impaired, a "mussel watch" program like that
used in Narragansett Bay (i.e., captive mussels are
used as indicators of contamination, (Phelps 1988))
could establish impairment gradients. These two
measures, when combined, could form the basis for
selecting specific habitat types in areas of least im-
pairment to establish the reference condition.
Regional Reference

Conditions

    Some of the limitations of site-specific reference
conditions can be overcome by using regional refer-
ence conditions that are based on the assumption
that surface waters integrate the character of the
land they drain. Waterbodies within the same water-
shed in the same region should be more similar to
each other than to those within watersheds in dif-
ferent regions. Based on these assumptions, a dis-
tribution of aquatic regions can be developed based
on ecological features that directly or indirectly re-
late to water quality and quantity, such as soil type,
vegetation (land cover), land-surface form, climate,
and land  use.  Maps  that  incorporate  several of
these features will provide a general purpose broad
scale ecoregional framework (Gallant et al. 1989).
    Regions of  ecological similarity are based on
hydrologic,  climatic,  geologic,  or  other relevant
geographic variables that influence the nature of
biota in surface waters. To establish a regional refer-
ence condition,  surface waters of similar habitat
type are identified  in definable ecological regions.
The biological integrity of these reference waters is
determined to establish the reference condition and
develop biological  criteria. These criteria are then
used to  assess impacted  surface  waters  in the
same watershed or region. There are two forms of
regional  reference conditions:  (1)  paired  water-
sheds and (2) ecoregions.
Paired Watershed Reference
Conditions

    Paired watershed reference conditions are es-
tablished to evaluate impaired waterbodies, often
impacted by multiple sources. When the majority of
a waterbody is impaired, the upstream-downstream
or near field-far field reference condition does not
provide an adequate representation  of the unim-
paired condition of aquatic  communities  for the
waterbody.  Paired watershed reference conditions
are established by identifying  unimpaired  surface
waters within the same or very similar local water-
shed that is of comparable type and  habitat. Vari-
ables to consider when  selecting the watershed
reference condition include absence of human dis-
turbance, waterbody size and other physical charac-
teristics, surrounding  vegetation,  and others as
described in the "Regional Reference Site Selec-
tion" feature.
    This method  has  been  successfully  applied
(e.g., Hughes  1985)  and is  an approach  used  in
Rapid  Bioassessment  Protocols  (Plafkin  et al.
1989). State use of this approach results  in good
reference conditions that can be used immediately
in current programs. This approach has the added
benefit of promoting the development of a database
on high quality waters in the State that could form
the foundation for establishing larger regional refer-
ences (e.g., ecoregions.)
Ecoregional Reference Conditions

    Reference conditions can also be developed on
a larger scale. For these references, waterbodies of
similar type are identified  in regions of ecological
similarity. To establish a regional reference condi-
tion, a set of surface waters of similar habitat type
are identified in each ecological region. These sites
must represent similar habitat type  and be repre-
sentative of the region. As with other reference con-
ditions, the biological integrity  of selected reference
waters is determined to establish the reference.
Biological criteria can then be developed and used
to assess  impacted surface  waters in the  same
region. Before reference conditions may be estab-
lished,  regions of  ecological similarity must  be
defined.
                                                29

-------
StotogfctfGrttwte Nrtfond Program Gudarx*
      Regional Reference Site

                 Selection

       To determine specific regional reference sites
    for streams, candidate watersheds are selected
    from  the  appropriate maps and  evaluated to
    determine if they are typical for the region. An
    evaluation of level of human disturbance is made
    and a number of relatively undisturbed reference
    sites  are selected from  the candidate sites.
    Generally, watersheds are chosen as regional ref-
    erence sites when they fall entirely within typical
    areas of the region.  Candidate sites are then
    selected by aerial and ground surveys. Identifica-
    tion of candidate sites is based on: (1) absence
    of human  disturbance, (2) stream size,  (3) type
    of stream channel, (4) location within a natural or
    political refuge, and (5) historical records of resi-
    dent  biota and possible migration barriers.
       Final selection of reference sites depends on
    a determination of minimal disturbance  derived
    from  habitat evaluation made during site visits.
    For example, indicators of good quality streams in
    forested ecoregions include: (1) extensive, old,
    natural riparian vegetation; (2) relatively high het-
    erogeneity in channel width and depth; (3) abun-
    dant large  woody debris, coarse  bottom sub-
    strate, or extensive aquatic or overhanging vege-
    tation; (4) relatively high or constant discharge;
    (5) relatively dear waters with natural color and
    odor; (6) abundant diatom, insect, and fish as-
    semblages; and (7) the presence of piscivorous
    birds and mammals.
    One frequently used  method  is described by
 Omernik  (1987)  who combined  maps  of land-sur-
 face  form, soil,  potential natural  vegetation, and
 land  use within the conterminous United States to
 generate  a map  of aquatic ecoregions  for  the
 country. He also developed more detailed regional
 maps.  The ecoregions defined  by Omernik have
 been evaluated  for streams  and  small  rivers in
 Arkansas  (Rohm et at. 1987), Ohio (Larsen et al.
 1986; Whittier et al. 1987), Oregon (Whittier et al.
 1988), Colorado (Gallant et al. 1989), and Wiscon-
 sin (Lyons 1989)  and for lakes in Minnesota (Heis-
 kary et al. 1987).  State ecoregion  maps were
developed  for Colorado (Gallant et al. 1989)  and
Oregon (Clarke  et al. mss). Maps  for the national
ecoregions  and six multi-state  maps  of more
detailed ecoregions are  available from the U.S. EPA
Environmental   Research   Laboratory,   Corvallis,
Oregon.
    Ecoregions such as those defined by Omernik
(1987) provide  only a first  step  in  establishing
regional reference sites for development of the ref-
erence condition. Field site evaluation is required to
account  for  the inherent variability  within each
ecoregion. A general method for selecting reference
sites for streams has been described (Hughes et al.
1986). These are the same variables used for com-
parable   watershed   reference   site   selection.
Regional and on-site evaluations of biological  fac-
tors help determine specific sites that best represent
typical but unimpaired surface water habitats within
the region. Details  on this  approach for streams is
described  in the "Regional Reference Site Selec-
tion"  feature.  To date,  the  regional approach has
been tested on streams,  rivers,  and lakes.  The
method appears applicable for  assessing other in-
land  ecosystems. To apply this approach to  wet-
lands  and   estuaries  will   require   additional
evaluation based on the relevant ecological features
of  these ecosystems  (e.g.  Brooks  and Hughes,
1988).
    Ideally, ecoregional reference  sites should be
as little disturbed as possible, yet  represent water-
oodies for which they are to serve as reference
waters. These sites may serve  as  references for  a
large number of similar waterbodies (e.g., several
reference streams  may be used to define the refer-
ence  condition  for numerous physically separate
streams if the reference streams contain the same
range of stream morphology,  substrate,  and flow of
the  other  streams within  the same  ecological
region).
    An important benefit of a regional reference sys-
tem is the establishment of a baseline condition for
the  least  impacted   surface  waters  within  the
dominant  land  use pattern of the  region.  In many
areas a return  to pristine, or presettlement, condi-
tions is impossible, and goals for waterbodies in ex-
tensively  developed   regions  could  reflect  this.
 Regional  reference sites  based  on the least im-
 pacted sites within a region  will help water quality
 programs restore and  protect the  environment in a
 way that is ecologically feasible.
                                                  30

-------
                                                                         Chapter S: Th» Reference Condition
    This approach must be used with caution for two
reasons.  First, in many urban, industrial, or heavily
developed agricultural regions, even the least im-
pacted sites are seriously degraded.  Basing stand-
ards or criteria on such sites will set standards too
low if these high levels of environmental degrada-
tion are considered acceptable or adequate. In such
degraded regions,  alternative  sources  for  the
regional reference may be needed (e.g., measures
taken from the same region in a less developed
neighboring  State or historical records from the
region before serious impact occurred). Second,  in
some regions the minimally-impacted sites are not
typical of most sites in the region and may have
remained unimpaired precisely because they are
unique. These  two considerations emphasize the
need to select reference  sites very carefully, based
on  solid quantitative data  interpreted  by profes-
sionals familiar with the biota of the region.
    Each State, or groups of States, can select a
series of regional reference sites that represent the
attainable conditions for each region. Once biologi-
cal criteria are established using this approach, the
cost for evaluating local impairments is often lower
than a series of measures of site-specific reference
sites. Using paired watershed reference conditions
immediately in regulatory programs will provide the
added benefit of  building  a database  for the
development of regions of ecological similarity.
                                                 31

-------
                                 Chapter  6
            The  Biological  Survey
A        critical element of biological criteria is the
        characterization of biological communities
        inhabiting surface waters. Use of biological
data is not new; biological information has been used
to assess impacts from pollution  since  the 1890s
(Forbes  1928),  and  most States currently  incor-
porate biological information in their decisions about
the quality of surface waters. However, biological in-
formation can be obtained  through  a  variety of
methods, some of which are more effective than
others for  characterizing  resident aquatic  biota.
Biological criteria are developed using biological sur-
veys;  these provide the only direct method  for
measuring the structure and function of  an aquatic
community.
Different subhabitat within the same surface water will
contain unique aquatic community components. In
fast-flowing stream segments species such as (1) black
fly larva; (2) brook trout; (3) water penny; (4) crane fly
larva; and (5) water moss occur.
                                              However. In slow-flowing stream segments, species
                                              like (1) water strtder (2) smallmouth bass; (3) crayfish;
                                              and (4) fingernail dams are abundant.
   Biological survey study design is of critical im-
portance to criteria development. The design must
be scientifically rigorous to provide the basis for
legal action, and be biologically relevant to detect
problems of regulatory concern. Since it is not finan-
cially or technically feasible  to evaluate all or-
ganisms in an entire ecosystem at all times, careful
selection of community components, the time and
place  chosen for assessments, data  gathering
methods used, and the consistency  with which
these variables are applied will determine the suc-
cess of the  biological criteria program.  Biological
surveys must therefore be carefully planned to meet
scientific and legal requirements, maximize informa-
tion, and minimize cost.
                                           33

-------
Blotogictl Crttorix Nrtonti Prognm Guttre*
    Biological surveys can range from collecting
samples  of a single species to comprehensive
evaluations of an entire ecosystem. The first ap-
proach is difficult to interpret for community assess-
ment;  the  second  approach  is  expensive and
impractical. A balance between these extremes can
meet program needs. Current approaches  range
between detailed ecological surveys, biosurveys of
targeted community components, and biological in-
dicators (e.g., keystone species). Each of  these
biosurveys  has advantages and limitations.  Addi-
tional  discussion  will be  provided in technical
guidance under development.
    No single type of approach to biological surveys
is always best. Many factors affect the value  of the
approach, including seasonal  variation, waterbody
size, physical boundaries, and  other natural charac-
teristics.  Pilot testing alternative approaches  in
State waters may be the best way to determine the
sensitivity of specific methods for evaluating biologi-
cal integrity of local waters. Due to the number of al-
ternatives available and  the diversity of ecological
systems,   individuals  responsible for  research
design should be experienced biologists with exper-
tise in the local and regional ecology of target sur-
face  waters.  States  should  develop a   data
management  program that  includes data analysis
and evaluation and standard operating procedures
as part of a Quality Assurance Program Plan.
    When developing study designs for biological
criteria, two key elements to  consider  include (1)
selecting  aquatic community components that will
best represent the biological integrity of State sur-
face waters  and  (2) designing  data  collection
protocols to ensure the best representation of the
aquatic community.  Technical  guidance currently
available to aid the development of study design in-
clude:  Wafer Quality Standards Handbook  (U.S.
EPA1983a), Technical Support Manual: Waterbody
Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use At-
tainability Analyses (U.S.  EPA  1983b); Technical
Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assess-
ments  for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses,
Volume II:  Estuarine Systems (U.S. EPA 1984a);
and Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems  (U.S.  EPA
1984b). Future technical guidance  will  build on
these documents and provide specific guidance for
biological criteria development.
Selecting Aquatic

Community Components

    Aquatic  communities  contain  a variety  of
species  that  represent different trophic  levels,
taxonomic groups, functional characteristics, and
tolerance  ranges.  Careful  selection  of  target
taxonomic groups can provide a balanced assess-
ment that is sufficiently broad to describe the struc-
tural  and  functional  condition   of an  aquatic
ecosystem, yet be sufficiently practical to use on a
daily basis (Plafkin et al. 1989; Lenat 1988).  When
selecting community components to include in a
biological assessment, primary emphasis should go
toward including species or taxa that (1) serve as ef-
fective indicators  of high biological  integrity (i.e.,
those likely to live in unimpaired waters), (2)  repre-
sent a range of pollution tolerances, (3) provide pre-
dictable, repeatable results, and (4) can be readily
identified by trained State personnel.
    Fish, macroinvertebrates, algae, and zooplank-
ton are most commonly used in current bioassess-
ment programs. The taxonomic groups chosen will
vary depending on the type of aquatic ecosystem
being assessed and the type of  expected impair-
ment. For example,  benthic macroinvertebrate and
fish  communities  are taxonomic  groups  often
chosen for flowing fresh water. Macroinvertebrates
and fish both provide valuable ecological informa-
tion  while fish correspond  to the regulatory and
public  perceptions  of  water quality and  reflect
cumulative  environmental stress  over tonger time
frames. Plants  are  often used  In wetlands, and
algae are useful in lakes and estuaries to assess
eutrophication. In marine systems, benthic macroin-
vertebrates and submerged aquatic vegetation may
provide key community components. Amphipods,
for example, dominate many aquatic communities
and  are  more sensitive than other  invertebrates
such as polychaetes and molluscs to  a wide variety
of pollutants including hydrocarbons and heavy me-
tals  (Reich and Hart 1979; J.O. Thomas, pers.
comm.).
    It is beneficial to supplement standard groups
with additional community  components to meet
specific goals,  objectives, and resources of the as-
sessment program. Biological surveys that use two
or three taxonomic groups (e.g.,  fish, macroinver-
tebrates, algae) and, where appropriate, include dif-
ferent  trophic  levels  within each   group  (e.g.,
primary,  secondary, and tertiary  consumers) will
                                               34

-------
                                                                          Chapters: The Biological Survey
provide a  more realistic  evaluation  of system
biological  integrity.  This  is  analogous  to  using
species from  two or more taxonomic  groups in
bioassays.  Impairments that are difficult to detect
because of the temporal or spatial habits or the pol-
lution tolerances of  one group  may  be revealed
through impairments  in  different  species  or as-
semblages (Ohio EPA 1988a).
    Selection  of aquatic community  components
that show different sensitivities and responses to
the same perturbation will aid in identifying the na-
ture of a problem. Available data on the ecological
function, distribution, and abundance of species in a
given habitat  will help determine the  most ap-
propriate target  species or taxa for biological sur-
veys in the habitat.  The  selection of community
components should also depend on the ability of the
organisms  to  be accurately  identified by trained
State  personnel. Attendent  with  the  biological
criteria program should be the development of iden-
tification keys  for the organisms selected for study
in the biological survey.
Biological Survey Design
                                              i
    Biological  surveys that measure the structure
and function of aquatic communities will provide tho
information needed for biological criteria develop-
ment. Elements of community structure and function
may be evaluated using a series of metrics. Struc-
tural metrics describe the  composition  of  a com-
munity,  such as the number of different species,
relative abundance of specific species, and number
and  relative abundance of tolerant and intolerant
species. Functional metrics describe the ecological
processes of  the community.  These may  include
measures such as community photosynthesis or
respiration. Function may also be estimated from
the proportions of various feeding groups (e.g., om-
nivores, herbivores, and insectivores, or shredders,
collectors,  and  grazers).  Biological surveys can
offer variety and flexibility in application. Indices cur-
rently available are primarily for freshwater streams.
However, the approach has been used for lakes and
can be developed for estuaries and wetlands.
Selecting the metric

    Several methods are  currently available  for
measuring the relative structural and functional well-
being of fish assemblages in freshwater streams,
such as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI); Karr 1981;
Karr et al. 1986; Miller et al. 1988) and the Index of
Well-being (IWB; Gammon 1976,  Gammon et al.
1981). The IBI  is one of the more  widely used  as-
sessment methods. For additional detail, see  the
"Index of Biotic  Integrity" feature.
      Index of Biotic Integrity


       The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is commonly
    used for fish community analysis (Karr 1981). The
    original IBI was comprised of 12 metrics:

    • six metrics evaluate species richness and
       composition

         ' number of species

         ' number of darter species

         ' number of sucker species

         • number ofsun fish species

         • number of intolerant species

         ' proportion of green sun fish

    • three metrics quantify trophic composition

         • proportion of omnivores

         • proportion of insectivorous cypnmds

         ' proportion ofpiscivores

    • three metrics summarize fish abundance and
       condition information

         ' number of individuals in sample

         ' proportion of hybrids

         • proportion of individuals with disease

       Each metric is scored 1 (worst), 3. or 5 (best),
    depending on how the field data compare with an
    expected value obtained from reference sites. All
    12 metric values are then summed to provide an
    overall index  value that represents relative in-
    tegrity. The IBI was designed for midwestem
    streams; substitute metrics reflecting the same
    structural  and  functional characteristics  have
    been created to accommodate regional variations
    in fish assemblages (Miller et al. 1988).
                                                35

-------
Biological Crtttrtx National Program Guidanc*
    Several  indices that evaluate more than one
community characteristic are also available for as-
sessing  stream  macroinvertebrate  populations.
Taxa richness, EPT taxa (number of taxa of the in-
sect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricop-
tera), and species pollution tolerance values  are a
few of several  components of  these macroinver-
tebrate assessments. Example indices include the
Invertebrate  Community  Index  (1C); Ohio  EPA,
1988) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI;  Hilsenhoff,
1987).
    Within these metrics specific information on the
pollution tolerances of different species within a sys-
tem will help define the type of impacts occurring in
a waterbody. Biological indicator groups (intolerant
species, tolerant species,  percent of diseased or-
ganisms) can  be used for evaluating community
biological integrity if sufficient data  have been col-
lected to support conclusions drawn from the in-
dicator data.  In  marine  systems,  for  example,
amphipods have  been used  by a number of re-
searchers as   environmental  indicators (McCall
1977; Botton 1979; Meams and Word 1982).
Sampling design

    Sampling design and statistical protocols are re-
quired to reduce sampling error and evaluate the
natural variability of biological responses that are
found  in  both laboratory  and  field  data.  High
variability reduces the power of a statistical test to
detect real impairments (Sokal and Rohlf, 1981).
States may reduce variability by refining sampling
techniques and protocol to decrease variability in-
troduced during data collection, and increase the
power of the evaluation by Increasing the number of
replications.  Sampling  techniques  are refined,  in
part, by collecting a representative sample of resi-
dent biota from the. same component of the aquatic
community from the same habitat type in the  same
way at sites being  compared. Data  collection
protocols  should  incorporate  (1)  spatial scales
(where and how samples are collected) and (2) tem-
poral scales (when  data  are  collected)  (Green,
1979):

  • Spatial  Scales refer to the wide variety of sub-
     habitats  that exist within any  surface  water
     habitat.  To account for subhabitats, adequate
     sampling  protocols require selecting (1)  the
     location within a  habitat where target groups
    reside and (2) the method for collecting data on
    target groups. For example, if fish are sampled
    only from fast flowing riffles within stream A, but
    are sampled from slow flowing pools in stream
    B, the data will not be comparable.

    Temporal Scales refer to aquatic community
    changes that occur over time because of diurnal
    and life-cycle changes in organism behavior or
    development, and seasonal or annual changes
    in the environment. Many organisms go through
    seasonal  life-cycle changes that dramatically
    affect their presence and  abundance in  the
    aquatic community.  For example, macroinver-
    tebrate data collected from stream A in March
    and stream B in May, would not be comparable
    because the  emergence of insect adults after
    March would significantly alter the abundance
    of subaduits found in stream B in May. Similar
    problems would occur if algae were collected in
    lake A during the dry season and lake B during
    the wet season.
    Field sampling protocols that produce quality
assessments from a limited number of site visits
greatly enhance the utility of the sampling techni-
que.  Rapid  bioassessment  protocols,   recently
developed for assessing streams, use standardized
techniques to quickly gather physical, chemical, and
biological quantitative data that can assess changes
in biological integrity  (Plafkin et al. 1989). Rapid
bioassessment   methods  can   be  cost-effective
biological assessment approaches when they have
been verified with more comprehensive evaluations
for the habitats and region where they are to be ap-
plied.
    Biological survey methods such as the IBI for
fish and ICI for macroinvertebrates were developed
in streams and rivers and have yet to be applied to
many ecological regions. In addition, further re-
search is needed to adapt the approach to lakes,
wetlands, and estuaries, including the development
of alternative structural or functional endpoints. For
example,  assessment  methods for  algae  (e.g.
measures of biomass, nuisance bloom frequency,
community structure) have been used for lakes. As-
sessment  metrics   appropriate  for   developing
biological criteria for lakes, large rivers, wetlands,
and estuaries are being developed and tested so
that a multi-metric approach can be effectively used
for all surface waters.
                                                36

-------
                           Chapter  7
             Hypothesis   Testing:
   Biological  Criteria  and  the
              Scientific  Method
     Biological criteria are applied in the standards
     program by testing hypotheses about the
     biological integrity of  impacted surface
waters.  These  hypotheses  include  the  null
 vpothesis—the designated use of the waterbody is
 /t impaired—and alternative hypotheses such as
the designated use of the waterbody is impaired
(more specific hypotheses can also be generated
that predict the type(s) of impairment). Under these
hypotheses specific predictions are generated con-
cerning the kinds and numbers of organisms repre-
senting community structure and function expected
or found in unimpaired habitats. The kinds and num-
bers of organisms surveyed in unimpaired waters
are used to establish  the biological criteria. To test
the alternative  hypotheses, data collection and
analysis procedures are used to compare the criteria
to comparable measures of community structure and
function in impacted waters.
Hypothesis  Testing

   To detect differences of biological and regula-
tory concern between biological criteria and ambient
biological integrity at a test site, it is important to es-
tablish the sensitivity of the evaluation. A10 percent
difference in condition is more difficult to detect than
  50 percent difference. For the experimental/sur-
 ,ey design to be effective, the level of detection
should be predetermined to establish sample size
Multiple impacts in the same surface water such as
discharges of effluent from point sources, leachate from
landfills or dumps, and erosion from habitat degradation
each contribute to impairment of the surface water. All
impacts should be considered during the diagnosis
process.
for data  collection  (Sokal  and  Rohlf 1981).
Knowledge of expected natural variation, experi-
mental error, and the kinds of detectable differences
that can be expected will help determine sample
                                     37

-------
Sfefegfca/CMwte Nattoral Progr
size and location. This forms the basis for defining
data quality objectives, standardizing data collection
procedures,   and  developing  quality  assurance/
quality control standards.
    Once data are collected and analyzed, they are
used to test the hypotheses to determine if charac-
teristics of the resident biota at a test site are sig-
nificantly different from  established criteria values
for a comparable habitat. There are three possible
outcomes:

    1. The use is impaired when survey design and
      data analyses are sensitive enough to detect
      differences of regulatory importance, and
      significant differences were detected. The
      next step is to diagnose the cause(s) and
      source(s) of impairment.

    2. The biological criteria are met when survey
      design and data analyses are sensitive
      enough to detect differences of regulatory
      significance, but no differences were found.
       In this case, no action is required by States
      based on these measures. However, other
      evidence may indicate impairment (e.g.,
      chemical criteria are violated; see below).

    3. The outcome is indeterminate when survey
       design and data analyses are not sensitive
       enough to detect differences of regulatory
       significance, and  no differences were
       detected. If a State or Region determines
       that this is occurring, the development of
       study design and evaluation for biological
       criteria was incomplete. States must then
       determine whether they will accept the
       sensitivity of the survey or conduct
       additional surveys to increase the power of
       their analyses. If the sensitivity of the
       original survey Is accepted, the State should
       determine what magnitude of difference the
       survey is capable of detecting. This will aid
       in re-evaluating research design and desired
       detection limits. An indeterminate outcome
       may also occur if the test site and the
       reference conditions were not comparable.
       This variable may also require re-evaluation.

    As with all scientific studies, when implementing
 biological criteria, the purpose of hypothesis testing
 is to determine  if the data support the conclusion
 that the null hypothesis is false (i.e., the designated
use  is not  impaired in a particular waterbody).
Biological criteria  cannot prove  attainment. This
reasoning provides the basis for emphasizing inde-
pendent   application  of  different  assessment
methods (e.g., chemical verses biological criteria).
No type of criteria can "prove* attainment; each type
of criteria can disprove attainment.
   Although this discussion  is limited to the null
and  one alternative hypothesis,  it is  possible to
generate  multiple  working  hypotheses  (Popper,
1968) that promote the diagnosis of water quality
problems when they exist. For example, if physical
habitat limitations are believed to be causing impair-
ment  (e.g.,   sedimentation)    one   alternative
hypothesis could  specify the loss of community
components sensitive to this impact. Using multiple
hypotheses  can maximize the  information gained
from each study. See the Diagnosis section for addi-
tional discussion.
Diagnosis
    When  impairment of the  designated use  is
found using biological criteria, a diagnosis of prob-
able cause of impairment is the next step for im-
plementation. Since biological criteria are primarily
designed   to  detect  water  quality impairment,
problems are likely to be identified without a known
cause. Fortunately the process of  evaluating test
sites for biological impairment provides significant
information to aid in determining cause.
    During diagnostic  evaluations,  three main im-
pact categories should  be  considered:  chemical,
physical, and biological. To begin the diagnostic
process two questions are posed:
    • What are the obvious causes of impairment?

    • If no obvious causes are apparent, what
     possible causes do the biological data
     suggest?

    Obvious causes such as habitat degradation,
point source discharges, or  introduced species are
often identified during the course of a normal field
biological assessment. Biomonitoring programs nor-
mally provide knowledge of potential sources of im-
pact and  characteristics of the  habitat. As  such,
diagnosis is partly incorporated into many existing
State  field-oriented  bioassessment  programs.  If
more than one impact source is obvious, diagnosis
                                                 38

-------
 will require determining which impact(s) is the cause
 of impairment or the extent to which each impact
 contributes to impairment. The nature of the biologi-
 cal impairment can guide evaluation (e.g., chemical
 contamination may  lead to  the  loss  of sensitive
 species, habitat degradation may result in loss of
 breeding habitat for certain species).
     Case studies illustrate  the  effectiveness  of
 biological criteria in identifying  impairments and
 possible sources. For example,  in  Kansas  three
 sites on Little Mill Creek were assessed using Rapid
 Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al. 1989; see
 Fig. 4).  Based  on  the  results of a comparative
 analysis,  habitats at the three  sites were  com-
 parable and of high  quality. Biological impairment,
 however, was identified at two of the three sites and
 directly related to proximity to  a  point source dis-
 charge from a sewage treatment plant. The severely
 impaired Site (STA  2) was located  approximately
 100 meters downstream from the  plant. The slightly
 impaired Site (STA 3) was located between one and
 two miles downstream from the plant.  However, the
 unimpaired Site (STA 1(R)) was approximately 150
 meters upstream from the plant (Plafkin et al. 1989).
 This simple example illustrates the basic principles
 of diagnosis. In this case the  treatment plant  ap-
 pears  responsible for impairment of the resident
 biota  and  the  discharge needs  to be evaluated.
                         Ctitpttr 7: Hypothesis Testing


Based on the biological survey the results are clear.
However, impairment  in  resident  populations  of
macroinvertebrates probably would not have been
recognized using more traditional methods.
    In Maine, a more complex problem arose when
effluents from a textile plant met chemical-specific
and effluent toxicity criteria, yet a biological survey
of downstream biota revealed up to 80 percent
reduction in invertebrate richness below plant out-
falls. Although the source of impairment seemed
clear, the cause of impairment was more difficult to
determine.  By engaging in a diagnostic evaluation,
Maine was able to determine that the discharge con-
tained  chemicals   not  regulated  under  current
programs and that  part of the toxicity effect was due
to the  sequential  discharge  of  unique  effluents
(tested  individually these  effluents were not toxic;
when exposure was  in  a  particular  sequence,
toxicity occurred). Use of biological criteria resulted
in the detection and diagnosis of this  toxicity prob-
lem, which allowed Maine to develop workable alter-
native operating procedures for the textile industry
to correct  the problem (Courtemanch  1989,  and
pers. comm.).
    During  diagnosis it is important to  consider and
discriminate among multiple sources of impairment.
In a North Carolina stream (see Figure 5) four  sites
were evaluated using rapid bioassessment techni-
 Figure 4.—Kansas: Benthic B.oassessment of Little Mill Creek (Little Mill Creek = Site-Specific Reference)
 Relationship of Habitat and Bioassessment
     100
                                                                                              100
                                     Habitat Quality {% of Reference)
Fig. 4. Three stream segments sampled in a stream in Kansas using Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al 1989) revea.ed
significant impairments at sites below a sewage treatment plant.
                                                  39

-------
Stofegfca/ Crittrto National Program Guidance
Figure 5.—The Relationship Between Habitat Quality and Benthic Community Condition at the North Carolina
Pilot Study Site.
                                     Habitat Quality (% of Reference)
Fig. 5: Distinguishing between point and nonpoint sources of impairment requires an evaluation of the nature and magnitude
of different sites in a surface water. (Plafkin, et al. 1989)
ques. An ecoregional reference site (R) established
the highest level  of biological integrity  for  that
stream type.  Site (1), well upstream  from a local
town, was used as  the upstream reference condi-
tion. Degraded conditions at Site (2) suggested non-
point  source  problems  and  habitat  degradation
because of proximity to  residential areas on the
upstream edge of town.  At Site (3) habitat altera-
tions, nonpoint runoff, and point source discharges
combined to severely degrade resident biota. At this
site,  sedimentation  and  toxicity  from municipal
sewage treatment effluent appeared responsible for
a major  portion of  this degradation.  Site (4), al-
though several miles downstream  from town,  was
still impaired  despite significant improvement in
habitat quality.  This suggests that toxicity from
upstream discharges may  still be occurring  (Bar-
bour,  1990 pers. comm.).  Using these kinds of com-
parisons, through a diagnostic procedure and by
using available chemical and biological assessment
tools, the relative effects of impacts can be deter-
mined so that  solutions can be formulated to im-
prove water quality.
    When point and nonpoint  impact and  physical
habitat degradation occur simultaneously, diagnosis
may require the combined use of biological, physi-
cal, and chemical evaluations to discriminate be-
tween these impacts. For example, sedimentation of
a stream caused by logging practices is likely  to
result in a  decrease in species  that require loose
gravel for spawning but increase species naturally
adapted to  fine sediments. This  shift in community
components correlates well with the observed im-
pact. However, if the impact is a point source dis-
charge or nonpoint runoff of toxicants, both species
types are likely to be impaired whether sedimenta-
tion occurs  or not (although gravel breeding species
can  be expected to  show greater  impairment if
sedimentation  occurs).  Part of  the  diagnostic
process is  derived from an understanding of  or-
ganism sensitivities to different kinds of impacts and
their habitat requirements. When  habitat is good but
water quality  is poor, aquatic  community  com-
ponents sensitive to toxicity will be impaired. How-
ever, if both habitat and water quality degrade, the
resident community  is  likely to be  composed  of
tolerant and opportunistic species.
    When an impaired use cannot be easily related
to an obvious  cause,  the  diagnostic process be-
comes investigative and iterative. The iterative diag-
nostic process as shown  in Figure 6 may require
additional time and resources to verify cause and
source.  Initially,  potential  sources  of impact are
identified and mapped to determine location relative
                                                 40

-------
                                                                                     :  Hypattmi* Testing
Figure 6.—Diagnostic Process

           Establish Biological Criteria

                       I
Conduct Field Assessment to Determine Impairment
                 X     X
               Yes             No «*

                *
    Evaluate Data to Determine
          Probable Cause

                *
   Generate Testable Hypotheses
        for Probable Cause
                                          Further
                                        Action
          Collect Data and
          Evaluate Results
     No Apparent Cause

             *
_ Propose New Alternative
  Hypotheses and Collect
         New Data
                               Obvious Cause
                                    I
                            Formulate Remedial (
                                  Action
                                                    to the area suffering from biological impairment. An
                                                    analysis of  the  physical, chemical,  and biological
                                                    characteristics of the study area will help identify the
                                                    most likely sources and determine which data will
                                                    be most valuable. Hypotheses that distinguish be-
                                                    tween  possible  causes of  impairment should  be
                                                    generated. Study design and appropriate data col-
                                                    lection procedures need to be developed to test the
                                                    hypotheses. The severity of the impairment, the dif-
                                                    ficulty  of diagnosis,  and the  costs involved will
                                                    determine how  many iterative loops will be  com-
                                                    pleted in the diagnostic process.
                                                        Normally,  diagnoses  of biological  impairment
                                                    are  relatively  straightforward. States  may  use
                                                    biological criteria as a method to confirm impairment
                                                    from a known source of impact. However, the diag-
                                                    nostic process provides an effective way to  identify
                                                    unknown impacts and diagnose their cause so that
                                                    corrective action can be devised and implemented.
Fig. 6: The diagnostic process is a stepwise process for
determining the cause of impaired biological integrity in sur-
face waters. It may require multiple hypotheses testing and
more than one remedial plan.
                                                 41

-------
                                      References
Angermeier, P.L. and J.R. Karr. (1986). Applying an Index of Biotlc
    Integrity Based on Stream-Fish Communities: Considera-
    tions In Sampling and Interpretation. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 6:
    418-429.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. (1988).
    Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface
    Waters of the State of Arkansas. Regulation No. 2.
Barbour, ?.?. (1990). Personal communication. EA Engineering,
    Science and Technology, Inc., Sparks, MO.
Botton, M.L. (1979). Effects of sewage sludge on the benthic in-
    vertebrate community on the inshore New York Bight. Es-
    tuar. Coast. Shelf. Sd. 8:169-180
Brooks, R.P. and R.M. Hughes. (1988). Guidelines for assessing
    the blotic communities of freshwater wetlands. Pages 276-
    82 in JA Kusler, M.L. Quammen, and G. Brooks, eds. Proc.
    National Wetland  Symposium: Mitigation  of  Impacts and
    Losses. Ass. State Wetland Managers, Beme, NY.
The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (1989). Federal Water Pollu-
    tion Control Act as Amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977.
    Washington, D.C.
Cairns, J. Jr. (1975). Quantification of biological Integrity. Pages
    171-85 in R.K.  Ballentine and LJ. Guarrie, eds., The In-
    tegrity of Water, A Symposium. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
    Washington, D.C.
Clarke, S., D. White, and A. Schaedel. Mss. Oregon ecological
    regions and subregions for water management. Connecticut
    1987.
Connecticut Department of  Environmental Protection. (1987).
    Water Quality Standards.
Courtemanch, D.L. (1989). Implementation of biocriteria  in the
    water quality standards program. Water Quality Standards
    for the 21 *t Century: Proc. Nat!. Conf. Office of Drinking
    Water. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington, D.C.
Courtemanch, D.L and S.P. Davies. (1987). Implementation of
    biological standards and criteria In Maine's water classifica-
    tion law. In Proc. I rot ream Biomonitoring and  Biological
    Criteria Workshop. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Lincolnwood.
    IL
Courtemanch, D.L, S.P. Davies. and E.B. Laverty. (1989). Incor-
    poration of biological  information In water quality planning.
    Environ. Manage. 13:35-41.
Courtemanch, D.L and S.P. Davies. (1989). Why Maine has
    Chosen to Integrate Biological Impact Standards Into State
    Water Quality Law. Maine Dep. Environ. Prot., Augusta.
Eagleson, K.W., D.L Lenat. LW. Rusley and R.B. Winborne.
    Comparison of Measured Instream Biological Responses
    with Responses Predicted Using  the  Coriodaphnia dubia
    Chronic Toxlcity Test.  Environ. Tox. and Chemistry 9:1019-
    1028.
Forbes, S. (1928). Foreword. In R.E. Richardson, The bottom
    fauna of the middle Illinois River, 1913-1925. BuH. III. Nat.
    Hist Surv. Vol. 17, Article 7,387-472.
Gakstatter, J., J.R. Gammon, R.M. Hughes, LS. Ischinger, M.
    Johnson, J.  Karr, T. Murphy, T.M.  Murray, and T. Stuart.
    (1981). A recommended approach for determining biological
    integrity in flowing waters. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Cor-
    vallis, OR.
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omemik, and R.M.
    Hughes. (1989). Regionalizatfon as a Tool tor Managing En-
    vironmental Resources. EPA/600/3-89/060.  U.S.  Environ.
    Res. Lab. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Gammon, J.R. (1976). The flsh populations of the middle 340 km
    of the Wabash River. Tech.  Rep.  86.  Purdue Univ. Water
    Resour. Res. Center, West Lafayette, IN.
Gammon,  J.R.,  A.  Spacie,  J.L  Hamellnk, and  R.L  Kaesler.
    (1981). Role of electrofishlng In assessing  environmental
    quality of the Wabash River. Pages 307-24 in J.M. Bates and
    C.I. Weber, eds.. Ecological  Assessments of Effluents Im-
    pacts on Communities  of Indigenous  Aquatic  Organisms.
    STP 703. Am. Soc. Test. Mater.
Green, R.H. (1979). Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for
    Environmental Biologists. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hall, J.D., M.L  Murphy,  and R.S. Aho. (1989). An improved
    design for assessing impacts of  watershed practices on
    small streams. Proc.  Int.  Ass. Theoret Appl.  LJmnol. 20:
    1359-65.
Hieskary, S.A., C.B. Wilson, and D.P. Larsen. (1987). Analysis of
    regional patterns in lake water quality, using  ecoregions for
    lake management in Minnesota. Lake  Reserv.  Manage. 3:
    337-344.
Hilsenhoff. W.L (1987). An Improved btotic index  of organic
    stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomot.  20(1): 31-39.
Hughes, R.M. (1989a). What can biological monitoring tell us
    about the environmental health of aquatic ecosystems? In
    R.C. Ward, J.C.  Loftis.  and G.B. McBride, eds., Proc. Int.
    Symp. on the Design of Water Quality Information Systems.
    Inf. Ser. No. 61. Colo. Water Resour.  Res.  Inst Colorado
    State Univ., R. Collins.
Hughes, R.M. (1989b). Ecoregional biological criteria.  In Water
    Quality Standards for the 21st Century.  Proc. Nati. Conf. Off.
    Water. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington, D.C.
Hughes. R.M., E. Rexstad, and C.E. Bond.  (1987). The relation-
    ship of aquatic ecoregions, river basins, and physiographic
    provinces to the Ichthyogeographlc  regions  of  Oregon.
    Copela: 423-432.
Hughes. R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernik. (1986).  Regional
    reference sites: a method for assessing stream pollution. En-
    viron. Manage. 10(5): 629-625.
Hughes, R.M. (1985). Use of watershed characteristics  to select
    •control stream for estimating effects of  metal  mining wastes
                                                         43

-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
     on extensively disturbed streams. Environ. Manage. 9: 253-
     262.
Judy, R.D. Jr., P.N. Seefy, T.M. Murray, S.C. Svlrsky, M.R. Whit-
     worth, and LS. Ischlnger. (1987). 1982 National Rsheries
     Survey. Vol. 1 FWS/OBS-84/06. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Karr, J.R. (1981). Assessment of biotic Integrity using fish com-
     munities. Rsheries 6(6): 21-27.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. (1981). Ecological Perspectives on
     Water Quality Goals. Environ. Manage. 5:55-68.
	. (1987). Biological monitoring and environmental assess-
     ment  a conceptual  framework.  Environ. Manage.  11(2):
     249-256.
Karr,  J.R.,  (CD. Fausch, P.L Angermier. P.R. Yant, and I.J.
     Schtosser. (1986). Assessing biological integrity in running
     waters: a method and Its rationale. Spec. Publ. 5. IN. Nat.
     Hist Surv.
Larsen, D.P., J.M. Omemik, R.M. Hughes, C.M. Rohm, T.R. Whit-
     tier, A.J. Wnney. A.L Gallant, and D.R. Dudley. (1986). The
     correspondence   between spatial  patterns  in fish  as-
     semblages In  Ohio streams  and aquatic ecoreglons.  En-
     viron. Manage. 10:815-828.
Lenat, D.R. (1988). Water quality assessment of streams using a
     qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates,
     J. N. Am. Bentholog. Soc. 7: 222-33.
Lyons, J. (1989). Correspondence between the distribution of fish
     assemblages  In  Wisconsin  streams   and  Omernik's
     ecoregions. Am. Midland Nat 122(1): 163-182.
Maine Water  Quality Classification Program.  (1986).  Maine
     Revised Status Annotation. Title 38 Article 4-A Section 465.
McCall, P.L (1977). Community patterns and adaptive strategies
     of the Infaunal benthos of Long Island Sound. J. Mar.  Res.
     35:221-266.
Mearns, A.J. and  J.Q. Word.  (1982). Forecasting effects of
     sewage solids on marine benthic communities. Pages 495-
     512 in G.F. Mayer, ed.. Ecological Stress and the New York
     Bight: Science and Management. Estuar. Res. Fed., Colum-
     bia, SC.
Miller, D.L.  et  at. (1988).  Regional applications of  an Index of
     biotlc integrity for use  in water  resource  management.
     Fisheries 13(5): 12.
Miller, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E. Williams.  (1989). Extinctions
     of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries
     14:22-38.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
     Development. (1984). The Before and After Studies. Report
     No. 84-15.
Ohio  Environmental Protection Agency. (1988a).  The Role of
     Biological Data In Water Quality Assessment Vol. I. Biologi-
     cal Criteria for th» Protection of Aquatic Ufa.  Drv. Water
     Qua). Monitor. Assess. Surf. Water Section, Columbus.
	. (1988b). Water Quality Inventory 305(b). Report. Vol 1.
     Dlv. Water Qua). Monitor. Assess. Columbus.
	. (1990). Ohio Water Quality  Standards. Ohio Admin.
     Code 3745-1. Adopted Feb. 2.
Omemik, J.M. (1987). Ecoreglons of the Conterminous United
     States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geog. 77(1): 118-125.
Phelps, D. K. (1988). Marine/Estuarlne Biomonitoring: A Concep-
     tual Approach and Future Applications. Permits Div.  Off.
     Water.  EPA 600/X-88/244.  U.S.  Environ. Prot. Agency,
     Washington, D.C.
Plafkin, J.L  (1988). Water quality based controls & ecosystem
     recovery.  In J. Calms,  Jr., ed., Rehabilitating Damaged
     Ecosystems. Vol. II. CRC Press. Boca Raton. FL
                                                              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. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington,
                                                                   D.C.
                                                              Popper, K.R. (1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper
                                                                   and Row, New York.
                                                              Reich  and Hart. (1979). Pollution Ecology of Estuarlne Inver-
                                                                   tebrates. Academic Press.
                                                              Rohm. C.M., J.W. Giese, and C.C. Bennett (1987). Evaluation of
                                                                   an aquatic ecoregion classification of streams In Arkansas.
                                                                   J. Freshw. Ecol. 4:127-40.
                                                              Sokal,  R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. (1981). Biometry: The Principles and
                                                                   Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 2nd Ed. W.H.
                                                                   Freeman, San Francisco.
                                                              Stanford, J.A. and  J.B. Ward. (1988). The hyporheic habitat of
                                                                   river ecosystems. Nature 335:64-66.
                                                              Thomas J.D. (1990). Personal communication. Reef Foundation.
                                                                   Big Pine Key, FL
                                                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  (1983a). Water Quality
                                                                   Standards  Handbook. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington,
                                                                   D.C.
                                                              	. (1983b). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
                                                                   and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
                                                                   Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington D.C.
                                                              	. (1984a). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
                                                                   and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
                                                                   Vol  II.  Estuarine  Systems.  Off.  Water Reg.  Stand.
                                                                   Washington D.C.
                                                              	. (1984b). Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys
                                                                   and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses.
                                                                   Vol III. Lake Systems. Off. Water Reg. Stand. Washington,
                                                                   D.C.
                                                              	. (1989a). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund—En-
                                                                   vironmental Evaluation Manual.  Inter. Final. Off.  Emerg.
                                                                   Remed. Response. Washington, D.C.
                                                              	. (1989b). Report of a Workshop on Biological Criteria:
                                                                   Diagnosis Strategies for Impaired Waterbody Uses. Sub-
                                                                   mitted by Battelle. Sept 30,1989. Unpubl.
                                                              	. (1987a). Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for
                                                                   Change. Off. Water. Off. Policy Plann. Eval. Washington,
                                                                   D.C.
                                                              	. (1987b). Report of the National Workshop on Instream
                                                                   Biological Monitoring and Criteria. Off. Water Reg. Stand. In-
                                                                   stream Blolog. Criteria Comm. Region V. Environ. Res. Lab.
                                                                   U.S. Environ. Prot Agency. Corvallls
                                                              Water Quality Act of 1987. (1989). In The Environment Reporter.
                                                                   Bur. Nat!. Affairs. Washington, D.C.
                                                              Whittler. T.R., D.P. Larsen,  R.M.  Hughes. C.M. Rohm. A.L  Gal-
                                                                   lant, and J.M. Omernik. (1987). Ohio Stream Reglonalization
                                                                   Project: A Compendium of Results. Environ. Res. Lab.  U.S.
                                                                   Environ. Prot. Agency. Corvallls. OR.
                                                              Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, and D.P. Larsen,. (1988). Correspon-
                                                                   dence between ecoregions  and spatial patterns in stream
                                                                   ecosystems In Oregon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sd. 45: 1264-
                                                                   78.
                                                              Yoder,  C.O. (1989). The development and use biological criteria
                                                                   for Ohio surface waters. Water Quality Standards for the
                                                                   21st Century.  Proc. Natl. Conf. Off. Water. U.S. Environ.
                                                                   Prot. Agency. Washington, D.C.
                                                              Code of Federal Regulations. (1989). Vol. 40, Part 131.10,  U.S.
                                                                   Gov. Print. Off. Washington,  D.C.
                                                          44

-------
                              Appendix  A
            Common  Questions  and
                        Their  Answers
   Q. How will implementing biological criteria
benefit State water quality programs?

   A. State water quality programs will benefit from
biological criteria because they:
   a) directly assess impairments in ambient
      biota from adverse impacts on the
      environment;

   b) are defensible and quantifiable;

   c) document improvements in water quality
      resulting from agency action;

   d) reduce the likelihood of false positives (i.e.,
      a conclusion that attainment is achieved
      when it is not);

   e) provide information on the integrity of
      biological systems that is compelling to the
      public.


   Q. How will biological criteria be used in a
permit program?

   A. When permits  are renewed, records from
chemical analyses and biological assessments are
used  to determine if the  permit has effectively
prevented degradation and led to improvement. The
purpose for this evaluation is to determine whether
applicable water quality standards were achieved
under the expiring permit and to decide if changes
are needed. Biological surveys and criteria are par-
ticularly  effective  for  determining the quality of
waters subject  to permitted  discharges. Since
biosurveys provide ongoing integrative evaluations
of the biological integrity of resident biota, permit
writers can make informed decisions on whether to
maintain or restrict permit limits.


   Q. What expertise and staff will be needed to
implement a biological criteria program?

   A. Staff with sound knowledge of State aquatic
biology and scientific protocol are needed to coor-
dinate a biological  criteria program.  Actual  field
monitoring could be accomplished by summer-hire
biologists led by permanent staff aquatic biologists.
Most States employ aquatic biologists for monitor-
ing trends or issuing site-specific permits.

   Q. Which management personnel should be
involved in a biologically-based approach?

   A.  Management personnel from each  area
within the standards and  monitoring  programs
should be involved in this approach, including per-
mit engineers,  resource  managers, and  field per-
sonnel.

   Q. How much will this approach cost?

   A. The cost of developing biological criteria is a
State-specific question depending upon many vari-
ables. However, States that  have implemented a
biological  criteria program have found it to be cost
effective (e.g.,  Ohio). Biological criteria provide an
integrative assessment over time. Biota reflect mul-
tiple  impacts.  Testing for impairment of resident
aquatic communities can actually  require  less
monitoring than would be required to detect many
impacts using more traditional  methods  (e.g.,
chemical testing for episodic events).
                                          45

-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
    Q. What are some concerns of dischargers?

    A. Dischargers are concerned that biological
criteria will  identify impairments that may be er-
roneously attributed to a discharger who is not
responsible. This is a legitimate concern  that the
discharger and  State  must address with careful
evaluations  and diagnosis of cause of impairment.
However,  it  is particularly important to ensure that
waters used for the reference condition are not al-
ready  impaired as may occur when conducting
site-specific upstream-downstream evaluations. Al-
though a discharger may be contributing to surface
water degradation,  it may be hard to detect using
biosurvey methods if the waterbody is also  impaired
from other sources. This can be evaluated by test-
ing the possible toxicity of  effluent-free reference
waters on sensitive organisms.
    Dischargers are also concerned that current
permit limits may become  more stringent if it  is
determined  that meeting chemical  and whole-ef-
fluent  permit  limits are not sufficient  to protect
aquatic life from discharger activities. Alternative
forms of regulation may be  needed; these are not
necessarily financially burdensome but could  in-
volve additional expense.
    Burdensome monitoring  requirements  are addi-
tional  concerns.  With  new rapid  bioassessment
protocols available for streams, and under  develop-
ment for other surface waters,  monitoring resident
biota is becoming  more straightforward. Since resi-
dent  biota provide an integrative  measure of en-
vironmental  impacts  over time,  the  need  for
continual  biomonitoring is  actually lower  than
chemical  analyses and  generally  less expensive.
Guidance is being developed to establish accept-
able  research  protocols, quality assurance/quality
control programs and training opportunities to en-
sure that adequate guidance is available.


    Q. What are the concerns of
 environmentalists?

    A. Environmentalists are concerned that biologi-
 cal criteria could be used to alter restrictions on dis-
 chargers if biosurvey data indicate attainment of a
 designated  use  even  though chemical criteria
 and/or whole-effluent toxicity evaluations predict im-
 pairment. Evidence suggests that this occurs infre-
 quently  (e.g.,  in  Ohio, 6  percent  of 431  sites
 evaluated  using   chemical-specific criteria  and
 biosurveys resulted in this disagreement). In  those
cases where evidence suggests more than one con-
clusion, independent application applies. If biologi-
cal criteria suggest  impairment  but   chemical-
specific and/or whole-effluent toxicity implies attain-
ment  of the use, the cause for impairment of the
biota  is to be evaluated and,  where appropriate,
regulated. If whole effluent and/or chemical-specific
criteria imply impairment but no  impairment is found
in resident biota, the whole-effluent and/or chemi-
cal-specific criteria provide the basis for regulation.


    Q. Do biological criteria have to be codified
in State regulations?

    A. State water quality standards require three
components: (1) designated uses,  (2)  protective
criteria, and (3) an  antidegradation clause. For
criteria to be enforceable they  must be codified in
regulations. Codification could involve general nar-
rative  statements of  biological  criteria, numeric
criteria, and/or criteria accompanied by specific test-
ing  procedures.  Codifying   general   narratives
provides the most flexibility—specific methods for
data collection the least flexibility—for incorporating
new data and improving data gathering methods as
the biological criteria program  develops.  States
should  carefully consider  how to codify  these
criteria.


    Q. How will  biocriteria fit into the agency's
method of implementing standards?

    A.  Resident biota integrate multiple  impacts
over time and can detect impairment from known
and unknown causes. Biocriteria can be  used to
verify improvement in water quality in response to
regulatory efforts and detect continuing degradation
of waters. They  provide a framework for developing
improved best management practices for nonpoint
source impacts. Numeric criteria can provide effec-
tive monitoring criteria for inclusion in permits.


    Q.  Who determines the values for biological
 criteria and decides whether a waterbody meets
 the criteria?

    The process of developing biological criteria, in-
 cluding refined  use  classes, narrative criteria,  and
 numeric criteria, must include agency  managers,
 staff biologists,  and  the public  through public hear-
 ings  and comment. Once criteria are established,
 determining attainment\nonattainment  of a use re-
                                                 46

-------
                                                             Appendix A* Common Questions and Their Answers
quires biological and statistical evaluation based on
established protocols. Changes in the criteria would
require the same steps as the initial criteria: techni-
cal modifications by biologists, goal clarification by
agency managers, and public hearings. The key to
criteria development and revision is a clear state-
ment of measurable objectives.


   Q. What additional information is available
on developing and using biological criteria?

   A. This  program  guidance  document  will be
supplemented by the document Biological  Criteria
Development by States that includes case histories
of State implementation of biological criteria as nar-
ratives, numerics, and some data procedures. The
purpose for the document is to expand on material
presented in Part I. The document will be available
in October 1990.
   A general Biological Criteria Technical Refer-
ence Guide will also be  available  for distribution
during FY 1991. This document outlines basic ap-
proaches for developing biological criteria in all sur-
face  waters (streams,  rivers,  lakes,  wetlands,
estuaries). The primary focus of the document is to
provide a reference guide to scientific literature that
describes approaches and methods used to deter-
mine biological integrity of specific surface water
types.
   Over the next triennium more detailed guidance
will be produced that focuses on each surface water
type (e.g., technical guidance for  streams will be
produced during FY 91). Comparisons of different
biosurvey approaches will  be included for accuracy,
efficacy, and cost effectiveness.
                                                 47

-------
                      Appendix B
    Biological Criteria  Technical
                Reference Guide
Table of Contents (tentative)

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
   Q Purpose of the Technical Support Document
   a Organization of the Support Document

SECTION 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
   a Definitions
   a Biocriteria and the Scientific Method
   a Hypothesis Formulation and Testing
   a Predictions
   a Data Collection and Evaluation

SECTION 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
   a Data Quality Objectives
   a Quality Assurance Program Plans and Project Plans
   a Importance of QA/QC for Bioassessment
   a Training
   a Standard Procedures
   a Documentation
   a Calibration of Instruments

SECTION 4. PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOCRITERIA
   a Designated Uses
   a Reference Site or Condition
   a Biosurvey
   a Biological Criteria
                               49

-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance

SECTION 5. BIOASSESSMENT STRATEGIES TO DETERMINE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
    a Detailed Ecological Reconnaissance
    a Biosurveys of Targeted Community Segments
    a Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
    Q Bioindicators

SECTION 6. ESTABLISHING THE REFERENCE CONDITION
    a Reference Conditions Based on Site-Specific Comparisons
    a Reference Conditions Based on Regions of Ecological Similarity
    a Reference Conditions Based on Habitat Assessment

SECTION 7. THE REFERENCE CATALOG

SECTION 8. THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT ON BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
    a Habitat Assessment for Streams and Rivers
    a Habitat Assessment for Lakes and Reservoirs
    a Habitat Assessment for Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas
    a Habitat Assessment for Wetlands

SECTION 9. BIOSURVEY METHODS TO ASSESS BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
    a Biotic Assessment in Freshwater
    a Biotic Assessment in Estuaries and Near-Coastal Areas
    a Biotic Assessment in Wetlands

SECTION 10. DATA ANALYSIS
    a Sampling Strategy and Statistical Approaches
    a Diversity Indices
    a Biological Indices
    o Composite Community Indices

APPENDIX A. Freshwater Environments
APPENDIX B. Estuarine and Near-Coastal Environments
APPENDIX C. Wetlands Environments
APPENDIX D. Alphabetical Author/Reference Cross Number Index for the Reference Catalog
APPENDIX E. Reference Catalog Entries
LIST OF FIGURES
    a Figure 1 Bioassessment decision matrix
    a Figure 2 Specimen of a reference citation in the Reference Catalog
                                          50

-------
                             Appendix  C
                 Biological  Criteria
            Development  by States
Table of Contents (tentative)

I.   Introduction
II.   Key Concepts

III.  Biological Criteria Acrosa the 50 States

IV.  Case Study of Ohio
    A. Introduction
       1. Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2. Application of Biological Criteria
    B. History
       1. Development of Biological Criteria
       2. Current Status of Biological Criteria
    C. Discussion
       1. Program Resources
       2. Comparative Cost Calculations
       3. Program Evaluation

V.   Case Study of Main*
    A. Introduction
       1. Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2. Application of Biological Criteria
    B. History
       1. Development of Biological Criteria
       2. Program Rationale
    C. Discussion
       1. Program Resources
       2. Program Evaluation

VI.  Case Study of North Carolina
    A. Introduction
       1. Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2. Application of Biological .Criteria
    C.
History
1. Development of Biological Criteria
2. Current Status of Biological Criteria
Discussion
1. Program Resources
2. Program Evaluation
VII.  Case Study of Arkansas
    A. Introduction
       1.  Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2.  Application of Biological Criteria
    B. History
       1.  Development of Biological Criteria
       2.  Current Status of Biological Criteria
    C. Discussion
       1.  Program Resources
       2.  Program Evaluation

Vlll. Case Study of Florida
    A. Introduction
       1.  Derivation of Biological Criteria
       2.  Application of Biological Criteria
    B. History
    C. Discussion

IX.  Case Summaries of Six States
    A. Connecticut
    B. Delaware
    C. Minnesota
    D. Nebraska
    E. New York
    F. Vermont
                                        51

-------
                              Appendix  D
      Contributors  and Reviewers
Contributors
Gerald Anklty
USEPA Environmental Research
  Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Ouluth, MN 55804

John Arthur
USEPA
ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804

Patricia Bailey
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155

Joe Ball
Wisconsin DNR
Water Resource Management
  (WR/2)
P.O. Box 7291
Madison, Wl 53707

Michael Barbour
EA Engineering. Science, and
  Technology Inc.
Hunt Valley/Loveton Center
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD 21152

Raymond Beaumler
Ohio EPA
Water Quality Laboratory
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
John Bender
Nebraska Department of
  Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 69509

Mark Blosser
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources - Water Quality Mgmt.
  Branch
P.O. Box 1401, 89 Kings Way
Dover,  DE 19903

Robert Bode
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Box 1397
Albany, NY 12201

Lee Bridges
Indiana Department of Environment
  Management
5500 W.Bradbury
Indianapolis, IN 46241

Claire  Buchanan
Interstate Commission on Potomac
  River Basin
6110 Executive Boulevard Suite 300
Rockville, MD 20852-3903

David Courtemanch
Maine  Department of
  Environmental Protection
Director, Division of Environmental
Evaluation and Lake Studies
State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333
Norm Crisp
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 7
25 Funston Road
Kansas City. KS 66115

Susan Davles
Maine Department of
  Environmental Protection
State House No. 17
Augusta, ME 04333

Wayne Davis
Environmental Scientist
Ambient Monitoring Section
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5-SMQA)
Chicago, IL 60605

Kenneth Duke
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693

Gary Fandrel
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Division of Water Quality
520 La Fayette Road North
St. Paul. MN 55155

Steve Fiske
Vermont Department of
  Environmental Conservation
6 Baldwin Si
Montpelier. VT 05602
                                           53

-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
John Glese
Arkansas Department Of Pollution
  Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209

Steven Glomb
Office of Marine and Estuarine
  Protection
USEPA (WH-556F)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460

Steve Qoodbred
Division of Ecological Services
U. S. Rsh and Wildlife Service
1825 B. Virginia Street
Annapolis, MD 21401

Jim Harrison
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St. (4WM-MEB)
Atlanta, GA 30365

Margarete Heber
Office of Water Enforcements and
  Permits
USEPA (EN-336)
401 M Street SW
Washington. DC 20460

Steve Hedtke
US EPA Environmental Research
  Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804

Robert Hlte
Illinois EPA
2209 West Main
Marion, IL 62959

Linda Hoist
USEPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Evan Hornlg
USEPA Region 6
First Interstate Bank at Fountain
   Place
 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX  75202
William B. Homing II
Aquatic Biologist, Project
  Management Branch
USEPA/ORD Env. Monitoring
  Systems
3411 Church St.
Cincinnati, OH *5244

Robert Hughes
NSI Technology Services
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333

Jim Hulbert
Florida Department of
  Environmental Regulation
Suite 232
3319Maguire Blvd.
Orlando. FL 32803

James Kennedy
Institute of Applied Sciences
North Texas State University
Denton, TX 76203

Richard Langdon
Vermont Department of
  Environmental
  Conservation—10 North
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury.VT 05676

John Lyons
Special Projects Leader
Wisconsin Fish Research Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural
  Resources
3911 Fish Hatchery Rd.
Fitchburg, Wl 53711

Anthony Maclorowskl
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201-2693

Suzanne Marcy
Office of Water Regulations and
   Standards
USEPA (WH 585)
401  M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460

Scott Mattee
Geological Survey of Alabama
PO Drawer 0
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
John Maxted
Delaware Department of Natural
  Resources and Environmental
  Control
39 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903

Jlmmie Overton
NC Dept of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
512 N.Salisbury
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687

Steve Paulsen
Enviromental Research Center
University of Nevada - Las Vegas
4505 Maryland Parkey
Las Vegas, NV 89154

Loys Parrlsh
USEPA Region 8
P.O. Box 25366
Denver Federal Center
Denver. CO 80225

David Penrose
Environmental Biologist
North Carolina Department of
   Natural Resources and
Community Development
512 N.Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611

Don Phelps
USEPA
Environmental Research Lab
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882

Ernest Plzzuto
Connecticut Department
   Environmental Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06115

James Plafkln
Office of Water Regulations and
   Standards
USEPA (WH 553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

Ronald Preston
Biological Science Coordinator
USEPA Region 3
Wheeling Office (3ES12)
303 Methodist Building
Wheeling, WV 26003
                                                   54

-------
                                                                      Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers
Ronald Raschke
Ecological Support Branch
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 4
Athens, GA 30613

Mark Southerland
Dynamac Corporation
The Dynamac Building
11140 Rickville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852

James Thomas
Newfound .Harbor Marine Institute
Rt. 3. Box170
Big Pine Key, PL 33043

Nelson Thomas
USEPA, ERL-Duluth
Senior Advisor for National Program
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Randall Wait*
USEPA Region 3
Program Support Branch (3WMIO)
841 Chesnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19107

John Wegrzyn
Manager, Water Quality Standards
  Unit
Arizona Department of
  Environmental Quality
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix. AZ 95004

Thorn Whittler
NSI Technology Services
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis. OR 97333

BUI Wuerthele
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 8 (WM-SP)
999 18th Street Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Chris Yoder
Asst. Manager, Surface Water
  Section
Water Quality Monitoring and
  Assessment
Ohio EPA-Water Quality Lab
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212

David Yount
US EPA Environmental Research
  Lab
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804

Lee Zenl
Interstate Commission on Potomac
  River Basin
6110 Executive Boulevard Suite 300
Rockville, MD 20852-3903
Reviewers
Paul Adamus
Wetlands Program
NSI Technology Services
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333

Rick Albright
USEPA Region 10 (WD-139)
1200 6th Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98101

Max Anderson
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 60605

Michael D. Bllger
USEPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Building
Boston,  MA 02203

Susan Boldt
University of Wisconsin Extension
Madison, Wl

Paul Campanella
Office of Policy, Planning and
   Evaluation
USEPA (PM 222-A)
401 M St. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Cindy Carusone
New York Department of
  Environmental Conservation
Box 1397
Albany, NY 12201

Brian Choy
Hawaii Department of Health
645 Halekauwila St.
Honolulu, HI 96813

Bill Creal
Michigan DNR
Surface Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909

Phil Crocker
Water Quality Management Branch
USEPA Region 6/1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Kenneth Cummins
Appalachian Environmental Lab
University of Maryland
Frostburg. MD21532

Jeff DeShon
Ohio EPA, Surface Water Section
1030 King Ave.
Columbus, OH 43212
Peter Farrington
Biomonitoring Assessments Officer
Water Quality Branch
Inland Waters Directorate
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario K1AOH3

Kenneth Fenner
USEPA Region 5
Water Quality Branch
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604

Jack Freda
Ohio EPA
Surface Water Section
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212

Toby Prevent
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706

Cynthia Fuller
USEPA GLNPO
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
                                                  55

-------
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
JeffGagler
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604

Mary Jo Garrels
Maryland Department of the
  Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Building 30
Baltimore, MD 21224

Jim Glattina
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604

Jim Green
Environmental Services Division
USEPA Region 3
303 Methodist Bldg.
11 (hand Chapline
Wheeling, WV 26003

Larindo Gronner
USEPA Region 4
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365

Martin Gurtz
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
P.O. Box 2857
Raleigh, NC 27602-2857

Rick Hafele
Oregon Department Environmental
  Quality
1712 S.W. 11th  Street
Portland, OR 97201

Steve Heiskary
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
SLPaul, MN55155

Rollie Hemmett
USEPA Region  2
Environmental Services
Woodridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837

Charles Hocutt
Horn Point Environmental
   Laboratory
Box 775 University of Maryland
Cambridge, MD 21613
Hoke Howard
USEPA Region 4
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605

Peter Husby
USEPA Region 9
215FreemontSt
San Francisco, CA94105

Gerald Jacob!
Environmental Sciences
School of Science and Technology
New Mexico Highlands University
Las Vegas, NM 87701

James Karr
Department of Biology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
  State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0406

Roy Kleinsasser
Texas Parks and Wildlife
P.O. Box 947
San Marcos, TX 78667

Don Klemm
USEPA Environmental Monitoring
  and Systems Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Robin Knox
Louisiana Department of
  Environment Quality
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70726

Robert Koroncal
Water Management Division
USEPA Region 3
847 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia. PA 19107

Jim Kurztenbach
USEPA Region 2
Woodbridge Ave.
Rariton Depot Bldg.  10
Edison, NJ 08837

Roy Kwiatkowskl
Water Quality Objectives Division
Water Quality Branch
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
K1AOH3
Jim Lajorchak
EMSL-Cincinnati
U.S. Environmental Protection
  Agency
Cincinnati, OH

David Lenat
NC Dept of Natural Resources and
Community Development
512 N.Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611

James Luey
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS)
Chicago, IL 60604

Terry Maret
Nebraska Department of
  Environmental Control
Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE  69509

Wally Matsunaga
Illinois EPA
1701 First Ave., #600
Maywood, IL60153

Robert Mosher
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd. #15
P.O. Box19276
Springfield,  IL 62794

Phillip Oshida
USEPA Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Bill Painter
USEPA, OPPE
401 M Street, SW (W435B)
Washington, DC 20460

Rob Pepin
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604

Wayne Poppe
Tennessee Valley Authority
270 Haney  Bldg.
Chattanooga. TN 37401

Walter Redmon
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
                                                  56

-------
                                                                       Appendix D: Contributors and Reviewers
Landon Ross
Florida Department of
  Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399

Jean Roberts
Arizona Department of
  Environmental Quality
2655 East Magnolia
Phoenix, AZ 85034

Charles Saylor
Tennessee Valley Authority
Field Operations Eastern Area
Division of Services and Field
Operations
Morris, TN 37828

Robert Schacht
Illinois EPA
1701 First Avenue
Maywood, IL60153

Ouane Schuettpelz
Chief, Surface Water Standards and
Monitoring Section-Wisconsin
  Department of Natural
  Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
Bruce Shackleford
Arkansas Department of Pollution
  Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209

Larry Shepard
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn (5WQP)
Chicago, IL 60604

Jerry Shulte
Ohio River Sanitation Commission
49 E. 4th St., Suite 851
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Thomas Simon
USEPA Region 5
536 S. Clark St. (5SCRL)
Chicago, IL 60605

J. Singh
USEPA Region 5
536 Clark St. (5SCDO)
Chicago, IL 60605
Marc Smith
Biomonitoring Section
Ohio EPA
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212

Denlse Steurer
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604

William Tucker
Supervisor, Water Quality
  Monitoring
Illinois EPA
Division of Water Pollution Control
4500 S. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62706

Stephen Twidwell
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087

Barbara Williams
USEPA Region 5
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
                                                  57

-------
          APPENDIX D
           National Guidance:
         Water Quality Standards
             for Wetlands                  [j
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
              Office of Water
              Regulations and Standards (WH-585)
              Washinton, DC 20460
EPA 440/S-90-011
July 1990
&EPA
Water  Quality  Standards
for Wetlands

National Guidance

-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
               WETLANDS

               National Guidance
                   July 1990
                  Prepared by:

         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Office of Water Regulations and Standards
            Office of Wetlands Protection

-------
  This document is designated as Appendix B to Chapter 2 - General Program Guidance of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, December 1983.
            Table    of  Contents

                                                                    Page
 Transmittal Memo	 v
 Executive Summary	vii
 1.0 INTRODUCTION	1
    1.1 Objectives	2
    1.2 Organization	2
    1.3 Legal Authority	3
 2.0 INCLUSION OF WETLANDS IN THE DEFINITION OF STATE WATERS	5
 3.0 USE CLASSIFICATION	7
    3.1 Wetland Types	8
    3.2 Wetland Functions and Values	10
    3.3 Designating Wetland Uses	11
 4.0 CRITERIA	15
    4.1 Narrative Criteria	15
       4.1.1  General Narrative Criteria	16
       4.1.2  Narrative Biological Criteria	16
    4.2 Numeric Criteria	17
       4.2.1  Numeric Criteria - Human Health	17
       4.2.2  Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life	17
 5.0 ANTIDEGRADATION	19
    5.1 Protection of Existing Uses	19
                                    m

-------
    5.2 Protection of High-Quality Wetlands	20

    5.3 Protection of Outstanding Wetlands	20

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION	23

    6.1 Section 401 Certification	 23

    6.2 Discharges to Wetlands	24

        6.2.1  Municipal Wastewater Treatment	24

        6.2.2  Stormwater Treatment	24

        6.2.3  Fills	25

        6.2.4  Nonpoint Source Assessment and Control	25

    6.3 Monitoring	25

    6.4 Mixing Zones and Variances	26

7.0 FUTURE DIRECTIONS	29

    7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria for Wetlands	29

    7.2 Wildlife Criteria	30

    7.3 Wetlands Monitoring	30

References	31

Appendices

    A  -Glossary	A-1

    B - Definition of "Waters of the U.S."	B-1

    C  - Information on the Assessment of Wetland Functions and Values	C-1

    D  - Regional Wetlands Coordinators
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	D-1

    E - Example of State Certification Action  Involving Wetlands under CWA Section 401	E-1
                                               IV

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
                                   30 1990
                                                        OFFICE OF
                                                         WATER
                                        d Standards
          Final Document: National Guidance on Water Quality
          Standards for Wetlands
          Martha G. Prothro,  Director
          Office of Water Regul

          David G. Davis, Dir  __
          Office of Wetlands  Pro
          Regional Water Division Directors
          Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
          Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy
           and Management, Region VII
          OW Office Directors
          State Water Quality Program Managers
          State Wetland Program Managers
     The following document entitled "National Guidance: Water
Quality Standards for Wetlands" provides guidance for meeting the
priority established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance to
develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-
1993 triennium.  This document was developed jointly by the
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and the Office
of Wetlands Protection (OWP) ,  and reflects the comments we
received on the February 1990  draft from EPA Headquarters and
Regional offices, EPA laboratories, and the States.

     By the end of FY 1993, the minimum requirements for States
are to include wetlands in the definition of "State waters",
establish beneficial uses for  wetlands, adopt existing narrative
and numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt narrative biological
criteria for wetlands, and apply ant i degradation policies to
wetlands.  Information in this document related to the
development of biological criteria has been coordinated with
recent guidance issued by OWRS; "Biological Criteria: National
Program Guidance for Surface Waters", dated April 1990.

     We are focusing on water  quality standards for wetlands to
ensure that provisions of the  Clean Water Act currently applied
to other surface waters are also being applied to wetlands.  The
document focuses on those elements of water quality standards

-------
that can be developed now using the overall structure of the
water quality standards program and existing information and data
sources related to wetlands.  Periodically, our offices will
provide additional information and support to the Regions and
States through workshops and additional documents.  We encourage
you to let us know your needs as you begin developing wetlands
standards.  If you have any questions concerning this document,
please contact us or have your staff contact Bob Shippen in OWRS
(FTS-475-7329) or Doreen Robb in OWP (FTS-245-3906).
Attachment
cc:  LaJuana Wilcher
     Robert Wayland
                                VI

-------
     EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
 Background
  This document provides program guidance to States on how to ensure effective application of water
quality standards (WQS) to wetlands. This guidance reflects the level of achievement EPA expects the States
to accomplish by the end of FY1993, as defined in the Agency Operating Guidance, FY1991, Office of Water.
The basic requirements for applying State water quality standards to wetlands include the following:


   • Include wetlands in the definition of "State waters."
   • Designate uses for all wetlands.
   • Adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free froms") and appropriate numeric criteria for wetlands.
   • Adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands.
   • Apply the State's antidegradation policy and implementation methods to wetlands.


  Water quality standards for wetlands are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) applied to other surface waters  are also applied to wetlands.  Although Federal regulations im-
plementing the CWA include wetlands in the definition of "waters of the U.S." and therefore require water
quality standards, a number of States have not developed WQS for wetlands and have not included wetlands
in their definitions of "State waters." Applying water quality standards to wetlands is part of an overall effort
to protect and enhance the Nation's wetland  resources and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
programs to meet this goal. Standards provide the foundation for a broad range of water quality manage-
ment activities including, but not limited to, monitoring under Section 305(b), permitting  under Sections 402
and 404, water quality certification under Section 401, and the control of NFS pollution under Section 319.

  With the issuance of this guidance, EPA proposes a two- phased approach for the development of WQS
for wetlands. Phase 1 activities presented in this guidance  include the development of WQS elements for
wetlands based upon existing information and science to be implemented within the next triennium. Phase
2 involves the further refinement of these basic elements using new science and program developments.  The
development of WQS for all surface waters is an iterative process.

 Definition
  The first and most important step in applying water quality standards to wetlands is ensuring that wetlands
are legally included in the scope of States' water quality standards programs.  States may accomplish this by
adopting a regulatory definition of "State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal definition of "waters of
the U.S." and by adopting an appropriate definition for "wetlands." States may also need to remove or modify
regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits the authority of water quality standards over wetlands.

 Use  Designation
  At a minimum, all wetlands must have uses designated that meet the goals of Section 101 (a)(2)  of the CWA
by providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the
water, unless the  results of a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA Section 101 (a) (2) goals
cannot be achieved. When designating uses for wetlands, States may choose to use their existing  general
                                            vn

-------
and water-specific classification systems, or they may set  up an entirely different system for wetlands
reflecting their unique functions.  Two basic pieces of information are useful in classifying wetland uses: (1)
the structural types of wetlands and (2) the functions and values associated with such types of wetlands.
Generally, wetland functions directly relate to the physical, chemical, and  biological integrity of wetlands.
The protection of these functions through water quality standards also may be needed to attain the uses of
waters adjacent to, or downstream of, wetlands.

 Criteria
  The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)) requires States to adopt criteria sufficient
to protect designated uses that may include general statements (narrative) and specific numerical values
(i.e., concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics).  Most State water quality standards
already contain many criteria for various water types and designated use classes that may be applicable to
wetlands.

  Narrative criteria are  particularly important  in wetlands, since many wetland impacts cannot  be fully
addressed by numeric criteria.  Such impacts may result from  the discharge of chemicals for which there are
no numeric criteria in State standards, nonpoint sources,  and activities that may affect the physical and/or
biological, rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality (e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material).
Narratives should be written to protect the most sensitive designated use and to support existing  uses under
State antidegradation policies.  In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative biological criteria provide a
further basis for managing a broad range of activities that impact the biological integrity of wetlands and
other surface waters, particularly physical and  hydrologic modifications.  Narrative biological  criteria are
general statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given use
designation. EPA has published national guidance on developing biological criteria for all surface waters.

  Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents,  physical parameters, or biological
conditions that are adopted in State standards.  Human health water quality  criteria are based on  the toxicity
of a contaminant  and the amount of the contaminant  consumed through ingestion of  water  and fish
regardless of the type of water.   Therefore, EPA's chemical-specific  human  health  criteria are  directly
applicable to wetlands.   EPA  also develops chemical-specific numeric  criteria recommendations for the
protection of freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. The  numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
specifically for wetlands, were designed to be protective of aquatic life and are generally applicable to most
wetland types.  An exception to this are pH-dependent criteria,  such as  ammonia and  pentachlorophenol,
since wetland  pH may be outside the normal  range of 6.5-9.0.  As in other waters, natural water quality
characteristics in some wetlands may be outside the range established for  uses designated in State stand-
ards.  These water quality characteristics may  require the development of criteria that reflect  the natural
background  conditions in a specific wetland or wetland type. Examples of some of the wetland  charac-
teristics that may fall into this category are dissolved oxygen,  pH, turbidity,  color, and hydrogen  sulfide.

 Antidegradation
  The antidegradation policies contained in all State standards provide a powerful tool for the protection of
wetlands and can be  used by  States to regulate point and nonpoint source discharges to wetlands  in the
same way as other surface waters.  In conjunction with beneficial uses and narrative criteria, antidegradation
can be used to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully addressed by chemical criteria, such as
physical and hydrologic modifications.  With the inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the State," State
antidegradation policies and their implementation methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as other
surface waters. State antidegradation policies should provide for the protection  of existing uses in wetlands
and the level of water quality  necessary to protect those uses in the same manner as provided for other
surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regulation. In the case  of fills, EPA interprets protection
of existing uses to be  met if there is no significant degradation as defined according to the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines. State antidegradation policies also provide  special protection for outstanding natural resource
waters.

-------
  Implementation
   Implementing water quality standards for wetlands will require  a coordinated effort  between related
Federal and State agencies and programs. Many States have begun to make more use of CWA Section 401
certification to manage certain activities that impact their wetland resources on a physical and/or biological
basis rather than just chemical impacts.  Section 401 gives  the States the authority to grant, deny,  or
condition certification of Federal permits or licenses that may  result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S."
Such action is taken by the State to ensure compliance with various provisions of the CWA, including the
State's  water quality standards.  Violation of water quality standards is  often the basis  for denials  or
conditioning through Section 401 certification.

   Natural wetlands are nearly always "waters of the U.S." and  are afforded the same level of protection as
other surface waters with regard to standards and  minimum  wastewater treatment requirements.  Water
quality standards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and overuse of natural wetlands for treatment through
adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of State antidegradation policies.  The Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a State adopt waste transport or waste
assimilation as  a designated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'."  Certain activities involving the discharge  of
pollutants to wetlands may be  permitted; however,  as with other surface waters, the State must ensure,
through ambient monitoring, that permitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect wetland functions
and values as defined in State  water quality standards.  For municipal discharges to natural wetlands, a
minimum of secondary treatment is required,  and applicable water quality standards for the wetland and
adjacent waters must be met.   EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater discharges to wetlands will
have some similarities to the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to wetlands.

   Many wetlands,  through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment, also serve an important
water quality control function for nonpoint source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of,
the wetlands.  Section 319 of the CWA  requires the States to complete assessments of nonpoint source
(NFS) impacts to State waters,  including wetlands, and to prepare management programs to control NFS
impacts. Water quality standards for wetlands can form the basis for these assessments and management
programs for wetlands.

   In addition, States  can address physical and hydrologica!  impacts on wetland quality through the applica-
tion of narrative criteria to protect existing uses and through application of their antidegradation policies.
The States should provide a  linkage in  their water quality standards to the  determination  of "significant
degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws affecting
the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands.

   Finally, water quality  management  activities, including  the permitting  of  wastewater  and stormwater
discharges, the assessment and control of NFS pollution,  and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge,
CERCLA, RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to ensure that the designated  and existing uses of "waters  of
the U.S." are maintained and protected.  The inclusion of wetlands in water quality standards provides the
basis for conducting both wetland-specific and status and trend  monitoring of State wetland resources.
Monitoring of activities impacting specific wetlands may  include several approaches, including  biological
measurements  (i.e., plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish), that have shown promise for  monitoring stream
quality.  The States are encouraged to develop and test the use of biological indicators.

  Future Directions
   Development of  narrative biological  criteria are included  in the  first phase of the development of water
quality standards for wetlands. The second phase involves the implementation of numeric biological criteria.
This effort requires the detailed evaluation of the  components of wetland communities to  determine the
structure and function of  unimpaired wetlands. Wetlands are  important habitats for wildlife species. It  is
therefore also important to consider wildlife in developing criteria  that protect the functions and values of
                                                tx

-------
wetlands.  During the next 3 years, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
water quality criteria to determine whether adjustments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of criteria (e.g.,
tissue concentration criteria) are needed to adequately protect wildlife species using wetland resources.
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards is also  developing guidance for EPA and State surface
water monitoring programs that will be issued by the end of FY 1990.  Other technical guidance and support
for the development of State water quality standards will be forthcoming from EPA in the next triennium.

-------
                                 Chapter l.i
                        Introduction
        Our understanding of the many benefits that
        wetlands provide has evolved rapidly over
        the last 20 to 30 years.  Recently,
programs  have been developed to restore and
protect wetland resources at the local, State, and
Federal levels of government. At the Federal level,
the President of the United States established the
goal of "no net loss" of wetlands, adapted from the
National Wetlands Policy Forum recommendations
(The Conservation Foundation 1988).  Applying
water  quality standards to wetlands is part  of an
overall effort to protect the Nation's wetland resour-
ces and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
programs for managing wetlands to meet this goal.

  As the link between land and water, wetlands play
a vital role in water quality management programs.
Wetlands provide a wide array of functions including
shoreline stabilization, nonpoint source runoff filtra-
tion, and erosion control, which directly benefit ad-
jacent and downstream waters.  In addition, wet-
lands provide important biological habitat, including
nursery areas for aquatic life and wildlife, and other
benefits such as groundwater recharge and recrea-
tion. Wetlands comprise a wide variety of aquatic
vegetated  systems  including, but  not limited to,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, bogs, fens,
vernal pools, and  marshes. The basic elements of
water quality standards (WQS), including  desig-
nated uses, criteria,  and an antidegradation policy,
provide a sound legal basis for protecting wetland
resources through State water quality management
programs.

  Water quality standards  traditionally have been
applied to  waters such  as  rivers, lakes, estuaries,
and oceans, and have been applied tangentially, if at
all,  to wetlands by  applying the same uses and
criteria to wetlands as to adjacent perennial waters.
Isolated wetlands not directly associated with peren-
nial waters generally have  not been addressed in
State water quality standards. A recent review of
State water quality standards (USEPA I989d) shows
that only half of the States specifically refer to wet-
lands, or use similar terminology, in their water
quality standards.  Even where wetlands are refer-

-------
enced, standards may not be tailored to reflect the
unique characteristics of wetlands.

  Water quality standards  specifically tailored to
wetlands provide a consistent basis for the develop-
ment of policies and  technical procedures for
managing activities that impact wetlands.   Such
water  quality standards provide the goals for
Federal and State programs that regulate dischar-
ges to wetlands, particularly those under CWA Sec-
tions 402 and 404 as  well as  other regulatory
programs  (e.g., Sections 307,  318,  and 405) and
nonregulatory  programs  (e.g.,  Sections  314,  319,
and 320).  In addition, standards  play a critical role
in the State 401 certification process by providing
the  basis  for approving, conditioning, or denying
Federal permits and licenses, as appropriate.  Final-
ly, standards provide a benchmark against which to
assess the many activities that impact wetlands.

1.1  Objectives
  The objective of this document is to assist States
in applying their water quality standards regulations
to wetlands in  accordance with the Agency Operat-
ing  Guidance (USEPA 1990a), which  states:

  By September 30,  1993, States and qualified
  Indian Tribes  must  adopt narrative  water
  quality standards  that apply directly to wet-
  lands.  Those Standards shall  be established
  in accordance  with either the National
   Guidance,  Water Quality Standards for Wet-
  lands... or some other scientifically valid
  method. In adopting water quality standards
  for  wetlands, States and qualified  Indian
   Tribes, at a minimum, shall:   (1)  define wet-
  lands as "State  waters"; (2) designate uses
  that protect the structure and function of wet-
  lands;  (3) adopt aesthetic narrative criteria
   (the  "free  froms") and appropriate numeric
  criteria in the standards to protect the desig-
  nated  uses; (4) adopt narrative  biological
   criteria in the standards; and (5) extend the
  antidegradation policy and implementation
  methods to wetlands.  Unless results of a use
  attainability analysis show  that the section
   101 (a)  goals cannot be achieved, States and
   qualified Indian Tribes shall designate uses
   for wetlands that provide for the protection of
   fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation.  When
   extending the antidegradation policy and im-
   plementation methods to wetlands, con-
   sideration should be given to designating
   critical wetlands as Outstanding National
   Resource Waters.  As necessary, the  an-
   tidegradation policy should be revised to
   reflect the unique characteristics of wetlands.

  This level  of achievement is based  upon existing
science and  information, and therefore can be com-
pleted within the FY 91-93 triennial review cycle.

  Initial development of water quality standards for
wetlands over the next 3 years will provide the foun-
dation for the development of more detailed water
quality standards for wetlands in the future based on
further research and policy development (see Chap-
ter 7.O.).  Activities defined in this  guidance are
referred to as "Phase 1  activities," while those to be
developed over the longer term are referred to as
"Phase 2 activities." Developing water quality stand-
ards is an iterative process.

  This guidance is  not regulatory, nor is it designed
to dictate specific approaches needed in State water
quality standards.   The document addresses the
minimum requirements set  out in the Operating
Guidance, and  should  be used as a guide to the
modifications that  may be needed in State stand-
ards. EPA recognizes that State water quality stand-
ards regulations vary greatly from State to State, as
do wetland resources.  This guidance suggests ap-
proaches that States may wish to use and allows for
State flexibility and innovation.

1.2  Organization
  Each chapter of this document provides guidance
on a particular element of Phase 1 wetland water
quality standards that EPA expects States to under-
take during the next triennial review period (i.e., by
September 30, 1993).   For each chapter,  a  discus-
sion of what EPA considers to be minimally accept-
able is followed by subsections providing informa-
tion  that may be used to meet, and go beyond, the
minimum requirements  during Phase 1.  Documents
referenced in this guidance provide further informa-
tion on specific topics and may be obtained from the
sources listed in the "References" section.  The fol-
lowing paragraphs  introduce each of the chapters of
this guidance.

  Most wetlands fall within the definition of "waters
of the U.S." and thus  require water  quality stand-

-------
 ards. EPA expects States by the end of FY 1993 to
 include wetlands in their definition of "State waters"
 consistent with the Federal definition of "waters of
 the U.S."  Guidance on the inclusion of wetlands in
 the definition of "State waters" is contained in Chap-
 ter 2.0.

   The application of water quality standards to wet-
 lands requires that States designate  appropriate
 uses consistent  with Sections  101(a)(2) and
 303(c)(2)  of the Clean Water Act (CWA).  EPA  ex-
 pects States by the end  of  FY 1993 to establish
 designated uses for all wetlands.   Discussion of
 designated uses is contained  in Chapter 3.0.

   The WQS regulation (40 CFR 131) requires States
 to adopt water quality criteria sufficient to protect
 designated uses.  EPA  expects the States, by the
 end  of FY 1993, to adopt aesthetic narrative criteria
 (the "free  froms"), appropriate numeric criteria, and
 narrative biological criteria for wetlands.  Narrative
 criteria are particularly important for wetlands, since
 many activities may impact upon the physical and
 biological, as well as  chemical, components of
 water quality. Chapter 4.0 discusses the application
 of narrative and numeric criteria to wetlands.

   EPA  also expects  States to fully apply an-
 tidegradation policies and  implementation methods
 to wetlands by the  end of FY 1993. Antidegradation
 can  provide a powerful tool  for the protection of
 wetlands,  especially through the requirement for full
 protection of existing uses as well as the States'
 option of  designating  wetlands as outstanding na-
 tional resource waters.  Guidance on the application
 of State antidegradation policies to wetlands is con-
 tained in Chapter 5.0.

   Many State water quality standards  contain
 policies affecting the application and implementa-
 tion  of  water quality standards (e.g., variances,
 mixing zones).   Unless otherwise  specified,  such
 policies are presumed to apply to wetlands in the
 same manner as to other waters of the State. States
 should consider whether such policies should  be
 modified to reflect the  characteristics of wetlands.
 Guidance  on the implementation of water quality
 standards  for wetlands is contained in Chapter 6.0.

  Application of standards to wetlands will  be  an
 iterative process; both EPA and the States will refine
their approach based on new scientific  information
 as well  as experience developed through State
 programs.  Chapter 7.0  outlines Phase 2 wetland
 standards activities for which EPA is planning addi-
 tional research and program development.

 1.3  Legal Authority

   The Clean Water Act requires States to develop
 water quality standards,  which include designated
 uses and criteria to support  those uses, foi
 "navigable waters."  CWA Section 502(7) defines
 "navigable waters" as "waters of the U.S." "Waters oi
 the U.S." are, in turn, defined in Federal regulation;
 developed for the National Pollution Discharge
 Elimination System (40 CFR 122.2) and permits foi
 the discharge of dredged or fill  material (40 CFF
 230.3 and 232.2).  "Waters of the U.S." includf
 waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; inter
 state waters (including interstate  wetlands) and in
 trastate waters  (including wetlands),  the  use
 destruction, or degradation of which  could  affec
 interstate commerce; tributaries of the above;  anc
 wetlands adjacent to the above waters (other thar
 waters which are themselves waters). See Append!;
 B for a complete definition.

   The  term "wetlands"  is  defined in 40 CFR
   232.2(r) as:

   Those areas that are inundated or  saturated
   by surface or ground water at a frequency
   and duration sufficient to support, and that
   under normal  circumstances do support,  a
   prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
   life  in saturated soil conditions.   Wetlands
   generally include swamps,  marshes,  bogs,
   and similar areas.

  This definition of "waters  of the U.S.," which ir
 eludes, most wetlands,  has  been  debated in Cor
 gress and upheld  by the courts. In 1977, a propose
to delete CWA jurisdiction over most  wetlands fc
the purpose of the Section 404 permit program wa
defeated in the Senate. The debate on the amenc
ment shows a strong congressional awareness c
the value of wetlands and the importance of retair
ing them under the statutory scheme.  Variou
courts have also upheld the application of the CW
to wetlands.  See, e.g., United States  v. Riversid
Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985); United State
v.  Byrd,  609  F.2d  1204 (7th Cir.  1979); Avoyelle
Sportsmen's League v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 (51

-------
Cir.  1983); United States v.  Les//e Salt [1990
decision]. The practical effect is to make nearly all
wetlands "waters of the U.S."

  Created  wastewater treatment wetlands1
designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater
treatment systems are generally not considered to
be waters of the U.S.  Water quality standards that
apply to natural wetlands generally do not apply to
such created wastewater treatment wetlands.  Many
created wetlands, however, are designed, built, and
operated to provide, in addition to wastewater treat-
ment, functions and values similar to those provided
by natural wetlands.  Under certain circumstances,
such  created multiple use wetlands may be con-
sidered waters of the U.S. and as such would require
water quality standards. This determination must be
made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
the created wetlands and other appropriate factors.
    Different offices within EPA use different terminology (e.g., "create" or "constructed") to describe
    wastewater treatment wetlands.  This terminology is evolving; for purposes of this guidance
    document,  the terms are interchangeable in meaning.

-------
                          Chapter!.!
    Inclusion  of Wetlands  in
       the Definition  of State
                          Waters
      The first, and most important, step in apply-
      ing water quality standards to wetlands is
      ensuring that wetlands are legally included
in the scope of States' water quality standards
programs.  EPA expects States' water quality stand-
ards to include wetlands in the definition of "State
waters" by the end of FY 1993.  States may ac-
complish this by adopting a regulatory definition of
"State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal
definition of "waters of the U.S." and by adopting an
appropriate definition for "wetlands." For example,
one State includes the following definitions in their
water quality standards:

  "Surface waters  of the State"... means all
  streams,... lakes..., ponds, marshes, wet-
  lands or other waterways...

  "Wetlands" means areas of land where the
  water table is at, near or above the land sur-
  face long enough each year to result in the
  formation of characteristically wet (hydric)
  soil types, and support the growth of water
  dependent (hydrophytic) vegetation. Wet-
  lands include, but are not limited to, marshes,
  swamps, bogs, and other such low-lying
  areas.

  States may also need to remove or modify
regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits
the authority of water quality standards over wet-
lands. \f\ certain  instances, such as when water

-------
quality standards are statutory or where a statute
defines or limits regulatory authority over wetlands,
statutory changes may be needed.

  The CWA does not preclude States from adopt-
ing, under State law, a more expansive definition of
"waters of the State" to meet the goals  of the act.
Additional  areas that could be covered include
riparian  areas, floodplains, vegetated buffer areas,
or any other critical areas identified by the State.
Riparian  areas and floodplains are important and
severely threatened ecosystems,  particularly in the
arid and  semiarid West.  Often it is technically dif-
ficult to separate, jurisdictionally, wetlands subject
to the provisions of the CWA from other areas within
the riparian or floodplain complex.

  States may choose to include riparian  or
floodplain ecosystems as a whole in the definition of
"waters  of the State"  or designate these areas for
special protection in  their water  quality standards
through several mechanisms, including definitions,
use classifications, and  antidegradation.  For ex-
ample, the regulatory definition  of "waters  of the
State" in one State includes:

   ...The flood plain of free flowing waters deter-
   mined by the Department...on the basis of the
   100-year flood frequency.

  In another State, the definition of a use classifica-
tion states:

   This beneficial use is  a  combination of the
   characteristics of the watershed expressed in
   the  water quality and the riparian area.

  And  in a third State, the antidegradation protec-
tion for high-quality waters provides that:

   These  waters  shall  not  be lowered  in
   quality...unless it is determined by the com-
   mission that such lowering will not do any of
   the  following:

     ...[bjecome injurious to  the value or
     utility of riparian lands...

-------
               Use    Classification
        At a minimum, EPA expects States by the
        end of FY 1993 to designate uses for all
        wetlands, and to meet the  same minimum
requirements of the WQS regulation (40 CFR
131.10) that are applied to other waters.  Uses for
wetlands must meet the goals of Section 101 (a) (2)
of the CWA by providing for the  protection  and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for
recreation in and on the water, unless the results of
a use attainability analysis (UAA)  show that the CWA
Section  101(a)(2) goals cannot  be  achieved.  The
Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.10(C))  allows for the designation of sub-
categories  of a use,  an activity that  may be ap-
propriate for wetlands.  Pursuant to the WQS
Regulation  (40 CFR 131.10(i)),  States must  desig-
nate any uses that are presently being attained in
the wetland.  A technical support document is cur-
rently being developed by the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards for conducting use at-
tainability analyses for wetlands.

  The propagation  of aquatic life and wildlife is an
attainable use in virtually all wetlands.  Aquatic life
protection need not refer only to year-round fish and
aquatic life.  Wetlands often  provide valuable
seasonal habitat for fish and other aquatic life, am-
phibians, and  migratory bird  reproduction and
migration.   States  should ensure  that aquatic life
and wildlife uses are designated for wetlands even if
a limited habitat is available or the use is attained
only seasonally.

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

  The WQS regulation requires  a UAA wherever a
State designates a use  that does not include the
uses specified in Section 101(a)(2)  of the CWA; see
40 CFR Part 131.10(j). This need not be an onerous
task for States when deciding whether  certain
recreational uses are  attainable.  States may con-
duct generic UAAs for entire classes or types of

-------
wetlands based on the demonstrations in 40 CFR
Part 131.10(g)(2).   States must, however, designate
CWA goal uses wherever these are attainable, even
where attainment may be seasonal.

  When designating uses for wetlands, States may
choose to use their  existing general and water-
specific classification  systems, or they may set up
an entirely different system for wetlands.  Each of
these  approaches has  advantages and disad-
vantages, as discussed below.

  Some  States stipulate  that wetlands are desig-
nated for the  same uses as the  adjacent waters.
States  may also apply their existing general clas-
sification system to designate uses for specific wet-
lands or groups of wetlands.   The advantage of
these approaches is that they do not require States
to expend additional effort to develop specific wet-
land uses, or determine specific functions and
values, and can be generally used to designate the
CWA goal uses for wetlands.  However, since wet-
land attributes may be  significantly different than
those of  other waters, States with general wetland
use designations will  need to review the uses for
individual wetlands in more detail when assessing
activities that may impair the specific "existing uses"
(e.g., functions and values).  In addition,  the "ad-
jacent" approach does not produce uses  for "iso-
lated" wetlands.

  Owing to these  differences in attributes, States
should strongly consider adopting a separate use
classification system for wetlands based on wetland
type and/or beneficial use (function and value). This
approach initially requires more effort in developing
use categories (and  specific criteria that  may be
needed for them),  as well as in determining what
uses to assign to  specific  wetlands or  groups of
wetlands. The greater the specificity in designating
uses, however, the easier it is for States to justify
regulatory controls to protect those uses.  States
may wish to designate beneficial uses for individual-
ly named wetlands, including outstanding wetlands
(see Section 6.3),  although this approach may be
practical only for a limited number of wetlands.  For
the majority of their wetlands,  States  may wish to
designate generalized uses for groups of wetlands
based on region or wetland type.

  Two basic pieces  of information are  useful in
classifying wetland uses:  (1) the structural types of
wetlands; and  (2) the functions and values as-
sociated with such types of wetlands.  The functions
and values  of wetlands  are  often defined based
upon structural type and  location  within  the
landscape or watershed.  The understanding of the
various wetland types within the State and their
functions and values provides the basis for a com-
prehensive classification  system applicable to all
wetlands and all wetland uses. As with other waters,
both general and waterbody-specific classifications
may be needed to ensure  that uses are appropriate-
ly assigned to all wetlands in the State. Appropriate
and definitive use designations allow water quality
standards to more accurately reflect both the "exist-
ing" uses  and the States' goals for  their  wetland
resources,  and  to allow  standards to  be  a more
powerful tool in protecting State wetlands. Sections
3.1 through  3.3  provide further information on wet-
land types,  functions, and values, and how these
can be used to designate  uses for wetlands.

3.1   Wetland Types
  A detailed understanding of the various  wetland
types within the State provides the basis for a com-
prehensive classification system.  The classification
system most often cited and  used by Federal and
State  wetland permit programs was  developed  by
Cowardin et al. (1979) for the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS); see Figure 1.  This system provides
the basis  for wetland-related activities within  the
FWS.  The Cowardin system is hierarchical and thus
can provide several  levels  of detail  in classifying
wetlands.  The "System" and  "Subsystem" levels of
detail appear to be the most promising for water
quality standards.  The "Class" level  may be useful
for designating uses for specific wetlands or wetland
types. Section 3.3 gives an  example of how one
State  uses the Cowardin system to generate desig-
nated uses for wetlands.

  Under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986, the FWS is required to complete the mapping
of wetlands within the lower 48 States by 1998
through the National  Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and
to assess the status of the nation's wetland resour-
ces every 10 years. The maps and status and trend
reports may help States  understand  the extent of
their wetlands and wetland types and  ensure that all
wetlands are assigned appropriate uses.  To date,
over 30,000 detailed 1:24,000 scale maps have been
completed,  covering approximately  60 percent of

-------
                  System
                                                   Subsystem
               i—Marine-
         s
         x
         A

         I
         a.
         H-
         u
         Q
         Q
         z
         z

         Ed
                                                  -Subtidal-
                                                  - Intertidal •
                 -Estuarine-
                                                  -Subtidal-
                                                   - Intertidal -
— Riverine-
                                                  - Tidal -
                                   -Lower Perennial -
                                   -Upper Perennial -
                                                   -Intermittent •
               —Lacustrine-
                                                   -Limnetic •
                                                   -Littoral-
               — Palustrine -
 Class

-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef

-Aquatic Bed
-Reef
-Rocky Shore
-Unconsolidated Shore

-Rock Bottom
-Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Reef

- Aquatic Bed
-Reef
-Streambed
- Rocky Shore
-Unconsolidated Shore
-Emergent Wetland
- Scrub-Shrub Wetland
- Forested Wetland

- Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
- Aquatic Bed
- Rocky Shore
- Unconsolidated Shore
- Emergent Wetland

-Rock Bottom
- Unconsolidated Bottom
—Aquatic Bed
-Rocky Shore
— Unconsolidated Shore
- Emergent Wetland

- Rock Bottom
— Unconsolidated Bottom
-Aquatic Bed
-Rocky Shore
—Unconsolidated Shore
                                                                                    -Streambed
                                                                      ERock Bottom
                                                                      Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                      Aquatic Bed

                                                                     -Rock Bottom
                                                                     -Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                     -Aquatic Bed
                                                                     -Rocky Shore
                                                                     - Unconsolidated Shore
                                                                     - Emergent Wetland

                                                                     - Rock Bottom
                                                                     -Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                     -Aquatic Bed
                                                                     -Unconsolidated Shore
                                                                     - Moss-Lichen Wetland
                                                                     - Emergent Wetland
                                                                     -Scrub-Shrub Wetland
                                                                     - Forested Wetland
                                  Figure 1. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and
deepwater habitats, showing Systems, Subsystems, and Classes. The Palustrine System does not include deepwater
                                        habitats (from Cowardin et al., 1979).

-------
the coterminous United States and  16 percent  of
Alaska2.

  In some States, wetland maps developed under
the NWI program have been digitized and are avail-
able for use with geographic information systems
(GIS).  To date, more than 5,700 wetland maps rep-
resenting 10.5 percent of the coterminous  United
States have  been  digitized.  Statewide digital
databases have  been developed for New Jersey,
Delaware, Illinois, Maryland,  and  Washington,  and
are in progress in Indiana and Virginia. NWI digital
data files also are available for portions of 20 other
States. NWI data files are sold at cost in 7.5-minute
quadrangle units. The data are provided  on mag-
netic tape in MOSS export, DLG3 optional, ELAS,
and IGES formats3.  Digital wetlands data may ex-
pedite  assigning uses to wetlands for both general
and wetland-specific FIC classifications.

  The  classification  of  wetlands may benefit from
the use of salinity concentrations.  The  Cowardin
classification system uses a salinity criterion of 0.5
ppt ocean-derived salinity to differentiate  between
estuarine and freshwater wetlands.   Differences  in
salinity are reflected in the species composition  of
plants and animals.  The use of salinity in  the clas-
sification of wetlands  may be useful  in restricting
activities that would alter the salinity of a wetland  to
such a degree  that the wetland type would change.
These activities include, for example, the construc-
tion of  dikes to convert a saltwater marsh to a fresh-
water marsh or the dredging of channels that would
deliver saltwater to freshwater wetlands.
3.2  Wetland  Functions and
Values
  Many approaches have been developed for iden-
tifying wetland functions and values.   Wetland-
evaluation techniques developed  prior to 1983 have
been  summarized  by  Lonard and Clairain (1985),
and  EPA   has   summarized  assessment
methodologies developed since 1983 (see Appendix
C).  EPA has also developed guidance on the selec-
tion of a methodology for activities under the Sec-
tion 404 program  entitled Draft  Guidance to  EPA
Regional Offices on the Use  of Advance Identifica-
tion Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (USEPA 1989a). States may develop their
own techniques for assessing the  functions  and
values of their wetlands.

  General wetland functions that directly relate to
the  physical,  chemical, and  biological integrity of
wetlands are listed below. The protection of these
functions through water quality standards also  may
be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to,
or downstream of, wetlands.
     Groundwater Recharge/Discharge
     Flood Flow Alteration
     Sediment Stabilization
     Sediment/Toxic Retention
     Nutrient Removal/Transformation
     Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
     Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
     Recreation
                                                    Methodologies that are flexible with regard to
                                                  data  requirements and  include several levels of
                                                  detail have the greatest potential for application to
                                                  standards.  One such methodology is the Wetland
                                                  Evaluation Technique developed by Adamus, et al.
                                                  (1987) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
    Information on the availability of draft and final maps may be obtained for the coterminous United
    States by calling 1-800-USA-MAPS or 703-860-6045 in Virginia.  In Alaska, the number is
    907-271-4159, and in Hawaii the number is 808-548-2861. Further information on the FWS National
    Wetlands Inventory (NWI) may be obtained from the FWS Regional Coordinators listed in Appendix D.

    For additional information on digital wetland data contact: USFWS; National Wetlands Inventory
    Program, 9720 Executive Center Drive, Monroe Building, Suite 101, St. Petersburg, FL 33702;
    813-893-3624, FTS 826-3624.
                                               10

-------
Department of Transportation. The Wetland Evalua-
tion Technique was designed for conducting an ini-
tial rapid assessment of wetland functions and
values in terms of social significance,  effectiveness,
and opportunity.  Social significance assesses the
value of a wetland to society in terms of its special
designation, potential economic value, and strategic
location. Effectiveness assesses the capability of a
wetland to  perform a function because of its physi-
cal, chemical,  or biological characteristics.  Oppor-
tunity assesses the [opportunity] of  a wetland to
perform a function  to its level of capability.  This
assessment results in "high," "moderate," or "low"
ratings for  11  wetland functions in the context of
social significance,  effectiveness, and opportunity.
This technique also may be useful in identifying out-
standing wetlands for protection under State an-
tidegradation policies; see Section 5.3.

  The FWS maintains a Wetlands Values Database
that also may be useful in identifying  wetland func-
tions and in designating wetland  uses. The data are
keyed to the Cowardin-based wetland codes iden-
tified on the National Wetland Inventory maps. The
database contains scientific literature on wetland
functions and values.  It is computerized and  con-
tains over 18,000 citations,  of which  8,000 are an-
notated.  For further information, contact the NWI
Program (see Section 3.1) or the FWS National Ecol-
ogy Research  Center4.  In addition, State wetland
programs, EPA Regional wetland coordinators, and
FWS Regional wetland coordinators can provide in-
formation on wetland functions and values on  a
State or regional basis; see Appendix D.
3.3  Designating Wetland Uses
  The functions and values of specifically identified
and  named wetlands, including those identified
within the State's water-specific  classification sys-
tem  and  outstanding  national  resource water
(ONRW) category, may  be defined using the Wet-
land  Evaluation Technique or similar methodology.
For the general classification of wetlands, however,
States may choose to evaluate wetland function and
values for  all the wetlands within the State based on
wetland type (using Cowardin (1979); see Figure 1).
One  State applies its general use classifications to
different wetland types based on Cowardin's system
level of detail as illustrated in Figure 2. Note that the
State's uses are based on function, and the designa-
tion approach  links specific wetland functions to a
given wetland  type. The State evaluates wetlands
on a case-by-case basis as individual permit
decisions  arise to ensure that designated uses are
being protected and have reflected existing uses.
    USFWS; Wetlands Values Database, National Ecology Research Center, 4512 McMurray, Ft. Collins,
    CO 80522; 303-226-9407.
                                               11

-------
                                             WETLAND  TYPE  (Cowardin)
BENEFICIAL USE MARINE
Municipal and Domestic Supply
Agricultural Supply
Industrial Process Supply
Groundwater Recharge x
Freshwater Replenishment
Navigation x
Water Contact Recreation x
Non-Contact Water Recreation x
Ocean Commercial and Sport Fishing x
Warm Fresh Water Habitat
Cold Fresh Water Habitat
Preservation of Areas of Special
Biological Significance
Wildlife Habitat x
Preservation of Rare and Endangered x
Species
Marine Habitat x
Fish Migration x
Shellfish Harvesting x
Estuarine Habitat
ESTUARINE
-
x
x
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
RIVERINE
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
.X
-
LACUSTRINE
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
-
-
PALUSTRINE
x
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
-
X.
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
x = existing beneficial use
o = potential beneficial use
                           Figure 2. Example Existing and Potential Uses of Wetlands
                                                  12

-------
  Alternatively, a third method may use the location
of wetlands within the landscape as the  basis for
establishing general functions and values applicable
to all the wetlands within a defined region.  EPA has
developed a guidance entitled Regionalization as a
Tool for Managing  Environmental Resources
(USEPA 1989c).  The  guidance illustrates how
various  regionalization techniques have been used
in water quality management, including the use of
the ecoregions  developed by EPA's Office of Re-
search  and Development, to direct State  water
quality standards and  monitoring programs. These
approaches also may  be useful in the classification
of wetlands.

  EPA's Office of Research and Development is cur-
rently refining a draft document  that will provide
useful information to States related to use classifica-
tion methodologies (Adamus and Brandt - Draft).
There are likely many other approaches for desig-
nating uses for wetlands, and the  States are en-
couraged to develop  comprehensive classification
systems tailored to their wetland resources. As with
other surface waters,  many wetlands are  currently
degraded by natural and anthropogenic activities.
The classification  of  wetlands  should reflect the
potential uses attainable for a  particular wetland,
wetland  type, or class of wetland.
                                               13

-------
                                  Criteria
        The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
        CFR 131.11(a)(1)) requires States to adopt
        criteria  sufficient to protect  designated
uses. These criteria may include general statements
(narrative) and specific numerical values  (i.e., con-
centrations of contaminants and water quality char-
acteristics).  At a minimum, EPA expects States to
apply aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free froms")
and appropriate numeric criteria to wetlands and to
adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands  by
the end of FY 1993. Most State water quality  stand-
ards already contain many criteria for various water
types and designated use classes, including  narra-
tive criteria and numeric criteria to  protect human
health and freshwater and saltwater aquatic life, that
may  be applicable to wetlands.

  In  many cases, it  may be necessary to use a com-
bination of numeric and narrative criteria to ensure
that  wetland functions and values are adequately
protected. Section  4.1 describes the application of
narrative criteria to wetlands and Section 4.2 discus-
ses application of numeric criteria for protection of
human health and aquatic life.
4.1  Narrative Criteria
  Narrative criteria are general statements designed
to protect a specific designated use or set of uses.
They can be statements prohibiting certain actions
or conditions (e.g., "free from  substances that
produce  undesirable or nuisance aquatic life") or
positive statements about what is expected to occur
in the water (e.g., "water quality and aquatic life shall
be as  it  naturally occurs").  Narrative criteria are
used to identify impacts on designated uses and as
a regulatory basis for controlling a variety of impacts
to State waters.   Narrative criteria are particularly
important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts
cannot be fully addressed by numeric criteria. Such
impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals
for which there  are no numeric criteria  in State
standards,  from  nonpoint  sources,  and from ac-
tivities that may affect the physical and/or biological,
rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality
(e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material).  The
Water  Quality Standards Regulation  (40  CFR
131.11(b)) states  that "States should...include narra-

-------
live criteria in their standards where numeric criteria
cannot be established or to supplement numeric
criteria."

  4.1.1  General Narrative Criteria
  Narrative criteria within the water quality  stand-
ards program date back to at least  1968 when five
"free froms" were included in  Water  Quality Criteria
(the Green  Book), (FWPCA 1968).  These "free
froms" have been included as "aesthetic criteria" in
EPA's most recent Section 304(a) criteria summary
document, Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 (USEPA
1987a). The narrative criteria from these documents
state:

   All waters [shall be] free from substances at-
   tributable to wastewater or  other discharge
   that:

  (1)   settle to form objectionable deposits;

  (2)   float as debris, scum,  oil, or other matter to
       form nuisances;

  (3)   produce objectionable color, odor, taste,  or
       turbidity;

  (4)   injure  or are toxic  or produce adverse
       physiological  responses in humans,
       animals or plants; and

  (5)   produce undesirable  or nuisance aquatic
       life.

  The  Water Quality Standards  Handbook (USEPA
1983b) recommends  that States apply narrative
criteria to all waters of the United States. If these  or
similar criteria are already applied to  all State waters
in a State's standards,  the inclusion of wetlands in
the definition of "waters of the State" will apply these
criteria to wetlands.

  4.1.2   Narrative  Biological Criteria
  Narrative biological criteria  are  general  state-
ments of  attainable or attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and water quality for a given use desig-
nation. Narrative biological criteria can take a num-
ber of forms.   As a sixth "free from," the criteria
could read "free from activities that would substan-
tially impair the biological community as it naturally
occurs due to  physical,  chemical, and  hydrologic
changes," or the criteria may contain positive state-
ments  about the  biological community existing or
attainable in wetlands.

  Narrative biological, criteria  should contain at-
tributes that support the goals  of the Clean Water
Act, which provide for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.  Therefore, narra-
tive criteria should include specific language about
community characteristics that  (1) must exist in a
wetland to meet a particular designated aquatic
life/wildlife use, and (2) are quantifiable. Supporting
statements for the criteria should promote water
quality to protect the most natural community as-
sociated with the designated  use.   Mechanisms
should be established  in the standard to address
potentially conflicting  multiple uses. Narratives
should  be written  to protect the most  sensitive
designated use and to support  existing uses under
State antidegradation policies.

  In addition  to other narrative criteria, narrative
biological criteria provide a further basis for manag-
ing a broad range of activities that impact the
biological integrity  of wetlands and  other surface
waters,  particularly  physical and hydrologic
modifications. For instance, hydrologic criteria are
one particularly important but often overlooked
component to include in water quality standards to
help maintain wetlands quality.  Hydrology is the
primary factor influencing the type and location of
wetlands.  Maintaining appropriate hydrologic con-
ditions in wetlands is critical to  the maintenance of
wetland functions and values.  Hydrologic manipula-
tions to wetlands have occurred nationwide in the
form of flow alterations and diversions, disposal of
dredged or fill material, dredging of canals through
wetlands,  and construction of levees or  dikes.
Changes in base  flow or flow regime can severely
alter the plant and animal species composition of a
wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system if the
change is great enough. States  should consider the
establishment of criteria to regulate  hydrologic al-
terations to wetlands.  One State has adopted the
following  language and criteria to  maintain and
protect the natural hydrologic  conditions and values
of wetlands:

   Natural hydrological conditions necessary to
   support the biological and physical charac-
   teristics naturally present in wetlands shall be
   protected to prevent significant adverse im-
   pacts on:
                                                16

-------
  (1)   Water currents,  erosion  or sedimentation
       patterns;

  (2)   Natural water temperature variations;

  (3)   The chemical,  nutrient and  dissolved
       oxygen regime of the wetland;

  (4)   The normal movement of aquatic fauna;

  (5)   The pH of the wetland; and

  (6)   Normal water levels or elevations.

  One source of information  for developing more
quantifiable hydrologic criteria is the Instream Flow
Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
can provide technical guidance on the minimum
flows  necessary to attain various water uses.

  Narrative criteria, in conjunction with antidegrada-
tion policies, can provide the  basis for determining
the impacts of activities (such as hydrologic
modifications) on  designated and existing uses.
EPA has published national guidance on developing
biological criteria  for all surface waters (USEPA
1990b). EPA's Office of Research and Development
also has produced a  literature synthesis of wetland
biomonitoring data on a State-by-State basis, which
is intended to support the development of narrative
biological  criteria (Adamus and Brandt - Draft).

4.2  Numeric Criteria
  Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for
chemical  constituents, physical parameters, or
biological conditions that are adopted  in State
standards. These may be values not to be exceeded
(e.g.,  toxics), values  that must be exceeded (e.g.,
dissolved  oxygen), or a combination of the two
(e.g.,  pH).  As with all criteria, numeric  criteria  are
adopted to protect one  or more designated uses.
Under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA
publishes  numeric national criteria  recommenda-
tions  designed to  protect aquatic organisms  and
human health.   These criteria are summarized in
Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 (USEPA  1987a).
These criteria serve as guidelines from which States
can develop their own numeric criteria,  taking into
account the particular uses designated by the State.
  4.2.1  Numeric Criteria - Human
  Health
  Human health water quality criteria are based on
the toxicity of a contaminant and the amount of the
contaminant consumed through ingestion of water
and fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore,
EPA's chemical-specific human health criteria are
directly applicable to wetlands.  A summary  of EPA
human health  criteria recommendations  is  con-
tained in Quality Criteria for Water - 1986.

  Few wetlands are used  directly for drinking water
supplies. Where drinking water is a designated or
existing use for a  wetland  or for adjacent  waters
affected by the wetland, however, States must pro-
vide criteria sufficient to protect human health based
on water consumption (as well as aquatic life  con-
sumption if appropriate).   When assessing the
potential for water consumption, States should also
evaluate the wetland's groundwater recharge func-
tion to assure protection of drinking water supplies
from that source as well.

  The application of human health criteria, based on
consumption of aquatic life, to wetlands is a function
of the level  of detail in the States' designated uses.
If all wetlands  are  designated  under the State's
general "aquatic life/wildlife" designation, consump-
tion of that aquatic life is assumed to be an included
use and the State's human health criteria based on
consumption of aquatic life  will apply throughout.
However, States that adopt  a  more detailed use
classification system for wetlands (or wish to derive
site-specific human health criteria for wetlands)  may
wish to  selectively apply human health criteria to
those wetlands where consumption of aquatic life is
designated  or likely to occur (note that a UAA will be
required where CWA goal  uses are not designated).
States may also wish to adjust the  exposure as-
sumptions used in deriving  human health criteria.
Where it is  known that exposure to individuals at a
certain site, or within a certain category of wetland,
is likely to be different from the  assumed exposure
underlying the States' criteria, States may wish to
consider  a  reasonable  estimate of the actual ex-
posure and take this estimate into account when
calculating the criteria for the site.

  4.2.2  Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life
  EPA develops chemical-specific numeric criteria
recommendations for the protection  of freshwater
                                               17

-------
and saltwater  aquatic life.  These criteria may be
divided  into two basic categories:  (1) chemicals
that cause toxicity to aquatic life such as  metals,
ammonia,  chlorine,  and organics; and (2) other
water quality  characteristics such as dissolved
oxygen, alkalinity, salinity, pH,  and temperature.
These criteria are currently  applied directly to a
broad range of surface waters in State standards,
including  lakes, impoundments,  ephemeral  and
perennial rivers and streams, estuaries,  the oceans,
and in some instances, wetlands.  A summary of
EPA's aquatic  life criteria recommendations is pub-
lished  in  Quality Criteria for Water -  1986.  The
numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
specifically for wetlands, were designed to be
protective of  aquatic  life and are generally ap-
plicable to most wetland types.

  EPA's aquatic life criteria  are  most often based
upon toxicological testing under  controlled condi-
tions in the laboratory.  The EPA guidelines for the
development of such criteria  (Stephan et al., 1985)
require the testing of plant,  invertebrate, and fish
species.  Generally, these criteria are supported by
toxicity tests on invertebrate and early life stage fish
commonly found  in  many wetlands. Adjustments
based on  natural  conditions,  water chemistry, and
biological community  conditions may  be ap-
propriate  for certain criteria  as  discussed below.
EPA's Office of Research and Development is cur-
rently finalizing a draft document that provides addi-
tional technical guidance on  this topic, including
site-specific adjustments of  criteria (Hagley and
Taylor -Draft).

  As in other  waters, natural water quality  charac-
teristics in some wetlands may be outside the range
established for uses designated in State standards.
These water quality characteristics may require the
development of criteria that reflect the natural back-
ground conditions in a specific wetland or wetland
type.  States routinely set criteria for specific waters
based on  natural conditions.  Examples of some of
the wetland characteristics that may fall into this
category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color,
and hydrogen  sulfide.

  Many of EPA's aquatic life criteria are based on
equations that take into account salinity, pH,
temperature and/or hardness. These may be directly
applied to wetlands in the same way as other water
types with adjustments in the criteria to  reflect these
water quality characteristics. However, two national
criteria that are pH dependent, ammonia and pen-
tachlorophenol, present a different  situation.  The
pH in some wetlands may be outside the pH range
of 6.5-9.0 units for which these criteria were derived.
It is  recommended that States conduct additional.
toxicity testing if they wish to derive criteria for am-
monia and pentachlorophenol  outside the 6.5-9.0
pH range, unless data are already available.

  States may also develop scientifically defensible
site-specific criteria for parameters whose State-
wide values may be inappropriate. Site-specific ad-
justments may be made based on the water quality
and biological conditions in a specific water, or in
waters within a particular region or ecoregion.  EPA
has developed guidance on the site-specific adjust-
ment of the national criteria (USEPA 1983b). These
methods are applicable to wetlands and should be
used  in the  same  manner as States use them for
other waters.  As  defined in the Handbook,  three
procedures may be used to develop site-specific
criteria:   (1) the recalculation procedures, (2) the
indicator species procedures, and (3) the resident
species procedures.   These  procedures may be
used  to develop site-specific numeric criteria for
specific wetlands or wetland types.  The recalcula-
tion procedure is used  to make adjustments based
upon  differences between the  toxicity to resident
organisms and those used to derive national criteria.
The indicator species procedure is used to account
for differences in the bioavailability and/or toxicity of
a contaminant based upon the physical and chemi-
cal  characteristics of site  water.   The  resident
species procedure accounts for differences in both
species sensitivity and water quality  characteristics.
                                                18

-------
                                Chapter  5J
                 Antidegradation
                                                        *£*&.—.*.&&
       The antidegradation policies contained in all
       State standards provide a powerful tool for
       the protection of wetlands and can be used
by States to  regulate point and nonpoint source
discharges to wetlands in the same way as other
surface waters.  In conjunction with beneficial uses
and narrative  criteria, antidegradation can be used
to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully
addressed by chemical criteria,  such as physical
and hydrologic modifications.  The implications of
antidegradation to the disposal of dredged and fill
material are discussed in Section 5.1 below.  At a
minimum, EPA expects States to fully apply their
antidegradation  policies and  implementation
methods to wetlands by the end of FY 1993.  No
changes to State policies are required if they are
fully consistent with the Federal  policy.  With the
inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the State," State
antidegradation  policies and  their  implementation
methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as
other surface  waters.  The WQS regulation
describes the requirements for State antidegrada-
tion policies, which include full protection of existing
uses  (functions and values), maintenance of water
quality in high-quality waters, and a prohibition
against lowering water quality in outstanding nation-
al resource waters. EPA guidance on the implemen-
tation of antidegradation policies is contained in the
Wafer Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b)
and Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation
(USEPA 1985a).

5.1  Protection  of  Existing Uses
  State antidegradation policies should provide for
the protection of existing uses in wetlands and the
level  of water  quality necessary to protect.those
uses in the same manner as for other  surface
waters; see Section 131.12(a) (1) of the WQS regula-
tion.   The existing  use  can  be determined by
demonstrating  that the use or uses have  actually
occurred since November 28,1975, or that the water
quality is suitable to allow the use to be  attained.
This is the basis of EPA's antidegradation policy and
is important in the wetland protection effort. States,
especially those that adopt  less detailed use clas-
sifications for wetlands, will need to use the existing
use protection in their antidegradation policies to
ensure protection of wetland values and functions.
                                          19

-------
  Determination of an  existing aquatic  life and
wildlife use  may require physical, chemical, and
biological  evaluations through a waterbody survey
and assessment.   Waterbody survey and assess-
ment guidance may be found in three volumes en-
titled Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses (USEPA 1983b,  1984a,
1984b).  A technical support manual for conducting
use attainability analyses for wetlands is currently
under development by the Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards.

  In the case of wetland fills, EPA allows a slightly
different interpretation of existing uses under the
antidegradation policy. This interpretation has been
addressed in the answer to question no. 13 in Ques-
tions and Answers on:  Antidegradation  (USEPA
1985a), and is presented  below:

   Since  a  literal interpretation of the an-
   tidegradation policy could result in prevent-
   ing the issuance of any  wetland fill permit
   under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
   it is logical to assume  that Congress intended
   some such permits to be granted within the
   framework of the Act, EPA interprets 40 CFR
   I3l.l2(a)(l) of the antidegradation policy to
   be satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if
   the discharge did  not result in "significant
   degradation" to the aquatic  ecosystem as
   defined under Section 230.10(c) of the Sec-
   tion 404(b)(l) guidelines.   If any wetlands
   were found to have better water quality than
   "fishable/swimmable," the State would be al-
   lowed to lower  water quality to the no sig-
   nificant degradation level as long as the re-
   quirements of Section I3l.12(a)(2) were fol-
   lowed.   As for  the ONRW provision of an-
   tidegradation (131.12(a)(3)),  there  is no dif-
   ference in the way it applies to wetlands and
   other waterbodies.

  The Section 404(b)(1)  Guidelines state  that the
following effects contribute  to significant degrada-
tion, either individually or collectively:

   ...significant adverse  effects on (1) human
   health or welfare, including effects  on
   municipal water supplies,  plankton, fish,
   shellfish,  wildlife, and special aquatic sites
   (e.g.,  wetlands); (2)  on  the life stages  of
   aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on
   aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer,
   concentration or spread of pollutants or their
   byproducts beyond the site through biologi-
   cal, physical, or chemical process; (3) on
   ecosystem diversity,  productivity and
   stability, including loss of fish and wildlife
   habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to
   assimilate nutrients,  purify water or reduce
   wave energy; or (4) on  recreational, aes-
   thetic, and economic values.

  These Guidelines may be used by States to deter-
mine "significant degradation" for wetland fills.  Of
course, the States are free to adopt stricter require-
ments for wetland fills in their own antidegradation
policies, just as they may adopt any other require-
ments more stringent than Federal law requires. For
additional information on the linkage between water
quality standards and the Section 404 program, see
Section 6.2 of this guidance.

5.2  Protection of  High-Quality
Wetlands
  State antidegradation policies should provide for
water quality in "high quality  wetlands" to be main-
tained and protected,  as prescribed in Section
131.12(a)(2)  of the WQS regulation.  State im-
plementation  methods requiring alternatives
analyses, social and economic justifications, point
and nonpoint source control, and  public participa-
tion are to be applied to wetlands in the same man-
ner they are applied to other surface waters.

5.3  Protection of  Outstanding
Wetlands
  Outstanding  national resource  waters  (ONRW)
designations  offer special protection (i.e.,  no
degradation) for designated waters,  including wet-
lands. These are areas of exceptional water qualtty
or recreational/ecological significance.  State an-
tidegradation  policies should  provide special
protection to wetlands  designated as  outstanding
national resource waters in  the same manner as
other surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(3) of the
WQS  regulation and  EPA guidance Water Quality
Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b), and  Ques-
tions  and Answers on: Antidegradation  (USEPA
1985a).  Activities that might trigger a State analysis
of a wetland for possible designation as an ONRW
are no different for wetlands than for other waters.
                                               20

-------
  The following list provides general information on
wetlands that are likely candidates for protection as
ONRWs.  It also may be used to identify specific
wetlands for use designation under the State's wet-
land classification system;  see Chapter 4.0.  Some
of these  information sources  are discussed in
greater detail in EPA's guidance entitled  Wetlands
and Section 401  Certification:  Opportunities and
Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes
(USEPA 1989f); see Section 6.1.

   • Parks, wildlife management  areas, refuges, wild
     and scenic rivers, and estuarine sanctuaries;

   • Wetlands adjacent to ONRWs or other high-quality
     waters (e.g., lakes, estuaries shellfish beds);

   • Priority wetlands identified under the Emergency
     Wetlands  Resources Act  of  1986 through
     Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plans (SORP) and
     Wetland Priority Conservation Plans;

   • Sites within joint venture project areas under the
     North American Waterfowl Management Plan;
   • Sites under the Ramsar (Iran) Treaty on Wetlands
     of International Importance;

   • Biosphere reserve sites identified as part of the
     "Man and the Biosphere" Program sponsored by
     the United Nations;

   • Natural heritage areas and other similar designa-
     tions established by the State or private organiza-
     tions (e.g., Nature Conservancy); and

   • Priority wetlands identified as part of comprehen-
     sive planning efforts conducted at the local, State,
     Regional, or Federal levels of  government; e.g.,
     Advance Identification (ADID) program under Sec-
     tion 404 and Special Area Management Plans
     (SAMPs) under the 1980 Coastal Zone Manage-
     ment Act.

  The  Wetland Evaluation Technique; Volume II:
Methodology (Adamus et al., 1987) provides addi-
tional guidance on the identification of wetlands with
high ecological and social value; see Section 3.2.
                                                 21

-------
                  Implementation
     Implementing water quality standards for wet-
     lands will require a coordinated effort between
     related Federal and State  agencies and
programs.  In addition to the Section 401 certifica-
tion for Federal  permits and licenses,  standards
have  other potential applications for  State
programs, including landfill siting, fish and wildlife
management and aquisition decisions, and best
management practices to control nonpoint source
pollution.  Many coastal States have wetland permit
programs,  coastal zone management programs,
and National Estuary Programs; and the develop-
ment of water quality standards should utilize data,
information and expertise from these programs. For
all States,  information and expertise is available
nationwide from EPA and the Corps of Engineers as
part of the Federal 404 permit  program.  State
wildlife and fisheries departments can also provide
data, advice, and expertise related to  wetlands.
Finally, the FWS  can provide information on wet-
lands as part of  the National Wetlands Inventory
program, the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Pro-
gram, the Endangered Species and Habitat Conser-
vation Program,  the  North American Waterfowl
Management Program and the National Wildlife
Refuge program. EPA and FWS wetland program
contacts are included in Appendix D.

  This section provides information on certain ele-
ments of standards (e.g., mixing zones) and the
relationship between wetland standards and other
water-related activities and programs (e.g., monitor-
ing and CWA Sections 401, 402, 404, and 319). As
information is developed by EPA and the States,
EPA will periodically transfer it nationwide through
workshops and program summaries.   EPA's Office
of Water Regulations and Standards has developed
an outreach program for providing this information.

6.1  Section 401 Certification

  Many States have  begun to make  more use of
CWA Section 401  certification to  manage certain
activities that impact their wetland resources.  Sec-
tion 401 gives the States the authority to  grant,
deny, or condition certification of Federal permits or
licenses (e.g., CWA Section 404 permits issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy
                                          23

-------
Regulatory Commission licenses, some Rivers and
Harbors Act Sections 9 and  10  permits, and  CWA
Section 402 permits where issued by EPA) that may
result in a discharge to "waters  of the U.S."  Such
action  is taken by the State to ensure compliance
with  various provisions of the CWA.  Violation of
water quality standards is often the basis for denials
or conditioning through Section 401 certification. In
the  absence of wetland-specific standards, States
have based decisions on their general  narrative
criteria and antidegradation policies. The Office of
Wetlands Protection has developed a handbook for
States  entitled Wetlands and 401 Certification: Op-
portunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
Indian  Tribes (USEPA 1989g) on the use of Section
401 certification to protect wetlands.  This docu-
ment provides  several examples wherein States
have applied their water quality standards  to wet-
lands; one example is included in Appendix E.

  The  development of explicit water quality stand-
ards for wetlands, including wetlands in the defini-
tion of "State  waters,"  uses, criteria, and an-
tidegradation policies, can provide a  strong and
consistent basis for State 401  certifications.

6.2  Discharges to Wetlands
  The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a State adopt
waste  transport  or waste assimilation as a desig-
nated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'." This prohibi-
tion extends to wetlands, since they are included in
the definition of "waters of the U.S."  Certain ac-
tivities involving the discharge of pollutants to wet-
lands may be permitted,  as with other water types,
providing a  determination  is  made that the desig-
nated  and  existing uses of the wetlands and
downstream  waters will  be maintained and
protected.  As with other surface waters, the  State
must ensure, through ambient monitoring, that per-
mitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect
wetland functions and values as  defined in  State
water quality standards; see Section 6.4.

  Created wastewater treatment wetlands that are
not impounded from waters of the United States and
are designed, built, and  operated solely as was-
tewater treatment systems, are a special case, and
are not generally considered "waters of the  U.S."
Some such created wetlands, however, also provide
other functions and values similar to those provided
by natural wetlands.  Under certain circumstances,
such created, multiple use wetlands may be con-
sidered "waters of the U.S.," and as such, would be
subject to the same protection and restrictions on
use as natural wetlands (see Report on the Use of
Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal (USEPA 1987b)). This determination must'
be made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
the created wetland.

  6.2.1  Municipal Wastewater Treat-
  ment
  State standards should be consistent with the
document developed by the Office of Municipal Pol-
lution Control entitled Report on the Use of Wet-
lands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
posal (USEPA 1987b), on the use of wetlands for
municipal wastewater treatment.  This document
outlines minimum treatment and other requirements
under the CWA for discharges to natural wetlands
and those specifically created and used for the pur-
pose of wastewater treatment.

  The following is a brief summary of the above-ref-
erenced  document.  For municipal discharges to
natural wetlands, a minimum of secondary treat-
ment is required, and applicable water quality stand-
ards for the wetland and  adjacent waters must be
met. Natural wetlands are nearly always "waters of
the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protec-
tion as other surface waters with regard to  stand-
ards and  minimum treatment requirements. There
are no minimum  treatment  requirements for  wet-
lands created solely for the  purpose of wastewater
treatment that do not qualify  as "waters of the U.S."
The discharge from the created wetlands that do not
qualify as "waters of the U.S." must meet applicable
standards for the receiving water.  EPA encourages
the expansion of wetland resources through the
creation of engineered wetlands while allowing the
use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment
only under limited conditions. Water quality stand-
ards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and over-
use of natural wetlands for treatment through adop-
tion of proper uses and criteria and application of
State antidegradation policies.

   6.2.2  Stormwater Treatment
   Stormwater discharges to wetlands  can provide
an important component of the freshwater supply to
wetlands.  However, Stormwater  discharges from
                                               24

-------
various land use activities can also contain a sig-
nificant amount of pollutants.  Section 402(p)(2) of
the Clean Water Act requires that EPA, or States
with authorized National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System  (NPDES) programs, issue
NPDES permits for certain types of stormwater dis-
charges.  EPA is  in  the process of developing
regulations defining the scope of this program as
well  as developing  permits for these discharges.
Stormwater permits can be used to require controls
that reduce the pollutants discharged to wetlands as
well as other waters of the United States.  In addi-
tion, some of the stormwater management controls
anticipated in permits will require creation of wet-
lands or structures with some of the attributes of
wetlands for the single purpose of water treatment.

  EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater dis-
charges to wetlands will  have some similarities to
the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to
wetlands.  Natural wetlands  are "waters  of the
United States" and are afforded a level of protection
with regard to water quality standards and technol-
ogy-based treatment requirements. The discharge
from created wetlands must meet applicable water
quality standards for the receiving waters.  EPA will
issue technical guidance  on permitting stormwater
discharges,  including permitting  stormwater dis-
charges to wetlands, over the next few years.

  6.2.3 Fills
  Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of
dredged  and fill  material into "waters of the U.S."
The Corps of Engineers' regulations for the 404 pro-
gram are contained in  33 CFR Parts 320-330, while
EPA's regulations for the 404 program are contained
in 40 CFR Part 230-33.

  One State uses the following guidelines for fills in
their internal  Section 401 review guidelines:

  (a)   if the project is not water dependent, cer-
       tification is denied;

  (b)   if the project is water dependent, certifica-
       tion is denied if there is a viable alternative
       (e.g., available  upland nearby is a viable
       alternative);

  (c)   if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to
       wetland cannot be  made acceptable
       through  conditions on certification (e.g.,
       fish movement criteria, creation of flood-
       ways to bypass oxbows,  flow through
       criteria), certification is denied.

  Some  modification of this may be incorporated
into States' water quality standards.  The States.are
encouraged to provide  a  linkage  in their water
quality standards to the determination of "significant
degradation" as required  under EPA guidelines (40
CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws af-
fecting the disposal of dredged or fill materials  in
wetlands; see Section 5.1.

  6.2.4  Nonpoint Source Assessment
  and Control
  Wetlands, as with other waters, are impacted by
nonpoint sources of  pollution.   Many wetlands,
through their assimilative  capacity for nutrients and
sediment, also can serve an important water quality
control function  for nonpoint source pollution ef-
fects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of, the
wetlands. Water quality  standards  play a pivotal
role in both of the above. First, Section 319 of the
CWA requires the States  to complete assessments
of nonpoint source (NPS) impacts to State waters,
including wetlands, and  to prepare  management
programs to control NPS impacts.  Water quality
standards for wetlands can form the basis for these
assessments and management programs for  wet-
lands.  Second, water quality standards require-
ments for other surface waters such as rivers, lakes,
and estuaries can provide an impetus for States to
protect,  enhance, and restore wetlands to help
achieve nonpoint source  control  and water quality
standards objectives for adjacent and downstream
waters. The Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
ards and the Office of Wetlands Protection  have
developed guidance on the coordination of wetland
and NPS control programs entitled National
Guidance - Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control
Programs (USEPA 1990c).

6.3  Monitoring
  Water  quality management  activities,  including
the permitting  of wastewater  and stormwater dis-
charges,  the assessment and control of NPS pollu-
tion, and  waste disposal activities (sewage sludge,
CERCLA,  RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to en-
sure that the designated  and existing  uses of
"waters of the U.S." are maintained and protected.
In addition,  Section 305(b) of the CWA requires
                                              25

-------
States to report on the overall status of their waters
in attaining water quality standards.  The inclusion
of wetlands in water quality standards provides the
basis for conducting both  wetland-specific and
status and trend monitoring of State wetland resour-
ces.  Information gathered from the 305(b) reports
may also be used to update and refine the desig-
nated wetland uses. The monitoring of wetlands is
made difficult by limitations in State resources.
Where regulated activities impact wetlands or other
surface waters, States should provide regulatory in-
centives and negotiate monitoring responsibilities of
the party conducting the regulated activity.

  Monitoring of activities  impacting specific wet-
lands may include several approaches. Monitoring
methods involving biological measurements, such
as plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish (e.g., biomass
and  diversity indices), have shown  promise  for
monitoring stream quality (Plafkin et al.,  1989).
These types of indicators have not been  widely
tested for wetlands; see Section 7.1. However, the
State of Florida  has developed biological criteria as
part  of their regulations governing the discharge of
municipal wastewater to wetlands5. The States are
encouraged to develop and test the use of biological
indicators.  Other more traditional methods current-
ly applied to other surface waters, including but not
limited to the use of water quality criteria, sediment
quality criteria, and whole effluent toxicity, are also
available for conducting monitoring of specific wet-
lands.

  Discharges involving persistent or bioaccumula-
tive contaminants may necessitate the monitoring of
the fate  of such  contaminants through wetlands and
their impacts on aquatic life and wildlife.  The  ex-
posure of birds and mammals to these contaminants
is accentuated by the frequent use of  wetlands by
wildlife  and the  concentration of contaminants in
wetlands through sedimentation and other proces-
ses.  States should  conduct monitoring  of these
contaminants in wetlands, and may require such
monitoring as part of regulatory activities involving
these contaminants.
  Status and trend monitoring  of  the wetland
resources overall may require additional ap-
proaches; see Section 3.1.  Given current gaps in
scientific knowledge concerning indicators of wet-
land quality, monitoring  of wetlands over the next
few years may focus on the spatial extent (i.e., quan-
tity) and physical structure (e.g., plant types, diver-
sity, and distribution) of wetland  resources.  The
tracking of wetland acreage and plant communities
using aerial  photography can  provide information
that can augment the data collected on specific ac-
tivities impacting wetlands, as discussed above.

  EPA has developed guidance on the reporting of
wetland conditions for the Section 305(b) program
entitled Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990
State Water  Quality Assessment 305(b) Report
(USEPA 1989b).  When assessing individual specific
wetlands, assessment information should  be
managed in an automated data system compatible
with the Section 305(b) Waterbody System. In addi-
tion, the NWI program  provides technical proce-
dures and protocols for tracking the spatial extent of
wetlands for the United States and subregions of the
United  States.   These sources  provide the
framework for reporting on the  status  and trends of
State wetland resources.

6.4  Mixing  Zones and Variances
  The guidance on mixing zones  in  the Wafer
Quality Standards  Handbook  (USEPA I983b) and
the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control (TSD) (USEPA  1985b) apply
to all surface waters, including wetlands.  This in-
cludes the point of application of acute and chronic
criteria.  As with other surface waters,  mixing zones
may be granted only when water is  present, and
may be developed specifically for different water
types.  Just as mixing zone procedures are often
different for different water types and flow regimes
(e.g., free flowing streams versus lakes and  es-
tuaries), separate procedures also may be
developed specifically for wetlands.  Such proce-
dures should meet the  requirements contained in
the TSD.
    Florida Department of Environmental Regulations; State Regulations Part I, "Domestic Wastewater
    Facilities," Subpart C, "Design/Performance Considerations," 17-6.055, "Wetlands Applications."
                                               26

-------
  As in other State waters, variances may be
granted to discharges to wetlands.  Variances must
meet one  or more of the six requirements for the
removal of a designated use (40CFR Part I3l.l0(g))
and must fully protect any existing  uses of the wet-
land.
                                              27

-------
                                Chapter 7.
                Future  Directions
        EPA's Office of Water Regulations and
        Standards' planning document  Wafer
        Quality Standards Framework (USERA -
Draft 1989e), identifies the major objectives for the
program and the activities necessary to meet these
objectives. Activities related to the development of
water quality standards for wetlands are separated
into  two phases:   (1) Phase  1  activities to be
developed by the States  by the end of FY  1993,
discussed above; and (2) Phase 2 activities that will
require additional  research and program develop-
ment, which are discussed below.

7.1  Numeric Biological Criteria
for Wetlands

  Development of narrative biological criteria is in-
cluded in the first phase of the development of water
quality standards for wetlands;  see Section 5.1.2.
The second phase involves the implementation of
numeric  biological criteria.  This effort requires the
detailed  evaluation of the components of  wetland
communities to determine the structure and function
of unimpaired wetlands. These measures serve as
reference conditions for evaluating the integrity of
other wetlands.  Regulatory activities involving dis-
charges to wetlands (e.g., CWA Sections 402 and
404) can provide monitoring data to augment data
collected by the States for the development of
numeric biological criteria; see Section 7.4.  The
development of numeric biological criteria for wet-
lands will require additional research and field test-
ing over the next several years.

  Biological criteria are based on local and regional
biotic characteristics.  This is in contrast to the na-
tionally based chemical-specific aquatic life criteria
developed by EPA under controlled laboratory con-
ditions. The States will have primary responsibility
for developing and implementing biological criteria
for their surface waters, including wetlands, to
reflect local and regional differences in resident
biological communities.  EPA will work closely with
the States and  the EPA Office of Research and
Development to develop and test numeric biological
criteria for wetlands.  Updates on this work will be
provided through the Office of Water Regulations
                                          29

-------
and Standards,  Criteria and  Standards Division's
regular newsletter.

7.2  Wildlife Criteria
  Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife
species. It is therefore important to consider wildlife
in developing criteria that protect the functions and
values of wetlands.  Existing chemical-specific
aquatic life criteria are derived by testing selected
aquatic organisms by exposing  them to  con-
taminants in water.  Although considered to  be
protective of aquatic life, these criteria often do not
account  for the bioaccumulation  of these  con-
taminants, which may cause a major impact  on
wildlife using wetland resources.  Except for criteria
for PCB, DDT, selenium, and mercury, wildlife  have
not been  included during  the development of the
national aquatic life criteria.

  During  the  next  3 years,  the Office  of Water
Regulations and  Standards is  reviewing aquatic life
water quality criteria to determine whether adjust-
ments in  the  criteria and/or alternative  forms of
criteria (e.g., tissue concentration criteria) are
needed to adequately protect  wildlife species using
wetland resources.   Since wetlands may  not  have
open  surface waters during all or parts of the  year,
alternative tissue  based  criteria based on  con-
taminant concentrations in wildlife species and their
food  sources  may  become important criteria for
evaluating contaminant impacts  in  wetlands, par-
ticularly  those  that  bioaccumulate.  Based  on
evaluations of current criteria and wildlife at risk in
wetlands,  national criteria may be developed.

7.3  Wetlands  Monitoring
  EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards
is developing  guidance  for EPA  and State  surface
water monitoring programs that will be issued by the
end of FY 1990. This guidance  will (1) encourage
States to use monitoring data in a variety of program
areas to support water quality  management
decisions; and (2) provide examples of innovative
monitoring  techniques through  the use of  case
studies. The uses of data pertinent to wetlands that
will be discussed include the following:

   •  refining use classification systems by developing
      physical,  chemical, and biological water quality
      criteria, goals, and standards that account  for
      regional variation in attainable conditions;
   • identifying high-quality waters deserving special
     protection;

   • using remote-sensing data;

   • using integrated assessments to detect subtle.
     ecological impacts; and

   • identifying significant nonpoint sources of pollu-
     tion that will prevent attainment of uses.

  One or more case studies will address efforts to
quantify the extent of a State's wetlands and to iden-
tify sensitive wetlands through their advance iden-
tification (USEPA 1989a).
                                                30

-------
  References
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E.
      Young.  1987.  Wetland  Evaluation Techni-
      que (WET); Volume II: Methodology. Opera-
      tional Draft Technical Report Y-87; U.S. Army
      Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
      Vicksburg, MS. (Source #11)

Adamus, P.R. and K. Brandt.  Draft.  Impacts  on
      Quality  of  Inland Wetlands of the United
      States:  A Survey of Techniques, Indicators,
      and  Applications of Community-level
      Biomonitoring Data. USEPA Environmental
      Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. (Source
      #8)

The Conservation Foundation.  1988.  Protecting
      America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The
      Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy
      Forum. Washington, DC. (Source #10)

Cowardin, L.M.,  V.  Carter,  F.C.  Golet, and E.T.
      LaRoe. 1979.  Classification of Wetlands and
      Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S.
      Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
      FWS/OBS-79/31. (Source #6a)

Federal  Water Pollution Control Administration.
      1968.  Water Quality Criteria  (the Green
      Book), Report of the National Technical Ad-
      visory Committee to the Secretary of the Inte-
      rior.  U.S. Department of the Interior,
      Washington, DC. (out of print).

Hagley,  C.A.  and D.L. Taylor.  Draft. An Approach
      for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria
      for Wetlands Protection.  USEPA  Environ-
      mental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
      (Source #12)

Lonard,  R.I. and E.J. Clairain. 1986. Identification
      of Methodologies for the Assessment of Wet-
      land Functions and Values, Proceeding of the
      National Wetland Assessment Symposium,
      Association of Wetland Managers, Berne,
      NY. pp. 66-72. (Source #1)

Plafkin,  J.L, M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross,
      and R.M. Hughes.  1989. Rapid Bioassess-
      ment  Protocols for Use  in Streams and
      Rivers, USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
      and Standards. EPA/444/4-89/001.  (Source
      #2)

 Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile,
      G.A. Chapman,  and W.A. Brungs.   1985.
      Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
      Water  Quality  Criteria for the Protection of
      Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.  USEPA,
      Office of Research and Development, Duluth,
      MN. NTIS# PB-85-227049. (Source #3)

 U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.  1983a.
      Technical  Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
      veys and  Assessments for Conducting Use
      Attainability Analyses.  Office of Water
      Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
      (Source #4)

  	. I983b. Water Quality Standards Hand-
 book. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
 Washington, DC.  (Source #4)

  	.  1984a.  Technical Support Manual:
 Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
 ing Use Attainability Analyses. Vol II. Estuarine Sys-
 tems. Office  of Water Regulations and Standards,
 Washington, DC.  (Source #4)

  	.  1984b.  Technical Support Manual:
 Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
 ing Use Attainability Analyses.  Vol III.  Lake Sys-
 tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
 Washington, DC.  (Source #4)

  	.  1985a.  Questions and Answers on: An-
 tidegradation.  Office of Water Regulations and
 Standards, Washington, DC.  (Source #4)

  	.  1985b.  Technical Support Document
 for  Water Quality-based Toxics  Control. Office  of
 Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.
 (Source #5)

  	.  1987a. Quality Criteria for Water - 1986.
 Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
 Washington, DC.  EPA 440/5-86-001. (Source #6b)

  	.  I987b. Report on the Use of Wetlands
for  Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal.
Office of  Municipal Pollution Control, Washington,
DC.  (with Attachment D, September  20, 1988).
 EPA 430/09-88-005. (Source #9)
                                             31

-------
  	.  1989a. Guidance to EPA Regional Of-
fices on the  Use of Advanced Identification
Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.   Office  of Wetlands Protection, Washington,
DC. (Source #1)

  	.  1989b. Guidelines for the Preparation
of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report).  Office  of Water Regulations and  Stand-
ards, Washington, DC. (Source #2)

  	.   1989C.  Regionalization as a Tool for
Managing Environmental Resources.  Office of Re-
search and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-
89/060. (Source #8)

  	.  1989d.  Survey of State Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands.  Office of Wetlands Protec-
tion, Washington, D.C. (Source #1)

  	.  1989e.  Water Quality  Standards
Framework (draft). Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #4)

  	.  1989f. Wetland Creation and Restora-
tion: The Status of the Science.  Office of Research
and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA 600/3-89/038a
and EPA 600/3-89/038b. (Source #8)

  	.  1989g. Wetlands and 401 Certification:
Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
Indian Tribes.  Office of Wetlands Protection,
Washington, DC. (Source #1)

  	.   1990s.  Agency Operating Guidance,
FY 1991: Office of Water.  Office of the  Ad-
ministrator, Washington, DC. (Source #7)

  	.  1990b. Biological Criteria, National Pro-
gram Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards,  Washington,  DC.
EPA 440/5-90-004. (Source #4)
  	.   1990c.   National  Guidance, Wetlands
and Nonpoint Source Control  Programs.  Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
(Source #2)
Sources of Documents
     1    USEPA, Office of Wetlands Protection
         Wetlands Strategies and State
         Programs Division
         401 MSt., S.W. (A-104F)
         Washington, DC 20460
         (202) 382-5048

     2    USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
         and Standards
         Assessment and Watershed Protec-
         tion Division
         401 M St., S.W. (WH-553)
         Washington, DC 20460
         (202) 382-7040

     3    National Technical Information Ser-
         vice (NTIS)
         5285 Front  Royal Road
         Springfield, VA 22116
         (703) 487-4650

     4    USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
         and Standards
         Criteria and Standards Division
         401 M St., S.W. (WH-585)
         Washington, DC 20460
         (202) 475-7315

     5    Out of print. A revised Technical Sup-
         port Document for Water Quality-
         based Toxics Control will be available
         October 1990 from:
           Office of Water Enforcement and
           Permits
           Permits Division
           401 M St., S.W. (EN-336)
           Washington, DC 20460

     6    U.S. Government Printing Office
         North Capitol St., N.W.
         Washington, DC 20401
         (202) 783-3238
         a  Order No. 024-010-00524-6
         b  Order No. 955-002-0000-8
                                              32

-------
7    USEPA, Water Policy Office
     401 M St., S.W. (WH-556)
     Washington, DC 20460
     (202) 382-5818

8    USEPA, Office of Research and
     Development
     Environmental Research Laboratory
     200 SW 35th St.
     Corvallis, OR 97333
     (503) 420-4666

9    USEPA, Office of Municipal Pollution
     Control
     401 M St., S.W. (WH-546)
     Washington, DC 20460
     (202) 382-5850
10  The Conservation Foundation
    1250 Twenty-Fourth St., N.W.
    Washington, DC 20037
    (202) 293-4800

11  U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
    Wetlands Research Program
    (601) 634-3774

12  USEPA, Office of Research and
    Development
    Environmental Research Laboratory
    Duluth, MN 55804
    (218) 780-5549
                                       33

-------
                                 Appendix   A
                                Glossary
  Ambient Monitoring - Monitoring within natural
systems (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to
determine existing conditions.

  Created Wetland - A wetland at a site where it did
not formerly occur.  Created wetlands are designed
to meet a variety of human benefits including,  but
not limited to, the treatment  of water pollution dis-
charges (e.g.,  municipal wastewater, stormwater)
and the mitigation of wetland losses permitted  under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.  This term  en-
compasses the term "constructed wetland" as used
in other EPA guidance and documents.

  Enhancement  - An activity increasing one  or
more natural or artificial wetland  functions. For ex-
ample, the removal  of a point source discharge  im-
pacting a wetland.

  Functions - The roles  that  wetlands serve, which
are of value to society or the environment.

  Habitat - The  environment  occupied by  in-
dividuals of a particular species, population, or com-
munity.

  Hydrology - The science dealing with the proper-
ties, distribution,  and circulation of water both on
the surface and under the earth.
  Restoration  - An activity returning a wetland from
a disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage
or functions  to a  previous condition with greater
wetland acreage or functions. For example, restora-
tion might involve the plugging of a drainage ditch to
restore the hydrology to an area that was a wetland
before the installation of the drainage ditch.

  Riparian - Areas next  to or  substantially in-
fluenced  by water. These  may include areas  ad-
jacent to rivers, lakes, or  estuaries.  These  areas
often include wetlands.

  Upland - Any area that does not qualify as wet-
land  because the  associated hydrologic regime is
not sufficiently  wet to elicit development of vegeta-
tion, soils and/or hydrologic  characteristics  as-
sociated with  wetlands, or is defined  as  open
waters.

  Waters of the U.S. - See Appendix B for Federal
definition; 40 CFR Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2.

  Wetlands - Those areas that  are inundated  or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a  prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions.   Wetlands  generally  include  swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.  See Federal
definition contained in  Federal regulations:  40 CFR
Parts 122.2, 230.3,  and 232.2.
                                            A-l

-------
                                                         B
  The Federal definition of "waters of the United
States" (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)) is:

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

  (2)   All interstate waters including interstate wet-
       lands;

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

       (i)   Which are or could  be used by inter-
            state or  foreign travelers for recrea-
            tional or other  purposes; or
       (ii)   From which fish or shellfish could  be
            taken and  sold in interstate or
            foreign commerce;
       (Hi)  Which are used or could be used for
            industrial purposes  by industries in in-
            terstate commerce;*

  (4)   All impoundments of waters  otherwise
       defined as waters of the United States under
       this definition;
(5)   Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs
     1-4;

(6)   The territorial sea; and

(7)   Wetlands adjacent to waters  (other than
     waters that are themselves wetlands) iden-
     tified in  1-6; waste treatment systems, in-
     cluding  treatment ponds  or lagoons
     designed to meet the requirements of CWA
     (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40
     CFR 423.11(m) which also meet criteria in
     this definition) are not waters of the United
     States.

     (*Note:  EPA has clarified that waters of the
     U.S. under the commerce connection in (3)
     above also include, for example, waters:
         Which are or would be used as
         habitat by birds protected  by
         Migratory Bird Treaties or migratory
         birds which cross State lines;
         Which are or would be used as
         habitat for endangered species;
         Used to irrigate crops sold in inter-
         state commerce.)
                                              B-l

-------
            Information  on  the
       Assessment  of Wetland
        Functions and  Values
  Summary of Methodologies Prior to 1983
(Lonard and Clairain 1986)

  Introduction
  Since 1972, a wide variety of wetlands evaluation
methodologies have been developed by Federal or
State agencies, private consulting firms, and the
academic community.  These evaluation methods
have been developed  to ascertain all or selected
wetland functions and values that include habitat;
hydrology, including water quality recreation;
agriculture/silviculture; and heritage functions.

  Publications by the U.S. Water Resources Council
(Lonard et at., 1981) and the U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (Lonard et al., 1984)
documented and summarized pre-1981  wetland
evaluation methods. The two documents include a
critical review  of the literature, identification of re-
search needs, and  recommendations  for the im-
provement of wetlands evaluation methodologies.
Methodology analyses include an examination of
wetlands functions; geographic features; personnel
requirements  for implementation, data require-
ments, and products;  field testing; flexibility; and
administrative uses.  Recently, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection  Agency, with technical  assistance
from WAPORA, Inc. (1984) summarized freshwater
wetland evaluation methodologies  related to
primary and cumulative impacts published prior to
1981. The specific objective of this paper is to
present a summary of wetlands evaluation
methodologies identified  from the pre-1981 litera-
ture, and to present an update of methodologies
published since 1981.

  Methods
  In 1981, a U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station (WES) study team evaluated 40 wet-
lands evaluation methodologies according to
several screening criteria, and examined 20 of the
methodologies in detail using a series of descriptive
parameters (Lonard et al., 1981). The criteria and
parameters were developed to ensure consistency
during review and analysis of methodologies. Five
additional methodologies proposed since 1981 have
been analyzed and summarized for this paper using
the same criteria. This does not suggest, however,
that only five methodologies have been devetoped
since 1981.

  Available Wetlands Evaluation Methodologies

  Abstracts of  25   wetlands  evaluation
methodologies that met the WES study team's
criteria include the following:

  1.  Adamus, P.R., and Stockwell, LT. 1983. "A
     Method for Wetland Functional Assessment.
     Volume I.  Critical Review and Evaluation
     Concepts," U.S. Department of Transporta-
                                    C-l

-------
       tion. Federal Highway Administration.  Of-
       fice of Research, Environmental Division.
       Washington, D.C.  20590; and Adamus, P.R.
       1983.  "A Method for Wetland Functional As-
       sessment.   Volume  II.  The Method," U.S.
       Department of Transportation.   Federal
       Highway Administration.  Office of  Re-
       search,     Environmental    Division.
       Washington, D.C.  20590.

  Volume I  of the method  provides a detailed litera-
ture review and discussion  of the rationale of the
method.  The wetland functional assessment or
evaluation methodology presented in Volume II con-
sists of three separate procedures.   Procedure  I,
referred to  as a "Threshold Analysis," provides  a
methodology  for estimating the probability that  a
single wetland is of high, moderate, or low value for
each of 11 wetland functions discussed in detail in
Volume I. This procedure is based  on assessment
of 75  bio-physical wetland features obtained from
office, field, and quantitative studies.  It also incor-
porates consideration  of the social significance of
the wetland as indicated  by public priorities.  The
priorities are determined based on results of a series
of questions that the evaluator must consider.  Pro-
cedure II, designed as a "Comparative  Analysis,"
provides parameters for  estimating whether one
wetland is likely to be more  important than another
for each wetland function, and Procedure II, referred
to as  "Mitigation Analysis," provides an outline for
comparing mitigation  alternatives and their
reasonableness."  The evaluation methodology is
qualitative in its approach.

  2.    Brown, A.,  Kittle,  P., Dale,  E.E.,  and Huf-
       fman,  R.T.   1974.   "Rare and Endangered
       Species, Unique  Ecosystems, and Wet-
       lands," Department of Zoology and Depart-
       ment  of Botany and Bacteriology.  The
       University of Arkansas,  Fayetteville, Arkan-
       sas.

  The  Arkansas Wetlands  Classification System
contains a two-part,  multivariate approach for
evaluating freshwater wetlands for maximum wildlife
production  and diversity.   Initially, Arkansas wet-
lands  were  qualitatively classified as prime or non-
prime wetlands habitats according to use by man. A
numerical value for a  wetland was determined by
calculating  a  subscore, which  was based on  the
multiplication of a  significance coefficient by  a
determined weighted value.  The values for each
variable were summed, and a total wetland  qualita-
tive value was obtained for use by decision makers.

  3.   Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobney, N.,  Duke, K.,
       Whitman, I.,  and Fahringer, D.  1973.  "En-
       vironmental  Evaluation System for Water
       Resources Planning," Water Resources Re-
       search, Vol 9, No. 3, pp 523-534.

  The Environmental Evaluation System (EES) is a
methodology for conducting  environmental impact
analysis.  It was developed by an interdisciplinary
research team, and is based on a hierarchical arran-
gement of environmental quality  indicators, an ar-
rangement that classifies the major areas of environ-
mental concern into  major categories, components,
and ultimately  into parameters and measurements
of environmental quality.  The EES provides for en-
vironmental impact evaluation  in four  major
categories: ecology, environmental pollution,  aes-
thetics, and human interest.  These four categories
are  further broken down into 18 components, and
finally  into 78 parameters.  The  EES provides a
means for measuring or estimating selected en-
vironmental impacts of large-scale water resource
development  projects in commensurate units
termed environmental impact  units (EIU). Results of
using the EES include a total score in EIU "with" and
"without" the proposed project; the difference be-
tween the two scores in one measure of environ-
mental  impact.   Environmental impact  scores
developed in the EES are based on the magnitude of
specific environmental impacts and their relative im-
portance.  Another major output from the EES is an
indication of major adverse impacts  called  "red
flags," which are of concern of and by themselves.
These red flags  indicate "fragile"  elements  of the
environment that must be studied  in more detail.
(Authors' abstract.)

  4.   Euler, D.L, Carreiro, FT., McCullough, G.B.,
       Snell, E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H.
       1983.  "An Evaluation System for  Wetlands
       of Ontario South of the Precambrian Shield,"
       First Edition.  Ontario Ministry of  Natural
       Resources and Canadian Wildlife Service,
       Ontario Region. Variously paged.

  The methodology was developed to evaluate a
wide variety of wetland  functions that include
biological,  social, hydrological,  and special  fea-
                                              C-2

-------
tures.  The procedures includes a rationale of scien-
tific and technical literature for wetlands values, the
evaluation methodology, a step-by-step  procedure
manual,  a wetland  data record, and a wetland
evaluation record.  The procedure was developed to
evaluate and rank a wide variety of inland wetlands
located  in  Ontario,  Canada, south of  the
Precambrian Shield.

  5.   Fried, E. 1974. "Priority Rating of Wetlands
       for Acquisition," Transaction  of the North-
       east Fish and Wildlife  Conference, Vol 31,
       pp 15-30.

  New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act
of 1972 provides $5 million for inland wetland ac-
quisition,  $18 million for tidal  wetlands acquisition,
and $4 million for  wetlands restoration.  A priority
rating  system, with particular  emphasis on inland
wetlands,  was developed to guide these  programs.
The governing equation was: priority rating = (P +
V  + A) x 5, where the priority rating is per  acre
desirability for acquisition, P  is biological produc-
tivity, V is vulnerability, and A  is additional factors.
Both actual and potential conditions could be rated.
The rating system was successfully applied to some
130 inland wetlands.  Using a separate equation,
wetland values were related to costs.   (Authors's
abstract.)

  6.   Galloway, G.E. 1978. "Assessing Man's Im-
       pact on Wetlands," Sea Grant Publications
       Nos.  UNC-SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136,
       University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North
       Carolina.

  The Wetland Evaluation System  (WES) proposed
by  Galloway emphasizes a system  approach to
evaluate man's impact on a wetland ecosystem.  Im-
pacts are  determined and compared for "with" and
"without" project conditions. The advice of an inter-
disciplinary team, as well as the input of local
elected officials and laymen, are included as part of
the WES model.  Parameters that make up a wetland
are assessed at the macro-level, and  the results of
the evaluation are displayed numerically and graphi-
cally with computer assisted techniques.

  7.   Golet, F.C.  1973.  "Classification Evaluation
       of Freshwater Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat in
       the Glaciated  Northeast,"  Transactions of
       the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference,
       Vol 30, pp 257-279.

  A detailed classification system for freshwater
wetlands is presented along with 10 criteria for the
evaluation of wetlands as wildlife habitat.  The
results are based on a 2-year field study of over 150
wetlands located throughout the state of Mas-
sachusetts.  The major components of the clas-
sification system include wetland classes and sub-
classes, based on the dominant life form of vegeta-
tion and surface water depth and permanence; size
categories; topographic  and hydrologic location;
surrounding habitat types; proportions and inter-
spersion of cover and water; and vegetative inter-
spersion.   These components are combined with
wetland juxtaposition  and  water chemistry to
produce criteria for a wetland evaluation.  Using a
system of specification and ranks, wetlands can be
arranged  according to their wildlife value  for
decision-making. (Author's abstract.) "At this point,
the system has  been used  in numerous states on
thousands of wetlands;  recent revisions have
resulted in such use." (F.C. Golet)

  8.   Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H. 1973.  "Valua-
       tion of Visual-Cultural Benefits from  Fresh-
       water Wetlands in Massachusetts," Journal
       of the Northeastern Agricultural Council, Vol
       2, No 1,pp 262-273.

  The authors suggested an alternative to the "will-
ingness to pay" approaches for measuring the social
values of  natural  open  space and recreational
resources.  The method combines an identification
and measurement  of the physical  qualities  of  the
resource by landscape architects.  Measurement
values were expressed in the context of the political
system and current public views.  The procedure is
demonstrated by its application to  freshwater wet-
lands in Massachusetts.

  9.    Kibby, H.V. 1978.  "Effects  of Wetlands on
       Water Quality," Proceedings of the  Sym-
       posium  on Strategies  for Protection and
       Management of Floodplain  Wetlands and
       other Riparian Ecosystems, General Techni-
       cal  Report  No. GTR-WO-12, U.S. Depart-
       ment of Agriculture, Forest Service,
       Washington, D.C.
                                              C-3

-------
  Wetlands potentially have significant effects on
water quality.  Significant amounts of nitrogen are
assimilated during the growing  season and  then
released  in the fall and early spring.  Phosphorus,
while assimilated  by wetlands,  is also released
throughout the year.   Some potential management
tools for  evaluating the effect of wetlands on water
quality are discussed.  (Author's abstract.)

  10.  Larson, J.S. (ed.)  1976.   "Models for As-
       sessment of Freshwater Wetlands," Publica-
       tion No.  32.   Water Resources Research
       Center, University of Massachusetts,  Am-
       herst,  Massachusetts.

  Four submodels for relative and economic evalua-
tion of freshwater wetlands are presented within a
single, 3-phase elimination model. The submodels
treat  wildlife, visual-cultural,  groundwater,  and
economic values.

  The wildlife and visual-cultural models are based
on physical characteristics that, for the most  part,
can  be measured on existing  maps  and aerial
photographs.  Each characteristic is given values by
rank and coefficient.   A relative numerical score is
calculated for the total wetland characteristics and
used to  compare it with  a broad range of north-
eastern wetlands or with wetlands selected  by the
user.  The  groundwater model places wetlands in
classes of  probable groundwater yield, based on
surficial geologic deposits under the wetland.

  The economic submodel suggests  values for
wildlife, visual-cultural aspects, groundwater,  and
flood control.  Wildlife values are derived from the
records of state agency purchases of wetlands with
sportsmen's dollars for wildlife management  pur-
poses. Visual-cultural economic  values are based
on the record of wetland purposes for open space
values by  municipal  conservation commissions.
Groundwater values stem from savings  realized by
selection of a drilled public water supply over a sur-
face water source.  Flood control values are based
on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data on flood  con-
trol values of the  Charles River, Massachusetts,
mainstream wetlands.

  The submodels are  presented  within  the
framework of  an  overall 3-phase eliminative  model.
Phase I identifies outstanding wetlands that  should
be protected  at all costs.  Phase  II  applies the
wildlife, visual-cultural, and groundwater submodels
to those wetlands that do not meet criteria for out-
standing wetlands.  Phase  III  develops the
economic values of the wetlands evaluated in Phase
  The  models are intended to be used by  local,
regional, and state resource planners and wetlands
regulation agencies. (Author's abstract.)

  11.  Marble, A.D.,  and  Gross, M.  1984.   "A
       Method for Assessing Wetland Charac-
       teristics and Values," Landscape Planning,
       Vol 11, pp 1-17.

  The  method presented for assessing wetland
values  identified the relative importance of wetlands
in providing  wildlife habitat, flood control, and im-
provement of surface water quality. All wetlands in
the study area were categorized on the basis of their
landscape position of hilltop,  hillside,  or valley.
Each of the wetland values measured were then re-
lated to the corresponding landscape position
categories. Valley wetlands were found to be most
valuable in all instances. The method provides infor-
mation on wetland  values that can be  simply
gathered and easily assessed,  requiring only avail-
able  data and a minimum of resources. Implemen-
tation of this method on a regional or municipality-
wide basis can provide decision makers with readily
accessible and comparative information on wetland
values.  (Authors' abstract.)

  12.  Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
       1980. "Manual for Wetland Evaluation Tech-
       niques:  Operation Draft," Division of Land
       Resource Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 29
       pp.

  The  Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) Wetland Evaluation Technique is designed
to assist decision makers  on permit applications in-
volving  projects where significant impacts  are an-
ticipated.  The manual describes the criteria to be
used in evaluating any  particular wetland. The tech-
nique provides a means of evaluating the status of
existing wetlands as well as potential project-related
impacts on wetland structure and aerial extent.  One
part  of  the technique  requires examination of six
basic features of wetlands, including: (1) hydrologic
functions; (2)  soil characteristics;  (3) wildlife
habitat/use evaluation; (4) fisheries habitat/use; (5)
                                              C-4

-------
nutrient removal/recycling functions; (6) removal of
suspended sediments.  A second  part  of  the
analysis includes consideration  of public interest
concerns.  This method also  includes brief con-
sideration of cumulative, cultural/historic,  and
economic impacts.

  13.  Reppert,  R.T.,  Sigleo,  W.,  Stakhiv,  E.,
       Messman, L, and Meyers, C.   1979. "Wet-
       land Values:  Concepts  and Methods for
       Wetlands Evaluation," IWR Research Report
       79-R-1, U.S. Army Engineer  Institute for
       Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

  The  evaluation of wetlands  is based on  the
analysis of their physical, biological, and human  use
characteristics. The report discusses these func-
tional characteristics and identifies specific criteria
for determining the efficiency with which the respec-
tive functions are performed.

  Two potential wetlands  evaluation  methods  are
described.  One  is a non-quantitative method in
which individual wetland areas are evaluated based
on the deductive analysis of their individual function-
al characteristics.  The other is a semi-quantitative
method in which the relative values of  two or more
site alternatives are established through the mathe-
matical rating and  summation of their functional
relationships.

  The specific functions and values of wetlands that
are  covered in this report are (1) natural biological
functions, including food  chain productivity  and
habitat; (2) their  use as sanctuaries, refuges,  or
scientific study areas; (3) shoreline protection; (4)
groundwater  recharge;  (5) storage for flood  and
stormwater;  (6) water quality  improvement;  (7)
hydrologic support; and  (8) various cultural values.
(Authors' abstract.)

  14.  Shuldiner,  P.W.,  Cope,  D.F., and  Newton,
       R.B.  1979. "Ecological Effects on Highway
       Fills of Wetlands," Research Report. Nation-
       al Cooperative Highway Research  Program
       Report No. 218A, Transportation Research
       Board, National  Research Council,
       Washington, D.C.; and  Shuldiner, P.W.,
       Cope, D.F., and  Newton, R.B.  1979.
       "Ecological Effects of Highway Fills on Wet-
       lands," User's Manual.  National Coopera-
       tive Highway Research Program Report No.
       218B, Transportation Research Board, Na-
       tional Research Council, Washington, D.C.

  The two reports include a Research Report and a
User's  Manual to provide, in concise format,
guidelines and information needed for the deter-
mination of  the ecological  effects that may result
from the placement of highway fills on wetlands and
associated floodplains, and to suggest procedures
by which deleterious impacts can be minimized or
avoided. The practices that can be used to enhance
the positive benefits are also discussed.   Both
reports cover the most common physical, chemical,
and biological effects that the highway engineer is
likely to encounter when placing fills  in wetlands,
and displays the effects and their interactions in a
series of flowcharts and matrices.

  15.  SCS Engineers. 1979. "Analysis of Selected
       Functional Characteristics of Wetlands,"
       Contract No.  DACW73-78-R-0017, Reston,
       Virginia.

  The investigation focused on identifying  factors
and criteria  for assessing the wetland functions of
water quality improvement, groundwater recharge,
storm and floodwater storage, and shoreline protec-
tion.  Factors and criteria were identified that could
be used to develop procedures to assist Corps per-
sonnel in wetlands assessing the values of general
wetland types and of specific wetlands in performing
the functions indicated. To the extent possible, pro-
cedures were then outlined that allow the applica-
tion of these criteria in specific sites.

  16.  Smardon, R.D.  1972.   "Assessing  Visual-
       Cultural Values on Inland Wetlands in  Mas-
       sachusetts,"  Master of Science Thesis.
       University of Massachusetts. Amherst,  Mas-
       sachusetts.

  This study deals with the incorporation of visual-
cultural  values of inland wetlands  into  the decision
making process of land use allocation of inland wet-
lands in Massachusetts. Visual-cultural values of in-
land wetlands may be defined as visual, recreation-
al, and  educational values of inland  wetlands to
society.   The multivariate model  is an eliminative
and comparative model  that has three  levels of
evaluation.  The first level identifies those wetlands
that are outstanding natural areas, have regional
landscape value, or are large wetland systems.
                                              C-5

-------
These wetlands have top priority for  preservation.
The second level is a rating and ranking system. At
this stage, the combined natural resource values of
the wetland are evaluated.   Wetlands with high
ratings or rank from this level are eliminated  and
have the next highest priority for preservation or
some sort of protection.  The third level evaluation
considers the cultural values (e.g.,  accessibility,
location near schools) of wetlands.  The model is
designed to be utilized at many different levels of
decision making.  For example, it can be used by
state agencies, town  conservation commissions,
and conceivably could be used by other states in
northeastern United States. (Author's abstract.)

  17.   Solomon, R.D., Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,
       Richardson, S.E., Ganter, L.W., and Vlachos,
       E.G.  1977.  "Water Resources Assessment
       Methodology (WRAM)--Impact Assessment
       and  Alternative  Evaluation," Technical
       Report Y-77-1, Environmental Effects
       Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
       Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Missis-
       sippi.

  This  study  presented a review of 54 impact as-
sessment methodologies  and found that none en-
tirely satisfied the needs or requirements  for the
Corps' water resources project and programs.
However, salient features contained in  several of the
methodologies were considered pertinent and were
utilized to develop a water  resources assessment
methodology (WRAM).   One of the features con-
sisted of weighting impacted variables and scaling
the impacts of alternatives. The weighted rankings
technique is the basic weighting and scaling  tool
used in this methodology. Principal components of
WRAM include assembling an interdisciplinary team;
selecting and ensuring assessment variables; iden-
tifying, predicting, and evaluating impacts and alter-
natives; and documenting the analysis.  Although
developed primarily for use by the Corps in water
resources management, WRAM is applicable to
other resources agencies.

  18.  State of Maryland Department of  Natural
       Resources.  Undated.  "Environmental
       Evaluation of  Coastal Wetlands  (Draft),"
       Tidal Wetlands Study, pp 181-208.

  The Maryland scheme for the evaluation of coas-
tal wetlands is based on the recognition of 32 dis-
tinct types of vegetation in the marshes and swamps
of tidewater areas of the state.  Rankings of vegeta-
tion types were developed and parameters for the
evaluation of specific areas of wetlands  were
described.  The application of the scheme is ex-
plained and  demonstrated.  Guidance is provided-
for the interpretation of results.  The application of
the Maryland scheme requires a detailed inventory
of the types of vegetation in the area selected for
evaluation.

  19.   U.S.  Army Engineer District, Rock Island.
       1983.  "Wetland Evaluation Methodology,"
       Wisconsin  Department of Natural Resour-
       ces, Bureau of  Water  Regulation and
       Zoning.

  The Wetland Evaluation Methodology is  a  shor-
tened and revised version of a technique developed
for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (see
Adamus,  1983; Number 1).  The FHWA technique
was designed  to assess all wetland types whereas
the Wetland Evaluation  Methodology assesses
those wetlands in Wisconsin (e.g., assessment pro-
cedures in the FHWA technique for estuarine mar-
shes have been omitted  from the Wetland Evaluation
Methodology).  Other changes have also been in-
corporated into the Wetland Evaluation Methodol-
ogy to more closely reflect other regional condi-
tions.

  20.   U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Missis-
       sippi Valley.  1980.  "A Habitat Evaluation
       System for Water Resources Planning," U.S.
       Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi
       Valley Division, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

  A methodology is presented for determining the
quality of major habitat  types based on the descrip-
tion and  quantification of habitat characteristics.
Values are compared  for existing baseline condi-
tions, future conditions without the project, and with
alternative project conditions.  Curves, parameter
characteristics, and descriptive information are in-
cluded in  the appendices. The Habitat Evaluation
System (HES) procedure includes the following
steps  for  evaluating impacts  of  a water resource
development project. The steps include: (1) obtain-
ing habitat type or land use acreage;  (2) deriving
Habitat Quality Index scores; (3) deriving  Habitat
Unit Values; (4)  projecting Habitat Unit Values for
the future "with" and "without" project conditions; (5)
                                              C-6

-------
 using  Habitat  Unit Values  to assess impacts of
 project conditions; and (6)  determining mitigation
 requirements.

  21.   U.S. Army Engineer Division,  New England.
        1972.  "Charles River:  Main Report and At-
        tachments," Waltham, Massachusetts.

  The study was a long-term project directed by the
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the resour-
 ces of the Charles River Watershed in eastern Mas-
 sachusetts.  It had an emphasis on how to control
 flood damage in the urbanized lower watershed, and
 how to  prevent any significant flood damage in the
 middle  and upper watershed.   Seventeen crucial
 wetlands were identified for acquisition to maintain
 flood storage capacity in the watershed as a non-
 structural alternative for flood protection in the lower
 Charles River basin. Various aspects of the water-
 shed were studied in an interdisciplinary fashion.

  22.   U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. "Wet-
        lands Evaluation Criteria-Water and Related
        Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Mas-
        sachusetts," Soil Conservation Service, Am-
        herst, Massachusetts.

  A portion  of the document  contains criteria  used
 to evaluate major wetlands in the coastal region of
 Massachusetts.  Each of the 85 wetlands evaluated
 was  subjected to map study and field examination.
 Ratings were assigned based on point values ob-
 tained for various attributes.  A  rationale for  each
 evaluation  item  was developed to explain the
 development of the criteria.

  23.   U.S.  Fish and  Wildlife Service.  1980.
        "Habitat  Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
        Manual (102ESM)," Washington, D.C.

  HEP is a method that can be used to document
 the quality  and quantity of  available habitat for
 selected wildlife species. HEP provides information
for two general types of wildlife habitat com-
 parisons:  (1) the relative value of different areas at
the same point in time; and (2) the relative value of
the same area at future points in time.  By combin-
ing the two types of comparisons, the impact  of
proposed or anticipated land and water changes on
wildlife  habitat  can be quantified.  This document
described HEP, discusses some probable applica-
tions, and provides guidance in applying HEP in.the
field.

  24.   Virginia  Institute of  Marine Science.   Un-
        dated.   "Evaluation  of Virginia Wetlands,"
        (mimeographed).  Glouchester Point, Vir-
        ginia.

  The authors  presented a procedure to  evaluate
the wetlands of Virginia.  The  objective of the wet-
land evaluation program was to recognize wetlands
that possess great ecological significance as well as
those of lesser  significance.  Two broad categories
of criteria were utilized in evaluating the ecological
significance of wetlands:  (1) the interaction of wet-
lands with the marine environment; and (2) the inter-
action of the wetland  with the terrestrial  environ-
ment.   A formula was developed to incorporate
various factors  into "relative ecological significance
values."

  25.  Winchester, B.H., and Harris, LD.  1979.
       "An Approach to Valuation of Florida Fresh-
       water Wetlands," Proceedings of the Sixth
       Annual Conference on the Restoration and
       Creation of Wetlands, Tampa, Florida.

  A procedure was  presented for estimating the
relative  ecological and functional value of Florida
freshwater wetlands.   Wetland functions evaluated
by this  procedure include water quality enhance-
ment, water detention, vegetation diversity and
productivity, and wildlife habitat value.  The  field
parameters used in the assessment were  wetland
size, contiguity,  structural vegetative diversity, and
an edge-to-area ration. The  procedure was field
tested and  was time- and cost-effective.  Allowing
flexibility in  both the evaluative  criteria used and the
relative weight assigned to  each criterion,  the
methodology is applicable in any Florida region for
which basic ecological data are available.
                                               C-7

-------
  Literature Cited
Adamus, P. and Stockwell, L.R.  1983.  A method for
      wetland functional assessment.  Volume 1.
      Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S.
      Department of Transportation. Federal High-
      way Administration.   Office Research, En-
      vironmental  Division.  Washington,  D.C.
      20590 (No. FHWA-IP-82-23).

Adamus, P.R. 1983.  A method for wetland function-
      al assessment. Volume II. The method. U.S.
      Department of Transportation, Federal High-
      way Administration.  Office of Research, En-
      vironmental  Division.  Washington,  D.C.
      20590. (No. FHWA-IP-82-24).

Brown, A., Kittle, P., Dale, E.E., and Huffman, R.T.
      1974. Rare and endangered species, unique
      ecosystems, and  wetlands.  Department of
      Zoology and Department of Botany and Bac-
      teriology.  University of Arkansas, Fayet-
      teville, Arkansas.

Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobney, N., Duke, K., Whitman,
      I.  and Fahringer, D.   1973.  Environmental
      evaluation system for water resources  plan-
      ning.  Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No.
      3, pp 523-534.

Euler, D.L, Carreiro, FT., McCullough, G.B., Snell,
      E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H. 1983.
      An evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario
      south of  the Precambrian Shield.  First Edi-
      tion.  Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
      and Canadian Wildlife Service,  Ontario
      Region. Variously paged.

Fried, E.   1974.  Priority rating of wetlands for ac-
      quisition. Transaction of the Northeast Fish
      and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31, pp 15-30.

Galloway,  G.E.  1978. Assessing man's impact on
      wetlands, Sea Grant  Publication Nos. UNC-
      SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136, University of
      North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Golet, F.C.  1973. Classification and  evaluation of
      freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the
      glaciated Northeast.  Transactions of the
      Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol
      30, pp 257-279.

Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H.  1973.  Evaluation of
      visual-cultural benefits from freshwater wet-
      lands in Massachusetts, Journal of the North-
      eastern Agricultural Council, Vol 2, No. 2, pp
      262-273.

Kibby,  H.V.  1978.  Effects of wetlands on water
      quality.   Proceedings of the symposium on
      strategies for protection and management of
      floodplain wetlands and other riparian
      ecosystems, General Technical Report  No.
      GRW-WO-12, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
      Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Larson, J.S. (ed.)  1976.  Models for assessment of
      freshwater wetlands.   Publication No. 32,
      Water Resources Center, University of Mas-
      sachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.

Lonard, R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy,
      J.W., Brown, L.D., Ballard, P.E., and  Watts,
      J.W.  1981. Analysis of methodologies used
      for the assessment of wetlands values. U.S.
      Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C.

Lonard, R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy,
      J.W., Brown, L.D., Ballard, P.E., and  Watts,
      J.W.  1984. Wetlands function and  values
      study plan;   Appendix  A:   Analysis of
      methodologies for assessing wetlands
      values.  Technical Report Y-83-2, U.S. Army
      Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
      Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Marble, A.D., and Gross, M.  1984.  A method for
      assessing wetland characteristics and
      values.  Landscape Planning II, pp 1-17.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources.  1980.
      Manual  for wetland evaluation  techniques:
      operation draft. Division of Land Resources
      Programs, Lansing, Michigan.  22 pp.

Reppert,  R.T., Sigleo,  W., Stakhiv, E., Messman, L.,
      and Meyer, C.  1979.  Wetlands values: con-
      cepts and methods for wetlands evaluation.
      IWR  Research  Report 79-R-1, U.S. Army En-
      gineer Institute for  Water Resources, Fort
      Belvoir, Virginia.
                                              C-8

-------
Shuldiner,  P.W.,  Cope, D.F.,  and Newton, R.B.
      I979a. Ecological effects of highway fills on
      wetlands.   Research Report  No. 218B,
      Transportation Research Board, National Re-
      search Council. Washington, D.C.

Smardon, R.C.   1972.  Assessing visual-cultural
      values on inland wetlands in Massachusetts.
      Master of Science Thesis, University of Mas-
      sachusetts, Amherst,  Massachusetts.
      Solomon, R.D.,  Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,
      Richardson, S.E., Canter, L.W., and Vlachos,
      E.G.  1977.  Water resources assessment
      methodology (WRAM)--impact assessment
      and alternative evaluation.  Technical Report
      Y-77-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex-
      periment  Station, CE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
      Undated. Environmental  evaluation of coas-
      tal wetlands (Draft).  Tidal Wetlands Study,
      pp 181-208.

Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt Consulting Engineers,
      Inc.   1979. Analysis of selected  functional
      characteristics  of wetlands.  Contract  No.
      DACW72-78-0017, Draft Report, prepared for
      U.S. Army Engineers Research Center by the
      authors, Reston, Virginia.

U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Val-
      ley.   1980.   A habitat evaluation system
      (HES) for water resources planning.   U.S.
      Army Engineer Division, Lower  Mississippi
      Valley. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.  1972.
      Charles River; main report and attachments.
      U.S. Army Engineer Division,  New England.
      Waltham, Massachusetts.

U.S. Department of Agriculture.  1978.  Wetland
      evaluation criteria-water and related land
      resources of the  coastal  region of Mas-
      sachusetts.  Soil Conservation Service, Am-
      herst, Massachusetts.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.   1984.
      Technical report: literature review of wetland
      evaluation methodologies. U.S. Environmen-
      tal Protection Agency, Region  5, Chicago, Il-
      linois.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1980.   Habitat
      evaluation procedures (HEP)  manual.  102
      ESM, Washington, D.C.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science.  Undated.
      Evaluation   of   Virginia    wetlands.
      Mimeographed Paper, Glouchester Point,
      Virginia.

Winchester, B.H., and Harris, L.D.  1979.  An ap-
      proach to valuation of Florida freshwater wet-
      lands.  Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Con-
      ference on the Restoration  and  Creation  of
      Wetlands, Hillsborough Community College,
      Tampa, Florida.
                                             C-9

-------
Wetland Assessment Techniques
Developed Since 1983 (USEPA I989a)
 • Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Adamus,  et al.
   1987).  This nationally applicable procedure has
   been used in at least six ADIDs to date, mostly in
   its original form (known popularly as the "FHWA"
   or "Adamus" method). It has since been extensive-
   ly revised and is available at no cost (with simple
   software) from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
   Research Program (contact: Buddy Clairain, 601 -
   634-3774). Future revisions are anticipated.

 • Bottomland  Hardwoods WET (Adamus  1987).
   This is a simplified,  regionalized version of WET,
   applicable to EPA Regions 4 and 6. It is available
   from OWP (contact: Joe DaVia at 202-475-8795).
   Supporting software is being developed, and fu-
   ture revisions are anticipated.

 • Southeastern Alaska WET (Adamus Resource As-
   sessment 1987). This is also a simplified, regional-
   ized version of WET.

 • Minnesota Method (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-
   St.'Paul, 1988). This was a joint State-Federal effort
   that involved considerable adaptation of WET.  A
   similar effort is underway in Wisconsin.
• Onondaga County  Method  (SUNY-Syracuse
  1987). This was adapted from WET by Smardon
  and others at the State University of New York.

• Hollands-Magee Method. This is a scoring techni-
  que developed by two consultants  and has been
  applied to hundreds of wetlands in  New England
  and part of Wisconsin (contact: Dennis Magee at
  603-472-5191). Supporting software is available.

• Ontario Method (Euler et al. 1983).  This is also a
  scoring  technique, and was extensively  peer-
  reviewed in Canada. (Contact: Valanne Gloos-
  chenko,  416-965-7641).

• Connecticut Method (Amman et al.  1986). This is
  a scoring  technique developed for inland
  municipal wetland agencies.

• Marble-Gross Method (Marble and Gross 1984).
  This was developed for a local application in Con-
  necticut.

• Habitat  Evaluation System (HES) (Tennessee
  Dept. of Conservation 1987).   This is a revised
  version of a Corps-sponsored method used  to
  evaluate Lower Mississippi wildlife habitat.
                                             C-10

-------
  References
Adamus. P.P. (ed.)  1987. Atlas of breeding birds in
      Maine 1978-1983.  Maine  Department of In-
      land Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta.  366 pp.

Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc.  1987.  Juneau
      wetlands:  functions and  values.  City and
      Borough of Juneau  Department of Com-
      munity Development, Juneau, Alaska. 3 vols.
      Amman, A.P., R.W. Franzen,  and  J.L.
      Johnson. 1986.

Method for the evaluation of inland wetlands in Con-
      necticut.  Bull. No. 9. Connecticut Dept.
      Envir. Prot. and USD A Soil Conservation Ser-
      vice, Hartford, Connecticut.

Euler, D.L, F.T. Carreiro, G.B. McCullough, G.B.
      Snell, V.

Glooschenko, and  R.H. Spurr.  1983. An evaluation
      system for wetlands of Ontario south of the
      Precambrian Shield.  Ontario Ministry of
      Natural Resources  and Canadian  Wildlife
      Service, Ontario Region.

Marble, A.D. and M. Gross.  1984.  A method for
      assessing wetland characteristics  and
      values. Landscape Planning 2:1-17.

State University of New York at Syracuse (SUNY).
      1987. Wetlands evaluation system for Onon-
      daga County, New York State. Draft. 93 pp.
Tennessee Dept. of Conservation.
      Evaluation
1987.  Habitat
System:  Bottomland Forest  Community Model.
      Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Ecological
      Services Division, Nashville. 92 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-St. Paul.  1988.  The
      Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology
      for the North Central United States.   Min-
      nesota Wetland Evaluation  Methodology
      Task Force and Corps of Engineers-St.  Paul
      District.  97 pp. + appendices.
                                            C-ll

-------
                            Appendix  D
           REGIONAL COORDINATORS
          Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA)
Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 1
Water Management Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(FTS) 835-3533
(617) 565-3533

Rick Balla, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 2
Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(FTS) 264-1559
(2-12) 264-1559

Linda Hoist, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 3
Water Management Division
841  Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(FTS) 597-0133
(215) 597-3425

Fritz Wagener, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 4
Water Management Division
345  Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(FTS) 257-2126
(404) 347-2126

Larry Shepard, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 5 (TUD-8)
Water Management Division
230  South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(FTS) 886-0135
(312) 886-0135
David Neleigh, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 6
Water Management Division
1445 Ross Avenue
First Interstate Bank Tower
Dallas, TX 75202
(FTS) 255-7145
(214) 655-7145

John Houlihan, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 7
Water Compliance Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(FTS) 276-7432
(913) 551-7432

Bill Wuertheie, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 8 (8WM-SP)
Water Management Division
999 18th Street
Denver, CO  80202-2405
(FTS) 330-1586
(303) 293-1586

Phil Woods, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 9
Water Management Division (W-3-1)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(FTS) 484-1994
(415) 744-1994

Sally Marquis, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 10
Water Management Division (WD-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(FTS) 399-2116
(206) 442-2116
                                     D-l

-------
                Regional Wetland  Program  Coordinators
           U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency (USEPA)
Doug Thompson, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 1
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts  02203-2211
(FTS) 835-4422
(617) 565-4422

Dan Montella, Wetlands  Coordinator
USEPA, Region 2
Water Management Division
Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(FTS) 264-5170
(212) 264-5170

Barbara D'Angelo, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 3
Environmental Service Division
Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(FTS) 597-9301
(215)597-9301

Tom Welborn, Wetlands Coordinator
  (Regulatory Unit)
Gail Vanderhoogt, Wetlands Coordinator
  (Planning Unit)
USEPA, Region 4
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia  30365
(FTS) 257-2126
(404) 347-2126

Doug Ehorn, Wetland Coordinator
USEPA, Region 5
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
(FTS) 886-0243
(312) 886-0243
Jerry Saunders, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 6
Environmental Services Division
Federal Activities Branch
12th Floor, Suite 1200
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202
(FTS) 255-2263
(214) 655-2263

Diane Hershberger, Wetlands Coordinator
Assistant Regional Administrator for
  Policy and Management
USEPA, Region 7
Environmental Review Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(FTS) 276-7573
(913) 551-7573

Gene Reetz, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 8
Water Management Division
State Program Management Branch
One Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
(FTS) 330-1565
(303) 293-1565

Phil Oshida, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 9
Water Management Division
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuarine Branch
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, California 94103
(FTS) 464-2187
(415)744-2180

Bill Riley, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 10
Water Management Division
Environmental Evaluation Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington  98101
(FTS) 399-1412
(206) 422-1412
                                         D-2

-------
            Regional Wetland Program Coordinators
             U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Region 1       California, Hawaii,
              Idaho, Nevada,
              Oregon, Washington

              RWC: Dennis Peters
              ASST: Howard Browers
Region 2      Arizona, New Mexico
              Oklahoma, Texas
               RWC: Warren Hagenbuck
               ASST: Curtis Carley
Region 3       Illinois, Indiana,
               Iowa, Michigan,
               Minnesota, Missouri,
               Ohio, Wisconsin

               RWC: Ron Erickson
               ASST: John Anderson

Region 4       Alabama, Arkansas,
               Florida, Georgia,
               Kentucky, Louisiana,
               Mississippi,
               North Carolina,
               Puerto Rico,
               South Carolina,
               Tennessee,
               Virgin Islands

               RWC: John  Hefner
               ASST: Charlie Storrs
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS,  Region 1
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
1002 N.E. Holladay Street
Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
  COM: 503/231-6154
  FTS: 429-6154

 Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS,  Region 2
Room 4012
500 Gold Avenue, SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
  COM: 505/766-2914
  FTS: 474-2914

Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS,  Region 3
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Federal Building, Ft Smelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
  COM: 612/725-3536
  FTS: 725-3536

Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS,  Region 4
R.B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Suite 1276
Atlanta, Georgia  30303
  COM: 404/331-6343
  FTS: 841-6343
                                     D-3

-------
Region 5       Connecticut,
               Delaware, Maine,
               Maryland,
               Massachusetts, New
               Hampshire, New York,
               New Jersey,
               Pennsylvania, Rhode
               Island, Vermont, Virginia,
               West Virginia

               RWC: Ralph Tiner
               ASST: Glenn Smith

Region 6       Colorado, Kansas,
               Montana, Nebraska,
               North Dakota,
               South Dakota,
               Utah, Wyoming

               RWC: Chuck Elliott
               ASST: Bill Pearson

Region 7       Alaska
               RWC: Jon Hall
               ASST: David Dall
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 5
One Gateway Center, Suite 700
Newton Corner, MA 02158
  COM: 617/965-5100
  FTS: 829-9379
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 6
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
  COM: 303/236-8180
  FTS: 776-8180

Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 7
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
  COM: 907/786-3403 or 3471
  FTS: (8) 907/786-3403
                                      D-4

-------
      EXAMPLE OF  STATE  CERTIFICATION  ACTION  INVOLVING
                  WETLANDS UNDER CWA SECTION 401
  The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was
to be 3,000 feet long and 17 feet high. The dam was
to consist of 32 bottom-hinged flap gates. The dam
would have created an impoundment with a surface
area of 3,800 acres, a total  storage capacity of
35,000 acre-feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet.
The backwater would have extended approximately
8 miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and
approximately 3 miles  upstream on the Con-
odoguinet Creek.

  The project was to be  a  run-of-the-river facility,
using  the head difference created by the dam to
create electricity. Maximum turbine flow would have
been 10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12.5), and minimum
flow would have been 2,000 cfs. Under normal con-
ditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed
through the turbines.

  The public notice denying 401 certification for this
project stated as follows:

  1.    The construction and operation of the
       project will result  in the significant loss of
       wetlands  and related  aquatic  habitat and
       acreage. More specifically:

       a.   The destruction of the wetlands will
           have an adverse impact on the local
           river ecosystem because of the in-
           tegral role wetlands play in maintain-
           ing that ecosystem.
The destruction of the wetlands will
cause the loss of beds of emergent
aquatic vegetation that serve as
habitat for juvenile fish.  Loss of this
habitat will adversely affect the rela-
tive abundance of juvenile and adult
fish (especially smallmouth bass).

The wetlands which will be lost are
critical habitat  for, among other
species, the yellow crowned night
heron,  black crowned night heron,
marsh wren and great egret. In addi-
tion, the yellow crowned night heron
is a proposed State threatened
species, and the marsh wren and
great egret are candidate species of
special concern.

All affected wetlands areas are impor-
tant and, to the extent that the loss of
these wetlands can be mitigated, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the mitigation proposed is ade-
quate.  To the extent that adequate
mitigation is possible, mitigation must
include replacement in the river sys-
tem.

Proposed riprapping of the shoreline
could further reduce wetland
acreage.  The applicant has failed to
demonstrate that there will not  be an
                                             E-l

-------
     adverse water quality and related
     habitat impact resulting from riprap-
     ping.

f.    Based upon information received by
     the Department, the applicant has un-
     derestimated the total wetland
     acreage affected.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will be no adverse water  quality im-
pacts from  increased  groundwater levels
resulting from the  project.  The  ground
water model  used  by the applicant is  not
acceptable due to erroneous assumptions
and the lack of a sensitivity analysis.  The
applicant has  not provided sufficient infor-
mation concerning the  impact of increased
groundwater levels on existing sites of sub-
surface contamination, adequacy of subsur-
face sewage system replacement areas and
the impact of potential increased  surface
flooding. Additionally,  information was  not
provided to adequately assess the effect of
raised  groundwater  on sewer system
laterals, effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation
measures and potential for increased flows
at the Harrisburg wastewater plant.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be a dissolved oxygen problem
as a result of the impoundment.  Present in-
formation indicates the existing river system
in the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved
oxygen  fluctuation.   Sufficient information
was not provided to allow the Department to
conclude that dissolved oxygen standards
will be met in the pool area. Additionally, the
applicant failed to adequately address the
issue of anticipated dissolved oxygen levels
below the dam.

The proposed impoundment  will create a
backwater on  the lower three miles of the
Conodoguinet Creek.  Water quality in the
Creek is currently adversely  affected by
nutrient problems.  The applicant has failed
to demonstrate that there will not be water
quality degradation as a result of the im-
poundment.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not  be an adverse water  quality
impact resulting from combined sewer over-
flows.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not  be an adverse water  quality
impact to the 150-acre area downstream of
the proposed  dam and upstream from  the
existing Dock Street dam.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
the construction  and  operation  of the
proposed dam will  not have an adverse im-
pact on the aquatic  resources  upstream
from the proposed impoundment.  For ex-
ample, the suitability of the impoundment for
smallmouth bass spawning relative  to  the
frequency of turbid conditions during
spawning  was not adequately addressed
and construction of the dam and  impound-
ment will result in a decrease in the diversity
and density of the  macroinvertebrate com-
munity in the impoundment area.

Construction of the dam will have an ad-
verse impact on upstream and downstream
migration of migratory fish (especially shad).
Even with  the construction of  fish pas-
sageways for  upstream and downstream
migration,  significant declines in  the num-
bers of fish successfully  negotiating the
obstruction are anticipated.

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact related to sedimentation within the
pool area.
                                       E-2

-------
        APPENDIX E
  An Approach for Evaluating
 Numeric Water Quality Criteria     \
    for Wetlands Protection
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

         SECOND EDITION

-------
AN APPROACH FOR EVALUATING NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
                  FOR WETLANDS  PROTECTION
                            by

           Cynthia A.  Hagley and Debra L.  Taylor
                     Asci Corporation
                  Duluth, Minnesota  55804
                      Project Officer

                    William D. Sanville
                      Project Leader
             Environmental Research Laboratory
                 Duluth, Minnesota  55804
                         DU:   BIOL
                         ISSUE:   A
                         PPA:   16
                       PROJECT:  39
                    DELIVERABLE:   8234
                       July 8,  1991

-------
                            ABSTRACT


     Extension of the national numeric aquatic life criteria to
wetlands has been recommended as part of a program to develop
standards and criteria for wetlands.   This report provides an
overview of the need for standards and criteria for wetlands and
a description of the numeric aquatic life criteria.  The numeric
aquatic life criteria are designed to be protective of aquatic
life and their uses for surface waters, and are probably
applicable to most wetland types.  This report provides a
possible approach, based on the site-specific guidelines, for
detecting wetland types that might not be protected by direct
application of national numeric criteria.  The evaluation can be
simple and inexpensive for those wetland types for which
sufficient water chemistry and species assemblage data are
available, but will be less useful for wetland types for which
these data are not readily available.  The site-specific approach
is described and recommended for wetlands for which modifications
to the numeric criteria are considered necessary.  The results of
this type of evaluation, combined with information on local or
regional environmental threats, can be used to prioritize wetland
types (and individual criteria) for further site-specific
evaluations and/or additional data collection.  Close
coordination among regulatory agencies, wetland scientists, and
criteria experts will be required.

-------
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                         JA. t9 199
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands
FROM:     William R. Diamond, Director
          Standards and Applied Science Division
          Office of Science and Technology

TO:       Water Management Division Directors  (Regions I-X)
          Environmental Services Division Directors  (Regions I-X)

          State Water Pollution Control Agency Directors


     The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a copy
of a report entitled "An Approach for Evaluation of  Numeric Water
Quality Criteria for Wetlands Protection", prepared  by EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota.  This
report was requested in the early stages of planning for wetland
water quality standards to assess the applicability  of EPA's
existing numeric aquatic life criteria methodology for wetlands.
This report was prepared by the Wetlands Research Program and  is
part of the Agency's activities to assist States with developing
water quality standards for wetlands.

     The report evaluates EPA's numeric aquatic life criteria  to
determine how they can be applied to wetlands.  Numeric aquatic
life criteria are designed to be protective of aquatic life for a
wide range of surface water types.  The report suggests that most
numeric aquatic life criteria are applicable to most wetland
types.

     However, there are some wetland types where EPA's criteria
are not appropriate.  This report presents an  approach that
States may use as a screening tool to detect those wetland types
that may be under- or overprotected by EPA's criteria.  The
proposed approach relies on data readily available from EPA's
304(a) criteria documents, as well as species  assemblages and
water quality data from individual wetland types.  The results of
this type of simple evaluation can be used to  prioritize wetland
types where further evaluation may be needed prior to setting
criteria.  Two example analyses of the approach are  included in
the report.  EPA's site-specific criteria development guidelines
can then be used to modify criteria if appropriate.

-------
     This report compiles existing information from EPA's 304(a)
criteria guidance documents and site-specific criteria
methodologies and does not contain new guidance or policy.  The
report has been peer reviewed by ERL/Duluth scientists who
develop EPA's 304 criteria.  The report also has been reviewed by
the Standards and Applied Science Division and the Wetlands
Division.

     If you have additional questions on the information
contained in th; s report or its applications, contact the
following person: David Sabock, Water Quality Standards Branch,
at 202-475-7315 regarding designated uses and water quality
standards policies; Bob April, Ecological Risk Assessment Branch,
at 202-475-7315, regarding EPA's aquatic life criteria; or Bill
Sanville, Environmental Research Laboratory/Duluth, at 218-720-
5500, regarding the research for this report.


Attachment

cc:  Water Quality Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
     Water Quality Standards Coordinators (Regions I-X)
     Wetlands Coordinators (Regions I-X)
     David Sabock
     Bob April
     Bill Sanville

-------
                            CONTENTS
Abstract                                                        i
Tables                                                        iii
Acknowledgements                                               iv

     1.  Introduction                                           1
               Need for standards for wetlands                  1
               Proposed approach to development of wetland
                    standards                                   3
               Purpose of this document                         4
     2.  Current Surface Water Standards and Criteria           6
               Description of standards and criteria            6
               Development of national aquatic life numeric
                    criteria                                    7
               Site-specific guidelines                         8
     3.  The Need for Evaluating Numeric Water
          Quality Criteria:  Use of the Site-Specific
          Guidelines                                            9
               Overall relevance of criteria to wetlands        9
               Wetland variability                             10
               Use of the site-specific guidelines for
                    wetlands                                   10
               Aquatic plants                                  14
     4.  Evaluation Program                                    16
               Classification                                  16
               Evaluating the appropriateness of direct
                    application of criteria                    17
               Developing site-specific criteria               18
     5.  Example Analyses                                      19
               Example 1                                       19
               Example 2                                       21
               Summary of the example analyses                 24
     6.  Conclusions                                           26

References                                                     28
Appendices

     A.  Sources used in species habitat identification
               for Minnesota marshes                           31
     B.  Sources used in species habitat identification
               for prairie potholes                            32
                                11

-------
                          TABLES


                                                          Page

1  Freshwater numeric aquatic life criteria                33

2  Suitability of wetland species to fill minimum
   family requirements for six criterion chemicals         34

3  Some conditions recommended for dilution water
   for water quality criteria testing                      35

4  Effects of cofactors on criterion chemical toxicity     36

5  Water chemistry for selected Minnesota marshes          37

6  Comparison of test species with Minnesota marsh
   biota for six criterion chemicals                       38

7  Number of species tested for acute criteria and
   percentage of test species that are not found in
   Minnesota marshes or oligosaline prairie potholes       40

8  Water quality characteristics for oligosaline
   prairie potholes                                        41

9  Comparison of test species with prairie pothole
   biota for six criterion chemicals                       42
                             ill

-------
                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


     Preparation of this document has been funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  This document has been prepared
at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth,
Minnesota, through Contract # 68033544 to AScI Corporation.  This
document has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review.  Excellent reviews and assistance were
received from C. Stephan,  R. Spehar, C. Johnston, E. Hunt, D.
Robb, and J. Minter.
                                IV

-------
                            SECTION 1

                           INTRODUCTION
NEED FOR STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS

     Wetlands have been studied and appreciated for a relatively
short time in relation to other types of aquatic systems.  The
extent of their value in the landscape has only recently been
recognized; in fact, a few decades ago government policies
encouraged wetland drainage and conversion.  Wetlands
traditionally have been recognized as important fish and wildlife
habitats, and it is estimated that over one-third of U.S.
endangered species require wetland habitat for their continued
existence.  Some of their many other values, however, have become
apparent only recently.  These include attenuation of flood
flows, groundwater recharge, shoreline and stream bank
stabilization, filtering of pollutants from point and nonpoint
sources, unique habitats for both flora and fauna, and
recreational and educational opportunities.1

Impacts to Wetlands

     Despite new appreciation of the valuable functions that
wetlands perform in the landscape, they continue to be destroyed
and altered at a rapid pace.  Since pre-settlement times over
half of the wetlands in the continental U.S. have been destroyed,
and losses over the last few decades have remained high.2  These
figures only represent actual loss of acreage and do not account
for alterations to or contamination of still-extant wetlands.
The causes of wetland destruction and degradation include:3

     *    Urbanization - Resulting in drainage and filling,
          contamination, and ecological isolation of wetlands.

     *    Agriculture Conversion - Drainage, cropping, and
          grazing which change or destroy wetland structure and
          ecological function.

     *    Water Resource Development - Water flow alterations to
          wetlands from diking, irrigation diversions,
          alterations to rivers for navigation, diversions for

-------
          water supply,  and groundwater pumping.   These result in
          changes in the hydrology that sustains the wetland
          system.

     *    Chemical Pollution - From point and nonpoint sources,
          hazardous waste sites,  mining, and other activities.
          These can overwhelm the assimilative capacity of
          wetlands or be toxic to wetland organisms.

     *    Biological Disturbances - Introduction or elimination
          of plant and animal species that affect ecosystem
          processes.

Gaps in Federal Regulatory Programs

     Existing Federal regulatory programs intended to reduce some
of the impacts described above leave major gaps in the protection
of wetlands.  Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a
permit to be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers, in
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
before dredged material or fill can be discharged into waters of
the United States.  Alterations such as drainage, water
diversion, and chemical contamination are not covered by Section
404 unless material will be discharged into the wetland in
association with such alterations.  The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which regulates the disposal of hazardous wastes,
and the CWA, which regulates contamination from waste-water
discharges and nonpoint-source pollution, could provide
protection from certain impacts,  but they have not been used
consistently to regulate impacts to wetlands.  Programs designed
to protect endangered species, migratory birds, and marine
mammals have also been used to reduce impacts to wetlands, but
"the application of these programs also has been uneven."*

Gaps in State Regulatory Programs

     Wetland regulations vary greatly among States.  Some States
are now developing narrative standards for wetlands (e.g.
Wisconsin, Rhode Island, and others).  On the other hand,
although wetlands are included in the Federal definition of
"waters of the United States" and are protected by Section 101(a)
of the CWA, not all States include them as "waters of the State"
in their definitions.  A review conducted in 1989 by the EPA
Office of Wetlands Protection and the Office of Water Regulations
and Standards found that only 27 of 50 States mentioned wetlands
in definitions of State waters.  The review verified that there
generally is a lack of consideration given to water quality
standards for wetlands.5

-------
Effective Use of Existing Regulatory Options

     Although some impacts (e.g. excavation, most drainage, and
destruction of vegetation) are not addressed by the current
implementation of existing regulations and programs, much of the
chemical contamination of wetlands could be controlled through
existing Federal and State water pollution control laws.4  The
National Wetlands Policy Forum recommended that EPA and State
water pollution control agencies review the implementation of
their water quality programs to ensure that the chemical
integrity of wetlands is adequately protected.  The Forum
stressed the need to develop water quality standards designed to
protect sensitive wetlands.

     Under Section 401 of the CWA, States have authority to
authorize, condition, or deny all Federal permits or licenses in
order to comply with State water quality standards, including,
but not limited to, Sections 402 and 404 of the CWA, Sections 9
and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission licenses.  States with water quality
standards that apply to or are specifically designed for wetlands
can use 401 certification much more effectively as a regulatory
tool.

     As wetlands receive more recognition as important components
of State water resources, the need for testing the applicability
of some existing guidelines and standards to wetlands regulation
becomes more apparent.


PROPOSED APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND STANDARDS

     The EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards and Office
of Wetlands Protection recently completed a document entitled,
"National Guidance:  Water Quality Standards for Wetlands."6  It
recommends a two-phased approach for the development of water
quality standards for wetlands.  In the first 3-year phase of
this program, standards for wetlands would be developed using
existing information in order to provide protection to wetlands
consistent with the protection afforded other State waters.
Technical support for this initial phase will be provided through
documents such as this one, which focuses on the application of
existing numeric criteria to wetlands.  These criteria are widely
used.  Applying them to wetlands requires a small amount of
effort and can be accomplished quickly.

     The development of narrative biocriteria is also required in
the initial phase of standards development.  The long-term goal
(3-10 years) of this program is to develop numeric biocriteria
for wetlands.  It is anticipated that both narrative and numeric

-------
biocriteria can provide a more integrative estimate of whole-
wetland health and better identification of impacts and trends
than can be attained by traditional numeric chemical criteria.
Field-based, community-level biosurveys can be implemented to
complement, and help validate, laboratory-based conclusions.
Results of such surveys can be used to monitor wetlands for
degradation and establish narrative or numeric biocriteria or
guidance which take into account "real world" biological
interactions and the interactions of multiple stressors.

     More information on the development of numeric biocriteria
will be available in a guidance document in coming years.
Technical guidance to support the development of biological
criteria for wetlands has also been prepared.7  This guidance
provides a synthesis of technical information on field studies of
inland wetland biological communities.


PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

     A number of steps are needed to develop wetland standards.
The document, "National Guidance:  Water Quality Standards for
Wetlands," mentioned above, provides general guidelines to the
States for each of the following steps:  the inclusion of
wetlands in definitions of state waters, the relationship between
wetland standards and other water-related programs, use
classification systems for wetlands, the definition of wetland
functions and values, the applicability of existing narrative and
numeric water quality criteria to wetlands, and the application
of antidegradation policies to wetlands.

     The technical document for biological criteria7 and this
report are companions to the guidance document described above.
This report is directed primarily toward wetland scientists
unfamiliar with water quality regulation and is intended to
provide a basis for dialogue between wetland scientists and
criteria experts regarding adapting numeric aquatic life criteria
to wetlands.  More specifically:

     1) It provides background information and an overview of
water quality standards and numeric chemical criteria,  including
application to wetlands.

     2) The need for evaluating numeric water quality criteria is
discussed.  The site-specific guidelines are introduced and
discussed in two contexts:  a) as an  initial screening  tool  to
ensure that water quality  in extreme wetland types  is adequately
protected by criteria, and b) in terms of using the site-specific
guidelines to modify criteria for wetlands where criteria might
be over or underprotective.

-------
     3) An approach is described that: uses information available
from criteria documents and is designed to: a) detect wetland
types where water quality is not clearly protected by existing
criteria, and b)  help prioritize further evaluations and research
efforts.

     4)  A simple test of the approach is presented with two
examples.  Results are not considered conclusive and are
presented only as an example of the procedure.

     Most of the data and examples are based on the freshwater
acute criteria.  A similar approach should be equally applicable
to the saltwater acute criteria and to both saltwater and
freshwater chronic criteria.

-------
                            SECTION 2

          CURRENT SURFACE WATER  STANDARDS AND  CRITERIA
     This section describes how criteria are used in State
standards, how national numeric criteria are derived, and what
options are currently available for modifying national aquatic
life criteria.
DESCRIPTION OF STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

     Surface waters are protected by Section 101(a) of the CWA
with the goal:  "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters."  State water
quality standards are developed to meet this goal.

State Standards

     There are two main components to establishing a standard:
1) The level of water quality attainable for a particular
waterbody, or the designated use of that waterbody (e.g.
recreational, fishery, etc.) is determined;  2) Water quality
criteria  (usually a combination of narrative and numeric) are
established to protect that designated use.  Water quality
standards also contain an antidegradation policy "to maintain and
protect existing uses and water quality, to provide protection
for higher quality waters, and to provide protection for
outstanding national resource waters."8  State standards for a
particular waterbody must be met when discharging wastewaters.
The "National Guidance:  Water Quality Standards for Wetlands"6
outlines a basic program to achieve these goals for wetlands.

Aquatic Criteria

Narrative Criteria—
     Narrative criteria are statements, usually expressed in a
"free from ..." format.  For example, all States have a narrative
statement in their water quality standards which requires that
their waters not contain "toxic substances in toxic amounts."
Narrative criteria are typically applied at the State level when
combinations of pollutants must be controlled or when pollutants
are present which are not listed in State water quality
                                6

-------
 standards.8  States must document the process by which they
 propose to  implement these narrative criteria in their standards.

 Numeric Criteria—
      Pollutant-specific numeric criteria are used by the States
 when  it is  necessary to control individual pollutants in order to
 protect the designated use of a waterbody.  Fate and transport
 models commonly are used to translate these criteria into permit
 limits for  individual dischargers.  Some criteria apply State-
 wide  and  others are specific to particular designated uses or
 waterbodies.

      National numeric criteria are developed by EPA based on best
 available scientific information.  They serve as recommendations
 to assist States  in developing their own criteria and to assist
 in interpreting narrative criteria.9  These include human health
 and aquatic life  pollutant-specific criteria and whole effluent
 toxicity  criteria.  Sediment criteria are now being developed.
 States can  adopt  national numeric criteria directly.
 Alternatively, site-specific criteria may be developed using EPA-
 specified guidelines, and State-specific criteria can be derived
 using procedures  developed by the State.8


 DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL AQUATIC LIFE NUMERIC CRITERIA

      National aquatic life criteria are usually derived using
 single-species laboratory toxicity tests.  Tests are repeated
 with  a wide variety of aquatic organisms for each chemical.  The
 criteria  are designed to protect against unacceptable effects to
 aquatic organisms or their uses caused by exposures to high
 concentrations for short periods of time (acute effects), to
 lower concentrations for longer periods of time  (chronic
 effects), and to  combinations of both.9  EPA criteria are
 composed  of 1) magnitude (what concentration of a pollutant is
 allowable); 2) duration of exposure  (the period of time over
 which the in-stream concentration is averaged for comparison with
 criteria  concentrations); and 3) frequency  (how often the
 criterion can be  exceeded without unacceptably affecting the
 community).10  Separate criteria are  determined  for  fresh water
 and salt  water.   Field data are used when appropriate.

      All  acceptable data regarding toxicity to fish and
 invertebrates are evaluated for inclusion in the criteria.  Data
 on toxicity to aquatic plants are evaluated to determine whether
 concentrations of the chemical that do not cause unacceptable
 effects to  aquatic animals will cause unacceptable effects to
-plants.   Bioaccumulation data are examined to determine if
 residues  in the organisms might exceed FDA action levels or cause
 known effects on  the wildlife that consume them.  For a complete

-------
description of the procedures for deriving ambient criteria,
consult the "National Guidelines" (1985).'

     Numeric water quality criteria are designed to protect most
of the species inhabiting a site.9  A wide variety of  taxa  with a
range of sensitivities are required for deriving criteria.
Guidelines are followed to determine the availability of
sufficient experimental data from enough appropriate taxa to
derive a criterion.  For example, to derive a freshwater Final
Acute Value for a chemical, results of acute tests with at least
one species of freshwater animal in at least eight different
families are required.  Acute and chronic values can be made to
be a function of a water quality characteristic such as Ph,
salinity, or hardness, when it is determined that these
characteristics impact toxicity, and enough data exist to
establish the relationship.  Table 1 lists the chemicals for
which freshwater aquatic life criteria have been developed and
indicates which of those criteria are pH, hardness, or
temperature dependent.


SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES

     An option for modifying national aquatic life water quality
criteria to reflect local conditions is presented in the site-
specific guidelines.  States may develop site-specific criteria
by modifying the national criteria for sites where 1)  water
quality characteristics, such as pH, hardness, temperature, etc.,
that might impact toxicity of the pollutants of concern differ
from the laboratory water used in developing the criterion; or 2)
the types of organisms at the site differ  from, and may be more
or less sensitive than, those used to calculate the criterion; or
3) both may be true.  Site-specific criteria take local
conditions into account to provide an appropriate level of
protection.  They can also be used to set  seasonal criteria when
there is high temporal variability.8

     A testing program can be used to determine whether site-
specific modifications to criteria are necessary.  This program
may include water quality sampling and analysis, a biological
survey, and acute and chronic toxicity tests.11   If site-specific
modifications are deemed necessary,  3 separate procedures  are
available for using site-specific guidelines to modify criteria
values, including the recalculation procedure, the indicator
species procedure, and the resident  species procedure.  These
will be discussed more fully in  the  next  section.
                                8

-------
                            SECTION 3

     THE NEED FOR EVALUATING NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA:
               USE OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES
OVERALL RELEVANCE OF CRITERIA TO WETLANDS

     The national aquatic life criteria have been developed to
provide guidance to the States for the protection of aquatic life
and their uses in a variety of surface waters.  They are designed
to be conservative and "... have been developed on the theory
that effects which occur on a species in appropriate laboratory
tests will generally occur on the same species in comparable
field situations.  All North American bodies of water and
resident aquatic species and their uses are meant to be taken
into account, except for a few that may be too atypical ...w9  A
wide variety of taxonomic groups sensitive to many materials are
used in testing, including many taxa common to both wetlands and
other surface waters.  In order to ensure that criteria are
appropriately protective, water used for testing is low in
particulate matter and organic matter, because these substances
can reduce availability and toxicity of some chemicals.  For
these reasons, the "National Guidance: Water Quality Standards
for Wetlands" states that, in most cases, criteria should be
protective of wetland biota.6

     Although the water quality criteria are probably generally
protective of wetlands and provide the best currently available
tool for regulating contamination from specific pollutants, there
are many different types of wetlands with widely variable
conditions.  There might be some wetland types where the resident
biota or chemical and physical conditions are substantially
different from what the criteria were designed to protect.  These
differences could result in underprotection or overprotection of
the wetland resource.  This section discusses the use of site-
specific guidelines for wetland types for which certain criteria
might be over or underprotective, but its primary focus is to
provide a mechanism to identify wetland types that might be
underprotected by certain criteria and that might require further
research.

-------
WETLAND VARIABILITY
     Wetlands are usually located at the interface between
terrestrial systems and truly aquatic systems, and so combine
attributes of both.12  They are intermediate between terrestrial
and aquatic systems in the amount of water they store and process
and are very sensitive to changes in hydrology.12  Their chemical
and physical properties, such as nutrient availability, degree of
substrate anoxia, soil salinity, sediment properties, and pH are
influenced greatly by hydrologic conditions.  Attendees at a
Wetlands Water Quality Workshop (held in Easton, Maryland in
August, 1988) listed the most common ways in which wetlands
differ from "typical" surface waters:  higher concentrations of
organic carbon and particulate matter, more variable and
generally lower pH, more variable and generally lower dissolved
oxygen, more variable temperatures, and more transient
availability of water.13

     There is also high variability among wetland types.
Wetlands, by definition, share hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and a water table at or near the surface at some time
during the growing season.  Beyond these shared features,
however, there is tremendous hydrological, physical, chemical,
and biological variability.   For example, an early
classification system for wetlands. "Circular 39", listed 20
distinctly different wetland types*4,  and the  present  "Cowardin"
system lists 56 classes of wetlands.15 This variability makes  it
important to evaluate different wetland types individually.


USE OF THE SITE-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR WETLANDS

     The site-specific guidelines outlined in Section 2 are
designed to address the chemical and  biological variability
described above.  Determining the need for site-specific
modifications to criteria requires a  comparison of the aquatic
biota and chemical conditions at the  site to  those used for
establishing the criterion.  This comparison  is useful for
identifying wetland types that might  require  additional
evaluation.  The three  site-specific  options  are discussed in  the
context of their general relevance to wetlands and are used  in
this discussion to provide a framework for evaluating the
protectiveness of criteria for wetlands.

     In most cases, because of the conservative approach used  in
the derivation of the criteria, use  of the site-specific
guidelines to modify criteria results in no change or  in their
relaxation,  provided that an adequate number  of species are  used
in the calculations.  However, criteria can also become more


                                10

-------
restrictive.  Newly tested species could be especially sensitive
to certain pollutants, or extreme water conditions found in some
surface waters or wetland types might not reduce the toxicity of
a chemical.  Disease, parasites, predators, other pollutants,
contaminated or insufficient food, and fluctuating and extreme
conditions might all affect the ability of organisms to withstand
toxic pollutants.9

Appropriateness of Testing Organisms;  Recalculation Procedure

     The first option given in the site-specific guidelines is
the recalculation procedure.8'11  This approach  is designed  to
take into account differences between the sensitivity of resident
species and those used to calculate a criterion for the material
of concern.  It involves eliminating data from the criterion
database for species that are not resident at that site.  It
could require additional resident species testing in laboratory
water if the number of species remaining for recalculating the
criterion drops below the minimum data requirements.  "Resident"
species include those that seasonally or intermittently exist at
a site.11'16

     Use of the recalculation procedure will not necessarily
result in a higher acute criterion value (less restrictive), even
if sensitive species are eliminated from the dataset and minimum
family requirements are met.  The number of families used to
calculate Final Acute Values is important.  If a number of non-
wetland species are dropped out of the calculation without adding
a sufficient number of new species, a lower (more restrictive)
Final Acute Value can result, because data are available for
fewer species.11

Similarity of Required Taxa and Typical Wetland Species—
     The variety of test species required to establish the
national numeric criteria was chosen to represent a wide range of
taxa having a wide range of habitat requirements and sensitivity
to toxicants.  Establishment of a freshwater Final Acute Value
for a chemical requires a minimum of 8 different types of
families to be tested.  These include:  1) the family Salmonidae;
2) a second family of fish, preferably a warmwater species; 3) a
third family in the phylum Chordata  (fish, amphibian, etc.); 4) a
planktonic crustacean; 5) a benthic crustacean; 6) an insect; 7)
a family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata; and 8) a
family in any order of insect or phylum not already represented.9

     When a required type of family does not exist at a site, the
guidelines for the recalculation procedure specify that
substitutes from a sensitive family, resident in the site, should
be added to meet the minimum family data requirement.  Should it
happen that all resident families have been tested and the


                                11

-------
minimum data requirements still have not been met, the acute
toxicity value from the most sensitive resident family that has
been tested should be used as the site-specific value.

     Most of the required families are probably well-represented
in most wetland types.  Some types of wetlands, however, seldom
or never contain fish, and most wetland types do not support
salmonids or aquatic insects requiring flowing water.

General Evaluation of Species Suitability—
     Table 2 presents six criterion chemicals chosen as examples
and the eight taxonomic groups required to establish criteria.
The chemicals include two organochlorines:  polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs - used in industrial applications,
environmentally-persistent, bioaccumulate) and pentachlorophenol
(widely used fungicide and bactericide); one organophosphate:
parathion (insecticide); two metals:  zinc and chromium(VI); and
cyanide.

     The species used for acute toxicity testing for each of the
six chemicals have been broken down by taxonomic group and
evaluated based on the likelihood that those species can be found
in wetlands.  Except for the unsuitability of the Salmonidae to
most wetland types, most of the taxonomic groups are well-
represented for the six chemicals used as examples.  Wetland
species were not present in the list of species used to calculate
the Final Acute Value for the "non-arthropod/non-chordate" and
"another insect or new phylum" groups for a few of the criteria.
This is not because these groups are not represented in wetlands.
These are very general classifications.  For example, the "non-
arthropod/non-chordate" group can include rotifers, annelids, and
mollusks among other phyla, all of which should have many
representatives in most types of wetlands.  There is a large
degree of variation in the total number of species tested for the
six chemicals used as examples, ranging from 10 fish and
invertebrates for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to 45 for zinc
(Table 7).  Criteria based on smaller numbers of species are less
likely to include a sufficient number of wetland species to
fulfill the minimum family requirements.  Additional toxicity
testing, using laboratory water and wetland species from the
missing families, can be done to fill these gaps.

     While the general taxonomic groups required for toxicity
testing are fairly well represented in wetlands, the similarity
between the genera and species inhabiting individual wetland
types and those used for criteria testing varies widely among
criteria and wetland types.  Species chosen for toxicity testing
were seldom or never chosen with wetlands in mind.  In addition,
relatively little is known about species assemblages  in some
types of wetlands  (particularly in those lacking surface waters,


                                12

-------
such as wet meadows or bogs) .   Defining typical wetland taxa is
difficult.  For example, while most types of wetlands do not
support salmonids, Coho salmon are highly dependent on wetlands
in Alaska, where there is a higher percentage and acreage of
wetlands than in any other State.  Part of the utility of the
evaluation proposed here is in identifying where significant gaps
in data exist.

Influence of Cofactors;  Indicator Species Procedure

     The second of the three site-specific procedures, the
indicator species procedure,  accounts for differences in
biological availability and/or toxicity of a material caused by
physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site water, or
cofactors.  For the acute test, the effect of site water is
compared to the effect of laboratory water, using at least two
resident species or acceptable non-resident species (one fish and
one invertebrate) as indicators.  A ratio is determined, which is
used to modify the Final Acute Value.  See Carlson et al.  (1984)
for information and guidelines for determination of site-specific
chronic values.11

Suitability of Standard Testing Conditions—
     Standard aquatic toxicity tests are performed using natural
or reconstituted dilution water that should not of itself affect
the results of toxicity tests.  For example, organic carbon and
particulate matter are required to be low to avoid sorption or
complexation of toxicants, which might lower the toxicity or
availability of some criterion chemicals.  Recommended acute test
conditions for certain water quality characteristics of fresh and
salt water are listed in Table 3.  Wetlands, as well as some
types of surface waters, can have values far outside the ranges
used for standard testing for some of these characteristics (most
notably total organic carbon,  particulate matter, pH, and
dissolved oxygen).  Wetland types can be evaluated to identify
these extremes.

Wetland Cofactors—
     Many water quality characteristics can 1) act as cofactors
to affect the toxicity of pollutants (e.g. alkalinity/acidity,
hardness, ionic strength, organic matter, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, suspended solids); 2)  can be directly toxic to organisms
(e.g. un-ionized ammonia, high or low pH, hydrogen sulfide, low
dissolved oxygen); or 3) can interfere mechanically with feeding
and reproduction  (e.g. suspended solids). The criteria for some
of these water quality characteristics can be naturally exceeded
in many wetland types, as well as in some lakes and streams.

     Hardness, pH, and temperature adjustments built  into  a few
of the criteria account for effects from these cofactors in a few


                                13

-------
cases, but no other cofactors are now included in the criteria,
despite some known effects.  For example, alkalinity, salinity,
and suspended solids, in addition to pH and hardness, are known
to affect the toxicities of heavy metals and ammonia.  These
cofactors are not included in the criteria primarily because
there are insufficient data.9  For example,  most toxicity tests
have been performed under conditions of low or high salinity, so
that estuaries, where salinity values can vary greatly, may
require salinity-dependent site-specific criteria for some
metals.11  An initial evaluation of the adequacy of protection
provided to a wetland type by a criterion should take possible
cofactor effects into account.

Combination:  Resident Species Procedure

     The resident species procedure accounts for differences in
both species sensitivity and water quality characteristics.11
This procedure is costly, because it requires that a complete
minimum dataset be developed using site water and resident
species.  It is designed to compensate concurrently for
differences in the sensitivity range of species represented in
the dataset used to derive the criterion and for site water
differences which may markedly affect the biological availability
and/or toxicity of the chemical.11


AQUATIC PLANTS

     One of the most notable differences between wetlands and
other types of surface waters is the dominance (and importance)
of aquatic macrophytes and other hydrophytic vegetation in
wetlands.   Aquatic plants probably constitute the majority of the
biomass in most wetland types.

     Few data concerning toxicity to aquatic plants are currently
required for deriving aquatic life criteria.  Traditionally,
procedures for aquatic toxicity tests on plants have not been as
well developed as for animals.  Although national numeric
criteria development guidelines state that results of a test with
a freshwater alga or vascular plant "should be available" for
establishing a criterion, they do not require that information.9
The Final  Plant Value is the lowest (most sensitive) result from
tests with important aquatic plant species  (vascular plant or
alga), in which the concentrations of test material were measured
and the endpoint was biologically important.  Plant values are
compared to animal values to determine the relative sensitivities
of aquatic plants and animals.  If plants are "among the aquatic
organisms  that are most sensitive to the material," results of a
second test with a plant from another phylum are included.9
                                14

-------
     Results of tests with plants usually indicate that criteria
which protect aquatic animals and their uses also protect aquatic
plants and their uses.9  As criteria are evaluated for their
suitability for wetlands, however, plant values should be
examined carefully.  Additional plant testing may be advisable in
some cases.  If site-specific adjustments are made to some
criteria, they could result in less restrictive acute and chronic
values for animals.  Some plant values could then be as sensitive
or more sensitive than the animal values.  Chemicals with fairly
sensitive plant values include:  aluminum, arsenic(III), cadmium,
chloride, chromium(VI), cyanide, and selenium(VI).  For example,
fish are generally much more sensitive to cyanide than
invertebrates.  If the recalculation procedure was used to
develop a site-specific cyanide criterion for a wetland type
containing no fish, values for these sensitive species would be
replaced in the calculation, possibly by less sensitive species.
A less restrictive criterion could result, possibly making the
plant value more sensitive than the animal value.   Therefore,
additional consideration should be given to plant toxicity data
for wetland systems.
                               15

-------
                            SECTION 4

                       EVALUATION  PROGRAM


     The direct application of existing aquatic life criteria to
wetlands is assumed to be reasonable in most cases.  It provides
a practical approach towards protecting the biological integrity
of wetlands.  The following evaluation program offers a possible
strategy to identify extreme wetland types that might be
underprotected by some criteria, to prioritize wetland types and
criterion chemicals for further testing or research, and to
identify gaps in available data.  The approach can be helpful for
identifying those instances where modifications to existing
criteria might be advisable.  The proposed evaluation program
offers a screening tool to begin to answer the following
questions:  1) Are there some wetland types for which certain
criteria are underprotective?  2) For criteria in wetland types
that cannot be applied directly, can site-specific guidelines be
used to modify the criteria to protect the wetland?  3) Will
additional toxicity testing under wetland conditions and with
wetland species be necessary in some cases in order to establish
site-specific criteria?

     The proposed approach relates species and water quality
characteristics of individual wetland types to species and water
quality characteristics important in deriving each criterion.  It
involves identifying wetland types of concern, identifying
cofactors possibly affecting toxicity for the criteria of
interest, gathering data on the biota and water quality
characteristics of the wetland type, and comparing to data used
to derive the criterion.
CLASSIFICATION

     The proposed program for the evaluation of the suitability
of aquatic life criteria discussed in this section can be done
separately for individual wetland types.  These can be defined in
the classification process, which is the first step in developing
standards for wetlands.  The classification process requires the
identification of the various structural types of wetlands and
identification of their functions and values.6  The
classification should provide groups of wetlands that are similar
                                16

-------
enough structurally and functionally so that they can reasonably
be expected to respond in kind to inputs of toxic chemicals.


EVALUATING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF DIRECT APPLICATION OF CRITERIA

Information Needed

     1.  Identification of cofactors.  Cofactors potentially
affecting mobility and biological availability for each criterion
chemical should be identified.  Cofactors known to affect each
criterion chemical are listed in individual national criteria
documents and are summarized in Table 4.  The absence of a
relationship between a cofactor and a chemical on Table 4 does
not ensure that no relationship exists, merely that none was
discussed in the criteria document.  The chemistry of the effects
of the cofactors on the chemicals is often very complicated, and
limited data are available regarding some of the relationships.
The approach presented here is simplistic and is geared toward
directing further efforts.  Other sources of information, in
addition to the criteria documents, should be consulted when
actually applying this approach.  Criteria that include hardness-
or pH-dependent correction factors (Table 1) should apply
directly to wetlands unless the wetland type has extremes of pH
or hardness well outside the ranges used in toxicity testing.
For example, the pH of acid bogs can be as low as 3.5, well below
the 6.5 lower limit for toxicity testing (Table 3).

     2.  Comparison to wetland water chemistry.  Natural levels
and variability of those cofactors should be identified as well
as possible for each major wetland type of interest.  Wetlands-
related information can be accumulated through consultation with
wetland researchers, through literature searches, and from
monitoring agencies.

     3.  Comparison of species lists.  Species lists of fish,
invertebrates, and plants should be compiled for each wetland
type and compared to lists of species used for testing each
criterion.  Lists should be evaluated on two levels:  a) Species
level - Are the species used for toxicity testing representative
(the same species or genera, or "similar" in terms of sensitivity
to toxicants)  of the species found in the wetland type?
b) Family level - Does the wetland contain suitable
representatives for each of the families listed in the minimum
family requirements?8'11  Consultation with  fish and  invertebrate
specialists, plant ecologists, and wetlands expe ~s will be
necessary to do this comparison.
                                17

-------
Adoption of Existing Water Quality Criterion

     The existing water quality criterion should be suitable for
that wetland type if the following are true:

     1.  Important cofactor levels are not naturally exceeded in
the wetland to a degree that might seriously affect toxicity or
availability of the chemical.  Would toxicity likely be higher,
lower, or not influenced by typical levels or extremes of a
particular cofactor in a particular wetland type?

     2.  Sufficient species or genera used for aquatic toxicity
testing are found in the wetland type so that the minimum family
requirements can be met by resident wetland species.
Consultation between wetland scientists and criteria experts will
be necessary in many cases to make judgements on how well-
represented some wetland types are.

     3.  The criterion itself is not naturally exceeded in the
wetland.
DEVELOPING SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA

     When one or more of these stipulations is not true or when
insufficient data are available, more evaluation is advisable.
Again, consultation between wetland scientists and criteria
experts might be helpful in prioritizing those wetland types for
which additional protection, or additional research, might be
needed for some chemicals.  Once a priority list for further
evaluation is established, an approach to obtaining the
additional required data can be determined.  It might be possible
to group wetlands by type, and possibly by designated use, and
then develop site-specific criteria for all wetlands of that type
in the State.
                                18

-------
                            SECTION 5

                         EXAMPLE ANALYSES


     Evaluations of the applicability of the six criteria listed
in Table 2 will be made for two sets of wetland data, including
shallow marshes and prairie potholes.  The analyses in these
examples were made with limited data for each wetland type and
are preliminary.  They have been compiled to be used only as
illustrations of the usefulness of this approach.


EXAMPLE 1

     The first example is based on a wetland study taking place
in southcentral Minnesota.  The wetlands are being studied to
evaluate the effects of disturbance on water quality, as well as
the effects of pesticides on wetland communities.  Therefore
chemical and biological data have been collected.18

Classification

     The wetland study sites are primarily shallow marshes
(freshwater palustrine, persistent emergent, semi-permanently or
seasonally-flooded, according to Cowardin15), dominated by
Phalaris (reed canary grass) and Typha (cattails), but also
include a small number of wet meadow/seasonally-flooded wetlands,
deep marsh, shrub/scrub + woody wetlands, and ponds.

Steps 1 and 2;  Identification of Cofactors and Comparison to
Wetland Water Chemistry

     Cofactors are identified for criteria chemicals in Table 4.
Some water quality characteristics averaged for 5 seasons for the
Minnesota wetlands are summarized in Table 5.

     Although some water chemistry conditions in the shallow
marshes were within the ranges of the aquatic toxicity testing
conditions, others were exceeded (Table 3).  Wetland values for
pH were well within the 6.5-9.0 range allowed for testing, so
criteria having pH as a possible cofactor affecting toxicity
and/or biological availability should not be underprotective
because of pH effects.  As Table 4 shows, PCP, chromium(VI),
zinc, and cyanide can be more toxic at low pH values, so a very


                                19

-------
acidic wetland might require additional evaluation in regard to
pH.  The PCP criterion has an adjustment factor for pH,  which
indicates that enough suitable data are available to allow this
relationship to be incorporated into the criterion.

     Hardness values were not available for these marshes, but
were probably fairly low since alkalinity was low.  Table 4 lists
hardness as a cofactor for zinc and chromium(VI).  Table 1
reveals that the zinc criterion has an adjustment factor for
hardness, so any effect of hardness on zinc toxicity and/or
biological availability is already included in the criterion and
does not have to be considered further.  Chromium(VI) is more
toxic at low alkalinity and hardness, but the criterion was
derived using soft water and should be protective for the
wetlands.

     Total organic carbon (TOC) was highly variable in the
wetlands and generally well above the 5 mg/L limit for toxicity
testing.  However parathion and zinc, the two criteria with TOC
cofactor effects, have reduced toxicity and/or biological
availability at high levels of organic matter (Table 4), so
criteria should be protective.

     Dissolved oxygen (DO) was highly variable in the wetlands
and reached very low levels in late summer.  The  shallow waters
of the marshes were extremely warm on hot summer  days.  Toxicity
and/or biological availability is increased by low DO and high
temperatures for PCBs, PCP, and cyanide.  These relationships
will require further evaluation.

Step 3:  Comparisons of Species Lists

     In Step 3, fish, invertebrates, and plants inhabiting the
wetlands are compared to species used in testing  each criterion.
For these examples, only the acute toxicity lists have been
consulted.  A list of genera common to both the marshes and to
the toxicity tests was compiled for each criterion.  When
identical species were not found, species from the same genus
were compared to determine whether habitat requirements are
suitable enough to include them as representative species for
these wetlands.  The shortened list of marsh species the same as,
or similar to, species used for toxicity testing  was examined to
determine whether the minimum  family requirements for acute
toxicity tests could be met for each criterion.   Table 6 contains
a list of marsh genera that could be used to fulfill minimum
family requirements for each criterion.  Appendix A  contains a
list of the sources that have  been consulted in making this
comparison.
                                20

-------
     The aquatic species found in the Minnesota wetlands were
fairly well-represented by the acute toxicity test species for
the six chemicals used in this example.  The percentages of total
species tested that have not been found in these wetlands were
below 50% for all six criteria (Table 7).  Except for PCBs,-for
which no plant value is available, plant species tested
overlapped with species occurring in the wetlands.  The absence
of salmonids in wetlands was the only consistent omission.

     Of all the species tested, the salmonids are the most
sensitive to PCP and cyanide and are much more sensitive than
most invertebrate species.  The inclusion of highly sensitive
salmonid data in the criteria calculations probably ensures that
these two criteria are adequately protective when applied to
wetlands not containing this sensitive family (not considering
cofactor effects).  It would perhaps be more important to
consider the effects of the absence of salmonids in Minnesota
marshes for criteria where salmonids are among the least
sensitive species, including parathion and chromium(VI).  In this
case, the presence of salmonid toxicity data in the criterion
calculation, despite their absence from the wetlands, could
possibly cause the criterion to be less restrictive than is
appropriate for the wetland.

     Salmonids do not occur in the wetlands included in this
example.  Three criteria were missing an additional required
taxonomic group (from Table 6:  PCBs, chromium(VI), and cyanide).
There are certainly representatives of this taxonomic group
(nonarthropod/nonchordate) inhabiting the wetlands, but the
genera used for toxicity tests did not correspond to the wetland
genera.   These three criteria have the least species on the acute
toxicity list, so there are less species to compare to, in
relation to the other criteria (Table 7).  Toxicity experts and
wetland biologists might be able to fill some of these data gaps
by reaching conclusions on the suitability of wetland species to
fulfill the minimum family requirements.


EXAMPLE 2

     This example is based on data for a number of oligpsaline
prairie pothole wetlands in southcentral North Dakota. f20
Oligosaline is defined as ranging from 0.5-5 g/kg salinity, or
specific conductance of 800-8,000 /^S/crn at 25°C.
The chemical types of the majority of wetlands used in this
example include magnesium bicarbonate, magnesium sulfate, and
sodium sulfate.20
                                21

-------
Classification

     Wetlands included in this example are semipermanent (cover
type 4 of the classification system developed by Stewart and
Kantrud for the glaciated prairie region)2 , containing wet _
meadow, shallow marsh, and deep marsh.  Classification of these
wetlands based on the Cowardin system can be found in Kantrud et
al.20

Steps 1 and 2;  Identification of Cofactors and Comparison to
Wetland Water Chemistry

     Cofactors are identified for criteria chemicals in Table 4.
Water quality data for the prairie pothole wetlands are
summarized in Table 8.  A comparison of water chemistry
conditions for the prairie potholes with standard toxicological
testing conditions (Table 3) reveals a number of differences.

     These wetlands are extremely alkaline and saline compared to
water used for freshwater toxicity testing.  Salinity (reported
as specific conductance) can vary greatly over the year and is
concentrated by the high rates of evaporation and transpiration
that take place in the summer.  A number of the wetlands have pH
values above the 6.5-9.0 range that the criteria are designed to
protect.  No data were available for total organic carbon  (TOC),
but dissolved organic carbon values from other prairie pothole
systems were generally well above the TOC limit of 5 mg/L used
for toxicity testing. 2  As  in Example 1,  hardness can be
eliminated from consideration as a cofactor, because toxicity
and/or biological availability is decreased as hardness
increases.  Similarly, the probable high TOC levels would
decrease toxicity and/or biological availability for zinc and
chromium(VI).  The high pH values should cause decreased toxicity
and/or biological availability.  Bioavailability of zinc is
reduced  in high ionic strength waters such as these.

     Dissolved oxygen  (DO)  levels drop in the winter and in
middle to late summer, allowing anoxic conditions to develop.
Although no aquatic temperature data were available, the Dakotas
have moderately hot summers  (mean July temperature of 22.3°C).20
The shallow waters of the prairie potholes probably become very
warm in  late summer, corresponding with low DO levels.  Toxicity
and/or biological availability is increased by low DO and high
temperatures for PCBs, PCP, and cyanide.  These relationships
will require further evaluation.

Step 3;  Comparisons of Species Lists

     Semi-permanent prairie pothole wetlands are generally
shallow  and eutrophic.  Water levels  fluctuate greatly, as does


                                22

-------
salinity.  The cold winters can cause some of the wetlands to
freeze to the bottom.  Both winterkill and summerkill, caused by
the effects of lack of oxygen, can occur.  Fish can survive only
in semipermanent wetlands that have connections to deeper water
habitat.  The only native fishes known to occur in semi-permanent
prairie potholes are fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and
brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans).

     The invertebrate taxa of prairie potholes are typical of
other eutrophic, alkaline systems in the United States.
Macroinvertebrate species assemblages are highly influenced by
hydroperiod and salinity in these systems, and species diversity
drops as salinity increases.20  Care must be taken in aggregating
large salinity ranges into one wetland type (i.e. "oligosaline"
may be too broad a class in terms of species representativeness).
Comparisons of species typical of the wetlands with the criteria
species lists reveals some major differences.  For example, a
large proportion of the aquatic insects tested for each criterion
are found in flowing water, and therefore might not be
characteristic of prairie pothole aquatic insects.  Although many
species of aquatic insects are found in these wetlands20, there
are not many suitable aquatic insects on the criteria species
lists to compare to resident wetland species.  Prairie pothole
wetlands do not harbor Decapods (crayfish and shrimp), another
common group for testing.  Eubranchiopods (fairy, tadpole, and
clam shrimp) are commonly found in prairie pothole wetlands20,
but only one representative of this group has been used to
establish criteria,  and that species was not on the list for any
of the criteria used as examples here.  Except for PCBs, for
which no plant value is available, plant species tested do
overlap with species occurring in the wetlands.  Appendix B
contains sources used in making comparisons.

     The above discussion has obvious implications for
determining applicability of criteria based on suitability of
species.  As Table 7 shows, the percentages of species tested for
each criterion that have not been found in prairie potholes are
rather high (up to 67%).  There are more gaps in the minimum
family requirements for fish and chordates  (Table 9) than were
found for the Minnesota marsh example.  The lack of fish in these
wetlands dictates that amphibians or other chordates be used to
fill these family requirements.  The paucity of fish in these
wetlands again has relevance to the protectiveness of the
criteria.  Fish are the most sensitive group tested for PCP and
cyanide, so these criteria may have an added "buffer" of
protection (in relation to the other criteria used as examples)
when applied with no modifications to this wetland type.
                                23

-------
SUMMARY OF THE EXAMPLE ANALYSES

     The conclusions discussed below should be considered as
examples only.  They should not be considered final for these
wetland types.

Cofactor Effects

     Based on this simple analysis, the only cofactors that
potentially could cause criteria to be underprotective were DO
and temperature.  The low DO and high temperatures common in both
wetland types in mid to late summer could cause increased
toxicity and/or biological availability for PCBs, PCP, and
cyanide.  Cofactor effects for chromium(VI), zinc, and parathion
were either not important under the chemical conditions
encountered in these wetlands or should result in criteria being
more, rather than less, protective for the wetland biota.  Based
on water quality characteristics, it can be concluded that
chromium(VI), zinc, and parathion criteria are probably
adequately protective of these wetland types with no acute
modification.

     The importance of the DO and temperature relationship
requires further evaluation for PCBs, PCP, and cyanide.  Chemists
and wetlands experts should be consulted and further literature
reviews should be completed to evaluate the need for additional
toxicity tests.  If it is determined that a modification to a
criterion is warranted, seasonal site-specific criteria might be
appropriate in this case.  The indicator species procedure could
be used, requiring toxicity tests using site water on one fish
and one invertebrate.  The tests could be done at the high
temperatures and low DO found in late summer in the wetlands.

Species Comparisons

     The Salmonidae are a required family group for establishing
a Final Acute Value and yet are not present in either of the
wetland types used as examples.  This evaluation is most
concerned with ensuring that criteria are adequately protective,
so the absence of this family in the wetlands should only be
considered a problem if the unmodified criterion  (which  includes
the Salmonidae) might be underprotective.  This would most likely
be true for parathion and chromium(VI).

     For several criteria, some  family requirements are  not
fulfilled because the available toxicity data for that taxonomic
group do not  include wetland species or genera  ("NT"  in  Tables  6
and 9).  While this document made comparisons at the genus level,
others have made comparisons at the  family  level to determine if
the species listed in the criteria document is a member  of a


                                24

-------
family that exists at the site.16  Issues related to  species
comparisons should be addressed through discussion with criteria
experts and wetlands ecologists and through further  literature
review.

     The absence of fish in prairie potholes to fill the "other
chords as" category for cyanide, zinc, chromium(VI), and PCBs may
warran  additional toxicity tests and site-specific
modifications.  The only other fish likely to be present in these
wetlands is the brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans)20 which was
not tested for any of the six criteria.  No non-fish chordates
were tested either, so no evaluation of the probable sensitivity
of other chordates to these criteria can be made based on the
criteria documents.

     If it is decided upon more rigorous evaluation that these
differences in taxonomic groups warrant additional efforts and
development of site-specific criteria, the recalculation
procedure can be used.  A suitable family, resident  in the
wetlands, can be added to the list to replace the Salmonidae
and/or other missing groups, either through additional toxicity
tests or by including additional available data.

Further Evaluation

     This approach helps to prioritize wetland types and criteria
for further evaluation.  It was concluded that zinc,
chromium(VI), and parathion criteria require no modification with
regard to cofactor effects.  PCBs, PCP, and cyanide, however,
should be evaluated further in regard to the effects of high
temperatures and low DO on toxicity, for both wetland types.  The
absence of salmonids may be most important for parathion and
chromium(VI)  in both wetland types.   Further consideration should
be given to the need for additional tests with chordates from
prairie pothole wetlands for cyanide, zinc, chromium(VI) and
PCBs, although there is no evidence to suggest that the absence
of representative wetland chordates from the test species will
result in underprotective criteria.

     This type of evaluation, done for a number of wetland types
and criteria, can be combined with information on the types of
pollutants that threaten particular wetland types.   In this way
wetland types requiring additional evaluation and perhaps
eventually some additional toxicity testing for particular
pollutants can be prioritized based on adequacy of existing
criteria, potential threats to the system, and resources
available for testing.  These examples illustrate the need for
wetland scientists to work closely with criteria experts.  Expert
judgement is needed to evaluate the significance of  the gaps in
the available data.


                                25

-------
                            SECTION 6

                           CONCLUSIONS
     The efficient use of limited resources dictates that
criteria and standards for wetlands be developed by making good
use of the wealth of data that has been accumulated for other
surface waters.   This report focused on the application of
numeric aquatic  life criteria to wetlands.   The numeric aquatic
life criteria are designed to protect aquatic life and their
uses.  The criteria are conservative, and for most wetland types
are probably protective or overprotective.

     A simple, inexpensive evaluation technique has been proposed
in this document for detecting wetland types that might be
underprotected for some chemicals by existing criteria.  The
approach relies  on information contained in criteria documents,
data regarding species composition and water quality
characteristics  for the wetland types of interest, and
consultation with experts.  It is intended to be used as a
screening tool for prioritizing those wetland types that require
additional evaluations and research.

     Two tests of the approach demonstrated that it can be used
to identify cases in which criteria might be underprotective, but
further evaluation and close coordination among regulatory
agencies, wetland scientists, and criteria experts are needed to
determine when actual modifications to the criteria are
necessary.

     Site-specific guidelines for modifying the numeric criteria
should be appropriate for use on wetlands in cases where
additional evaluations reveal that modifications are needed.  The
approach described in this document can be used to compile lists
of the most commonly under-represented species and the most
frequently encountered chemicals.  Aquatic toxicity tests can
then be conducted which would apply to a number of wetland types.

     Information obtained with this approach can be used to
prioritize further evaluations and research, identify gaps in
data, and make further testing more efficient, but has some
limitations.  It does not adequately address the importance  of
plants in wetland systems and applies only to the aquatic
component of wetlands.  It relies on species assemblage and  water


                                26

-------
quality data that are not available for some wetland types.  For
these reasons, a meeting of wetland scientists and criteria
experts is recommended to discuss the need for this type of
evaluation, the utility of this approach, and possible
alternative approaches.

     The application of numeric criteria to wetlands is just one
part of a large effort to develop wetland standards and criteria.
The development of biocriteria, sediment criteria, and wildlife
criteria will help to ensure that all components of the wetland
resource are adequately protected.
                                27

-------
                           REFERENCES


1.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.   1984.  An Overview of Major
     Wetland Functions and Values.

2.   Tiner, R.W.,  Jr.  1984.   Wetlands of the United States:
     Current Status and Recent Trends.  U.S.  Fish and Wildlife
     Service.

3.   U.S. EPA, Office of Water.  1989.  The Water Planet.

4.   The Conservation Foundation.   1988.  Protecting America's
     Wetlands:  An Action Agenda:   The Final Report of the
     National Wetlands Policy Forum.

5.   U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office
     of Wetlands Protection.   1989.  Survey of State Water
     Quality Standards for Wetlands.   Internal report.

6.   U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office
     of Wetlands Protection.   In Review.  Draft National
     Guidance:  Water Quality Standards for Wetlands.

7.   Adamus, P.R.,  K. Brandt, and M.  Brown.  1990.  Use of
     Biological Community Measurements for Determining Ecological
     Condition of,  and Criteria for,  Inland Wetlands of the
     United States - A Survey of Techniques,  Indicators,
     Locations, and Applications.   U.S. EPA,  Corvallis, Oregon.

8.   U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards.  1986.
     Quality Criteria for Water.  EPA-440/5-86-001.  U.S. EPA,
     Washington, D.C.

9.   Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J.  Hansen,  J.H. Gentile, G.A.
     Chapman, and W.A. Brungs.  1985.  Guidelines for Deriving
     Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
     of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.  PBS5-227049.  National
     Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.

10.  U.S. EPA, Office of Water.  1985.  Technical Support
     Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.  EPA-440/4-
     85-032.
                                28

-------
11.  Carlson,  A.R.,  W.A. Brungs, G.A. Chapman, and D.J. Hansen.
     1984.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-
     Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National
     Criteria.  EPA-600/3-84-099.  U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota.

12.  Mitsch,  W.J.  and J.G. Gosselink.  1986.  Wetlands.  New
     York:  Van Nostrand Reinhold.

13.  Phillip,  K.  1989.  Review of Regulated Substances and
     Potential Cofactors in Wetland Environments.  Draft internal
     report submitted to U.S. EPA.

14.  Shaw, S.P., and C.G. Fredine.   1956.  Wetlands of the United
     States,  Their Extent, and Their Value for Waterfowl and
     Other wildlife.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, circular
     39.   Washington, D.C., 67p.

15.  Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.
     1979.  Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
     the United States.  FWS/OBS-79/31.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
     Service.

16.  Hansen,  D.J., J. Cardin, L.R.  Goodman, and G.M. Gripe.
     1985.  Applicability of Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria
     Obtained Using the Resident Species Recalculation Option.
     Internal report, U.S. EPA, Narragansett, Rhode Island and
     Gulf Breeze,  Florida.

17.  American Society for Testing Materials.  1988.  Standard
     Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with Fishes,
     Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.  Standard E 729-88a,
     ASTM, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

18.  Detenbeck, N.E.  1990.  Effects of Disturbance on Water-
     Quality Functions of Wetlands:  Interim Progress Report:
     January 1990.  Natural Resources Research Institute.
     Internal report submitted to U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota.

19.  Swanson,  G.A.,  T.C. Winter, V.A. Adomaitis, and J.W.
     LaBaugh.   1988.  Chemical Characteristics of Prairie Lakes
     in South-central North Dakota - Their Potential for
     Influencing Use by Fish an Wildlife.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
     Service Technical Report 18.

20.  Kantrud,  H.A.,  G.L. Krapu, and G.A. Swanson.  1989.  Prairie
     Basin Wetlands of the Dakotas:  A Community Profile.  U.S.
     Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.28).
                                29

-------
21.  Stewart,  R.E.,  and H.A. Kantrud.  1971.  Classification of
     Natural Ponds and Lakes in the Glaciated Prairie Region.
     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 92.
     57p.

22.  LaBaugh,  J.W.  1989.  Chemical Characteristics of Water in
     Northern Prairie Wetlands.  Pages 56-90 In A.G. van der
     Valk, ed.,  Northern Prairie Wetlands.  Iowa State University
     Press.
                                30

-------
                           APPENDIX A

          SOURCES USED IN SPECIES  HABITAT IDENTIFICATION
                      FOR MINNESOTA MARSHES
Fishes:

     Eddy, S., and J.C. Underbill.  1974.  Northern Fishes.  3rd
     edition.  University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

     Nelson, J.S.  1984.  Fishes of the World.  2nd edition.  New
     York:  John Wiley and Sons.

     Niering, W.A.  1987.  Wetlands.  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf.

     Personal Communications:
          P. DeVore and C. Richards of the Natural Resources
          Research Institute, Duluth, Minnesota.
          G. Montz, Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources.

Macroinvertebrates:

     Niering, W.A.  1987.  Wetlands.  New York:  Alfred A. Knopf.

     Pennak, R.W.  1978.  Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United
     States.  2nd edition.  New York:  John Wiley and Sons.

     Williams, W.D.  1976.  Freshwater Isopods  (Asellidae) of
     North America.  U.S. EPA, Cincinnati.

     Personal Communications:
          P. DeVore and A. Hershey of the Natural Resources
          Research Institute, Duluth, Minnesota.
          P. Mickelson of the University of Minnesota, Duluth.
                                31

-------
                           APPENDIX B

          SOURCES  USED  IN SPECIES HABITAT  IDENTIFICATION
                       FOR  PRAIRIE  POTHOLES
Fishes:
     Kantrud, H.A.,  G.L. Krapu,  and G.A. Swanson.  1989.  Prairie
     Basin Wetlands of the Dakotas:  A Community Profile.  U.S.
     Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.28).

     Swanson, G.A.,  T.C. Winter, V.A. Adomaitis, and J.W.
     LaBaugh.  1988.  Chemical Characteristics of Prairie Lakes
     in South-central North Dakota - Their Potential for
     Influencing Use by Fish an Wildlife.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
     Service Technical Report 18.

Macroinvertebrates:

     Broschart, M.R. and R.L Linder.  1986.  Aquatic
     invertebrates in level ditches and adjacent emergent marsh
     in a South Dakota wetland.   Prairie Nat. 18(3):167-178.

     Eddy, S. and A.C. Hodson.  1961.  Taxonomic Keys to the
     Common Animals of the Northcentral States.  Minneapolis:
     Burgess Publishing Co.

     Krapu, G.L.  1974.  Feeding ecology of pintail hens during
     reproduction.  The Auk 91:278-290.

     Pennak, R.W.  1978.  Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United
     States.  2nd edition.  New York:  John Wiley and Sons.

     Swanson, G.A.  1984.  Invertebrates consumed by dabbling
     ducks (Anatinae) on the breeding grounds.  Journal of the
     Minnesota Academy of Science 50:37-45.

     van der Valk, A., ed.  1989.  Northern Prairie Marshes.
     Ames:  Iowa State University Press.
                                32

-------
       TABLE 1.  FRESHWATER NUMERIC AQUATIC  LIFE CRITERIA*
  Chemical
H, T, or pH
 Dependent
   Chemical
H, T, or pH*
 Dependent
Organochlorines:
  Aldrin
  Chlordane
  DDT
  Dieldrin
  Endosulfan
  Endrin
  Heptachlor
  Lindane
  PCBs
  Pentachlorophenol

Organophosphates:
  Chlorpyrifos
  Parathion
      pH
 Metals:
   Aluminum
   Arsenic(III)
   Cadmium             H
   Chromium(III)       H
   Chromium(VI)
   Copper              H
   Lead                H
   Mercury
   Nickel              H
   Selenium
   Silver              H
   Zinc                H

Others:
   Ammonia           pH, T
   Chloride
   Chlorine
   Cyanide
   Dissolved oxygen    T
*    Summarized from individual criteria documents.  Chemicals
     that have adjustment factors built into the criteria are
     indicated.
**   H = Hardness, T = Temperature.
                                33

-------
 TABLE  2.   SUITABILITY  OF WETLAND  SPECIES TO  FILL MINIMUM FAMILY
            REQUIREMENTS FOR SIX CRITERION CHEMICALS
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmon id
Other Fish
Other
Chordate
Planktonic
Crustacean
Benthic
Crustacean
Insect
Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
Another
Insect
or New Phylum
PCBs
NP*
Y**

Y

Y

Y
Y

NT***

Y

Para-
thion
NP
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

PCP
NP
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Cyanide
NP
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

NT

Zinc
NP
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Chrom-
ium (VI)
NP
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

*NP    Not present:   Taxonomic group not present in most wetland
       types.
**Y    Wetland genera represented adequately.
***NT  Not tested:   Available toxicity data does not include
       sufficient wetland species.
                                34

-------
     TABLE 3.   SOME CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED FOR DILUTION WATER
               FOR WATER QUALITY CRITERIA TESTING17
Characteristic
Total organic carbon
Particulate matter
PH
Freshwater
<5 mg/L
<5 mg/L
6.5-9.0
Saltwater
<20 mg/L8
<20 mg/La
Stenohaline

8.0
                                            Euryhaline  7.7
                                              Range <0.2
 Hardness
 (mg/L as CaC03)

 Salinity
Soft water 40-48
 Range <5 mg/Lb
                     Stenohaline 34 g/kg
                     Euryhaline  17 g/kg
                       Range <2 g/kgc
 Dissolved oxygen    60-100% saturation*1   60-100% saturation*1
 Temperature
+/- 5 °C  of  water6
   of origin
a  <5  mg/L for tests other than saltwater bivalve molluscs.
b  Or  10%  of average,  whichever is higher.
c  Or  20%  of average,  whichever is higher.
d  For flow-through tests (40-100% for static tests).
e  For invertebrates only.
                                35

-------
        TABLE  4.   EFFECTS OF COFACTORS  ON CRITERION CHEMICAL TOXICITY
                              COFACTORS:  Effect of Greater Value
                       pH    TOC   TURB TEMP DO   H    IONIC  8   NUTR/ORG
organochlorines:
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane
Endosulfan
PCBs
Pentachloropheno1
Toxaphene

Organophosphates:
Parathion
Chlorpyrifos

Metals:
Arsenic (III)
    ium
« ""* nium (VI)
C.  jmium (III)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum

other:
Chlorine
Cyanide
Ammonia
Chloride
DO
                                         ?    0
                                         +

                                         +?
•p
0
                                                  -
+:  increased toxicity/mobility
0:  no effect on toxicity/mobility
-:  decreased toxicity/mobility
TOC: total organic carbon
TURB: turbidity
    C: ionic strength/cations
                                     ?:  tested and found inconclusive
                                      :  not discussed in criteria document
                                     ±:  short-term increase/long-term decrease
                                     DO: dissolved oxygen H: hardness
                                     NUTR/ORG: nutrients/organic acids
                                     S: salinity
                                      36

-------
    TABLE 5.  WATER CHEMISTRY FOR SELECTED MINNESOTA MARSHES*
Water Quality
Characteristic
Mean Value
Range
Comparison with
Standard Testing
   Conditions
  pH (pH units)       7.1

  Total organic
     carbon (mg/L)     20

  Dissolved
     oxygen (mg/L)    8.2

  Hardness          No data
(mg/L as CaC03)

  Alkalinity           8
(mg/L as CaC03)

  Temperature  (°C)    11.9

  Turbidity (NTU)      33
               6.1 - 7.6    Within  range


                 5-60        High


               0.4 - 15.4   Seasonally low
                 4-14


               0.3 - 31.0  Seasonal  extremes

                 1 - 412
* Data taken from Detenbeck  (1990), n=42 wetlands.
                                                   18
                                37

-------
            TABLE 6.  COMPARISON OF TEST SPECIES WITH
             MINNESOTA MARSH BIOTA  FOR  SIX CRITERIA
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fisha
Other
Chordate
PCBs

NP*1
Micropterus

Pimephales
Parathion

NP
Lepomis

Pimephales
PCP
~
NP
Micropterus

Ran a
Planktonic
Crustacean

Benthic
Crustacean

Insect

Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
Daphnia

unknown
amphipod

Ishnurab


NTe
Daphnia


Orconectes

Chironomus

unknown6
nematodes/
annelids
Daphnia


Orconectes

Tanytarsus

unknown6
nematodes/
annelids
Another
Insect
or New Phylum
Aquatic
Plant

Tanytarsus


NT

Ishnura


alga
unknown
amphipod/
isopod

Lemna
                                             continued
                                38

-------
                        TABLE  6,  CONTINUED
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fish8
Cyanide
NP
Perca
Zinc
NP
Lepomis
Chromium (VI)
NP
Lepomis
Other
Chordate

Planktonic
Crustacean

Benthic
Crustacean
Insect

Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate

Another
Insect
or New Phylum

Aquatic
Plant
Lepomis
Daphnia

unknown0
amphipod/
isopod

Tanytarsus
Physa
NT
Lemna
Pimephales
Daphnia

unknown6
amphipod/
isopod

Argia6
Physa

unknown6
annelid/
nematode
Lemna
Pimephales


Daphnia


Orconectes


Chironomus


Physa


NT



alga
a    Fish were sampled in water bodies associated with some of
     the wetlands, not in the wetlands themselves.
b    Probable or seen as an adult.
c    Unknown species from these taxa found in wetlands.  May or
     may not be similar in terms of habitat requirements, etc. to
     species used in toxicity tests.
d    Not present:  Taxonomic group not present in wetland type.
e    Not tested:  Available toxicity data does not include
     sufficient wetland species.
                                39

-------
   TABLE 7.  NUMBER OF SPECIES TESTED  FOR ACUTE  CRITERIA AND
        PERCENTAGE OF TEST SPECIES THAT ARE NOT FOUND IN
        MINNESOTA MARSHES  OR  OLIGOSALINE PRAIRIE  POTHOLES*

           Species Used to     Not Present    Not Present in
Chemical   Establish FAV**     in Marshes    Prairie Potholes
           (Total Number)       (Per cent)      (Per cent)
PCBs
Parathion
PCP
Cyanide
Zinc
Chromium (VI)
* Remainder
10
37
37
17
45
33
r of perce
30%
43%
22%
29%
45%
27%
ntaqe includes both t
40%
64%
43%
65%
67%
64%
hose species that arc
     known to occur in these wetlands and those species that may
     occur in the wetlands, but insufficient data are available.
**   Final Acute Value.
                                40

-------
           TABLE  8.   WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS FOR
                  OLIGOSALINE PRAIRIE POTHOLES*
Water Quality
Characteristic
Mean Value
           Comparison with
          Standard Testing
Range        Conditions
  pH (pH units)        8.9

  Total organic
     carbon (mg/L)    No datac

  Dissolved
     oxygen (ppm)     No datad

  Hardness            No data6
(mg/L as CaC03)

  Alkalinity            650
(mg/L as CaC03)

  Temperature  (°C)     No dataf

  Specific conductance  3568
(MS/cm at 25°C)
               7.4 - 10.34
                High
               230 - 1300
                High
               750 - 8000
a    Data summarized from Swanson et al.  (1988).19
b    N=27 wetlands.
c    Dissolved organic carbon data for Manitoba prairie  potholes
     ranged from 0.4-102 mg/L, and for Nebraska,  from  20-60 mg/L
     in one study and 139-440 mg/L in another study.22
d    Winterkill, caused by low dissolved  oxygen under  ice, occurs
     in many of these lakes.
e    An estimate of hardness based on alkalinity  values  gives  a
     mean of 760 mg/L as CaCO,.
f    Region is characterized by very cold winters and  warm
     summers.
                                41

-------
            TABLE 9.   COMPARISON OF TEST SPECIES WITH
             PRAIRIE POTHOLE BIOTA FOR SIX CRITERIA
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fish
Other
Chordate
Planktonic
Crustacean
Benthic
Crustacean
Insect
Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate
PCBs
NP
Pimephales
NT
Daphnia
Gamma rusa
damsel flyb
NT
Parathion
NP
Pimephales
Pseudacris8
Daphnia
Gammarus8
Peltodytes
tubificid
worm6
PCP
NP
Pimephales
Rana8
Daphnia
Hyalella
Tanytarsusb
tubificid
wormb
Another
Insect
or New Phylum

Aquatic
Plant
Tanytarsusb
NT
Chironomus
Physa
Microcystis    Lemna
                                42

-------
                        TABLE  9,  CONTINUED
Required
Taxonomic
Group
Salmonid
Other Fish
Other
Chordate
Cyanide
NP
Pimephales

NT
Zinc
NP
Pimephales

NT
Chromium (VI)
NP
Pimephales

NT
Planktonic
Crustacean

Benthic
Crustacean

Insect

Nonarthropod-
Nonchordate

Another
Insect
or New Phylum

Aquatic
Plant
Daphnia


Gammarus*

Tanytarsus6


Physaa


NT



Lemna
Daphnia


Gammarus"

Argiab


Physa8


tubificid
wormb


Lemna
Daphnia


Hyalella

Chironomus"


Physa"


damselfly6



Nitzschia
a    Genus is present in the wetlands; may not be same species.
b    Species representative of that taxonomic group from criteria
     testing lists probably present in prairie potholes, but no
     actual data available.
                                43

-------
                    APPENDIX F
                  COORDINATION BETWEEN THE
               ENVIORNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
            FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND NATIONAL
MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING                    £
                                                   H
          DEVELOPMENT OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND
                WATER QUALITY STANDARDS UNDER
                     THE CLEAN WATER ACT
                        July 27, 1992                            ^
Signed by:

Ralph MorgenwecX, Assistant Director
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dr.  Tudor Davies, Director
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency

Dr.  Nancy Foster, Director
Office of Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
             WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
                        SECOND EDITION

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
   Coordination  Between the Environmental Protection Agency,
 the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine  Fisheries
 Service Regarding the Development of Water Quality  Criteria and
        Water Quality Standards Under the Clean Water Act

PURPOSE

     This memorandum sets forth the procedures to  be followed by
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS),  and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  to
insure compliance with Section 7 of the ESA in the development of
water quality criteria published pursuant to Section 304(a)  of
the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the adoption of water  quality
standards under Section 303(c) of the CWA.  Consultation will be
conducted pursuant to 50 C.F.R. Part 402.  Regional  Offices  of
EPA and the Services may establish agreements, consistent  with
these procedures, specifying how they will implement this
Memorandum.

I.   BACKGROUND

A. Guiding Principles

     The agencies recognize that EPA's water quality criteria and
standards program has the express goal of ensuring the  protection
of the biological integrity of U.S. waterbodies and  associated
aquatic life.  The agencies also recognize that implementation of
the CWA in general, and the water quality standards  program  in
particular, is primarily the responsibility of states.  EPA's
role in this program is primarily to provide scientific guidance
to states to aid in their development of water quality  standards
and to oversee state adoption and revision of standards to insure
that they meet the requirements of the CWA.

     In view of the decentralized nature of EPA's  water quality
standards program responsibilities, and the agencies' desire to
carry out their respective  statutory obligations  in  the most
efficient manner possible,  the agencies believe that consultation
should occur, to the maximum extent possible, at  the national
level.  Should additional coordination be necessary  on  the
regional level, the procedures outlined below are  designed to
insure that the Services are integrated early into EPA's
oversight of the states' standards adoption process  so  that
threatened and endangered species concerns can be  addressed  in
the most efficient manner possible.
(9/14/93)                                                         F-l

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
B. Legal Authorities

     1. Section,? of the ESA    £

     Section 7'of the ESA contains several provisions which
require federal agencies to take steps to conserve endangered  and
threatened species, and which impose the responsibility on
agencies to insure, in consultation with the appropriate  Service,
that certain actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.
Section 7 also requires agencies to confer with the appropriate
Service regarding actions affecting species or critical habitat
that have been proposed for listing or designation under  section
4, but for which no final rule has been issued.

     In particular, section 7(a)(l) provides that federal
agencies shall "utilize their authorities in furtherance  of  the
purposes of [the ESA] by carrying out programs for the
conservation of endangered species and threatened species ..."
Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to insure, in
consultation with the appropriate Service, that actions which
they authorize, fund or carry out are "not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
habitat of such species which is determined .  . . to be
critical." Section 7(a)(4) requires a conference for actions that
are "likely to jeopardize the continued existence" of species
proposed for listing or that are likely to "result in the
destruction or adverse modification" of proposed critical
habitat.

     The procedures for consultation between federal agencies  and
the Services under section 7 of the ESA are contained in  50
C.F.R. Part 402. Section 402.14 of these regulations requires
that agencies engage in formal consultation with the appropriate
Service where any action of that agency may affect listed species
or critical habitat.  Formal consultation is not required if the
action agency prepares a biological assessment or consults
informally with the appropriate Service and obtains the written
concurrence of the Service that the action is not likely  to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. Formal
consultation culminates.in the issuance of a biological opinion
by the Service which concludes whether the agency action  is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed  species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
F-2                                                         (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
habitat.1   If  the Service makes a jeopardy finding,  the opinion
shall include reasonable and prudent alternatives,  if  any, to
avoid jeopardy.  If the Service anticipates that an action would
result in an incidental take of a listed  species  (defined in 50
C.F.R. 402.02), the Service shall include an incidental take
statement and reasonable and prudent measures that  the Director
considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact.  Such
measures cannot alter the basic design, location, scope, duration
or timing of the action and may involve only minor  changes.

     Evaluation of the potential effects  of an agency  action on
listed species or their habitat is to be  based upon the best
scientific and commercial data available  or which can  be obtained
prior to or during the consultation. 50 C.F.R. 402.14(d).

     2. Water Quality Standards Development Under the  CWA

     Section 303 of the Clean Water Act provides for the
development by states of water quality standards which are
designed to protect the public health or  welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of the CWA. Such
standards consist of designated uses of waterways  (e.g.,
protection and propagation of  fish, shellfish, and  wildlife) and
criteria which will insure the protection of designated uses.

     Under the CWA, the development of water quality standards is
primarily the responsibility of States.   However, pursuant to
section 304(a) of the CWA, EPA from time  to time publishes water
quality criteria which serve as scientific guidance to be used by
states in establishing and revising water quality standards.
These EPA criteria are not enforceable requirements, but are
recommended criteria levels which states  may adopt  as  part of
their legally enforceable water quality standards;  states may
adopt other scientifically defensible criteria in lieu of EPA's
recommended criteria. See 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b).

     Standards adopted by states constitute enforceable
requirements with which permits  issued by States or EPA under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act must assure compliance. CWA
section 301(b)(1)(C).  Under section 303(c) of the  CWA, EPA must
review water quality standards adopted by states and either
approve them if the standards  meet the requirements of the CWA or
disapprove them  if the standards fail to  do so.  However, EPA's
disapproval of state water quality standards does not  alter the
enforceable requirements with  which CWA section 402 permits must
comply, because the state standards remain in full  force and
     i                               '
     1  Any reference in this document to "jeopardy" for purposes
of section 7 of the ESA is  intended also to  include the  concept
of destruction or adverse modification  of  critical habitat.
(9/14/93)                                                          F-3

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
effect under state  law.  The state-adopted  standards  remain
effective for all purposes of the CWA  until they  are  revised by
the state or EPA promulgates federal water  quality standards
applicable to the state.
II. PROCEDURES

A. Development of Water Quality  Criteria  Guidance Under Section
304(al of the CWA

     EPA will integrate the  Services  into its criteria
development process  by consulting with the Services regarding the
effect EPA's existing aquatic  life  criteria (and any new or
revised criteria) may have on  listed  endangered or threatened
species.  References below to  endangered  or threatened species
include species proposed  to  be listed by  the Services.  In
addition, EPA will include the Service(s)  on the aquatic life
criteria guidelines  revision committee which is currently
revising the methodological  guidelines that will form the
technical basis for  future criteria adopted by EPA.

     1. Consultation on Existing Criteria

     EPA has developed and published  aquatic life criteria
documents explaining the  scientific basis for aquatic life
criteria that EPA has published.  EPA will consult with the
appropriate Service  regarding  the aquatic life criteria as
described below.

Step 1;  Services/ Identification of  Species that May Be Affected
By Water Quality Degradation

     The Services and EPA will request their regional offices to
identify the endangered and  threatened species within their
jurisdictions that may be affected  by degraded water quality.
Each Service will provide EPA  with  a  consolidated list of these
species.  To facilitate this process, the initial species list
will include information  identifying  the  areas where such species
are located, a description of  the pollutants causing the water
quality problems  affecting the species (if known) and any other
relevant information provided  by the  Services' regional offices.
In future consultations,  the Services will provide a species
list,  as required  in 50 C.F.R. Part 402,  and access to any
relevant data concerning  identified species.
 F-4                                                         (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
Step 2;  EPA Initiation of Informal Consultation  and  Performance
of Biological Assessment

     Based upon a review of information provided  by the  Services
under Step lr above, and any other information  available to  EPA
(as described by 50 C.F.R. 402.12(f)(1)-(5)), EPA will determine
what species may be affected by the aquatic  life  criteria and
will request informal consultation with the  appropriate  Service
regarding such species.  EPA will submit to  the appropriate
Service a biological assessment that evaluates  the potential
effects of the criteria levels on those species.   The biological
assessment will be developed in an iterative process  between EPA
and the Service (initially involving submission of a  "pilot"
assessment addressing 2 or 3 chemicals), and is expected to
contain the information listed in the Appendix  of this
Memorandum.
Step 3;  Further steps Based on Results of Biological  Assessment

     Based upon the findings made by EPA  in  the  Biological
Assessment, the consultation will proceed as follows  (see 50
C.F.R. 402.12(k)):

        For those criteria/species where  EPA determines that
there is no effect, EPA will not initiate formal consultation.

     -  For those criteria/species where  there is a "may affect"
situation, and EPA determines that the species is not  likely  to
be adversely affected, the appropriate Service will either  concur
or nonconcur with this finding under Step 4,  below.

     -  Where EPA finds that a species is likely to be adversely
affected, formal consultation will occur  between the agencies
under Step 5, below.


Step 4;  Service Reviews Biological Assessment and Responds to
EPA

     Within 30 days after EPA submits a complete biological
assessment to the Service, the Service will  provide EPA with  a
written response that concurs or does not concur with  any
findings by EPA that species are not likely  to be adversely
affected by EPA's criteria.  For those species/criteria where the
Service concurs in EPA's finding, consultation is concluded and
no formal consultation will be necessary.  For any
species/criteria where the Service does not  concur in  EPA's
finding, formal consultation on the criteria/species will occur
under step 5, below  (see 50 C.F.R. 402.14).
(9/14/93)                                                         F-5

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
Step 5;  Formal Consultation

     Formal consultation will occur between the agencies
(coordinated by the agencies' headquarters' offices) beginning on
the date the Service receives a written consultation request  from
EPA regarding those species where EPA or the Service believe
there is likely to be an adverse affect, as determined under
steps 3 and 4, above.  The consultation will be based on the
information supplied by EPA in the biological assessment and
other relevant information that is available or which can
feasibly be collected during the consultation period  (see  50
C.F.R 402.14(d)).  The Service will issue a biological opinion
regarding whether any of the species are likely to  be jeopardized
by the pollutant concentrations contained in EPA's  criteria.  Any
jeopardy conclusion will specify the specific pollutant(s),
specie(s) and geographic area(s) which the Service  believes is
covered by such conclusion.  If the Service makes a jeopardy
finding, it will identify any available reasonable  and prudent
alternatives, which may include, but are not limited to, those
specified below.  EPA will notify the Service of its action
regarding acceptance and implementation of all reasonable  and
prudent alternatives.

     1.  EPA works with the relevant State during its pending
triennial review period to insure adoption  (or revision) of water
quality standards for the specific pollutants and water bodies
that will avoid jeopardy.  Such adoption or revision may include
adoption of site-specific criteria in accordance with EPA's site-
specific criteria guidance, or other basis for establishing more
stringent criteria.

     2.  EPA disapproves relevant portions of state water  quality
standards  (see 40 C.F.R. 131.21) and initiates promulgation of
federal standards for the relevant water body  (see  40 C.F.R.
131.22) that will avoid jeopardy.  Where appropriate, EPA  will
promulgate such standards on an expedited basis.

     2.  Service Participation in Committee Revising  Criteria's
     Methodological Guidelines

     An EPA committee is currently charged with revising and
updating the methodological guidelines which will in  the future
be followed by EPA when it issues new 304(a) water  quality
criteria.  The Service(s) will become a member of the workgroup
as an  observer/advisor to insure that the methodological
guidelines take  into account the need to protect endangered and
threatened species.  The guidelines will be subject to peer
review and public notice and comment prior to being finalized.
During the public comment period, the Services will provide the
agencies'  official position on the guidelines.
F-6                                                         (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
     3.   Consultation with the Services on New or Revised Aquatic
     Life Criteria and New Wildlife and Sediment Criteria

     When EPA develops and publishes new or revised aquatic  life
criteria and new wildlife and sediment criteria under section
304(3),  EPA will request consultation with the Services on such
criteria, which will proceed in accordance with the procedures
outlined in section II.A.I of this Memorandum.
B.  EPA Review of State Water Quality Standards Under Section  303
of the CWA

     In order to insure timely resolution of issues related to
protection of endangered or threatened species, EPA and the
Services will coordinate in the following manner with regard to
state water quality standards that are subject to EPA review and
approval under section 303(c) of the CWA.

     1.  Participation of the Services in EPA/State Planning
     Meetings

     Unless other procedures ensuring adequate coordination are
agreed to by the regional offices of EPA and the Service(s), EPA
regional offices will request in writing that the Services attend
EPA/state meetings where the state's plan for reviewing and
possibly revising water quality standards is discussed. The
invitation will include any preliminary plans submitted by the
state and any suggestions offered by EPA to the state that will
be discussed at the planning meeting, as well as a request for
the Services to suggest any additional topics of concern  to them.

     Service staff will attend the planning session and be
prepared to identify areas where threatened and endangered
species that may be affected by the proposed action may be
present in the state and to provide access to any data available
to the Services in the event additional discussions will  need  to
occur.  If the Service does not intend to attend the planning
meeting, it will notify the EPA regional office in writing.  If
threatened and endangered species may be present in the waters
subject to the standards, such notice will include a species
list.

     2.  Consultation on EPA Review of State Water Quality
     Standards Where Federally Listed Species Are Present

     Except in those cases where the Service's Director,  at the
Washington Office level, requests consultation, EPA may complete
its review and approval of state water quality standards  without
requesting consultation where  (1) the state's criteria are as
stringent as EPA's section 304(a) aquatic life criteria and
consultation between EPA and the appropriate Service on EPA's
(9/14/93)                                                         F-7

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
criteria has resulted in a Service concurrence with an EPA
finding of "not likely to adversely affect," a "no jeopardy"
biological opinion (or EPA's implementation of a reasonable and
prudent alternative contained in the Service's "jeopardy"
biological opinion),  and EPA's adherence to the terms and
conditions of any incidental take statement and  (2) the state has
designated use classifications for the protection and propagation
of fish and shellfish.

     However, if a State adopts water quality standards
consistent with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, but
the Service believes that consultation may be necessary in either
of the circumstances described below, only the Service's
Director, at the Washington Office level, may request
consultation with EPA.  Such consultation may be necessary  (1)
where review of a state water quality standard identifies factors
not considered during the relevant water quality criterion review
under this Memorandum which indicate that the standard may affect
an endangered or threatened species, or  (2) where new scientific
information not available during the earlier consultation
indicates that the criterion, as implemented through the state
water quality standard, may affect endangered or threatened
species in a manner or to an extent not considered in the earlier
consultation.

     If a state submits water quality standards containing
aquatic life criteria that are less stringent than EPA's section
304(a) aquatic life criteria, or use designations that do not
provide for the protection and propagation of fish and shellfish,
EPA will consult with the appropriate Service regarding the
state's standards.  EPA's request for formal or informal
consultation (as appropriate) shall be made as early as possible
in the standards development process  (e.g., when standards
regulation are under development by the state).  The EPA region
should not wait until standards are formally submitted by the
state to request such consultation.

     If a state water quality standard under review by EPA
relates to specie(s), pollutant(s) and geographic area(s) that
were the subject of a jeopardy opinion issued by the Service
under section II.A. of this Memorandum, EPA will consider the
opinion  (and any reasonable and prudent alternatives specified by
the Service) and take action that, in EPA's judgment, will  insure
that water quality standards applicable to the state are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of species' critical habitat.  EPA will notify the
Service that issued the biological opinion of its action, in
accordance with 50 C.F.R. 402.15.

     Except in those cases where the  Service's Director, at the
Washington Office level, requests consultation,  EPA may take

                                8
 F-8                                                         (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
action pursuant to CWA section 303(c)(4) to promulgate  federal
standards applicable to a water of the state without requesting
consultation where (1) the aquatic life criteria promulgated by
EPA are no less stringent than EPA's  section 304(a) criteria
guidance and consultation between EPA and the Service on  EPA's
criteria has resulted in a Service concurrence with an  EPA
finding of "not likely to adversely affect," a "no jeopardy"
biological opinion (or EPA's implementation of a reasonable and
prudent alternative contained in the  Service's "jeopardy"
biological opinion), and EPA's adherence to the terms and
conditions of any incidental take statement and  (2) the
applicable use classifications provide for the protection and
propagation of fish and shellfish.

     However, if EPA promulgates water quality standards
consistent with the provisions of the previous paragraph, but the
Service believes that consultation may be necessary in  either of
the circumstances described below, only the Service's Director,
at the Washington Office level, may request consultation  with
EPA.  Such consultation may be necessary  (1) where review of the
water quality standard identifies  factors not considered  during
the relevant water quality criterion  review under this  Memorandum
which indicate that the standard may  affect an endangered or
threatened species, or (2) where new  scientific  information not
available during the earlier consultation indicates that  the
criterion, as implemented through  the water quality standard, may
affect endangered or threatened species in a manner or  to an
extent not considered in the earlier  consultation.

III.  Revisions to Agreement

     EPA and the Services may jointly revise the procedures
agreed to in this document based upon the experience gained  in
the pilot consultation on EPA's aquatic life criteria or  other
experience in the  implementation of the above procedures.

IV.  Third Party Enforcement

     The terms of this Memorandum  are not intended to be
enforceable by any party other than the signatories hereto.

V.   Reservation of Agency Positions

     No party to this Memorandum waives any  administrative
claims, positions  or  interpretations  it may  have with respect  to
the applicability  or  the enforceability of the  ESA.

VI.  Effective Date;  Termination

     This Memorandum  will become effective upon signature by each
of the parties hereto.  Any  of the parties may  withdraw from this
Memorandum upon 60  days' written notice to the  other parties;
 (9/14/93)                                                         F-9

-------
  Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
  provided that any Section  7  consultation covered  by  the  terms of
  this  Memorandum that is pending  at  the time notice of  withdrawal
  is  received by the parties,  and  those activities  covered by this
  Memorandum that begin the  consultation process with  the  60-day
  notice period, jvill continue to  be  governed by the procedures in
  this  Memorandum".
     '   '''•< ' ~~r' -      -\ \ •. » f                        '111  "^ &   ~' ^ 7
        ,  ; • • r  f      i  1 \ \ . u * r                      -C-* '  Tt.   ,    ^	'
                             	
  Ralph" Morgenweck,"Assistant- Director          Dat/e
  Fish and Wildlife Enhancement                 ^
  U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service
  Dr.  Tudor T. Davies, Director                  Da'te
  Office of Science and Technology
  U.S  Environmental Protection Agency
          V
          •
      . _     . , ,       ___ . _              --
  Dr.  Nancy Foster, Director                    I  Date
.Office oi Protected Resources
  National Marine Fisheries Service
                                   10


   F-10                                                          (9/14/93)

-------
                                Appendix F - Endangered Species Act Joint Memorandum
                             APPENDIX
         Expected Contents of EPA's Biological Assessment

I.  Introduction/Overview

     A.  Benefits of pollution reduction  relative  to endangered
and threatened species/description of the ESA

     B.  Role of Water Quality Standards  under  the CWA

     C.  Overview of water quality criteria  (philosophy,
objectives, methodology)

     D.  Discussion of comparative sensitivity  of  listed  species
(and surrogates) with criteria database

     E.  Description of Fact Sheet contents

             data included
             description of how specific  criteria  derived
             description of logic/thought processes supporting
               findings of effect on listed  species

II.  Fact Sheets

     Pollutant-specific fact sheets will  be  compiled which
evaluate the available data and reach conclusions  regarding the
findings of effect of the criteria on endangered and threatened
species.  The fact sheets will be presented  largely in tabular,
graph form.

     A.   Summary of toxicological relationships  (from water
quality criteria documents)

          1.   acute (acute lethality)
          2.   chronic  (life processes at risk)
          3.   plants
          4.   residues
          5.   other key data
          6.   updated information through review  of ACQUIRE
               database and other key data

     B.   Taxa at risk vis-a-vis listed species (through  use of
surrogates, where appropriate)

     C.   Impact of other water quality factors — describe
effects such as environmental variability, ph,  hardness,
temperature, etc.
                                11
(9/14/93)                                                         F-ll

-------
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Second Edition
D.   Assessment of  impact on listed species

           Findings  to be made regarding whether each criteria (1)
"may affect" and/or (2)  is likely  to adversely affect, listed
species.
                                   12
 F-12                                                             (9/14/93)

-------
         APPENDIX G
       Questions and Answers on:
           Antidegradation
                                     A
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Office of Water
            Regulations and Standards
            Washington. DC 20460
August 1985
vvEPA
            Water
Questions & Answers on;
Antidegradation

-------
             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS  ON  AlSITIDEGRADATION

INTRODUCTION

     This document provides guidance on the antidegradation
policy component of water quality standards and its application.
The document begins with the text of the policy as stated in the
water quality standards regulation, 40 CFR 131,12 (40  FR 51400,
November 8, 1983), the portion of the Preamble discussing
the antidegradation policy, and the response to comments
generated during the public comment period on the regulation.

     The document then uses a question and answer format
to present information about the origin of the policy, the
meaning of various terms, and its application in both  general
terms and in specific examples.  A number of the questions
and answers are closely related; the reader is advised to
consider the document in its entirety, for a maximum under-
standing of the policy, rather than to focus on particular
answers in isolation.  While this document obviously does
not address every question which could arise concerning the
policy, we hope that the principles it sets out will aid the
reader in applying the policy in other situations.  Additional
guidance will be developed concerning the application  of the
antidegradation policy as it affects pollution from nonpoint
sources.  Since Congress is actively considering amending the
Clean Water Act to provide additional programs for the control
of nonpoint sources, EPA will await the outcome of congressional
action before proceeding further.

     EPA also has available, for public information, a summary
of each State's antidegradation policy.  For historical
interest, limited copies are available of a Compendium of
Department of the Interior Statements on Non-Degradation of
Interstate Waters, August, 1968.  Information on any aspect
of the water quality standards program and copies of these
documents may be obtained from:

               David Sabock, Chief
               Standards Branch (WH-585)
               Office of Water Regulations and Standards
               Environmental Protection Agency
               401 M. Street, S.W.
               Washington, D.C.  20460


     This document is designated as Appendix A to Chapter 2 -
General Program Guidance (antidegradation) of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook, December 1983.
                             "/James M. Conlon, Acting Director
                           //Office of Water Regulations
                          /     anH Q*-anHar*H<=
and Standards

-------
                                   REGULATION
Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  217 / Tuesday, November 8, 19B3 / Rules  and  Regulations    51407
                            §131.12 AntMegradatton policy.
                              (a) The State shall develop and adopt
                            a statewide antidegradation policy and
                            identify the methods for implementing
                            such policy pursuant to this subpart. The
                            antidegradation policy and
                            implementation methods shall, at a
                            minimum, be consistent with the
                            following:
                              (1) Existing instream water uses and
                            the level of water quality necessary to
                            protect the existing uses shall be
                            maintained and protected.

                              (2) Where the quality of the waters
                            exceed levels necessary to support
                            propagation of fish, shellfish, and
                            wildlife and recreation in and on the
                            water, thai quality shall be maintained
                            and protected unless the State finds,
                            after full satisfaction of the
                            intergovernmental coordination and
                            public participation piovisions of the
                            State's continuing planning process, that
                            allowing lower water quality is
                            necessary to accommodate important
                            economic or social development in the
                            area in which the waters are located. In
                            allowing such degradetion or lower
                            water quality, the State shall assure
                            water quality adequate to protect
                            existing uses fully. Further, the State
                            shall assure that there shall be achieved
                            the highest statutory and regulatory
                            requirements for all new and existing
                            point sources and all cost-effective and
                            reasonable best management practices
                            for nonpoint source control.
                              (3) Where high quality waters
                            constitute an outstanding National
                            resource, such as waters of National and
                            State parks and wildlife refuges and
                            waters of exceptional recreational or
                            ecological significance, that water
                            quality shall be maintained and
                            protected.
                              (4) In those cases where potential
                            water quality impairment associated
                            with a thermal discharge is involved, the
                            antidegradation policy and
                            implementing method shall be
                            consistent with section 316 of the Act.

-------
                                                   PREAMBLE


        51402     Federal  Register / Vol. 48. No.  217 / Tuesday,  November 8. 1983  /  Rules and Regulations
 Antidegradation Policy
   The preamble to the proposed rule
 discussed three options for changing the
 existing antidegradation policy. Option
 1, the proposed option, provided simply
 that uses attained would be maintained.
 Option 2 stated that not only would uses
 attained be maintained but that high
 quality waters, i.e. waters with quality
 better than that needed to protect fish
 and wildlife, would be maintained (that
 is, the existing antidegradation policy
 minus the "outstanding natural resource
 waters" provision). Option 3 would have
 allowed changes in an existing use if
 maintaining that use would effectively
 prevent any future growth in the
 community or if the benefits of
 maintaining the use do not bear a
 reasonable relationship to the costs.
   Although there was support for
 Option 2,  there was greater support for
 retaining the full existing policy,
 including  the provision on outstanding
 National resource waters.  Therefore,
 EPA has retained the existing
 antidegradation policy (Section 131.12)
 because it more accurately reflects the
 degree of water quality protection
 desired by the public,  and  is consistent
 with the goals and purposes of the Act.
   In retaining the policy EPA made four
 changes. First, the provisions on
 maintaining and protecting existing
 instream uses and high quality waters
 were retained, but the sentences stating
 that no further water quality
 degradation which would interfere with
or becon  injurious to existing instream
uses ir  lowed were deleted. The
delet   .s were made because the terms
"in!  .ere" and "injurious" were subject
to  ^interpretation as precluding any
•"  .ivity which might even momentarily
add pollutants to the water. Moreover.
wo believe the deleted sentence was
intended merely as a restatement of the
basic policy. Since-the rewritten
provision, with the addition of a phrase
on water quality described in the next
sentence, stands alone as expressing the
basic thrust and intent of the
antidegradation policy, we deleted the
confusing phrases. Second, in
§ 131.12(a)(l) a phrase was added
requiring that the level of water quality
necessary to protect an existing use be
maintained and protected. The previous
policy required only that an existing use
be maintained. In § 131.12(a)(2) a phrase
was added that "In allowing such
degradation or lower water quality, the
State shall assure water quality
adequate to protect existing uses fully".
This means that the full use must
continue to exist even if some change in
water quality may be permitted. Third,
in the first sentence of § 131.12(a)(2) the
wording was changed from ". . .
significant economic or social
development. . ." to ". .  . important
economic or social development. . . ."
In the context of t;  antidegradation
policy the word ' .mportant" strengthens
the intent of protecting higher quality
waters. Although common usage  of the
words may imply otherwise, the correct
definitions of the two terms indicate that
the greater degree of environmental
protection is afforded by  the word
"important."
  Fourth, § 131.12(a)(3) dealing with the
designation of outstanding National
resource waters (ONRW) was  changed
to provide a limited exception to the
absolute "no degradation" requirement.
EPA was concerned that  waters which
properly could have been designated as
ONRW were not being so designated
jecause of the flat no degradation
provision, and therefore were not being
given special protection. The no
degradation provision wao sometimes
interpreted as prohibiting any activity
(including temporary or short-term) from
being conducted. States may allow some
limited  activities which result in
temporary and short-term changes in
water quality. Such activities are
considered to be consistent with the
intent and purpose of an  ONRW.
Therefore, EPA has rewritten the
provision to read ". .  . that water
quality  shall be maintained and
protected," and removed the phrase "No
degradation shall be allowed.  . . ."
  In its entirety, the antidegradation
policy represents a three-tiered
approach to maintaining and protecting
various levels of water quality and uses.
At its base (Section 131.12(a)(l)), all
existing uses and the level of water

 quality necessary to protect those uses
 must be maintained and protected. This
 provision establishes the absolute floor
 of water quality in all waters of the
 United States. The second level (Section
 131.12(a)(2)) provides protection of
 actual water quality in areas where the
 quality of the waters exceed levels
 necessary to support propagation of fish,
 shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in
 and on the water ("fishable/
 swimmable"). There are provisions
 contained in this subsection to allow
 some limited water quality degradation
 after extensive public involvement,  as
 long as the water quality remains
 adequate to be "fishable/swimmable."
 Finally § 131.23(a)(3) provides special
 protection of waters for which the
 ordinary use classifications and water
 quality criteria do not suffice, denoted
 "outstanding National resource water."
 Ordinarily most people view this
 subsection as protecting and
 maintaining the highest quality waters
 of the United States: that is clearly the
 thrust of the provision. It does, however,
 also offer special protection for waters
 of "ttcological significance." These are
 water bodies which are important,
 unique, or sensitive ecologically, but
 whose water quality as measured by the
 traditional parameters (dissolved
 oxygen. pH, etc.) may not be particularly
 high or whose character cannot be
 adequately described by these
 parameters.
                                                          IX

-------
                            RESPONSE TO PUBLIC  COMMENTS
Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 217 / Tuesday.  November 8,  1983 / Rules  and  Regulations
                                              51409
       Antidegradation Policy
         EPA's proposal, which would have
       limited the antidegradation policy to the
       maintenance of existing uses, plus three
       alternative policy statements described
       in the preamble to the proposal notice,
       generated extensive public comment.
       EPA's  response is described in the
       Preamble to this final rule and includes
       a response to both the substantive and
       philosophical comments offered. Public
       comments overwhelmingly supported
       retention of the existing policy and EPA
       did so  in the final rule.
         EPA's response to several comments
       dealing with the antidegradation policy,
       which  were not discussed in the
       Preamble are discussed below.
         Option three contained in the
       Agency's proposal would have allowed
       the possibility of exceptions to
       maintaining existing uses. This option
       was either criticized for being illegal or
       was supported because it provided
       additional flexibility for economic
       growth. The latter commenters believed
       that allowances should be made for
       carefully defined exceptions to the
       absolute requirement that uses attained
       must be maintained. EPA rejects this
       contention as being totally inconsistent
       with the spirit and intent of both the
       Clean  Water Act and the underlying
       philosophy of the antidegradation
       policy. Moreover, although the Agency
       specifically asked for examples of
       where the existing antidegradation
       policy had precluded growth, no
       examples were prpvided. Therefore,
       wholly apart from technical legal
       concerns, there appears to be no
       justification for adopting Option 3.
  Most critics ot the proposed
antidegradation policy objected to
removing the public's ability to affect
decisions on high quality waters and
outstanding national resource waters. In
attempting to explain how the proposed
antidegradation policy would be
implemented, the Preamble to the
proposed rule stated that no public
participation would be necessary in
certain instances because no change

was being made in a State's water
quality standard. Although that
statement was technically accurate, it
left the mistaken impression that all
public participation was removed from
the discussions  on high quality waters
and that is  not correct. A NPDES permit
would have to be issued or a 208 plan
amended for any deterioration in  water
quality to be "allowed". Both actions
require notice and an opportunity for
public comment. However, EPA retained
the existing policy so this issue is moot.
Other changes in the policy affecting
ONRW aru discussed in the Preamble.
                                      iii

-------
             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON ANTIDEGRADATION
1. WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?

     The basic policy was established on February 8, 1968, by
     the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior.  It
     was included in EPA's first water quality standards regula-
     tion 40 CFR 130.17, 40 FR 55340-41, November 28, 1975.  It
     Was slightly refined and repromulgated as part of the current
     program regulation published on November 8, 1983 (48 FR
     51400, 40 CFR §131.12).  An antidegradation policy is one
     of the minimum elements required to be included in a State's
     water quality standards.

2. WHERE IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR AN
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY OR SUCH A POLICY EXPRESSED?

     There is no explicit requirement for such a policy in the
     Act.  However, the policy is consistent with the spirit,
     intent, and goals of the Act, especially the clause "...
     restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
     integrity of the Nation's waters" (§101(a)) and arguably is
     covered by the provision of 303(a) which made water quality
     standard requirements under prior law the "starting point"
     for CWA water quality requirements.

3. CAN A STATE JUSTIFY NOT HAVING AN ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY IN
ITS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS?

     EPA's water quality standards regulation requires each
     State to adopt an antidegradation policy and specifies the
     minimum requirements for a policy.  If not included in the
     standards regulation of a State, the policy must be specifi-
     cally referenced in the water quality standards so that the
     functional relationship between the policy and the standards
     is clear.  Regardless of the location of the policy, it must
     meet all applicable requirements.

4. WHAT HAPPENS IF A STATE'S ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY DOES NOT
MEET THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS?

     If this occurs either through State action to revise its
     policy or through revised Federal requirements, the State
     would be given an opportunity to make its policy consistent
     with the regulation.  If this is not done, EPA has the auth-
     ority to promulgate the policy for the State pursuant to
     Section 303(c)(4)  of the Clean Water Act.
                               -1-

-------
 5.  WHAT  COULD  HAPPEN  IF A STATE FAILED TO  IMPLEMENT ITS ANTI-
 DEGRADATION POLICY PROPERLY?

      If  a  State  issues an NPDES permit which violates the re-
      quired antidegradation policy, it would be subject to a
      discretionary EPA veto under Section  402(d) or to a
      citizen challenge.  In addition to actions on permits, any
      wasteload allocations and total maximum daily loads violating
      the antidegradation policy are subject to EPA disapproval and
      EPA promulgation of a new wasteload allocation/total maximum
      daily load under Section 303(d) of the Act.  If a significant
      pattern of violation was evident, EPA could constrain the
      award of grants or possibly revoke any Federal permitting
      capability that had been delegated to the State.  If the
      State issues a §401 certification (for an EPA-issued NPDES
      permit) which fails to reflect the requirements of the
      antidegradation policy, EPA will, on its own initiative,
      add any additional or more stringent effluent limitations
      required to ensure compliance with Section 301(b)(1)(C).
      If the faulty §401 certification related to permits issued
      by other Federal agencies (e.g. a Corp of Engineers Section
      404 permit), EPA could comment unfavorably upon permit
      issuance.  The public,  of course, could bring pressure
      upon the permit issuing agency.

6. WILL THE APPLICATION OF THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ADVERSELY
IMPACT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?

      This concern has been raised since the inception of the
      antidegradation policy.  The answer remains the same. The
      policy has been carefully structured to minimize adverse
     effects on economic development while protecting the water
      quality goals of the Act.  As Secretary Udall put it in 1968,
      the policy serves "...the dual purpose of carrying out the
      letter and spirit of the Act without interfering unduly
     with further economic development" (Secretary Udall, February
      8, 1968).  Application  of the policy could affect the levels
     and/or kinds of waste treatment necessary or result in the
     use of alternate sites  where the environmental impact would
     be less damaging.  These effects could have economic implica-
     tions as do all other environmental controls.

7. I/HAT IS THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "AN EXISTING
USE"?

     An existing use can be  established by demonstrating that
     fishing,  swimming,  or other uses have actually occurred
     since November 28,  1975, p_r that the water quality is suit-
     able to allow such  uses to occur (unless there are physical
     problems which prevent  the use regardless of water quality).
     An example of the latter is an area where shellfish are
     propagating and surviving in a biologically suitable
     habitat and are available and suitable for harvesting.
     Such facts clearly  establish that shellfish harvesting is
     an "existing11 use,  not  .one dependent oh improvements in
     water quality.   To  argue otherwise would be to say that

                               -2-

-------
      the only time an aquatic protection use "exists" is if someone
      succeeds in catching fish.

 8. THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REGULATION STATES THAT "EXISTING
 USES  AND THE LEVEL OF WATER QUALITY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
 EXISTING USES SHALL  BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED."  HOW FULLY AND
 AT WHAT LEVEL OF PROTECTION IS AN EXISTING USE TO BE PROTECTED
 IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT?

      No activity is allowable under the antidegradation policy
      which would partially or completely eliminate any existing
      use whether or not that use is designated in a State's water
      quality standards. The aquatic protection use is a broad category
      requiring  further explanation.  Species that are iji the water
      body and which are consistent with the designated use  (i.e.,
      not aberrational) must be protected, even if not prevalent in
      number or  importance.  Nor can activity be allowed which would
      render the species unfit for maintaining the use.  Water
      quality should be such that it results in no mortality and
      no significant growth or reproductive impairment of resident
      species. (See Question 16 for situation where an aberrant sen-
      sitive species may exist.) Any lowering of water quality below
      this full  level of protection is not allowed.  A State may
      develop subcategories of aquatic protection uses but cannot
      choose different levels of protection for like uses.  The fact
      that sport or commercial fish are not present does not mean
      that the water may not be supporting an aquatic life protection
      function.  An existing aquatic community composed entirely of
      invertebrates and plants, such as may be found in a pristine
      alpine tributary stream, should still be protected whether or
      not such a stream supports a fishery.  Even though the shorthand
      expression "fishable/swimmable" is often used, the actual objec-
      tive of the act is to "restore and maintain the chemical,
      physical,  and biological integrity of our Nation's waters
      (section 101(a)).£/  The term "aquatic life" would more accurately
      reflect the protection of the aquatic community that was
      intended in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act.

 9. IS THERE ANY SITUATION WHERE AN EXISTING USE CAN BE REMOVED?

      In general, no.  Water quality may sometimes be affected,
      but an existing use, and the level of water quality to
     protect it must be maintained (§131.12(a)(1) and (2) of the
      regulation).  However, the State may limit or not designate
      such a use if the reason for such action is non-water quality
      related.  For example, a State may wish to impose a temporary
     shellfishing ban to prevent overharvesting and ensure an
     abundant population over the long run, or may wish to restrict
     swimming from heavily trafficked areas.  If the State chooses,

V Note:"Fishable/swimmable" is a term of convenience used in
          the standards program in lieu of constantly repeating
          the entire text of Section 101(a)(2) goal of the Clean
          Water Act.  As a short-hand expression it is potentially
          misleading.
                               -3-

-------
     for non-water quality reasons, to limit use designations,
     it must still adopt criteria to protect the use if there is
     a reasonable likelihood it will actually occur (e.g.  swimming
     in a prohibited water).  However, if the State's action is
     based on a recognition that water quality is likely to be
     lowered to the point that it no longer is sufficient to
     protect and maintain an existing use, then such action is
     inconsistent with the antidegradation policy.

10. HOW DOES THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LEVEL OF WATER QUALITY
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE EXISTING USE(S)  BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED,
WHICH APPEARS IN §131.12(a)(1),(2), AND (3) OF THE  WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS REGULATION, ACTUALLY WORK?

     Section 131.12(a)(1), as described in the Preamble to the
     regulation, provides the absolute floor of water quality in
     all waters of the United States.   This paragraph applies a
     minimum level of protection to all waters.  However, it is
     most pertinent to waters having beneficial uses that are
     less than the Section 101(a)(2)  goals of the Act.   If it
     can be proven, in that situation, that water quality exceeds
     that necessary to fully protect the  existing use(s)  and
     exceeds water quality standards but  is not of  sufficient
     quality to cause a  better use  to  be  achieved,  then that
     water quality may be lowered to the  level required to fully
     protect the existing use as long  as  existing water quality
     standards and downstream water quality standards are not
     affected.   If this  does not involve  a change in standards,
     no public hearing would be required  under Section  303(c).
     However,  public  participation  would  still be provided in
     connection with  the issuance of a NPDES permit or  amendment
     of a 208  plan.   If,  however, analysis indicates that the
     higher water quality does  result  in  a better use,  even if
     not  up to the Section  101(a)(2)  goals,  then the water quality
     standards  must be upgraded to  reflect the uses presently
     being  attained  (§131.10(i)).

     Section  131.12(a)(2)  applies to waters whose quality
     exceeds  that  necessary  to  protect the Section  101(a)(2)
     goals  of  the  Act.   In  this  case,  water quality may not be
     lowered  to less  than  the level  necessary to fully  protect
     the  "fishable /swimmable"  uses  and other existing  uses and
    may  be lowered even  to  those levels  only after following
     all  the provisions  described in  §131.12(a)(2).   This require-
    ment applies  to  individual  water  quality parameters.

    Section 131.12(a)(3) applies to so-called outstanding National
    Resource  (ONRW) waters  where the  ordinary use  classifications
    and  supporting criteria  are  not appropriate.   As described  in
    the  Preamble  to the water quality standards  regulation "States
    may  allow  some limited  activities which  result  in  temporary
    and  short-term changes  in water quality,"  but  such changes
    in water quality  should  not  alter the  essential character or
    special use which makes  the water an  ONRW.   (See also pages
    2-14,-15 of the Water Quality Standards  Handbook.)

    Any one or a combination of several activities  may trigger
    the antidegradation policy  analysis as  discussed above.   Such
    activities include a scheduled water  quality standards review,

                              -4-

-------
     the establishment of new or revised wasteload allocations
     NPDES permits, the demonstration of need for advanced treatment
     or request by private or public agencies or individuals for a
     special study of the water body.


11. WILL AN ACTIVITY WHICH WILL DEGRADE WATER QUALITY, AND PRECLUDE
AN EXISTING USE IN ONLY A PORTION OF A WATER BODY (BUT ALLOW IT
TO REMAIN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WATER BODY) SATISFY THE ANTIDEGRAD-
ATION REQUIREMENT THAT EXISTING USES SHALL BE MAINTAINED
AND PROTECTED?

     No.  Existing uses must be maintained in all parts of the
     water body segment in question other than in restricted
     mixing zones.  For example, an activity which lowers water
     quality such that a buffer zone must be established within a
     previous shellfish harvesting area is inconsistent with the
     antidegradation policy.  (However, a slightly different
     approach is taken for fills in wetlands, as explained in
     Question 13.)


12. DOES ANTIDEGRADATION APPLY TO POTENTIAL USES?

     No.  The focus of the antidegradation policy is on protecting
     existing uses.  Of course, insofar as existing uses and
     water quality are protected and maintained by the policy
     the eventual improvement of water quality and attainment of
     new uses may be facilitated.  The use attainability require-
     ments of §131.10 also help ensure that attainable potential
     uses are actually attained. (See also questions 7 and 10.)


13. FILL OPERATIONS IN WETLANDS AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATE ANY
EXI.STING USE IN THE FILLED AREA.  HOW IS THE ANTIDEGRADATION
POLICY APPLIED IN THAT SITUATION?

     Since a literal interpretation of the antidegradation policy
     could result in preventing the issuance of any wetland fill
     permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and it  is
     logical to assume that Congress intended some such permits
     to be granted within the framework of the Act, EPA interprets
     §131.12 (a)(l) of the antidegradation policy to be satisfied
     with regard to fills in wetlands if the discharge did not
     result in "significant degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem
     as defined under Section 230.10(c) of the Section 404(b)(l)
     guidelines.  If any wetlands were found to have better
     v/ater quality than "fishable/ swimmable", the State would
     be allowed to lower water quality to the no significant
     degradation level as long as the requirements of Section
     131.12(a)(2) were followed.  As for the ONRW provision of
     antidegradation (131.(a)(2)(3)), there is no difference  in
     the way it applies to wetlands and other water bodies.
                               -5-

-------
14. IS POLLUTION RESULTING FROM NONPOINT SOURCE ACTIVITIES SUBJECT
TO PROVISIONS OF THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?

     L^onpoint source activities:, aira. not .exempt from the provisions
     of the antidegradation policy. The language of Section 131.12
     (a)(2) of the regulation:  "Further, the State shall assure
     that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory
     requirements for all new and existing point sources and all
     cost-effective and reasonable best mangement practices for
     nonpoint source control" reflects statutory provisions of the
     Clean Water Act.  While it is true that the Act does not
     establish a regulatory program for nonpoint sources, it clearly
     intends that the BMPs developed and approved under sections
     205{j)/ 208 and 303(e) be agressively implemented by the States,
     As indicated in the introduction, EPA will be developing additional
     guidance in this area.

15.  IN HIGH QUALITY WATERS, ARE NEW DISCHARGERS OR EXPANSION OF
EXISTING FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ANTIDEGRADATION?

     Yes. Since such activities would presumably lower water quality,
     they would not be permissible unless the State finds that it is
     necessary to accommodate important economic or social development
     (Section 131.12(a) ( 2).  In addition the minimum technology base'd
     requirements must be met, including new source performance
     standards.  This standard would be implemented through the wast;e-
     load and NPDES permit process for such  new or expanded source?*.

16. A STREAM, DESIGNATED AS A WARM WATER FISHERY, HAS BEEN
FOUND TO CONTAIN A SMALL, APPARENTLY NATURALLY OCCURRING POPULATION
OF A COLD-WATER GAME FISH.  THESE FISH APPEAR TO HAVE ADAPTED TO
THE NATURAL WARM WATER TEMPERATURES OF THE STREAM WHICH WOULD NOT
NORMALLY ALLOW THEIR GROWTH AND REPRODUCTION.  WHAT IS THE
EXISTING USE WHICH MUST BE PROTECTED UNDER SECTION 131.12(a)(1)?

     Section 131.12(a)(l) states that "Existing instream water
     uses and level of water quality necessary to protect the
     existing uses shall be maintained and protected."  While
     sustaining a small cold-water fish population, the stream
     does not support an existing use of a "cold-water fishery."
     The existing stream temperatures are unsuitable for a thriving
     cold-water fishery.  The snail marginal population is an
     artifact and should not be employed to mandate a more strincjen.t
     use (true cold-water fishery) where natural conditions are
     not suitable for that use.

     A use attainability analysis or other scientific assessment
     should be used to determine whether the aquatic life population
     is in fact an artifact or is a stable population requiring
                               -6-

-------
     water quality protection.  Where species appear in areas not
     normally expected, some adaptation may have occurred and site-
     specific criteria may be appropriately developed.  Should
     the cold-water fish population consist of a threatened or
     endangered species, it may require protection under the
     Endangered Species Act.  Otherwise the stream need only be
     protected as a warm water fishery.


17. HOW DOES EPA'S ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY APPLY TO A WATERBODY
WHERE A CHANGE IN MAN'S ACTIVITIES IN OR AROUND THAT WATERBODY
WILL PRECLUDE AN EXISTING USE FROM BEING FULLY MAINTAINED?

     If a planned activity will forseeably lower water quality
     to the extent that it no longer is sufficient to protect
     and maintain the existing uses in that waterbody, such an
     activity is inconsistent with EPA's antidegradation policy
     which requires that existing uses are to be maintained.  In
     such a circumstance the planned activity must be avoided or
     adequate mitigation or preventive measures must be taken to
     ensure that the existing uses and the water quality to
     protect them will be maintained.

     In addition, in "high quality waters", under §131.12(a ) (2) ,
     before any lowering of water quality occurs, there must be:
     1) a finding that it is necessary in order to accommodate
     important economical or social development in the area in
     which the waters are located, (2) full satisfaction of all
     intergovernmental coordination and public participation
     provisions and (3) assurance that the highest statutory and
     regulatory requirements and best management practices  for
     pollutant controls are achieved.  This provision can normally
     be satisfied by the completion of Water Quality Management
     Plan updates or by a similar process that allows for public
     participation and intergovernmental coordination.  This
     provision is intended to provide relief only in a few extra-
     ordinary circumstances where the economic and social need
     for the activity clearly outweighs the benefit of maintaining
     water quality above that required for "fishable/swimmable"
     water, and the two cannot both be achieved.  The burden of
     demonstration on the individual proposing such activity will
     be very high.  In any case, moreover, the existing use must
     be maintained and the activity shall not preclude the maintenance
     of a "fishable/swimmable" level of water quality protection.

18. WHAT DOES EPA MEAN BY "...THE STATE SHALL ENSURE THAT THERE
SHALL BE ACHIEVED THE HIGHEST STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
FOR ALL NEW AND EXISTING POINT SOURCES AND ALL COST EFFECTIVE
AND REASONABLE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR NON-POINT SOURCE
CONTROL"  (S131.12(a)(2)?

     This requirement ensures that the limited provision for
     lowering water quality of high quality waters down to  "fish-
     able /swimmable" levels will not be used to undercut the
     Clean Water Act requirements for point source and non-point
     source pollution control.  Furthermore, by ensuring compliance
                               —7—

-------
     with such statutory and regulatory controls, there is less
     chance that a lowering of water quality will be sought in
     order to accommodate new economic and social development.


19. WHAT DOES EPA MEAN BY "...IMPORTANT ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA IN WHICH THE WATERS ARE LOCATED"
IN 131.1 2(a)(2)?

     This phrase is simply intended to convey a general concept
     regarding what level of social and economic development could
     be used to justify a change in high quality waters.  Any more
     exact meaning will evolve through case-by-case application
     under the State's continuing planning process.  Although
     EPA has issued suggestions on what might be considered in
     determining economic or social impacts, the Agency has no
     predetermined level of activity that is defined as "important".


20. IF A WATER BODY WITH A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY DESIGNATED USE
IS, FOR NON-WATER QUALITY REASONS, NO LONGER USED FOR DRINKING
WATER MUST THE STATE RETAIN THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY USE AND
CRITERIA IN ITS STANDARDS?

     Under 40 CFR 131.10(h)(1), the State may delete the public
     water supply use designation and criteria if the State adds
     or retains other use designations for the waterbodies which
     have more stringent criteria.  The State may also delete
     the use and criteria if the public water supply is not an
     "existing use" as defined in 131.3 (i.e., achieved on or
     after November 1975), as long as one of the §131.10(g)
     justifications for removal is met.

     Otherwise, the State must maintain the criteria even if it
     restricts the actual use on non-water quality grounds, as
     long as there is any possibility the water could actually
     be used for drinking.  (This is analogous to the swimming
     example in the preamble.)

21.  WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS, TOTAL
MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS,  AND THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY?

     Wasteload allocations distribute the allowable pollutant
     loadings to a stream between dischargers. Such allocations
     also consider the contribution to pollutant loadings from non-
     point sources. Wasteload allocations must reflect applicable
     State water quality standards including the antidegradation
     policy.   No wasteload allocation can be develped or NPDES permit
     issued that would result in standard being violated, or, in the
     case of waters whose quality exceeds that necessary for the
     Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act, can result a lowering
     of water quality unless the applicable public participation,
     intergovernmental review and baseline control requirements
     of the antidegradation policy have been met.
                               -8-

-------
22.  DO THE ILMThKUJV^KNM^N'iAj., cOorvUJ-Nri ± IOIM «ni> r-ubi_,i«- f An. ix^i NATION
REQUIREMENTS WHICH ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THAT
WATER QUALITY WHICH EXCEEDS THAT NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE SECTION
101(a)(2) GOAL  OF THE ACT MAY BE LOWERED APPLY TO CONSIDERING
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPED FOR THE DISCHARGERS
IN THE AREA?

     Yes. Section 131.12(a)(2) of the water quality standards
     regulation is directed towards changes in water quality per
     se, not just towards changes in standards.  The intent is  to
     erisure that no activity which will cause water quality to
     decline in existing high quality waters is undertaken without
     adequate public review.  Therefore, if a change in wasteload
     allocation could alter water quality in high quality waters,
     the public participation and coordination requirements
     apply.

23. IS THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION DIFFERENT IF THE WATER
QUALITY IS LESS THAN THAT NEEDED TO SUPPORT "FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE"
USES?

     Yes.  Nothing in either the water quality standards or the
     wasteload allocation regulations requires the same degree
     of public participation or intergovernmental coordination
     for such waters as is required for high quality waters.
     However, as discussed in question 10, public participation
     would still be provided in connection with the issuance of a
     NPDES permit or amendment of a 208 plan.  Also, if the action
     which causes reconsideration of the existing wasteloads  (such
     as dischargers withdrawing from the area) will result  in an
     improvement in water quality which makes a better use
     attainable, even if not up to the "fishable/swimmable" goal,
     then the water quality standards must be upgraded and  full
     public review is required for any action affecting changes in
     standards.  Although not specifically required by the  standards
     regulation between the triennial reviews, we recommend  that
     the State conduct a use attainability analysis to determine if
     water quality improvement will result in attaining higher  uses
     than currently designated in situations where significant
     changes in wasteloads are expected  (see question  10).


24. SEVERAL FACILITIES ON A STREAM SEGMENT DISCHARGE PHOSPHORUS-
CONTAINING WASTES.  AMBIENT PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS  MEET  CLASS B
STANDARDS, BUT BARELY.  THREE DISCHARGERS ACHIEVE ELIMINATION OF
DISCHARGE BY DEVELOPING A LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM.  AS A RESULT,
ACTUAL WATER QUALITY IMPROVES (I.E., PHOSPHORUS LEVELS DECLINE)
BUT NOT QUITE TO THE LEVEL NEEDED TO MEET CLASS A  (FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE)
STANDARDS.  CAN THE THREE REMAINING DISCHARGERS NOW INCREASE
THEIR PHOSPHORUS DISCHARGE WITH THE RESULT THAT WATER  QUALITY
DECLINES (PHOSPHORUS LEVELS INCREASE) TO PREVIOUS LEVELS?

     Nothing in the water quality standards regulation expli-
     citly prohibits this (see answer to questions 10  and 23).
     Of course, changes in their NPDES permit limits may be
     subject to non-water quality constraints, such as BPT
     or BAT, which may restrict this.

                                -9-

-------
25. SUPPOSE IN THE ABOVE SITUATION WATER QUALITY IMPROVES TO THE
POINT THAT ACTUAL WATER QUALITY NOW MEETS CLASS A REQUIREMENTS.
IS THE ANSWER DIFFERENT?

     Yes. The standards must be upgraded (see answer to question 10).

26. AS AN ALTERNATIVE CASE, SUPPOSE PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS GO DOWN
AND WATER QUALITY IMPROVES BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN FARMING PRACTICES,
E.G., INITIATION OF A SUCCESSFUL NON-POINT PROGRAM. ARE THE
ABOVE ANSWERS THE SAME?

     Yes. Whether the improvement results from a change in point
     or nonpoint source activity is immaterial to how any aspect of
     the standards regulation operates.  Section 131.10(d) clearly
     indicates that uses are deemed attainable if they can be achieved
     by "... cost-effective and reasonable best management practices
     for nonpoint source control".  Section 131.12(a)(2) of the anti-
     degradation policy contains essentially the same wording.

27.  WHEN A POLLUTANT DISCHARGE CEASES FOR ANY REASON, MAY THE
WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS FOR THE OTHER DISCHARGES IN THE AREA BE
ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE ADDITIONAL LOADING AVAILABLE?

     This may be done consistent with the antidegradation policy
     only under two circumstances:  (1) In "high quality waters"
     where after the full satisfaction of all public participation
     and intergovernmental review requirements, such adjustments
     are considered necessary to accomodate important economic or
     social development, and the "threshold" level requirements
     are met; or (2) in less than "high quality waters", when the
     expected improvement in water quality  will not cause a
     better use to be achieved, the adjusted loads still meet water
     quality standards, and the new wasteload allocations are at
     least as stringent as technology-based limitations.  Of
     course, all applicable requirements of the Section 402
     permit regulations would have to be satisfied before a
     permittee could increase its discharge.


28. HOW MAY THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS BE SATISFIED?

     This requirement may be satisfied in several ways.  The State
     may obviously hold a public hearing or hearings.  The State
     mf.y also satisfy the requirement by providing the opportunity
     for the public to request a hearing.  Activities which may
     affect several water bodies in a river basin or sub-basin
     may be considered in a single hearing.  To ease the resource
     burden on both the State and public, standards issues may be
     combined with hearings on environmental impact statements,
     water management plans, or permits.  However, if this is
     done, the public must be clearly informed that possible
     changes in water quality standards are being considered
     along with other activities.  In other words, it is inconsis-
     tent with the water quality standards regulation to "back-door"
     changes in  standards through actions on EIS's, wasteload
     allocations, plans, or permits.


                               -10-

-------
29. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT* .WHERE A THERMAL
DISCHARGE IS INCLUDED, THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY SHALL BE
CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 316 OF THE ACT?

     This requirement is contained in Section 131.12 (a) (4) of the
     regulation and is intended to coordinate the requirements and
     procedures of the antidegadation policy with those established
     in the Act for setting thermal discharge limitations.
     Regulations implementing Section 316 may be found at 40 CFR
     124.66.  The statutory scheme and legislative history indicate
     that limitations developed under Section 316 take precedence
     over other requirements of the Act.

30.  WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY,
     STATE WAT^R RIGHTS USE LAWS AND SECTION 101(g) OF THE CLEAN
     WATER ACT WHICH DEALS WITH STATE AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE
     WATER QUANTITIES?

     The exact limitations imposed by section 101(g) are unclear;
     however, the legislative history and the courts interpreting
     it do indicate that it does not nullify water quality measures
     authorized by CWA (such as water quality standards and their
     upgrading, and NPDES and 402 permits) even if such measures
     incidentally affect individual water rights; those authorities
     also indicate that if there is a way to reconcile water
     quality needs and water quantity allocations, such accomodation
     should be be pursued.  In other words, where there are
     alternate ways to meet the water quality requirements of the
     Act, the one with least disruption to water quantity allocations
     should be chosen.  Where a planned diversion would lead to a
     violation of water quality standards (either the antidegradation
     policy or a criterion),  a 404 permit associated with the
     diversion should be suitably conditioned if possible and/or
     additional nonpoint and/or point source controls should be
     imposed to compensate.

31. AFTER READING THE REGULATION, THE PREAMBLE, AND ALL THESE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND ANTIDEGRADATION.
WHOM CAN I TALK TO?

     Call the Standards Branch at: (202) 245-3042.  You can also
     call the water quality standards coordinators in each of our
     EPA Regional offices.
                               -11-

-------
         APPENDIX H
         Derivation of the 1985
         Aquatic Life Criteria
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION


-------
                      Derivation  of the 1985
                        Aquatic Life Critera
The following is a summary of the Guidelines for Derivation of Criteria for Aquatic Life. The complete text is found in "Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses," available from National
Technical Information Service - PB85-227049.

Derivation of numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and
their uses is a complex process that uses information from many areas of aquatic toxicology. When a
national criterion is needed for a particular material, all available information concerning toxicity to
and bioaccumillation by aquatic organisms is collected, reviewed for acceptability, and sorted. If
enough acceptable data on acute toxicity to aquatic animals are available, they are used to estimate
the highest one-hour average concentration that should not result in unacceptable effects on aquatic
organisms and their uses. If justified, this  concentration is made a function of water quality
characteristics such  as pH, salinity, or hardness. Similarly, data on the chronic toxicity of the
material to aquatic animals are used to estimate the highest four-day average concentration that
should not cause  unacceptable toxicity during a long-term  exposure.  If appropriate, this
concentration is also related to a water quality characteristic.
   Data  on toxicity to aquatic plants are examined  to determine whether plants are likely to be
unacceptably affected by concentrations that should not cause unacceptable effects on animals.
Data on bioaccumulation by aquatic  organisms are  used to determine if residues might subject
edible species to restrictions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or if such residues
might harm wildlife that consumes aquatic life. All other available data are examined for adverse
effects that might be biologically important.
   If a thorough review of the pertinent information indicates that enough acceptable data exists,
numerical national water quality criteria are derived for fresh water or salt water or both to protect
aquatic organisms and their uses from unacceptable effects due to exposures to high concentrations
for short  periods of time, lower concentrations for longer periods  of time, and combinations of the
two.

I.    Definition of Material of Concern

     A.  Each separate chemical that does not ionize substantially in most natural bodies of water
         should usually be considered a separate material, except possibly for structurally similar
         organic compounds that exist only in large quantities as commercial mixtures of the
         various compounds and apparently have similar biological, chemical, physical, and toxi-
         cological properties.

     B.   For chemicals that do ionize substantially in most natural waterbodies (e.g., some phenols
         and organic acids, some salts of phenols and organic acids, and  most inorganic salts and
         coordination complexes of metals), all forms in chemical equilibrium should usually be
         considered one material.  Each different oxidation state of a metal and each different
         non-ionizable covalently  bonded organometallic compound  should usually be
         considered a separate material.

     C.  The  definition of the material should include  an operational analytical component.
         Identification of  a material simply, for example, as "sodium" obviously implies "total
         sodium" but leaves room for doubt. If "total" is meant, it should be explicitly stated. Even

-------
        "total" has different operational definitions, some of which do not necessarily measure
        "all that is there" in all sample. Thus, it is also necessary to reference or describe one
        analytical method that is intended. The operational analytical component should take into
        account the analytical and environmental  chemistry of the material, the desirability of
        using the same analytical method on samples from laboratory tests, ambient water and
        aqueous effluents, and various practical considerations such as labor and equipment
        requirements and whether the method would require measurement in the field or would
        allow measurement after samples are transported to a laboratory.
           The primary requirements of the operational analytical component are that it be
        appropriate for use on samples of receiving water, compatible with the available toxicity
        and bioaccumulation data without making overly hypothetical extrapolations, and rarely
        result in underprotection or overprotection of aquatic organisms and their uses. Because
        an ideal analytical measurement will rarely be available, a compromise measurement will
        usually be used. This compromise measurement must fit with the general approach: if an
        ambient concentration is lower than the  national criterion, unacceptable effects will
        probably not  occur  (i.e., the compromise measurement must not err on the side of
        underprotection when measurements are made on a surface water). Because the chemical
        and physical  properties of an  effluent are usually quite different from those of the
        receiving water, an analytical method acceptable for analyzing an effluent might not be
        appropriate for analyzing a receiving water, and vice versa. If the ambient concentration
        calculated from a measured concentration in  an effluent is higher than the national
        criterion, an additional option is to measure the concentration after dilution of the effluent
        with receiving water to determine if the  measured concentration is lowered by such
        phenomena as complexation or sorption. A further option, of course, is to derive a
        site-specific criterion (1,2,3). Thus, the criterion should be based on  an appropriate
        analytical measurement, but the criterion is not rendered useless if an ideal measurement
        either is not available or is not feasible.
            The analytical chemistry of the material might need to be considered when defining
        the material or when judging the acceptability of some toxicity tests, but a criterion should
        not be based on the sensitivity of an analytical method. When aquatic organisms are more
        sensitive than routine analytical methods,  the proper solution is to develop better
        analytical methods, not to underprotect aquatic life.

II.   Collection of Data

     A. Collect all available data on the material concerning toxicity to, and bioaccumulation by,
        aquatic animals and plants; FDA action levels (compliance Policy Guide, U.S. Food &
        Drug Admin. 1981) and chronic feeding studies and long-term field studies with wildlife
        species that regularly consume aquatic organisms.

     B. All data that are used should be available in typed, dated, and signed hard copy
        (publication, manuscript, letter, memorandum) with enough supporting information to
        indicate that  acceptable test procedures were used and that  the results are probably
        reliable. In some cases, additional written information from  the investigator may be
        needed. Information that is confidential, privileged, or otherwise not available for
        distribution should not be used.

     C. Questionable data, whether published or unpublished, should not be used. Examples
        would be data from tests that did not contain a control treatment, tests in which too many
        organisms in the control treatment died or showed signs of stress or disease, and tests in
        which distilled or deionized water was used as the dilution water without addition of
        appropriate salts.

     D. Data on technical grade materials may be used, if appropriate; but data on formulated
        mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates of the material may not be used.

-------
     E.  For some highly volatile, hydrolyzable, or degradable materials, only use data from
        flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test material were measured often
        enough with acceptable analytical methods.

     F.  Data should be rejected if obtained by using:
          •  Brine shrimp—because they usually occur naturally only in water with salinity
            greater than 35 g/ kg;
          •  Species that do not have reproducing wild populations in North America; or
          •  Organisms that were previously exposed to substantial concentrations of the test
            material or other contaminants.

     G. Questionable data, data on formulated mixtures and emulsifiable concentrates, and data
        obtained with nonresident species or previously exposed  organisms may be used to
        provide auxiliary information but should not be used in the derivation of criteria.

III.  Required Data

     A. Certain data should be  available to help ensure that each of the four major kinds of
        possible adverse effects receives adequate consideration: results of acute and chronic
        toxicity tests with representative species of aquatic animals are necessary to indicate the
        sensitivities of appropriate untested species. However, since procedures for conducting
        tests with aquatic plants and interpreting the results are not as well developed, fewer data
        concerning toxicity are required. Finally, data concerning bioaccumulation by aquatic
        organisms are required only with relevant information on the significance of residues in
        aquatic organisms.

     8.  To derive a criterion for freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses, the following should
        be available:
        1.  Results Of acceptable acute tests (see section IV) with at least one species of freshwater
            animal in at least eight different families including all of the following:
            •  The family Salmonidae in the class Osteichthyes.

            •  A second family in the class Osteichthyes, preferably a commercially or
               recreationally important warmwater species, such as bluegjU or channel catfish.
            •  A third family in the phylum Chordata (may be in the class Osteichthyes or may
               be an amphibian, etc.).

            •  A planktonic crustacean such as a cladoceran or copepod.
            •  A benthic crustacean (ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.).
            •  An insect (mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.).
            •  A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata, such as Rotifera,
               Annelida, Mollusca.

            •  A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented.

        2.  Acute-chronic ratios (see section VI) with species of aquatic animals in at least three
            different families, provided that:

            •  At least one is a fish;

            •  At least one is an invertebrate; and
            •  At least one is an acutely sensitive freshwater species (the other two may be
               saltwater species).

        3.  Results of at least one acceptable test with a freshwater alga or vascular plant (see
            section Vm). If the plants are among the aquatic organisms that are most sensitive to
            the material, test data on a plant in another phylum (division) should also be available.

-------
       4.  At least  one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an  appropriate
           freshwater species, if a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available (see
           section DQ.

    C. To derive a criterion for saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses, the following should
       be available:

       1.  Results of acceptable acute tests (see section IV) with at least one species of saltwater
           animal in at least eight different families, including all of the following:

            • Two families in the phylum Chordata;
            • A family in a phylum other than Arthropoda or Chordata;
            • Either the Mysidae or Penaeidae family;
            • Three other families not in the phylum Chordata (may include Mysidae or
              Penaeidae, whichever was not used previously); and

            • Any other family.

       2.  Acute-chronic ratios (see section VI) with species of aquatic animals in at least three
           different families, provided that of the three species:

            • At least one is a fish;
            • At least one is an invertebrate; and
            • At least one is an acutely sensitive saltwater species (the other may be an acutely
              sensitive freshwater species).

        3.  Results of at least one acceptable test with a saltwater alga or vascular plant (see
           section Vm). If plants are among the aquatic organisms most sensitive to the material,
           results of a test with a plant in another phylum (division) should also be available.

        4.  At least one acceptable bioconcentration factor determined with an appropriate
           saltwater species, if a maximum  permissible tissue concentration is available (see
           section DQ.

    D. If all required data are available, a numerical criterion can usually be derived, except in
        special cases. For example, derivation of a criterion might not be possible if the available
        acute-chronic ratios vary by more than a factor of 10 with no apparent pattern. Also, if a
        criterion is to be related to a water quality characteristic T (see sections V and VH),  more
        data will be necessary.
            Similarly, if all required data are  not available,  a numerical criterion should not be
        derived except in special cases. For example, even if not enough acute and chronic data are
        available, it might be possible to derive a criterion if the available data dearly indicate that
        the Final Residue Value should be much lower than  either the Final Chronic Value or the
        Final Plant Value.

    E. Confidence  in a criterion usually increases as the  amount  of available pertinent data
        increases. Thus, additional data are usually desirable.

IV. Final Acute Value

    A. Appropriate measures of the acute (short-term) toxicity of the material to a variety of
        species of aquatic animals are used to calculate the Final Acute Value. The Final Acute
        Value is an estimate of the concentration of the material, corresponding to a cumulative
        probability of 0.05 in the acute toxicity values for genera used in acceptable acute tests
        conducted on the material. However,  in some cases, if the Species Mean Acute Value of a
        commercially or recreationally important species is lower than the calculated Final Acute
        Value, then that Species Mean Acute Value replaces the calculated Final Acute Value to
        protect that important species.

-------
B.  Acute toxicity tests should have been conducted using acceptable procedures (ASTM
    Standards E 729 and 724).

C.  Except for tests with saltwater annelids and mysids, do not use results of acute tests
    during which test organisms were fed, unless data indicate that the food did not affect the
    toxicity of the test material.

D.  Results of acute tests conducted in unusual dilution water (dilution water in which total
    organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded 5 mg/L) should not be used unless a
    relationship is developed between acute toxicity and organic carbon or particulate matter
    or unless data show that the organic carbon or particulate matter does not affect toxicity.

E.  Acute values should be based on endpoints that reflect the total severe acute adverse
    impact of the test material on the organisms used in the test. Therefore, only the following
    kinds of data on acute toxicity to aquatic animals should be used:

    1.  Tests with daphnids and other cladocerans should be started with organisms less than
       24-hours old, and tests with midges should be stressed with second- or third-instar
       larvae. The result should be the 48-hour ECso based on percentage of organisms
       immobilized plus percentage of organisms killed. If such an ECso is not available from
       a test, the 48-hour LCso should be used in place of the desired 48-hour ECso. An ECso °r
       LCso of longer than 48 hours can be used as long as the animals were not fed and the
       control animals were acceptable at the end of the test.
    2.  The result of a test with embryos and larvae of barnacles, bivalve molluscs (clams,
       mussels, oysters,  and scallops), sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, and abalones
       should be the 96-hour ECso based on the percentage of organisms with incompletely
       developed shells  plus the percentage of organisms killed. If such an ECso is not
       available from a test, the lower of the  96-hour ECso,  based on the percentage of
       organisms with incompletely developed shells and the 96-hour LCso should be used
       in place of the desired 96-hour ECso. K the duration of the test was between 48 and 96
       hours, the ECso or LCso at the end of the test should be used.

    3.  The acute values from tests with all other freshwater and saltwater animal species and
       older life stages of barnacles, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins, lobsters, crabs, shrimps,
       and abalones should be the 96-hour ECso based  on the percentage of organisms
       exhibiting loss of equilibrium, plus the percentage of organisms immobilized, plus the
       percentage of organisms killed. If such an ECso is not available from a test, the 96-hour
       LCso should be used in place of the desired 96-hour ECso.

    4.  Tests with single-celled organisms are not considered acute tests, even if the duration
       was 96 hours or less.

    5.  If the tests were conducted properly, acute values reported as "greater than" values
       and those above the solubility of the test material should be used because rejection of
       such acute values would unnecessarily lower the Final Acute Value by eliminating
       acute values for resistant species.

E  If the acute toxicity of the material to aquatic animals apparently has been shown to be
    related to a water quality  characteristic  such as hardness or particulate matter for
    freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final Acute
    Equation should be derived based on that water quality characteristic. (Go to section V.)

G.  If the available data indicate that one or more life stages are at least a factor of 2 more resistant
    than one or more other life stages of the same species, the data for the more resistant life stages
    should not be used in the calculation of the Species Mean Acute Value because a species can be
    considered protected from acute toxicity only if all life stages are protected.

H.  The agreement of the data within and between species should be considered. Acute values
    that appear to be questionable in comparison with other acute and chronic data for the
    same species and for other species in the same genus probably should not be used in

-------
    calculation of a Species Mean Acute Value. For example, if the acute values available for a
    species or genus differ by more than a factor of 10, some or all of the values probably
    should not be used in calculations.

I.   For each species for which at least one acute value is available, the Species Mean Acute
    Value should be calculated as the geometric mean of the results of all flow-through tests in
    which the concentrations of test material were measured. For a species for which no such
    result is available, the Species Mean Acute Value should be calculated as the geometric
    mean of all available acute  values — i.e.,  results of  flow-through  tests in which the
    concentrations were not  measured and results of static  and renewal tests based on initial
    concentrations of test material. (Nominal concentrations are acceptable for most test
    materials if measured concentrations are not available.)
     NOTE: Data reported by original investigators should not be  rounded off. Results of all
     intermediate calculations should be rounded to four significant digits.
     NOTE: The geometric mean of N numbers is the Nth root  of the product of the N numbers.
     Alternatively, the geometric mean can be calculated by  adding the logarithms of the N
     numbers, dividing the sum by N, and taking the antilog of  the quotient. The geometric mean
     of two numbers is the square root of the product of the two numbers, and the geometric mean
     of one number is that number. Either natural (base 0) or common (base 10) logarithms can be
     used to calculate geometric means as long as they are used consistently within each set of data
     (i.e., the antilog used must match the logarithm used).
     NOTE: Geometric means rather than arithmetic means are used here because the distributions
     of individual organisms'  sensitivities in toxicity tests on most materials, and the distributions
     of species' sensitivities within a genus, are more likely to be  lognormal than normal. Similarly,
     geometric means are  used for  acute-chronic  ratios and  bioconcentration factors  because
     quotients are likely to be  closer to lognormal than normal distributions. In  addition, division
     of the  geometric mean  of a set of numerators  by the geometric mean of the set of
     corresponding denominators will result in the geometric  mean  of the set of corresponding
     quotients.

J.   The Genus Mean Acute  Value should be calculated as the geometric mean of the Species
    Mean Acute Values available for each genus.

K.  Order the Genus Mean Acute Value from high to low.

L.  Assign ranks, R, to the Genus Mean Acute Value from "1" for the lowest to "N" for the
    highest. If two or more  Genus Mean Acute Values are identical, arbitrarily assign them
    successive ranks.

M. Calculate the cumulative probability, P, for each Genus Mean Acute Value as R/ (N+l).

N. Select the four Genus Mean Acute Values that  have cumulative probabilities closest to
    0.05. (If there are less than 59  Genus Mean Acute Values, these will always be the four
    lowest Genus Mean Acute Values).

O. Using the selected Genus Mean Acute Values and Ps, calculate:

        Z2  2((ln GMAV )2)  - ((Z(ln GMAV))2/4)
                    I(P) - ((Z(VP))2/4)

        L = (I(ln GMAV) = S(Z(VF)))/4
        FAV = eA
    (See original document, referenced at beginning of this appendix, for development of the
    calculation procedure and Appendix 2 for example calculation and computer program.)
      NOTE: Natural logarithms (logarithms to base e, denoted as In) are used herein merely
      because they are easier to use on some hand calculators and computers than common (base 10)
      logarithms. Consistent use of either will produce the same result.

-------
     P.   If for a commercially or recreationally important species the geometric mean of the acute
         values from flow-through tests in which the concentrations  of test material were
         measured is lower than the calculated Final Acute Value, then that geometric mean should
         be used as the Final Acute Value instead of the calculated Final Acute Value.

     Q.  Go to section VI.

V.   Final Acute Equation

     A.  When enough data are available to show that acute toxicity to two or more species is similarly
         related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship should be taken into account as
         described in section IV, steps B through G, or using analysis of covariance. The two methods
         are equivalent and produce identical results. The manual method described below provides
         an understanding of this application of covariance analysis, but computerized versions of
         covariance analysis are much more convenient for analyzing large data tests. If two or more
         factors affect toxicity, multiple regression analysis should be used.

     6.  For each species for which comparable acute toxicity values are available at two or more
         different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares regression of
         the acute toxicity values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic to
         obtain the slope and its 95 percent confidence limits for each species.

          NOTE: Because the best documented relationship fitting these data is that between hardness
          and acute toxicity of metals in  freshwater and a log-log relationship,  geometric means and
          natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality are used in the rest of this section. For
          relationships based on other water quality characteristics such as pH, temperature, or salinity,
          no transformation or a different transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate
          changes will be necessary.

     C.  Decide whether the data for each species are useful, taking into account the range and
         number of the tested values of the water quality characteristic and the degree of
         agreement within and between species. For example, a slope based on six data points
         might be of limited value if based only on data for a very narrow range of water quality
         characteristic values. A slope based on only two data points, however, might be useful if
         consistent with other information and if the two points cover a broad enough range of the
         water quality characteristic.
            In addition, acute values  that appear to be questionable  in comparison with other
         acute and chronic data available for the same species and for other species in the same
         genus probably should not be  used. For example, if after adjustment for the water quality
         characteristic the acute values available for a species or genus differ by more than a factor
         of 10, probably some or all of  the values should be rejected. If useful slopes are  not
         available for at least one fish and one invertebrate, or if  the available slopes are  too
         dissimilar, or if too few data are available to adequately define the relationship between
         acute toxicity and the water quality characteristic, return to section IV.G, using the results
         of tests conducted under conditions and in waters similar to those commonly used for
         toxicity tests with the species.

     D.  Individually for each species,  calculate the geometric mean of the available acute values
         and then divide each of these acute values by the mean for the species. This normalizes the
         values so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each species, individually,
         and for any combination of species is 1.0.

     E.  Similarly normalize the values of the water quality characteristic for each species,
         individually.

     F.   Individually for each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized acute
         toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic.
         The resulting slopes and 95 percent confidence limits will be identical to those obtained in

-------
        step B. However, now, if the data are actually plotted, the line of best fit for each individual
        species will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

    G.  Treat normalized data as if they were all for the same species and perform a least squares
        regression of all the normalized acute values on the corresponding normalized values of
        the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled acute slope, V, and its 95 percent
        confidence limits. If all the normalized data are actually plotted, the line of best fit will go
        through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

    H.  For each species, calculate the geometric mean, W, of the acute toxicity values and the
        geometric mean, X, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These were calculated
        in steps D and E.)

    I.   For each species, calculate the logarithm, Y, of the Species Mean Acute Value at a selected
        value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation:
                                  Y=lnW-VOnX-lnZ).

    J.   For each species, calculate the SMAV at Z using the equation:
                                        SMAV = ey.
          NOTE; Alternatively, the Species Mean Acute Values at Z can be obtained by skipping step H
          using the equations in steps I and J to adjust each acute value individually to Z, and then
          calculating the geometric mean of the adjusted values for each species individually.
            This alternative procedure allows an examination of the range of the adjusted acute
        values for each species.

    K.  Obtain the Final Acute Value at Z by using the procedure described in section IV, steps J
        through O.

    L.  If the Species Mean Acute Value at Z of a commercially or recreationally important species
        is lower than the calculated Final Acute Value at Z, then that Species Mean Acute Value
        should be used as the Final Acute Value at Z instead of the calculated Final Acute Value.

    M. The Final Acute Equation is written as:
                 Final Acute Value = e
-------
B.  Chronic values should be based on results of flow- through chronic tests in which the
    concentrations of test material in the test solutions were properly measured at appropriate
    times during the test. (Exception: renewal, which is acceptable for daphnids.)

C.  Results of chronic tests in which survival, growth, or reproduction in the control treatment
    was unacceptably low should not be used. The limits of acceptability will depend on the
    species.

D.  Results of chronic tests conducted in unusual dilution water (dilution water in which total
    organic carbon or particulate matter exceeded  5 mg/L) should not be used, unless a
    relationship is developed between chronic toxicity and organic carbon or particulate
    matter, or unless data show that organic carbon, particulate matter (and so forth) do not
    affect toxicity.

E.  Chronic values should be based on endpoints and lengths of exposure appropriate to the
    species. Therefore, only results of the following kinds of chronic toxicity tests should be
    used:

    1.  Life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more groups of
       individuals of a species to a different concentration of the test material throughout a
       life cycle. To ensure that all life stages and life processes are exposed, tests with fish
       should begin with embryos or newly hatched young less than 48-hours old, continue
       through maturation and reproduction, and end not less than 24  days (90 days for
       salmonids) after the hatching  of the next generation. Tests with daphnids should
       begin with young less than 24-hours old and last for not less than 21 days. Tests with
       mysids should begin with young less than 24-hours old and continue until seven days
       past the median time of first brood release in the controls.
           For fish, data should be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth of adults
       and young, maturation of males and females, eggs spawned per female, embryo
       viability (salmonids only), and hatchability. For daphnids, data should be obtained
       and analyzed on survival and young per female. For mysids, data should be
       obtained and analyzed on survival, growth, and young per female.

    2.  Partial life-cycle toxicity tests consisting of exposures of each of two or more groups of
       individuals in a fish species to a concentration of the  test material through most
       portions of a life cycle. Partial life-cycle tests are allowed with fish species that require
       more than a year to reach sexual maturity so that all major life stages can be exposed to
       the test material in less than 15 months.
           Exposure to the test material should begin with immature juveniles at least two
       months prior to active gonad development, continue through maturation and
       reproduction, and end not less than 24 days (90 days for salmonids) after the
       hatching of the next generation. Data should be obtained and analyzed on survival
       and growth of adults and young, maturation of males and females, eggs spawned
       per female, embryo viability (salmonids only), and hatchability.

    3.  Early life stage  toxicity tests consisting of 28-  to 32-day (60 days post hatch for
       salmonids) exposures of the early  life stages of a fish species from shortly after
       fertilization through embryonic, larval, and early juvenile development. Data should
       be obtained and analyzed on survival and growth.
        NOTE: Results of an early life stage test are used as predictions of results of life-cycle and
        partial life-cycle tests with the same species. Therefore, when results of a total or partial
        life-cycle test are  available, results of an early life stage test with the same species should
        not be used. Also, results of early life stage tests in which the incidence of mortalities or
        abnormalities increased substantially near the end should  not be used because these
        results are possibly not good predictions of the results of comparable total or partial life
        cycle or partial life cycle tests.

-------
F.   A chronic value can be obtained by calculating the geometric mean of the lower and upper
    chronic limits from a chronic test or by analyzing chronic data using regression analysis. A
    lower chronic limit is the highest tested concentration in an acceptable chronic test that did
    not cause an unacceptable amount of adverse effect on any of the specified  biological
    measurements and below which no tested concentration caused an unacceptable effect. An
    upper chronic limit is the lowest tested concentration in an acceptable chronic test that did
    cause an unacceptable amount of adverse effect on one or more of the specified biological
    measurements and above which all tested concentrations also caused such an effect.
     NOTE: Because various authors have used a variety of terms and definitions to interpret and
     report results of chronic tests, reported results should be reviewed carefully. The amount of
     effect that is considered unacceptable is often based on a statistical hypothesis test but might
     also be defined in terms of a specified percent reduction from the controls. A small  percent
     reduction (e.g., 3 percent) might be considered acceptable even if it is statistically significantly
     different from the control, whereas a large percent reduction (e.g., 30 percent) might be
     considered unacceptable even if it is not statistically significant.

G.  If the chronic toxicity of the material to aquatic animals apparently has been shown to be
    related to a water  quality characteristic such as hardness  or particulate matter for
    freshwater animals or salinity or particulate matter for saltwater animals, a Final Chronic
    Equation should be derived based on that water quality characteristic. Go to section VII.

H.  If chronic values are available for species in eight families as described in sections UI.B.1 or
    UI.C.l, a Species Mean Chronic Value should also be calculated for each species for which
    at least one chronic  value is available by calculating the geometric mean of all chronic
    values available for the species; appropriate Genus Mean Chronic Values should also be
    calculated.  The Final Chronic Value should then be obtained using the  procedure
    described in section HI, steps J through O. Then go to section VI.M.

I.   For each chronic value for which at least one corresponding appropriate acute value is
    available, calculate an acute-chronic ratio using for the numerator the geometric mean of
    the results of all  acceptable flow-through acute tests in the same dilution  water and in
    which the concentrations were measured. (Exception: static is acceptable for daphnids.)
       For fish, the acute test(s) should have been conducted with juveniles and should have
    been part of the same study as the chronic test. If acute tests were not conducted as part of
    the same study, acute tests conducted in the same laboratory and dilution water but in a
    different study may be used. If no such acute tests are available, results of acute  tests
    conducted in the same dilution water in a different laboratory may be used.  If no  such
    acute tests are available, an acute-chronic ratio should not be calculated.

J.   For each species, calculate the species mean acute-chronic ratio as the geometric mean of
    all acute-chronic ratios available for that species.

K.  For some materials, the acute-chronic ratio seems to be the same for all species, but for
    other materials, the ratio seems to increase or decrease as the Species Mean Acute Value
    increases. Thus the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio can be obtained in four ways, depending on
    the data available:

    1.  If the Species Mean Acute-Chronic ratio seems to increase or decrease as the Species
       Mean Acute Value increases, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should be calculated as the
       geometric mean of the  acute-chronic ratios for species whose Species Mean Acute
       Values are close to the Final Acute Value.

    2.  If no major trend is apparent, and the acute-chronic ratios for a number of species are
       within  a factor  of 10, the  Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should be calculated as the
       geometric mean of all  the Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios available for  both
       freshwater and saltwater species.

    3.  For acute tests conducted on metals and possibly other substances with embryos and
       larvae of barnacles, bivalve molluscs, sea urchins, lobsters, crabs,  shrimp, and
       abakmes (see section  IV.E.2), it  is probably appropriate  to  assume that the

-------
            acute-chronic ratio is 2. Chronic tests are very difficult to conduct with most such
            species, but the sensitivities of embryos and larvae would likely determine the results
            of life cycle tests. Thus, if the lowest available Species Mean Acute Values were
            determined with embryos and larvae of such species, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio
            should probably be assumed to be 2, so that the Final Chronic Value is equal to the
            Criterion Maximum Concentration (see section XI.B)

        4.  If the most appropriate Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios are less than 2.0, and
            especially if they are less than 1.0, acclimation has probably occurred during the
            chronic test. Because continuous exposure and acclimation cannot be assured to
            provide adequate protection in field situations, the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio should
            be assumed to be 2, so that the Final Chronic Value is equal to the Criterion Maximum
            Concentration (see section XI.B).
               If the available Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios do not fit one of these cases, a
            Final Acute-Chronic Ratio probably cannot be obtained, and a Final Chronic Value
            probably cannot be calculated.

     L. Calculate the Final  Chronic Value  by dividing  the Final Acute Value by the Final
        Acute-Chronic Ratio. If there was a Final Acute Equation rather than a Final Acute Value,
        see also section VILA.

     M. If the Species Mean Chronic Value of a commercially or recreationally important species is
        lower than the calculated Final Chronic Value, then that Species Mean Chronic Value
        should be used as the Final Chronic Value instead of the calculated Final Chronic Value.

     N. Go to section Vffl.

VII. Final Chronic Equation

     A. A Final Chronic Equation can be derived in two ways. The procedure described here will
        result in the chronic slope being the same as the acute slope. The procedure described in
        steps B through N usually will result in the chronic slope being different from the acute
        slope.

        1.  If acute-chronic ratios are available for enough species at enough values of the water
            quality characteristic to indicate that the acute-chronic ratio is probably the same for
            all species and is probably independent of the water quality characteristic, calculate
            the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio as the geometric mean of the available Species Mean
            Acute-Chronic Ratios.

        2.  Calculate  the Final Chronic Value at the  selected value Z of the water  quality
            characteristic by dividing the Final Acute Value at Z (see section V.M) by the Final
            Acute-Chronic Ratio.

        3.  Use V = pooled acute slope (see section V.M) as L = pooled chronic slope.

        4.  Go to section VH.M.

     B. When enough data are available to show that chronic toxicity to at least one species is
        related to a water quality characteristic, the relationship should be taken into account as
        described in steps B through G or using analysis of covariance. The two methods are
        equivalent and  produce identical results. The manual method described in the next
        paragraph provides an understanding of this  application of covariance analysis, but
        computerized versions of covariance analysis are much more convenient for analyzing
        large data sets. If two or more factors affect toxicity, multiple regression analysis should be
        used.

     C. For each species for which comparable chronic toxicity values are available at two or more
        different values of the water quality characteristic, perform a least squares regression of

-------
    the chronic toxirity values on the corresponding values of the water quality characteristic
    to obtain the slope and its 95 percent confidence limits for each species.

     NOTE: Because the best-documented relationship fitting these data is that between hardness
     and acute toxicity of metals in fresh water and a log-log relationship, geometric means and
     natural logarithms of both toxicity and water quality are used in the rest of this section. For
     relationships based on other water quality characteristics such as pH, temperature, or salinity,
     no transformation or a different transformation might fit the data better, and appropriate
     changes will be necessary throughout this section. It is probably preferable, but not necessary,
     to use the same transformation that was used with the acute values in section V.

D.  Decide whether the data for each species are useful, taking into account the range and
    number of the tested values of  the  water quality  characteristic and  the degree of
    agreement within and between species. For example, a slope based on six data points
    might be of limited value if founded only on data for a very narrow range of values of the
    water quality characteristic. A slope based on only two data points, however, might be
    useful if it is consistent with other information and if the two points cover a broad enough
    range of the water quality characteristic. In addition, chronic values that appear to be
    questionable in comparison with other acute and chronic data available for the same
    species and for other species in the same genus probably should not be used. For example,
    if after adjustment for the water quality characteristic the chronic values available for a
    species or genus differ by more than a factor of 10, probably some or all of the values
    should be rejected.
       If a useful chronic slope is not available for at least one species, or if the available
    slopes  are too dissimilar, or if too few  data are available to adequately define the
    relationship between  chronic toxicity  and the water quality characteristic, the chronic
    slope is probably the same as the  acute slope, which is equivalent to assuming that the
    acute-chronic ratio is independent of the water quality characteristic. Alternatively, return
    to section VI.H, using the results of tests conducted under conditions and in waters similar
    to those commonly used for toxicity tests with the species.

E.  Individually for each species, calculate the geometric mean of the available chronic values
    and then divide each chronic value for a species by its mean. This normalizes the chronic
    values so that the geometric mean of the normalized values for each species individually,
    and for any combination of species, is 1.0.

F.  Similarly normalize the values  of the water quality  characteristic for each  species,
    individually.

G.  Individually for each species, perform a least squares regression of the normalized chronic
    toxicity values on the corresponding normalized values of the water quality characteristic.
    The  resulting slopes  and the 95 percent confidence limits will be identical to those
    obtained in section B. Now, however, if the data are actually plotted, the line of best fit for
    each individual species will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

H.  Treat all the normalized data as if they were all for the same species and perform a least
    squares regression of all the normalized chronic values on the corresponding normalized
    values of the water quality characteristic to obtain the pooled chronic slope, L, and its 95
    percent confidence limits. If all the normalized data are actually plotted, the line of best fit
    will go through the point 1,1 in the center of the graph.

I.  For each species, calculate the geometric mean, M, of the toxicity values and the geometric
    mean, P, of the values of the water quality characteristic. (These were calculated in steps E
    andF.)

J.  For each species, calculate the logarithm, Q, of the Species Mean Chronic Value at a
    selected value, Z, of the water quality characteristic using the equation:

                              Q = lnM-L(lnP-lnZ).
      NOTE: Although it is not necessary, it will usually be best to use the same value of the water
      quality characteristic here as was used in section V.I.

-------
     K.  For each species, calculate a Species Mean Chronic Value at Z using the equation:

                                       SMCV = eQ.

          NOTE Alternatively, the Species Mean Chronic Values at Z can be obtained by skipping step J,
          using the equations in steps J and K to adjust each acute value individually to Z, and then
          calculating the geometric means of the adjusted values for each species individually. This
          alternative procedure allows an examination of the range of the adjusted chronic values for
          each species.

     L.  Obtain the Final Chronic Value at Z by using the procedure described in section IV, steps J
         through O.

     M.  If the Species Mean Chronic Value at Z of a commercially or recreationally important
         species is lower than the calculated Final Chronic Value at Z, then that Species Mean
         Chronic Value should be used as the Final Chronic Value at Z instead of the calculated
         Final Chronic Value.

     N.  The Final Chronic Equation is written as:
                Final Chronic Value = e(LPn(water «luality characteristic)] + In S - L[ln Z])
         where
           L = pooled chronic slope
           S = Final Chronic Value at Z.
         Because L, S, and Z are known, the Final Chronic Value can be calculated for any selected
         value of the water quality characteristic.

VIII. Final Plant Value

     A.  Appropriate measures of the toxicity of the material to aquatic plants are used to compare the
         relative sensitivities of aquatic plants and animals. Although procedures for conducting and
         interpreting the results of toxicity tests with plants are not well developed, results of tests with
         plants usually indicate that criteria which adequately protect aquatic animals and their uses
         will probably also protect aquatic plants and their uses.

     B.  A plant value is the result of a 96-hour test conducted with an alga, or a chronic  test
         conducted with an aquatic vascular plant.
          NOTE: A test of the toxicity of a metal to a plant usually should not be used if the medium
          contained an excessive amount of a complexing agent, such as EDTA, that might affect the
          toxicity of the metal. Concentrations of EDTA above about  200 ug/L should probably be
          considered excessive.

     C.  The Final Plant Value should be obtained by selecting the lowest result from a test with an
         important aquatic  plant  species  in  which the concentrations of test material were
         measured, and the endpoint was biologically important.

IX.  Final Residue Value

     A.  The Final Residue Value  is intended to prevent concentrations in commercially or
         recreationally important aquatic species from affecting marketability because they exceed
         applicable FDA action  levels and to protect wildlife (including fishes and birds) that
         consume aquatic organisms from demonstrated unacceptable effects. The Final Residue
         Value is the lowest  of the residue values that are obtained by dividing maximum
         permissible tissue concentrations by appropriate bioconcentration or bioaccumulation
         factors. A maximum permissible tissue concentration is either (a) an FDA action level
         (Compliance Policy Guide, U.S. Food & Drug Admin. 1981) for fish oil or for the edible
         portion of fish or shellfish, or a maximum acceptable dietary intake based on observations
         on survival, growth,  or reproduction in a chronic wildlife feeding study or a long-term
         wildlife field study. If no maximum permissible tissue concentration is available, go to
         section X because no Final Residue Value can be derived.

-------
B. Bioconcentration Factors (BCFs) and bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) are quotients of the
   concentration of a material in one or more tissues of an aquatic organism, divided by the
   average concentration in the solution in which the organism had been living. A BCF is
   intended to account only for net uptake directly from water and thus almost must be
   measured in a laboratory test. Some uptake during the bioconcentration test might not be
   directly from water if the food sorbs some of the test material before it is eaten by the test
   organisms. A BAF is intended to account for net uptake from both food and water in a
   real-world situation. A BAF almost must be measured in a field situation in which
   predators accumulate the material directly from water and by consuming prey that could
   have accumulated the material from both food and water.
       The BCF and BAF are probably similar for a material with a low BCF, but the BAF is
   probably higher than the BCF for materials with high BCFs. Although BCFs are not too
   difficult to determine, very few BAFs have been measured acceptably because adequate
   measurements must be made of the material's concentration in water to ascertain if it was
   reasonably constant for a long enough time over the range of territory inhabited by the
   organisms. Because so few acceptable BAFs are available, only BCFs will be discussed
   further. However, if an acceptable BAF is available for a material, it should be used instead
   of any available BCFs.

C. If a maximum permissible tissue concentration is available for a substance (e.g., parent
   material,  parent material plus metabolites, etc.), the tissue concentration used in the
   calculation  of  the  BCF  should be for the same  substance. Otherwise, the tissue
   concentration used in the calculation of the BCF should derive from the material and its
   metabolites that are structurally similar and are not much more soluble in water than the
   parent material.

   1.  A BCF should be used only if the test was flow-through, the BCF was calculated based
       on measured concentrations of the test material in tissue and in the test solution, and
       the exposure continued  at least until either apparent steady state or 28 days was
       reached. Steady state is reached when the BCF does not change significantly over a
       period of time, such as 2 days or 16 percent of the length of the exposure, whichever is
       longer. The BCF used from a test should be the highest of the apparent steady-state
       BCF,  if apparent steady state was reached; the highest BCF  obtained, if  apparent
       steady state was not reached; and the projected steady state BCF, if calculated.

    2.  Whenever a BCF is determined for a lipophilic material, the percent lipids should also
       be determined in the tissue(s) for which the BCF was calculated.

    3.  A BCF obtained from an exposure that adversely affected the test organisms may be
       used  only if it is similar to a BCF obtained with unaffected organisms of the same
       species at lower concentrations that did not cause adverse effects.

    4.  Because maximum permissible tissue concentrations are almost never based on dry
       weights, a BCF calculated using dry tissue weights must be converted to a wet tissue
       weight basis. If no conversion factor is reported with the BCF, multiply the dry weight
       BCF by 0.1 for plankton and by 0.2 for individual species of fishes and invertebrates.

    5.  If more than one acceptable BCF is available for a species, the geometric mean of the
       available values should be used; however, the BCFs are from different lengths of
       exposure and the BCF increases with length of exposure, then the BCF for the longest
       exposure should be used.

 E.  If enough pertinent data exists, several residue values can be calculated by dividing
    maximum permissible tissue concentrations by appropriate BCFs:

    1.  For each available maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from a chronic feeding
        study or a long-term field study with wildlife (including birds and aquatic organisms),
        the appropriate BCF is based on the whole body of aquatic species that constitutes or
        represents a major portion of the diet of the tested wildlife species.

-------
        2.  For an FDA action level for fish or shellfish, the appropriate BCF is the highest
            geometric mean species BCF for the edible portion (muscle for decapods, muscle with
            or without skin for fishes, adductor muscle for scallops, and total soft tissue for other
            bivalve molluscs) of a consumed species. The highest species BCF is used because FDA
            action levels are applied on a species-by-species basis.

     F.  For lipophilic materials, calculating additional residue values is possible. Because the
        steady-state BCF for a lipophilic material seems to be proportional to percent lipids from
        one tissue to another and from one species to another, extrapolations can be made from
        tested tissues, or species to untested tissues, or species on the basis of percent lipids.

        1.  For each BCF for which the percent lipids is known for the same tissue for which the
            BCF was measured, normalize the BCF to a 1 percent lipid basis by dividing it by the
            percent lipids. This adjustment to a 1 percent lipid basis is intended to make ail the
            measured BCFs for a material comparable regardless of the species or tissue with
            which the BCF was measured.
        2.  Calculate the  geometric mean-normalized  BCF. Data for  both saltwater  and
            freshwater species should be used to determine the mean-normalized BCF unless they
            show that the normalized BCFs are probably not similar.
        3.  Calculate all possible residue values by dividing the available maximum permissible
            tissue concentrations by the mean-normalized BCF and by the  percent lipids values
            appropriate to the maximum permissible tissue concentrations, i.e.,
                „  ..  „   ,       (maximum permissible tissue concentration)
                Hesidue value - •:—i	,f  .-^-.	rr	.,.'...
                               (mean normalized BCF)(appropnate percent lipids)

             • For an FDA action level for fish oil, the appropriate percent lipids value is 100.

             • For an FDA action level for fish, the appropriate percent lipids value is 11 for
               freshwater criteria and 10 for saltwater criteria because FDA action levels are
               applied species-by-species to commonly consumed species. The highest lipid
               contents in the edible portions of important consumed species are about 11
               percent for both the freshwater chinook salmon and lake trout and about 10
               percent for the saltwater Atlantic herring.
             • For a maximum acceptable dietary intake derived from a chronic feeding study or
               a long-term field study with wildlife, the appropriate percent lipids is that of an
               aquatic species or group of aquatic species that constitute a major portion of the
               diet of the wildlife species.

     G. The Final Residue Value is obtained by selecting the lowest of the available residue values.
          NOTE: In some cases, the Final Residue Value will not be low enough. For example, a residue
          value calculated from a FDA action level will probably result in an average concentration in
          the  edible portion of a fatty species  at the action level. Some individual organisms and
          possibly some species will have residue concentrations higher than the  mean value, but no
          mechanism  has been devised to provide appropriate  additional protection. Also, some
          chronic feeding studies and long-term field studies with wildlife identify concentrations that
          cause adverse effects but do not identify concentrations that  do not cause adverse effects;
          again, no mechanism has been devised to provide appropriate additional protection. These
          are some of the species and uses that are not protected at all times in all places.

X   Other Data
     Pertinent information that could not be used in earlier sections  might be available concerning
     adverse effects on aquatic organisms and their uses. The most important of these are data on
     cumulative and delayed  toxicity, flavor impairment, reduction in survival, growth, or
     reproduction, or any  other adverse effect shown to be biologically important. Especially
     important are data for species for which no other data are available. Data from behavioral,
     biochemical, physiological, microcosm, and field studies might also be available. Data might be
     available from tests conducted in unusual dilution water (see IV.D and VI.D), from chronic tests

-------
     in which the concentrations were not measured (see VLB), from tests with previously exposed
     organisms (see HF), and from tests on formulated mixtures or emulsifiable concentrates (see
     II.D). Such data might affect a criterion if they were obtained with an important species, the test
     concentrations were measured, and the endpoint was biologically important.

XI.  Criterion

     A. A criterion consists of two concentrations: the Criterion Maximum Concentration and the
        Criterion Continuous Concentration.

     B.  The Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) is equal to one-half the Final Acute Value.

     C. The Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) is equal to the lowest of the Final Chronic
        Value, the Final Plant Value, and the Final Residue Value, unless other data (see section X)
        show that a lower value should be used. If toxicity is related to a water quality characteristic,
        the Criterion Continuous Concentration is obtained from the Final Chronic Equation, the
        Final Plant Value, and the Final Residue Value by selecting the one, or the combination, that
        results in the lowest concentrations in the usual range of the water quality characteristic,
        unless other data (see section X) show that a lower value should be used.

     D. Round both the  Criterion Maximum  Concentration and the  Criterion  Continuous
        Concentration to two significant digits.

     E. The criterion is stated as follows:
        The  procedures described in the "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water
        Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" indicate that,
        except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive,  (1) aquatic organisms
        and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration
        of (2) does not exceed (3) ng/L more than once every three years on the average, and if the
        one-hour average concentration does not exceed (4) ng/L more than once every three
        years on the average.

        'where    (1) = insert freshwater or saltwater
                  (2) = insert name of material
                  (3) = insert the Criterion Continuous Concentration
                  (4) = insert the Criterion Maximum Concentration.

 XII. Final Review

     A. The derivation of the criterion should be carefully reviewed by rechecking each step of the
        guidelines. Items that should be especially checked are

        1.  If unpublished data are used, are they well documented?

        2.  Are all required data available?

        3.  Is the range of acute values for any species greater than a factor of 10?

        4.  Is the range of Species Mean Acute Values for any genus greater than a factor of 10?

        5.  Is there more than a factor of 10 difference between the four lowest Genus Mean Acute
            Values?

        6.  Are any of the four lowest Genus Mean Acute Values questionable?

        7.  Is the Final Acute Value reasonable in comparison with the Species Mean Acute Values
            and Genus Mean Acute Values?

        8.  For any commercially or recreationally important species, is the geometric mean of the
            acute values from flow-through tests in which the concentrations of test material were
            measured lower than the Final Acute Value?

-------
   9.  Are any of the chronic values questionable?
   10. Are chronic values available for acutely sensitive species?
   11. Is the range of acute-chronic ratios greater than a factor of 10?
   12. Is the Final Chronic Value reasonable in comparison with the available acute and
       chronic data?
   13. Is the measured or predicted chronic value for any commercially or recreationally
       important species below the Final Chronic Value?
   14. Are any of the other data important?
   15. Do any data look like they might be outliers?
   16. Are there any deviations from the guidelines? Are they acceptable?
B. On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine if the
   criterion is consistent with sound  scientific evidence. If not, another criterion — either
   higher or lower—should be derived using appropriate modifications of these guidelines.

-------
          APPENDIX I
             List of EPA
     Water Quality Criteria Documents
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
         Water Quality Criteria Documents
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has  published water quality criteria for toxic
pollutant(s) categories. Copies of water quality criteria documents are available from the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Front Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, (703) 487-4650.
Prices of individual documents may be obtained by contacting NTIS. Order numbers are listed
below. Where indicated, documents may be obtained from the Water Resource Center, 401 M St.,
S.W. RC-4100, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7786.
               Chemical
NTIS Order No.  EPA Document No.
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aesthetics
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Ammonia
Ammonia (saltwater)
Antimony
Antimony (HI) — aquatic
(draft)
Arsenic— 1980
— 1984
Asbestos
Bacteria— 1976
— 1984
Barium
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium — 1980
— 1984
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chloride
Chlorinated Benzenes
Chlorinated Ethanes
Chlorinated Naphthalene
Chlorinated Phenols
PB 81-117269
PB 81-117277
PB 81-117285
PB 263943
PB 81-117301
PB 263943
PB 88-245998
PB 85-227114
PB 89-195242
PB 81-117319
resource center
PB 81-117327
PB 85-227445
PB 81-117335
PB 263943
PB 86-158045
PB 263943
PB 81-117293
PB 81-117343
PB 81-117350
PB 263943
PB 81-117368
PB 85-224031
PB 81-117376
PB 81-117384
PB 88-175047
PB 81-117392
PB 81-117400
PB 81-117426
PB 81-117434
EPA 440/5-80-015
EPA 440/5-80-016
EPA 440/5-80-017
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-019
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-86-008
EPA 440/5-85-001
EPA 440/5-88-004
EPA 440/5-80-020
EPA 440/5-80-021
EPA 440/5-84-033
EPA 440/5-80-022
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-84-002
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-018
EPA 440/5-80-023
EPA 440/5-80-024
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-025
EPA 440/5-84-032
EPA 440/5-80-026
EPA 440/5-80-027
EPA 440/5-88-001
EPA 440/5-80-028
EPA 440/5-80-029
EPA 440/5-80-031
EPA 440/5-80-032

-------
Chemical
NTIS Order No.   EPA Document No.
Chlorine PB 85-227429
Chloroalkyl Ethers PB 81-117418
Chloroform PB 81-117442
2-Chlorophenol PB 81-117459
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides PB 263943
Chlorpyrifos PB 87-105359
Chromium — 1980 PB 81-117467
—1984 PB 85-227478
Color PB 263943
Copper — 1980 PB 81-117475
— 1984 PB 85-227023
Cyanide PB 85-227460
Cyanides PB 81-117483
DDT and Metabolites PB 81-117491
Demeton PB 263943
Dichlorobenzenes PB 81-117509
Dichlorobenzidine PB 81-117517
Dichloroethylenes PB 81-117525
2,4-Dichlorophenol PB 81-117533
Dichloropropane /
Dichloropropene PB 81-117541
2,4-Dimethylphenol PB 81-117558
Dinitrotoluene PB 81-117566
Diphenylhydrazine PB 81-117731
Di-2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate —
aquatic (draft) resource center
Dissolved Oxygen PB 86-208253
Endosulfan PB 81-117574
Endrin PB 81-117582
Ethylbenzene PB 81-117590
Fluoranthene PB 81-117608
Gasses, Total Dissolved PB 263943
Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and
Their Uses PB 85-227049
Guthion PB 263943
Haloethers PB 81-117616
Halomethanes PB 81-117624
Hardness PB 263943
Heptachlor PB 81-117632
Hexachlorobenzene —
aquatic (draft) resource center
Hexachlorobutadiene PB 81-117640
Hexachlorocyclohexane PB 81-117657
EPA 440/5-84-030
EPA 440/5-80-030
EPA 440/5-80-033
EPA 440/5-80-034
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-86-005
EPA 440/5-80-035
EPA 440/5-84-029
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-036
EPA 440/5-84-031
EPA 440/5-84-028
EPA 440/5-80-037
EPA 440/5-80-038
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-039
EPA 440/5-80-040
EPA 440/5-80-041
EPA 440/5-80-042

EPA 440/5-80-043
EPA 440/5-80-044
EPA 440/5-80-045
EPA 440/5-80-062


EPA 440/5-86-003
EPA 440/5-80-046
EPA 440/5-80-047
EPA 440/5-80-048
EPA 440/5-80-049
EPA 440/9-76-023






EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-050
EPA 440/5-80-051
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-052


EPA 440/5-80-053
EPA 440/5-80-054

-------
Chemical
NTIS Order No.   EPA Document No.
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Iron
Isophorone
Lead — 1980
— 1984
Malathion
Manganese
Mercury— 1980
— 1984
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Naphthalene
Nickel— 1980
— 1986
Nitrates/Nitrites
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines
Oil and Grease
Parathion
Pentachlorophenol — 1980
— 1986
pH
Phenanthrene — aquatic
(draft)
Phenol
Phosphorus
Phthalate Esters
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Selenium — 1980
— 1987
Silver
Silver — aquatic (draft)
Solids (dissolved) and
Salinity
Solids (suspended) and
Turbidity
Sulfides/ Hydrogen Sulfide
Tainting Substances
Temperature
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
P-Dioxin
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
PB 81-117665
PB 263943
PB 81-117673
PB 81-117681
PB 85-227437
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 81-117699
PB 85-227452
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 81-117707
PB 81-117715
PB 87-105359
PB 263943
PB 81-117723
PB 81-117749
PB 81-117756
PB 263943
PB 87-105383
PB 81 -117764
PB 87-105391
PB 263943
resource center
PB 81-117772
PB 263943
PB 81-117780
PB 81-117798
PB 81-117806
PB 81-117814
PB 88-142239
PB 81-117822
resource center
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 263943
PB 89 -169825
PB 81-117830
PB 81-117848
PB 81-117863
EPA 440/ 5-80-055
EPA 4407 9-76-023
EPA 440/ 5-80-056
EPA 440/5-80-057
EPA 440/ 5-84-027
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-058
EPA 440/5-84-026
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-059
EPA 440/5-80-060
EPA 440/5-86-004
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-061
EPA 440/5-80-063
EPA 440/5-80-064
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-86-007
EPA 440/5-80-065
EPA 440/5-85-009
EPA440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-066
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-80-067
EPA 440/5-80-068
EPA 440/5-80-069
EPA 440/5-80-070
EPA 440/5-87-008
EPA 440/5-80-071
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/9-76-023
EPA 440/5-84-007
EPA 440/5-80-073
EPA 440/5-80-074
EPA 440/5-80-075

-------
Chemical
NTIS Order No.   EPA Document No.
Toxaphene—1980
          — 1986
Tributyltin—aquatic
  (draft)
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol—
  aquatic (draft)
Vinyl Chloride
Zinc —1980
    — 1987
PB 81-117863
PB 87-105375

resource center
PB 81-117871

resource center
PB 81-117889
PB 81-117897
PB 87-143581
EPA 440/5-80-076
EPA 440/5-86-006
EPA 440/5-80-077
EPA 440/5-80-078
EPA 440/5-80-079
EPA 440/5-87-003

-------
           APPENDIX J
  Attachments to Of/ice of Water Policy and
   Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
 Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
                                                           10-1-93


       Percent Dissolved in Aquatic Toxicity Tests on Metals


 The  attached table contains all  the data  that were found
 concerning the percent of  the  total recoverable  metal that was
 dissolved  in aquatic  toxicity  tests.   This  table is intended to
 contain  the available data that  are relevant to  the conversion  of
 EPA's  aquatic life criteria for  metals from a total recoverable
 basis  to a dissolved  basis.   (A  factor of 1.0 is used to convert
 aquatic  life criteria for  metals that  are expressed on the basis
 of the acid-soluble measurement  to criteria expressed on the
 basis  of the total recoverable measurement.)   Reports by Grunwald
 (1992) and Brungs  et  al.  (1992)  provided  references to many of
 the  documents in  vhich pertinent data  were  found.   Each document
 was  Obtained and examined  to aetermine whether it contained
 useful data.

 "Dissolved"  is defined as  metal  that passes through a 0.45-^m
 membrane filter.   If  otherwise acceptable,  data  that were
 obtained using 0.3-pm  glass  fiber  filters and  0.1-pm, membrane
 filters  were used,  and are identified  in  the table;  these data
 did  not  seem to be outliers.

 Data were  used only if the metal was in a dissolved inorganic
 form when  it was added to  the  dilution water.  In addition,  data
 were used  only if  they were  generated  in water that would have
 been acceptable for use as a dilution  water in tests  used in the
 derivation of  water quality  criteria for aquatic  life;  in
 particular,  the pH had to  be between 6.5 and 9.0,  and the
 concentrations  of  total organic carbon (TOC) and  total  suspended
 solids (TSS)  had to be below 5 mg/L.   Thus  most data  generated
 using  river  water  would not  be used.

 Some data  were  not used for  other  reasons.   Data  presented by
 Carroll  et al.  (1979)   for  cadmium  were not  used because  9  of the
 36 values  were  above  150%.   Data presented  by  Davies  et  al.
 (1976) for lead and Holcombe and Andrew (1978) for  zinc  were not
 used because  "dissolved" was defined on the basis  of
 polarography,  rather than  filtration.

 Beyond this,  the data  were not reviewed for quality.  Horowitz et
 al.   (1992)  reported that a number  of aspects of the  filtration
procedure might affect  the results.  In addition, there  might be
concern  about use  of "clean techniques" and adequate  QA/QC.

Each line  in the table  is  intended to  represent a separate  piece
of information.  All of the data in the table were determined in
fresh water, because no saltwater data  were  found.  Data  are
becoming available  for  copper in salt water  from the  New York

-------
Harbor study; based on the  first set of tests, Hansen  (1993)
suggested that the average  percent of the copper that  is
dissolved in sensitive saltwater tests is in the range of 76 to
82 percent.

A thorough  investigation of the percent of total recoverable
metal that  is dissolved in  toxicity tests might attempt to
determine if the percentage is affected by test technique
(static, renewal, flow-through), feeding (were the test animals
fed and, if so, what food and how much), water quality
characteristics (hardness,  alkalinity, pH, salinity), test
organisms (species, loading), etc.

The attached table also gives the freshwater criteria
concentrations (CMC and CCC) because percentages for total
recoverable concentrations  much (e.g., more than a factor of 3)
above or below the CMC and  CCC are likely to be less relevant.
When a criterion is expressed as a hardness equation, the range
given extends from a hardness of 50 mg/L to a hardness of 200
mg/L.

The following is a summary  of the available information for each
metal:
ArsenicfIII)

The data available indicate that the percent dissolved is about
100, but all the available data are for concentrations that are
much higher than the CMC and CCC.


Cadmium

Schuytema et al. (1984) reported that "there were no real
differences" between measurements of total and dissolved cadmium
at concentrations of 10 to 80 ug/L (pH = 6.7 to 7.8, hardness =
25 mg/L, and alkalinity = 33 mg/L); total and dissolved
concentrations were said to be "virtually equivalent".

The CMC and CCC are close together and only range from 0.66 to
8.6 ug/L.  The only available data that are known to be in the
range of the CMC and CCC were determined with a glass fiber
filter.  The percentages that are probably most relevant are 75,
92, 89, 78, and 80.


Chromium(III)

The percent dissolved decreased as the total recoverable
concentration increased, even though the highest concentrations
reduced the pH substantially.  The percentages that are probably

-------
 most relevant to the CMC are 50-75,  whereas the percentages that
 are probably most relevant to the CCC are 86 and 61.


 Chromium(VI)

 The data available indicate that the percent dissolved is about
 100,  but all the available data are  for concentrations that are
 much higher  than the CMC and CCC.
 Copper

 Howarth  and  Sprague  (1978)  reported  that  the  total  and dissolved
 concentrations  of  copper  were  "little  different"  except when  the
 total copper concentration  was above 500  ug/L at  hardness  = 360
 mg/L and pH  = 8  'jr 9.   Chakoumakos et  al.  (1979)  found that the
 percent  dissolved  depended  more on alkalinity than  on  hardness,
 pH, or the total recoverable concentration  of copper.

 Chapman  (1993)  and Lazorchak (1987)  both  found that the addition
 of daphnid food  affected  the percent dissolved very little, even
 though Chapman  used yeast-trout chow-alfalfa  whereas Lazorchak
 used algae in most tests, but  yeast-trout chow-alfalfa in  some
 tests.   Chapman  (1993)  found a low percent  dissolved with  and
 without  food, whereas Lazorchak (1987) found  a high percent
 dissolved with  and without  food.  All  of  Lazorchak's values were
 in high  hardness water; Chapman's one  value in high hardness
 water was much  higher than  his other values.

 Chapman  (1993)  and Lazorchak (1987)  both  compared the  effect of
 food on  the  total  recoverable  LC50 with the effect  of  food on the
 dissolved LC50.  Both authors  found  that  food raised both the
 dissolved LC50 and the  total recoverable LC50 in about the same
 proportion,  indicating  that food did not raise the  total
 recoverable  LC50 by sorbing metal onto food particles;  possibly
 the food raised both LCSOs  by  (a) decreasing  the toxicity of
 dissolved metal, (b)  forming nontoxic dissolved complexes with
 ^he metal,  or (c)  reducing uptake.

The CMC and  CCC are close together and only range from 6.5 to 34
ug/L.   The percentages  that are probably most  relevant  are 74,
 95, 95,  73,  57,  53, 52,  64,  and 91.


Lead

The data presented in Spehar et al.  (1978)  were from Holcombe et
al. (1976).  Both  Chapman (1993) and Holcombe  et al. (1976) found
that the percent dissolved  increased as the total recoverable
concentration increased.  It would seem reasonable  to  expect more
precipitate  at higher total recoverable concentrations  and

-------
 therefore  a  lower  percent  dissolved  at  higher  concentrations.
 The  increase in  percent  dissolved  with  increasing  concentration
 might  be due to  a  lowering of  the  pH as more metal is  added  if
 the  stock  solution was acidic.

 The  percentages  that  are probably  most  relevant  to the CMC are 9,
 18,  25, 10,  62,  68, 71,  75,  81,  and  95,  whereas  the percentages
 that are probably  most relevant  to the  CCC  are 9 and 10.
Mercury

The only percentage that  is available  is 73, but  it  is  for  a
concentration that is much higher than the CMC.


Nickel

The percentages that are  probably most relevant to the  CMC  are
88, 93, 92, and 100, whereas the only percentage  that is probably
relevant to the CCC is 76.
Selenium

No data are available.


Silver

There is a CMC, but not a CCC.  The percentage dissolved seems to
be greatly reduced by the food used to feed daphnids, but not by
the food used to feed fathead minnows.   .he percentages that are
probably most relevant to the CMC are 4.   79, 79, 73, 91, 90, and
93.
Zinc

The CMC and CCC are close together and only range from 59 to 210
ug/L.  The percentages that are probably most relevant are 31,
77, 77, 99, 94, 100, 103, and 96.

-------
                          ATTACHMENT #2
   GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
  ON DISSOLVED CRITERIA
Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria
         October 1993

-------
 Recommended Values (%)A  and  Ranges  of Measured  Percent  Dissolved
             Considered Most Relevant in Fresh Water


  Metal                   CMC                   CCC

                 Recommended           Recommended
                  Value  (%)  (Range  %)   Value f%) (Range %)
Arsenic(III)
Cadmium
Chromium(III)
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
95
85
85
95
85
50
35
85
NAE
85
85
100-1048
75-92
50-75
100B
52-95
9-95
73B
88-100
NAC
41-93
31-103
95
85
85
95
85
25
NAE
85
NAE
YYD
85
100-1048
75-92
61-86
100B
52-95
9-10
NAE
76
NAC
YYD
31-103
A The recommended values are based on current knowledge and are
  subject to change as more data becomes available.

B All available data are for concentrations that are much higher
  than the CMC.

c NA = No data are available.

D YY = A CCC is not available, and therefore cannot be adjusted.

E NA = Bioaccumulative  chemical  and not  appropriate to adjust to
  percent dissolved.

-------
Concn.A   Percent
(ug/L)    Diss.B    r£   Species0
ARSENICfUI) (Freshwater: CCC =
600-15000 104 5 ?
12600
CADMIUM
0.16
0.28
0.4-4.0
13
15-21
42
10
35
51
6-80
3-232
450-6400
100
3
(Freshwater:
41
75
92°
89
96
84
78
77
59
80
90"
70
7
7
7
3
8
4
7
7
7
8
5
5
FM
CCC =0.66
DM
DM
CS
FM
FM
FM
DM
DM
DM
7
7
FM
190 ug/L; CMC - 360 ug/L)
? ? 48 41 7.6
F
to
R
R
F
F
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
F
No
2.0 ug/L;
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
7
No
44
CMC =
53
103
21
44
42
45
51
105
209
47
46
202
43
1.8
46
83
19
43
31
41
38
88
167
44
42
157
7.4
to 8.6
7.6
7.9
7.1
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.5
8.0
8.4
7.5
7.4
7.7
Lima et al. 1984
Spehar and Fiandt
ug/L)F
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993

1986


Finlayson and Verrue 1982
Spehar and Fiandt
Spehar and Carlson
Spehar and Carlson
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Call et al. 1982
Spehar et al. 1978
Pickering and Cast
1986
1984
1984



1972

-------
CHROMIUM(III)  (Freshwater: CCC ^ 120 to 370 ug/L; CMC = 980 to 3100 ug/L)F
5-13
19-495
>1100
42
114
16840
26267
27416
58665
CHROMIUM
>25,000
43,300
COPPER
10-30
40-200
30-100
100-200
20-200
40-300
in-nn
94
86
50-75
54
61
26
32
27
23
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
(VI) (Freshwater
100
99.5
(Freshwater
74
78
79
82
86
87
RQ
1
4
: CCC
7
7
7
7
7
7
SG
SG
SG
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
: CCC =
FM,GF
FM
= 6.5 to
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
F
F
F
R
R
S
S
S
S
11
F
F
21
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
7
7
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
ug/L; CMC
Yes
No
ug/L; CMC
No
No
No
No
No
No
Mr>
25
25
25
206
52
<51
110
96
190
= 16
220
44
= 9
27
154
74
192
31
83
•>R
24
24
24
166
45
9
9
10
25
ug/L)
214
43
.2 to
20
20
23
72
78
70
1 f.Q
7
7
7
8
7
6
6
6
6

7
7
34
7
6
7
7
8
7
Q
.3
.2
.0
.2
.4
.3'
.7
.0'
.2'

.6
.4
ug/L)
.0
.8
.6
.0
.3
.4
K
Stevens and Chapman
Stevens and Chapman
Stevens and Chapman
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993

198
198
198







Adelman and Smith 1976
Spehar and Fiandt 1986
F
Chakoumakos et al.
Chakoumakos et al.
Chakoumakos et al*
Chakoumakos et al.
Chakoumakos et al.
Chakoumakos et al.

1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
i f\ -i r\

-------
300-1300
100-400
3-4J
12-911
18-19
20J
50
175J
5-52
6-80
6.7
35
13
16
51
32
33
39
25-84
17
120
15-90
12-162
28-58
26-59
56,101
92
94
125-167
79-84
95
95
96
91
>82K
83°
57
43
73
57
39
53
52
64
96
91
88
74
80"
85
79
86
7
7
2
3
2
1
2
2
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
14
6
14
19
7
6
7
2
CT
CT
CD
CD
DA
DA
FM
FM
FM
CS
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
FM,GM
DM
SG
7
BG
DM
DM
DM
F
F
R
R
S
R
S
R
F
F
S
S
R
R
R
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
F
R
R
R
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
NO
YesL
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
YesL
No
YesM
YesN
195
70
31
31
52
31
52
31
47
21
49
48
211
51
104
52
105
106
50
52
48
48
45
168
168
168
160
174
38
38
55
38
55
38
43
19
37
39
169
44
83
45
79
82
40
43
47
47
43
117
117
117
7.0
8.5
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.2
7.7
7.2
8.0
7.1
7.7
7.4
8. 1
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.9
8.1
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.7
7-8
8.0
8.0
8.0
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Carlson et al.
Carlson et al.
Carlson et al.
Carlson et al.
Carlson et al.
Carlson et al.
1986a,b
1986a,b
1986b
1986b
1986b
1986b
Lind et al. 1978
Finlayson and Verrue 1982

Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993

Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993

Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993

Hammermeister et al. 1983
Hammermeister et al. 1983
Hammermeister et al. 1983

Call et al. 1982

Benoit 1975

Lazorchak  1987
Lazorchak  1987
Lazorchak  1987

-------
96
86
                          FM
                             No
44
                                                     43   7.4   Spehar and Fiandt 1986
160
230-3000
94
>69->79
LEAD (Freshwater:
17
181
193
612
952
1907
7-29
34
58
119
235
474
4100
2100
220-2700
580
MERCURY (JI)
9
18
25
29
33
-38
10
62H
68"
71"
75H
81"
82"
79
96
95
1
7
ccc =
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
14 FM
14
( Fresh wat-f>r •
FM
CR
1.3 to
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
EZ
BT
BT
BT
BT
BT
BT
FM
, GM , DM
SG
r-Mr- —
S
F
7.7
R
R
R
S
S
S
R
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
S
S
-) A
No
No
ug/L; CMC
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
iirr/T.l
203
17
= 34
52
102
151
50
100
150
22
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
49
51

171
13
to 200
47
86
126
^^ — m
__
—
—
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
44
48

8.2
7.6
ug/L)
7.6
7.8
8.1
___
__ _
	
	
7. 2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.2

                                                                Geckler et al. 1976
                                                                Rice and Harrison 1983
                                                                Chapman 1993
                                                                Chapman 1993
                                                                Chapman 1993

                                                                Chapman 1993
                                                                Chapman 1993
                                                                Chapman 1993

                                                                JRB Associates 1983

                                                                Holcombe et al. 1976
                                                                Holcombe et al. 1976
                                                                Holcombe et al. 1976
                                                                Holcombe et al. 1976
                                                                Holcombe et al. 1976
                                                                Holcombe et al. 1976

                                                                Spehar and Fiandt 1986

                                                                Hanunermeister et al. 1983
                                                                Hammermeister et al. 1983
172        73      1      rM      F     No
                                    44
      43   7.4   Spehar and Fiandt 1986

-------
NICKEL  (Freshwater: CCC = 88 to 280 ug/L; CMC = 790 to 2500 ug/L)
21
150
578
645
1809
1940
2344
81
76
87
88
93
92
100
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
R
R
R
S
S
S
S
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
51
107
205
54
51
104
100
49
87
161
43
44
84
84
7
7
8
7
7
8
7
.4
.8
. 1
.7
.7
.2
.9
4000
    90
PK
                                        No
                                       21
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993

Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993

JRB Associates 1983
SELENIUM  (FRESHWATER: CCC = 5 ug/L; CMC = 20 ug/L)

No data are available.
SILVER
(Freshwater:  CMC = 1.2 to 13  ug/L;  a  CCC is not available)
0.19
9.98
4.0
4.0
3
2-54
2-32
4-32
5-89
6-401
74
13
41
11
79
79
73
91
90
93
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
DM
DM
DM
DM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
FM
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes0
No
No
No
No
47
47
36
36
51
49
50
48
120
249
37
37
25
25
49
49
49
49
49
49
7.6
7.5
7.0
7.0
8.1
7.9
8.1
8. 1
8.2
8.1
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Nebeker et al.
Nebeker et al.
UWS 1993
UW£ 1993
UWS 1993
UWS 1993
UWS 1993
UWS 1993


1983
1983






                                            10

-------
ZINC  (Freshwater:  CCC = 59 to 190 ug/L;  CMC 65  to 210  ug/L)F
52
62
191
356
551
741
7J
18-273J
167J
180
188-393'
551
40-500
1940
5520
<4000
>4000
160-400
240
31
77
77
74
78
76
71-129
81-107
99
94
100
100
95°
100
83
90
70
103
96
7
7
7
7
7
7
2
2
2
1
2
1
7
7
7
7
7
13
13
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
CD
CD
CD
CD
FM
FM
CS
AS
AS
FM
FM
FM,GM,DM
SG
R
R
R
S
S
S
R
R
R
S
R
S
F
F
F
F
F
S
S
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
211
104
52
54
105
196
31
31
31
52
31
52
21
20
20
204
204
52
49
169
83
47
47
85
153
38
38
38
55
38
55
19
12
12
162
162
43
46
8.2
7.8
7.5
7.6
8.1
8.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.2
7.7
7.1
7.1
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.2
                                                                Chapman  1993
                                                                Chapman  1993
                                                                Chapman  1993

                                                                Chapman  1993
                                                                Chapman  1993
                                                                Chapman  1993

                                                                Carlson  et al.  1986b
                                                                Carlson  et al.  1986b

                                                                Carlson  et al.  1986b
                                                                Carlson  et al.  1986b

                                                                Carlson  et al.  1986b
                                                                Carlson  et al.  1986b

                                                                Finlayson and Verrue 1982

                                                                Sprague  1964
                                                                Sprague  1964

                                                                Mount 1966
                                                                Mount 1966

                                                                Hammermeister et al. 1983
                                                                Hammermeister et al. 1983
A Total recoverable concentration.

B Except as noted, a 0.45-pm membrane filter  was used,
                                            11

-------
c Number of paired comparisons.

D The abbreviations used are:
         AS = Atlantic salmon           DM = Daphnia magna
         BT = Brook trout               EZ = Elassoma zonatum
         CD = Ceriodaphnia dubia        FM = Fathead minnow
         CR = Crayfish                  GF = Goldfish
         CS = Chinook salmon            GM = Gammarid
         CT = Cutthroat trout           PK = Palaemonetes kadiakensis
         DA = Daphnids                  SG = Salmo qairdneri

E The abbreviations used are:
         S = static
         R = renewal
         F = flow-through

F The two numbers are for hardnesses of 50 and 200 mg/L, respectively.

0 A 0.3-pm glass fiber filter was used.

H A 0.10-^m membrane filter was used.

1 The pH was below 6.5.

J The dilution water was a clean river water with TSS and TOC below 5 mg/L.

K Only  limited information is available concerning this value.

L It is assumed that the solution that was filtered was from the test chambers that
  contained fish and food.

M The food was algae.

N The food was yeast-trout chow-alfalfa.

 0 The food was frozen adult  brine shrimp.


                                            12

-------
 References


 Adelman,  I.R.,  and  L.L.  Smith,  Jr.   1976.   Standard Test Fish
 Development.  Part I.  Fathead  Minnows (Pimephales  promelas)  and
 Goldfish  (Carassius auratus)  as Standard  Fish  in  Bioassays  and
 Their Reaction  to Potential Reference  Toxicants.   EPA-600/3-76-
 061a.  National Technical  Information  Service,  Springfield,  VA.
 Page 24.

 Benoit, D.A.  1975.   Chronic  Effects of Copper  on Survival,
 Growth, and Reproduction of the Bluegill  (Lepomis macrochirus).
 Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.  104:353-358.

 Brungs, W.A., T.S.  Holderman, and M.T. Southerland.   1992.
 Synopsis  of Water-Effect Ratios for  Heavy Metals  as  Derived  for
 Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria.

 Call, D.J., L.T. Brooke, and  D.D. Vaishnav.  1982.   Aquatic
 Pollutant Hazard Assessments  and Development of a Hazard
 Prediction Technology  by Quantitative  Structure-Activity
 Relationships.  Fourth Quarterly Report.  University of
 Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI.

 Carlson, A.R.,  H. Nelson,  and D. Hammermeister.   1986a.
 Development and Validation of Site-Specific Water Quality
 Criteria  for Copper.   Environ.  Toxicol. Chem. 5:997-1012.

 Carlson, A.R.,  H. Nelson,  and D. Hammermeister.   1986b.
 Evaluation of Site-Specific Criteria for Copper and  Zinc: An
 Integration of  Metal Addition Toxicity, Effluent  and  Receiving
 Water Toxicity,  and Ecological  Survey  Data.  EPA/600/S3-86-026.
 National Technical  Information  Service, Springfield,  VA.

 Carroll, J.J.,  S.J.  Ellis, and  W.S. Oliver.  1979.   Influences of
 Hardness Constituents  on the  Acute Toxicity of Cadmium to Brook
 Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).

 Chakoumakos,  C., R.C.   Russo,  and R.V.  Thurston.   1979.   Toxicity
 of Copper to Cutthroat Trout  (Salmo clarki) under  Different
 Conditions of Alkalinity,  pH,  and Hardness.  Environ. Sci.
 Technol. 13:213-219.

 Chapman, G.A.    1993.   Memorandum to C. Stephan.   June 4.

 Davies,  P.H.,  J.P. Goettl, Jr.,  J.R. Sinley, and  N.F. Smith.
 1976.  Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Lead to Rainbow  Trout Salmo
 gairdneri, in Hard and Soft Water.  Water Res. 10:199-206.

 Finlayson, B.J., and K.M Verrue.  1982.  Toxicities  of Copper,
 Zinc, and Cadmium Mixtures to Juvenile Chinook Salmon.   Trans.
Am. Fish.  Soc.  111:645-650.

                                13

-------
 Geckler,  J.R.,  W.B.  Horning,  T.M.  Neiheisel,  Q.H.  Pickering,  E.L.
 Robinson,  and C.E.  Stephan.   1976.  Validity of Laboratory Tests
 for Predicting Copper Toxicity in Streams.   EPA-600/3-76-116.
 National  Technical  Information Service,  Springfield,  VA.  Page
 118.

 Grunwald,  D.   1992.   Metal Toxicity Evaluation: Review, Results,
 and Data  Base Documentation.

 Hammermeister,  D.,  C. Northcott,  L. Brooke,  and D.  Call.  1983.
 Comparison of Copper, Lead and Zinc Toxicity to Four  Animal
 Species in Laboratory and ST.  Louis River Water.   University of
 Wisconsin-Superior,  Superior,  WI.

 Hansen, D.J.   1993.   Memorandum to C.E.  Stephan.   April 15.

 Holcombe,  G.W.,  D.A.  Benoit,  E.N.  Leonard, and J.M. McKim.   1976.
 Long-Term  Effects of  Lead Exposure on Three  Generations of  Brook
 Trout  (Salvelinus fontinalis).  J.  Fish.  Res.  Bd.  Canada 33:1731-
 1741.

 Holcombe,  G.W.,  and R.W.  Andrew.   1978.   The Acute Toxicity of
 Zinc to Rainbow  and Brook Trout.   EPA-600/3-78-094.  -National
 Technical  Information Service,  Springfield, VA.

 Horowitz,  A.J.,  K.A.  Elrick, and M.R.  Colberg.  1992.   The  Effect
 of Membrane Filtration Artifacts on Dissolved  Trace Element
 Concentrations.  Water Res. 26:753-763.

 Howarth, R.S., and J.B. Sprague.   1978.   Copper Lethality to
 Rainbow Trout in Waters on Various  Hardness and pH.  Water  Res.
 12:455-462.

 JRB Associates.  1983.  Demonstration  of  the Site-specific
 Criteria Modification Process:  Selser's Creek,  Ponchatoula,
 Louisiana.

 Lazorchak, J.M.  1987.  The Significance  of Weight Loss  of
 Daphnia magna Straus  During Acute Toxicity Tests with Copper.
 Ph.D. Thesis.

 Lima, A.R., C. Curtis, D.E. Hanunermeister, T.P. Markee,  C.E.
Northcott, L.T.  Brooke.   1984.  Acute  and Chronic Toxicities  of
Arsenic(III) to  Fathead Minnows, Flagfish, Daphnids, and an
Amphipod.   Arch. Environ.  Contam.  Toxicol. 13:595-601.

Lind, D.,  K. Alto,  and S.  Chatterton.  1978.  Regional Copper-
Nickel Study.  Draft.

Mount,  D.I.  1966.   The Effect  of Total Hardness and pH  on Acute
Toxicity of Zinc to Fish.  Air  Water Pollut. Int. J. 10:49-56.
                                14

-------
Nebeker, A.V., C.K. McAuliffe, R. Mshar,  and  D.G.  Stevens.   1983.
Toxicity of Silver to  Steelhead  and Rainbow Trout,  Fathead
Minnows, and  Daphnia magna.  Environ. Toxicol.  Chem.  2:95-104.

Pickering, Q.P., and M.H. Cast.   1972.  Acute and  Chronic
Toxicity of Cadmium to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas).
J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:1099-1106.

Rice, D.W., Jr., and F.L. Harrison.   1983.  The Sensitivity  of
Adult, Embryonic, and  Larval Crayfish Procambarus  clarkii to
Copper.  NUREG/CR-3133 or UCRL-53048.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.

Schuytema, G.S., P.O.  Nelson, K.W. Malueg, A.V.  Nebeker, D.F.
Krawczyk, A.K. Ratcliff, and J.H. Gakstatter.   1984.  Toxicity  of
Cadmium in Water and Sediment Slurries to Daphnia  magna.
Environ. Toxicol  Chem. 3:293-308.

Spehar, R.L., R.L. Anderson, and  J.T. Fiandt.   1978.  Toxicity
and Bioaccumulation of Cadmium and Lead in Aquatic  Invertebrates.
Environ. Pollut. 15:195-208.

Spehcf/  R.L., and A.R. Carlson.   1984.  Derivation  of Site-
Spec jfic Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium and the St. Louis
River Basin,  Duluth, Minnesota.   Environ. Toxicol.  Chem. 3:651-
665.

Spehar, R.L., and J.T. Fiandt.   1986.  Acute  and Chronic Effects
of Water Quality Criteria-Based Metal Mixtures  on Three Aquatic
Species.  Environ. Toxicol.  Chem. 5:917-931.

Sprague, J.B.  1964.  Lethal Concentration of Copper and Zinc for
Young Atlantic Salmon.  J.  Fish.  Res. Bd. Canada 21:17-9926.

Stevens, D.G., and G.A. Chapman.   1984.   Toxicity of Trivalent
Chromium to Early Life Stages of Steelhead Trout.   Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 3:125-133.

University of Wisconsin-Superior.  1993.  Preliminary data from
work assignment 1-10 for Contract No. 68-C1-0034.
                                15

-------
                                                                    ATTACHMENT #3

                              GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
                  ON DYNAMIC MODELING AND TRANSLATORS
                                      August 1993

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Permits

o      Dynamic Water Quality Modeling

       Although not specifically part of the reassessment of water quality criteria for metals,
dynamic or probabilistic models are another useful tool for implementing water quality
criteria, especially those for protecting aquatic life.  Dynamic models make best use of the
specified magnitude, duration, and frequency of water quality criteria and thereby provide a
more accurate calculation of discharge impacts on ambient water quality. In contrast, steady-
state modeling is based on various simplifying assumptions which makes it less complex and
less accurate than dynamic modeling.  Building on accepted practices in water resource
engineering,  ten years ago OW devised methods allowing the use of probability distributions
in place of worst-case conditions.   The description of these models and their advantages and
disadvantages is found in the 1991 Technical Support Document for  Water Quality-based
Toxic Control (TSD).

       Dynamic models have received increased attention in the last  few years as a result of
the perception that static modeling is over-conservative due to environmentally conservative
dilution assumptions.  This has led to  the misconception that dynamic models will always
justify less stringent regulatory controls (e.g. NPDES effluent limits) than static models. In
effluent dominated waters where the upstream concentrations are relatively constant,
however,  a dynamic model will calculate a more stringent wasteload allocation than will a
steady state model.  The reason is that the critical low flow required by many State water
quality standards in effluent  dominated streams occurs more frequently than once every three
years.  When other environmental factors (e.g. upstream pollutant concentrations) do not
vary appreciably, then the overall return frequency of the steady state model may be greater
than once in  three years.  A dynamic modeling approach, on the other hand, would be more
stringent,  allowing only a once in three year return frequency.  As a result, EPA considers
dynamic models to be a more  accurate rather than a less stringent approach to implementing
water quality criteria.

       The 1991 TSD provides recommendations on the use of steady state and dynamic
water quality models.  The reliability of any modeling technique greatly depends on the
accuracy of the data used in the analysis. Therefore, the selection of a model also depends
upon the data.  EPA recommends that steady state wasteload allocation analyses  generally  be
used where few or no whole effluent toxicity or specific chemical measurements are
available,  or  where daily receiving water flow records are not available.  Also, if staff
resources  are insufficient to  use and defend the use of dynamic models,  then steady state
models may be necessary.  If adequate receiving water flow and effluent concentration data
are available  to estimate frequency distributions, EPA recommends that one of the dynamic

-------
wasteload allocation modeling techniques be used to derive wasteload allocations which will
more exactly maintain water quality standards.  The minimum data required for input into
dynamic models include at least 30 years of river flow data and one year of effluent and
ambient pollutant concentrations.

o      Dissolved-Total Metal Translators

       When water quality criteria are expressed as the dissolved form of a metal, there is a
need to translate TMDLs and NPDES permits to and from the  dissolved form of a metal to
the total recoverable form.  TMDLs for toxic metals must be able to calculate 1) the
dissolved metal concentration in order to ascertain attainment of water quality standards and
2) the total recoverable metal concentration in order to achieve mass balance. In meeting
these requirements, TMDLs consider metals to be conservative pollutants and quantified as
total recoverable to preserve conservation of mass.  The TMDL calculates the dissolved or
ionic species of the metals based on factors such as total suspended  solids (TSS) and ambient
pH. (These assumptions ignore the complicating factors of metals interactions with other
metals.)  In addition, this approach assumes that ambient factors influencing  metal
partitioning remain constant with distance down the river.  This assumption probably is valid
under the low flow conditions typically  used  as design flows for permitting of metals (e.g.,
7Q10,  4B3, etc)  because erosion, resuspension, and wet weather loadings are unlikely to be
significant and river chemistry  is generally stable.  In steady-state dilution modeling, metals
releases may be assumed to remain fairly constant (concentrations exhibit low variability)
with time.

       EPA's NPDES regulations require that metals limits in permits be stated as total
recoverable in most cases (see  40 CFR  §122.45(c)).  Exceptions occur when an effluent
guideline specifies the limitation in another form of the metal or the approved analytical
methods measure only the  dissolved form. Also, the permit writer may  express a metals
limit in another form (e.g., dissolved, valent, or total) when required, in highly unusual
cases,  to carry out  the provisions of the CWA.

       The preamble to the September  1984  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit Regulations states that the total recoverable method measures dissolved metals plus
that portion of solid metals that can easily dissolve under ambient conditions (see  49 Federal
Register 38028, September 26, 1984).  This  method is intended to measure metals in the
effluent that are or may easily  become environmentally active,  while not measuring  metals
that are expected to settle out and remain inert.

       The preamble cites, as  an example, effluent from an electroplating  facility that adds
lime and uses clarifiers. This  effluent will be a combination of solids not  removed by the
clarifiers and residual dissolved metals.  When the effluent from the clarifiers, usually with a
high pH level, mixes with receiving water having significantly lower pH level,  these solids
instantly dissolve.  Measuring  dissolved metals in the effluent, in this case, would
underestimate the impact on the receiving water.  Measuring with the total metals method, on

-------
the other hand, would measure metals that would be expected to disperse or settle out and
remain inert or be covered over.  Thus, measuring total recoverable metals in the effluent
best approximates the amount of metal likely to produce water quality impacts.

       However, the NPDES rule does not require in any way that State water quality
standards be in the total recoverable form; rather, the rule requires permit writers to consider
the translation between differing metal forms in the calculation of the permit limit so that a
total recoverable limit can be established.  Therefore, both the TMDL and NPDES uses of
water quality criteria require the ability to translate from the dissolved form and  the total
recoverable form.

       Many toxic substances, including metals, have a tendency to leave the dissolved phase
and attach  to suspended solids.  The partitioning of toxics between  solid and dissolved phases
can be determined as a function of a pollutant-specific partition coefficient and the
concentration of solids.  This function is expressed by a linear partitioning equation:
                      f~*	        if

                         l+Kd-TSS-lO~6
                                                             where,
                     C  = dissolved phase metal concentration,
                     CTf = total metal concentration,
                     TSS = total suspended solids concentration, and
                     Kd = partition coefficient.

       A key assumption of the linear partitioning equation is that the sorption reaction
reaches dynamic equilibrium at the point of application of the criteria; that is, after allowing
for initial mixing the partitioning of the pollutant between the adsorbed and dissolved forms
can be used at any location to predict the fraction of pollutant in each respective phase.

       Successful application of the linear partitioning equation relies on the selection of the
partition coefficient.  The use of a partition coefficient to represent the degree to which
toxics adsorb to solids is most readily applied to organic pollutants;  partition coefficients for
metals are  more difficult to define.  Metals typically exhibit more complex speciation and
complexation reactions than organics and the degree of partitioning can vary greatly
depending  upon site-specific water chemistry. Estimated partition coefficients can be
determined for a number of metals,  but waterbody or site-specific observations of dissolved
and adsorbed concentrations are preferred.

       EPA  suggests three approaches  for instances where a  water quality criterion for a
metal is expressed in the dissolved form in a State's water quality standards:

-------
       1.  Using clean analytical techniques and field sampling procedures with appropriate
       QA/QC, collect receiving water samples and determine site specific values of  Kd for
       each metal.  Use these Kd values to "translate" between total recoverable and
       dissolved metals in receiving water.  This approach is more difficult to apply because
       it relies upon the availability of good quality measurements of ambient metal
       concentrations.  This approach  provides an accurate assessment of the dissolved metal
       fraction providing sufficient samples are collected.  EPA's initial recommendation is
       that at least four pairs of total recoverable and dissolved  ambient metal measurements
       be made during low flow conditions or 20 pairs  over all  flow conditions.  EPA
       suggests that the average of data collected during low flow or the 95th percentile
       highest dissolved fraction for all flows be used.  The low flow average provides a
       representative picture of conditions during the rare low flow events.   The 95th
       percentile highest dissolved fraction for  all flows provides a critical condition
       approach analogous to  the approach used to identify low  flows and other critical
       environmental conditions.

       2.  Calculate the total recoverable  concentration for the purpose of setting the permit
       limit.  Use a value of 1 unless  the permittee has collected data (see #1 above) to show
       that a different ratio should be used.  The value  of 1 is conservative and will not  err
       on the side of violating standards.   This approach is very simple  to apply because it
       places the entire burden of data collection and analysis solely upon permitted
       facilities.  In terms of technical merit, it has the same characteristics  of the previous
       approach.  However, permitting authorities may be faced with difficulties in
       negotiating with facilities on the amount of data  necessary  to determine the  ratio and
       the necessary quality control methods to assure that the ambient data  are reliable.

       3.  Use the historical data on total suspended solids (TSS) in receiving waterbodies at
       appropriate design flows and Kd values presented in the Technical Guidance Manual
       for Performing  Waste Load Allocations. Book II.  Streams and Rivers. EPA-440/4-
       84-020 (1984) to  "translate" between (total recoverable) permits limits and dissolved
       metals  in receiving water.  This approach is fairly simple to apply. However, these
       Kd values are suspect due to possible quality assurance problems  with the data used to
       develop the values.   EPA's initial  analysis of this approach and these values in one
       site  indicates that these Kd values generally over-estimate the dissolved fraction of
       metals  in ambient waters (see Figures following).  Therefore, although this approach
       may not provide an accurate estimate of the dissolved fraction, the bias in the estimate
       is likely to be a conservative one.

       EPA suggests that regulatory authorities use  approaches #1 and #2 where States
express their water quality standards in the dissolved form. In those States where  the
standards are in the total recoverable or acid soluble form, EPA recommends that  no
translation  be used until the time that the  State  changes the standards to  the dissolved form.
Approach #3 may be used as an interim measure until the data are collected to implement
approach #1.

-------
                         Measured vs. Modeled Dissolved Arsenic Concentrations
    Q
  2.5
    2
ro  1.5
  0.5
) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sampling Station

• Modeled
—O— Measured

-------
                        Measured vs. Modeled Dissolved Copper Concentrations
O)
D
10 15 20
Sampling
25 30 35 40 45
Station

• Modeled
— D— Measured

-------
                     Measured vs. Modeled Dissolved Cadmium Concentrations
0.16 T
0.14 -
0.02
u
0 5
1 	 1 	 1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Sampling Station

-•— Modeled
— O— Measured

-------
          Measured vs. Modeled Dissolved Lead Concentrations
1.6 T
1.4
1.2
 1 -
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2  -
) 10 20
Sampling
30 40 50
Station

• Modeled
— Q— Measured

-------
               Measured vs. Modeled Dissolved Mercury Concentrations
0.12
 0.1
    0      5       10
15      20      25      30
     Sampling Station
                                                         35      40      45
                                                                             —•— Modeled
                                                                             —D— Measured

-------
        Measured vs. Modeled Dissolved Nickel Concentrations
  5 -
o>
  3 +
J 10
20 30 40 50
Sampling Station

• Modeled
— D— Measured

-------
               Measured vs. Modeled Dissolved Zinc Concentrations
  30
  25
  20
o>  15
   10
) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4
Sampling Station
i 	 1
0 45

• Modeled
— D— Measured

-------
                                                        ATTACHMENT #4
                              GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
           ON CLEAN ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND MONITORING
                                     October 1993
Guidance on Monitoring

o    Use of Clean Sampling and Analytical Techniques

     Pages 98-108 of the WER guidance document (Appendix L of the Water Quality
Standards Handbook-Second Edition) provides some general guidance on the use of clean
techniques.  The Office of Water recommends that this guidance be used by States and
Regions as an interim step while the Office of Water prepares more detailed guidance.


o      Use of Historical DMR Data

       With respect to effluent or ambient monitoring data reported by an NPDES permittee
on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), the certification requirements place the burden on
the permittee for collecting and reporting quality data.  The certification regulation at 40
CFR 122.22(d) requires permittees, when submitting information,  to state:  "I certify under
penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather  and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my  inquiry  of the person or persons
who manage the system,  or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."

       Permitting authorities should continue to consider the information reported in DMRs
to be true, accurate, and complete as certified by the permittee. Under 40 CFR 122.41(1)(8),
however, as soon as the permittee becomes aware of new information specific to the effluent
discharge that  calls into question the accuracy of the DMR data, the permittee must submit
such information to the permitting authority.  Examples of such information include a new
finding that the reagents used in the laboratory analysis are contaminated with trace levels of
metals, or a new study that the sampling equipment imparts trace metal contamination.  This
information must be specific to the discharge and based on actual measurements rather than
extrapolations  from reports from other facilities.  Where a permittee submits information
supporting the contention that the previous data are questionable and the permitting authority
agrees  with the findings of the information, EPA expects that permitting authorities will
consider  such information in determining appropriate enforcement responses.

-------
                                           18

       In addition to submitting the information described above, the permittee also must
develop procedures to assure the collection and analysis of quality data that are true,
accurate, and complete.  For example, the permittee may submit a revised quality assurance
plan that describes the specific procedures to be undertaken to reduce or eliminate trace
metal contamination.

-------
          APPENDIX K
      Procedures for the Initiation of
       Narrative Biological Criteria            K

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
United States         Office of Science and Technology   EPA-822-B-92-002
Environmental Protection    Office of Water          October 1992
Agency           Washington, D.C. 20460



PROCEDURES FOR



INITIATING NARRATIVE



BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA

-------
   PROCEDURES FOR INITIATING
NARRATIVE BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
                    By
          George R. Gibson, Jr., Coordinator
            Biological Criteria Program
         Health and Ecological Criteria Division
                Office of Water
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Washington, DC
                October 1992

-------
                 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

   Appreciation is extended to all the specialists in the States, EPA Headquarters pro-
gram offices, and the ten EPA Regional Offices for their suggestions and review com-
ments in the preparation of this document.

   Fred Leutner, Kent Ballentine, and Robert Shippen of the Standards and Applied
Sciences Division contributed advice and citations pertinent to the proper application
of these criteria to EPA regulatory standards.

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                                       OFFICE OF
                                                                         WATER
MEMORANDUM


To:          Users of "Procedures for Initiating Narrative Biological Criteria"

Regarding:   Guidance for the development of narrative biological criteria

From:        Margarete Stasikowski, Director
             Health and Ecological Criteria Division
             Office of Science and Technology
             U.S. EPA
       This guidance was written in response to requests from  many  State water resource
agencies  for specific information about EPA expectations of them as they prepare narrative
biological criteria for the assessment of their surface water resources.

       The array of State experiences with this form of water quality evaluation extends from
almost no experience in  some cases to national leadership roles in  others. It may therefore, be
that some readers will find this information too involved, while others will feel it is too basic.
To the latter we wish to express the sincere hope that this material is a fair approximation of
their good examples. To the former,  we emphasize that there is no expectation mat a State just
entering the process will develop a full blown infrastructure overnight. The intent is to outline
both the initiation and the subsequent implementation and application of a State program based
on commonly collected  data  as a starting point. User agencies are encouraged to progress
through this material at their own best pace as needs and resources determine.

       Specific advice, clarification and assistance may be obtained from the U.S. EPA Regional
Offices by consultation with the designated resource personnel  listed in the appendix to  this
document.
Attachment
                                                                           Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
Purpose of this  Paper

HPhe Biological Criteria Program was initiated by EPA in response to re-
 X search and interest generated over the last several years by Agency, State,
and academic investigators. This interest has been documented in several re-
ports and conference proceedings that were the basis for creation of the pro-
gram and for the preparation of Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). The overall concept  and
"narrative biological criteria" are described in that guide.
   Because establishing narrative criteria is an important first step in the pro-
cess, the material that follows here is intended to be an elaboration upon and
clarification of the term narrative biological criteria as used in the guide. The
emphasis here is on a practical, applied approach with particular attention to
cost considerations and the need to introduce the material to readers who may
not be familiar with the program.
Introduction  and  Background

    Biological monitoring, assessment and the resultant biological criteria rep-
    resent the current and increasingly sophisticated process of an evolving
water quality measurement technology. This process spans almost 200 years in
North America and the entire 20 years of EPA responsibility.
   The initial efforts in the 1700's to monitor and respond to human impacts
on watercourses were based on physical observations of sediments and debris
discharged by towns, commercial operations, and ships in port (Capper, et al.
1983).
   Later, chemical analyses were developed to measure less directly  observ-
able events. With industrialization,  increasing technology, and land develop-
ment pressures, both types of monitoring were incorporated into the body of
our State and Federal public health and environmental legislation.
   Valuable as these methods were, early investigations and compliance with
water quality standards relied primarily on  water column measurements re-
flecting only conditions at a given time of sampling. Investigators and  manag-
ers have long recognized this limitation and have used sampling of resident
organisms in the streams, rivers, lakes, or estuaries to enhance their under-
standing of water resource quality over a greater span of time. During the past
20 years, this biological technique has become increasingly sophisticated and
reliable and is now a necessary adjunct to the established physical and chemi-
cal measures of water resources quality. In fact, the Clean Water Act states in
Section 101 (a) that the objective of the law is to restore and maintain the chemi-
cal, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
   EPA has therefore concluded that biological assessment and consequent bi-
ological criteria  are an appropriate and valuable complement to the Nation's
surface water management programs. This added approach not only expands
and refines this management effort, it is also  consistent with the country's
growing concern that the environment must be protected and managed  for
more than the legitimate interests of human health and welfare. The protection

-------
of healthy ecosystems is part of EPA's responsibility and is indeed related to
the  public's welfare. Fish, shellfish, wildlife, and other indigenous flora and
fauna of our surface waters require protection as intrinsic components of the
natural system. Inherent to the Biological Criteria Program is the restoration
and protection of this "biological integrity" of our waters.
    A carefully completed survey and subsequent assessment of these resident
organisms in relatively undisturbed areas reveal not only the character, e.g.,
biological integrity, of a natural, healthy waterbody, they also provide a bench-
mark or biological criterion against which similar systems may be compared
where degradation is suspected. Biological measurements also help record
waterbody changes over time with less  potential  temporal variation  than
physical or chemical approaches to water quality measurement. Thus,  they
can be used to help determine "existing aquatic life uses" of waterbodies re-
quiring  protection under State management programs.
    This document elaborates on the initiation of narrative biological criteria
as described in Biological Criteria National Program Guidance for Surface Waters.
Future guidance documents will  provide additional technical  information to
facilitate development and implementation of both narrative  and numerical
criteria for each of the surface water types.
 Narrative Biological Criteria

    The first phase of the program is the development of "narrative biological
    criteria". These are essentially statements of intent incorporated in State
 water laws to formally consider the fate and status of aquatic biological com-
 munities. Officially stated, biological criteria are "... numerical values or nar-
 rative expressions  that describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic
 communities inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic life use" (U.S.
 Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a).
    While a narrative criterion does not stipulate that numerical indices or
 other population parameters be used to indicate a particular level of water
 quality, it does rely upon the use of standard measures and data analyses to
 make qualitative determinations of the resident communities.
    The State, Territory, or Reservation should not only carefully compose the
 narrative biological criteria statement but should also indicate how its applica-
 tion is to be accomplished. The determination of text (how the narrative bio-
 logical criteria are written) and measurement procedures (how the criteria will
 be applied) is up to the individual States in consultation with EPA.  Some de-
 gree of standardization among States sharing common regions and waters will
 be in their best interests. This regional  coordination and cooperation could
 help improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand the  data base available to
 each State so that management determinations can be made with greater cer-
 tainty.

-------
Attributes of A Sound Narrative Criteria Statement

   A narrative biological criterion should:

   1. Support the goals of the Clean Water Act to provide for the protection
      and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, and to restore and
      maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
      Nation's waters;

   2. Protect the most natural biological community possible by
      emphasizing the protection of its most sensitive components.

   3. Refer to specific aquatic, marine, and estuarine community
      characteristics that must be present for the waterbody to meet a
      particular designated use, e.g., natural diverse systems with their
      respective communities or taxa indicated; and then,

   4. Include measures of the community characteristics, based on sound
      scientific principles, that are quantifiable and written to protect and or
      enhance the designated use;

   5. In no case should impacts degrading existing uses or the biological
      integrity of the waters be authorized.
An Example of A Narrative Biocriteria Statement

   The State will preserve, protect, and restore the water resources of [name
of State] in their most natural condition. The condition of these waterbodies
shall be determined from the measures of physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of each surface waterbody type, according to its designated use.
As a component of these measurements, the biological quality of any given
water system shall be assessed by comparison to a reference condition(s)
based upon similar hydrologic and watershed characteristics that represent
the optimum natural condition for that system.
   Such reference conditions or reaches of water courses shall be those ob-
served to support the greatest variety and abundance of aquatic life in the re-
gion as is expected to be or has been historically found in natural  settings
essentially undisturbed or minimally disturbed by human impacts, develop-
ment, or discharges. This condition shall be determined by consistent sam-
pling and reliable measures of selected indicative communities of flora and/or
fauna as established by ... [appropriate State agency or agencies]... and may
be used in  conjunction with acceptable chemical, physical,  and microbial
water quality measurements and records judged to be appropriate to this pur-
pose.
   Regulations and other management efforts relative to these criteria shall
be consistent with the objective of preserving, protecting, and restoring the
most natural communities of fish, shellfish, and wildlife attainable  in these
waters; and in all cases shall protect against degradation of the highest exist-
ing or subsequently attained uses  or biological conditions pursuant  to State
antidegradation requirements.

-------
Data Gathering to Establish and Support Narrative
Biological Criteria

    A State need not specifically list in the narrative statement the sampling
procedures and parameters to be employed, but it should identify and charge
the appropriate administrative authority with this responsibility  as indicated
parenthetically in the preceding example.
    The selection and sampling process, certainly at the outset, should be sim-
ple, reliable, and cost effective. In many instances existing data and State pro-
cedures will be adequate to initiate a biological criteria program, but there is
no limitation on the sophistication or rigor of a State's procedures.
    In reviewing existing procedures and in designing new ones, it is impor-
tant that the planning group include the  water resource managers, biologists,
and chemists directly involved with the resource base. They should be the pri-
mary participants from the outset to help ensure that the data base and de-
rived information adequately support the decisions to be made..
    The State may choose to create procedures and regulations more complex
and complete than are indicated here; however, the basic design and method-
ology should include the following elements:

       •  1. Resource  Inventory. A field review of State water resource
    conditions and a first hand documentation of the status of water qual-
    ity relative to the use designation categories ("305(b)" reports) are es-
    sential to provide reliable data for the selections of reference sites, test
    sites, and for setting  program priorities.

       •  2. Specific Objectives  and Sampling Design. States will
    need to design a system identifying  "natural, unimpacted" reference
    sources appropriate to each surface waterbody type in each of the des-
    ignated use categories in the State (e.g., streams, lakes and reservoirs,
    rivers, wetlands, estuaries and coastal waters) and the use categories
    (see example, Page  8) for each grouping of these waterbody types.
    Sources for defining reference condition may include historical data
    sets, screening surveys, or a consensus of experts in the region of inter-
    est, particularly in significantly disrupted areas as discussed later (see
    item 6, page 7).
       Because natural  water courses  do not always  follow  political
    boundaries, the most effective approach may be a joint or group effort
    between two or more States. Where this coordination and cooperation
    is possible, it may produce a superior data base at less cost  than any
    individual State effort. EPA is working through its regional offices  to
    assist in the development of such joint operations through the use  of
    ecoregions and subregions (Gallant et al. 1988). Regional EPA biolo-
    gists and water quality or standards coordinators can advise and assist
    with these interstate cooperative efforts.
       In any case, reference sites or sources for each waterbody type,
    subcategory of similar waters, and  designated use category will  be
    needed. These may  be drawn from  "upstream" locations, "far field"
    transects or selected  nearby or "ecoregional" sites representative of rel-

-------
atively unimpacted,  highest quality  natural settings (U.S.  Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990a).
   Care must be taken to equate comparable physical characteristics
when selecting reference sites for the waterbodies to be evaluated. For
example, a site on a piedmont stream cannot be the reference source
against which sites on a coastal plain stream are compared; similarly,
coastal tidal and nontidal wetlands should not be compared.
   The organisms to be collected and communities sampled should
represent an array of sensitivities to be as responsive and informative
as possible. An example would be to collect fish, invertebrates repre-
senting both  insects and shellfish,  and perhaps macrophytes as ele-
ments of the sampling scheme.

   • 3. Collection Methods. The same sampling techniques should
always be  employed at both  the reference  sites and test sites and
should be consistent as much as possible for both spatial and temporal
conditions. For example, a consistent seining or electroshocking tech-
nique should always be used in collecting fish over the same length of
stream and with the same degree of effort using the same gear. In ad-
dition, the sampling area must  be representative of the entire reach or
waterbody segment. The temporal conditions to be considered include
not only such factors as the length of time spent towing a trawl at a
constant speed but also extend to the times of year when data are gath-
ered.
   Seasonality of  life  cycles  and  natural  environmental pressures
must  be addressed to make  legitimate evaluations. For  example, the
spring hatch of aquatic insects is usually avoided as a sampling period
in favor of more stable community conditions later in  the summer.
Conversely, low nutrient availability in mid-summer may temporarily
but cyclically reduce the abundance of estuarine or marine benthos.
Dissolved oxygen cycles are another seasonal condition to consider as
are migratory patterns of some fish  and waterfowl. The entire array of
temporal and spatial  patterns must be accommodated to avoid incon-
sistent and misleading data gathering.
   Processing and analysis of the collected specimens is usually based
on the number and identity of  taxa collected and the number of indi-
viduals per taxon. This preliminary information is the foundation of
most of the subsequent analytical processes used to evaluate commu-
nity composition. In the course of examining and sorting the plants or
animals, notations should be made of any abnormal gross morphologi-
cal or pathological  conditions such as deformities, tumors or lesions.
This information on disease and deformities in itself can be an impor-
tant assessment variable.
   Taxonomic sorting can also  be the basis for functional groupings of
the data, and preservation of the specimens  allows for the option of
additional analyses after the field season is concluded.
   Table 1 is not all inclusive in the sense of a thorough biological in-
vestigation, but it does represent an initial approach to the selection of
parameters for biological assessment to support  the narrative criteria.

-------
     Table 1.—Indicator communities and reference sources for biological criteria.
     WATERBODY     FLORA / FAUNA INDICATORS    REFERENCE STATIONS
     Freshwater      Fish, periphyton &
     Streams        macroinvertebrates, incl.
                    insects & shellfish
     Lakes &        Same, also macrophytes
     Reservoirs
     Rivers          Same as lake & reservoirs
     Wetlands       All of above, plus emergent
                    and terrestrial vegetation &
                    perhaps wildlife & avian spp.
     Estuarine &     Fish,  periphyton &
     near-coastal     macroinvertebrates, esp.
     Waters         shellfish, echinoderms,
                    polychaetes
Ecoregion, upstream and
downstream stations
May need to start with trophic
groups; far- and near-field
transects, ecoregions*
Upstream and downstream stations;
where appropriate, far- and
near-field transects, ecoregions*
Ecoregion;* far- and near-field
transects
Far- and near-field transects;
ecoregion* or physiographic
province
     * Where appropriate; ecoregions that are heterogeneous may need to be subdivided into
      cohesive subregions or these subregions aggregated where financial resources are limited or
      aquatic systems are large (tidal rivers, estuaries, near-coastal marine waters). Also, major
      basins and watersheds could be considered for "keystone indicators' for fish and shellfish.
           • 4.  Quality  Control. Much of  the analytical  potential  and
        strength of any conclusions reached will depend upon the precision
        and accuracy of sampling techniques and data handling procedures.
        Rigorous attention should therefore be given to the design and consis-
        tency of data gathering techniques and to the training and evaluation
        of field and laboratory staff. Data cataloging and record keeping pro-
        cedures also must be carefully designed and strictly adhered to by all
        parties involved. EPA Regional Office personnel  can provide advice
        and Agency guidance manuals on this subject; an example is the  1990
        field and  laboratory manual  by the U.S. Environmental  Protection
        Agency, (1990b). Similarly, many States already have excellent quality
        assurance procedures that can be used as a foundation for their biolog-
        ical criteria program.

           • 5. Analytical Procedures. The usual approach to biological
        analyses is to identify the  presence  of impairment and establish the
        probability of being certain in that judgment.
           For example, if there is a significant increase in the number of de-
        formed or diseased organisms, and a significant decrease in the taxa
        and/or individuals and in sensitive or intolerant taxa — given that the
        physical habitats and  collection techniques are equivalent — then the
        study site may be presumed to be degraded. This conclusion will  have
        further support if the  trend holds true over time; is also supported by
        applicable chemical or physical data; or if probable sources are identi-
        fied. The apparent source or sources of perturbation should  then be in-
        vestigated and further specific diagnostic tests conducted to establish
        cause. Remedial action may then follow through regulatory or other
        appropriate management procedures.
6

-------
       •  6. Reference Condition and Criteria for Significantly Dis-
   rupted Areas. In regions of significantly disrupted land vise such as
   areas of intensive agricultural or urban/suburban development, the
   only data base available to serve as a reference condition might be sim-
   ply "the best of what is left." To establish criteria on this basis would
   mean  an unacceptable lowering of water quality  objectives and  de
   facto acceptance of degraded conditions as the norm; or worse, as the
   goal of water quality management. The alternative would be to estab-
   lish perhaps impossible goals to restore the water system to pristine,
   pre-development conditions.
       A  rational solution avoiding these two pitfalls is to establish the
   reference condition from the body of historical research for the region
   and the consensus opinion of a panel of qualified water resource ex-
   perts. The panel, selected in consultation with EPA, should be required
   to. establish an objective and reasonable expectation of the restorable
   (achievable) water resource quality for the region. The determination
   would become the basis of the biological criteria selected.
       Consistent with State antidegradation requirements, the best exist-
   ing conditions achieved since November 28, 1975 [see 40 CFR 131.3(c)
   and 131.12(a)(l)] must be the lowest acceptable status for interim con-
   sideration  while planning,  managing, and  regulating to  meet the
   higher criteria established above. In this way reasonable progress can
   be  made to improve water quality without  making unrealistic de-
   mands upon the community.

Application of Biological Criteria to State  Surface
Water Use Attainability Procedures

   Another application of the data collected is in helping define the desig-
nated uses to be achieved by comparing all test sites relative to the benchmark
of reference conditions established per designated use category. Biological cri-
teria can be used to help define the level of protection for "aquatic life use"
designated uses for surface waters. These criteria also help determine relative
improvement or decline of water resource quality, and should be equated to
appropriate reference site conditions as closely as possible. Determinations of
attainable  uses and biological conditions should be made in accordance with
the requirements stipulated in Section 131.10 of the  EPA Water Quality Stan-
dards Regulations (40 CFR 131). A hypothetical State-designated use category
system might be as follows:

   • Class A: Highest quality or Special Category State waters. In-
     cludes those designated as unique aesthetic or habitat resources and
     fisheries, especially protected shellfish waters. No discharges of any
     kind and no significant landscape alterations are permitted  in the
     drainage basins of these waters. Naturally occurring biological life
     shall be attained, maintained, and protected in all respects. (Indica-
     tor  sensitive resident species  might be designated to help define
     each class, e.g., trout, some darters, mayflies, oysters, or clams, etc.)

   • Class B: High quality waters suitable for body  contact. Only
     highly treated nonimpacting discharges and land development with

-------
        well established riparian vegetative buffer zones are allowed. Natu-
        rally occurring biological life shall be protected and no degradation
        of the aquatic communities of these waters is allowed. (Indicator
        sensitive species might be suckers and  darters, stoneflies, or soft-
        shelled clams, etc.)

      • Clas* C: Good quality water but affected by runoff from pre-
        vailing developed land uses. Shore zones are protected, but buffer
        zones are not as extensive as  Class B. Highly treated, well-diluted
        final effluent permitted. Existing aquatic life and community com-
        position shall be protected and no further degradation of the aquatic
        communities is allowed. (Indicator sensitive species might be sun-
        fish, caddisflies, or blue crabs,  etc.)

      • Class D: Lowest quality water In  State's designated use sys-
        tem. Ambient water quality must be or become sufficient to support
        indigenous aquatic life and no further  degradation of the aquatic
        community is allowed. Structure and function of aquatic community
        must be preserved, but species composition may differ from Class C
        waters.

       Since all States have some form of designated use classification system,
   bioassessment procedures can be applied to each surface water type by class
   and  the information used to help determine relative'management  success or
   failure. In  concert with other measurements,  bioassessments and  biocriteria
   help determine designated use attainment under the Clean Water Act. This at-
   tainment or nonattainment in turn determines the need for or the  conditions
   of such regulatory requirements as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and
   National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. In addi-
   tion, biological assessments based on these biological criteria can be used to
   help meet section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires periodic re-
   ports from the States on the status of their surface water resources.  The proce-
   dure also can be used to  support  regulatory actions,  detect  previously
   unidentified problems, and help establish  priorities for management projects
   (see "Additional Applications of Biological Criteria," Page 10).
       Table 2 is a simplified illustration of this approach to evaluating compre-
   hensive surface water quality conditions by each designated use to help deter-
   mine and report "designated use attainment" status.
       It is important to construct and calibrate each table according to consistent
   regional and habitat conditions.
       Using quantitative parameters or metrics  derived from the data base and
   the reference condition, standings in the tables can be established from which
   relative status can be defined. This  material can eventually serve as the basis
   for numeric biological criteria.
        A  well-refined quantitative approach to the narrative process  can be  ad-
    ministratively appended to the States' preexisting narrative criteria to meet fu-
   ture needs for numeric criteria. This can be accomplished fairly easily by
    amending the narrative statement, as illustrated on page 3, to include a desig-
    nated regulatory responsibility for the  appropriately identified agency. The
    advantage of this approach is as changes in the supportive science evolve, the
    criteria can be appropriately adjusted.
8

-------
 Table 2.—Data display to facilitate evaluating waterbody condition and
 relative designated use attainment.	

 DESIGNATED USE   BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS (by number)
(per Sf. water type) Taxa Taxa Invertebrates Flan Diseased
Inverts Fish Intolerant* Irrtolerants
Highest quality in hi
designated use
Good qua[ity in
designated use
Adequate to
designated use
Marginal for
designated use
gh h



gh hi



jh hi



jh to



w



Poor quality low low low low high
 DESIGNATED USE   PUBLIC HEALTH, CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL DATA
 (per Sf. water type)  T. Coll   E. Coll   D.O.
pH
PO4
NO3
Turb.
Highest quality in Ic
designated use
Good quality in
designated use
Adequate to
designated use
Marginal for
designated use
w Ic



>w hi



gi
V
Usually Usually Usually
low low low
bl
by
region













Poor quality high high low Usually Usually Usually
high high high
    Further, the compiling of physical and chemical data with the biological
data facilitates comprehensive evaluations and aids in the investigation of
causes of evident water quality declines. Having the numbers all in one place
helps the water resource manager assess conditions. However, it is important
to note that none of these parameters should supercede the others in manage-
ment or  regulations because they have unique as well as overlapping attri-
butes. Failure of a designated site to meet any one  of a  State's  physical,
chemical, or biological criteria should be perceived as sufficient justification
for  corrective action.
    One other note on the use of biological criteria is important. The data gath-
ered should be comprehensively evaluated on a periodic basis. This gives the
manager an opportunity to assess relative monitoring and management suc-
cess, monitor the condition  of the reference sites, and adjust procedures ac-
cordingly. As conditions improve, it will also be important to reassess and
adjust the biological criteria. This may be particularly appropriate in the case
of "significantly disrupted areas" discussed earlier.

-------
   Additional Applications of Biological Criteria

       As shown in the previous illustrations, narrative biological criteria can
   have many applications to the management and enhancement of surface water
   quality.

       • Refinement and augmentation of existing waterbody monitor-
         ing procedures. With between 200 and 500 new chemicals entering
         the market annually, it is impossible to develop chemical criteria
         that address them all. Further, synergism  between even regulated
         chemicals meeting existing standards may create degraded condi-
         tions downstream that are identifiable only by using biological mon-
         itoring and criteria. Thus, the approach  may help identify  and
         correct problems not previously recognized.

       • Non-chemical impairments (e.g., degradation of physical habitats,
         changes in hydrologic conditions, stocking, and harvesting) can be
         identified. Remediation of these impairments, when they are the pri-
         mary  factor, can be less  expensive and more relevant than some
         point source abatements.

       • Waterbody management decisionmaking. By reviewing an array
         of diverse parameters in a comprehensive  manner, the decisionma-
         ker is  able to make better judgments. The strengths of this diversity
         can be used to determine with greater confidence the resources to
         assign to a given waterbody or groups of waterbodies in the alloca-
         tion of scarce manpower or funds. The information can also be used
         to set  priorities where required by law, such as section 303(d) of the
         Clean Water Act, or to help guide regulatory decisions.
            In conjunction with nutrient, chemical, and sediment parame-
         ters, biological information and criteria are  an important tool for wa-
         tershed investigations. The combined data helps the manager select
         areas of likely nonpoint as well as point sources of pertebation and
         makes it possible to focus remedial efforts on key subbasins.

       • Regulatory aspect. Once established to the  satisfaction of the State
         and EPA, the biocriteria process may be incorporated in the State's
         system of regulations as part of its surface water quality protection
         and management program. Biological assessment and criteria can
         become an important additional tool in this context as the Nation in-
         creasingly upgrades the quality of our water resources.


    Perspective of the Future: Implementing
    Biological Criteria

       This guide to narrative biological criteria was composed with the fiscal
    and technical constraints of all the States, Territories, and Reservations in
    mind. The array of scientific options available to biological assessment and cri-
    teria illustrated here is by no means exhaustive, and many jurisdictions will
    prefer a more involved approach. In no way is this guide intended to restrain
    States from implementing more detailed or rigorous programs. In  fact, we
    welcome comments and suggestions for additional  techniques and parameters
    to consider.
10

-------
    The basic  approach  discussed here, while compiled  to be the least de-
 manding on State budgets, equipment, and manpower pools, consists of a reli-
 able, reproducible scientific method. The metrics considered should not be
 restricted to those illustrated in this guide. Rather, they should be developed
 from the expertise of State biologists and water resource managers — perhaps
 in concert with colleagues in neighboring States for a coordinated regional ap-
 proach  to  waterbodies  and natural biological regions that cross  political
 boundaries. Good science should be applied to a realistic appraisal of  what
 can actually be accomplished, and the EPA regional office specialists, listed on
 the following pages, can  assist  in such assessments and coordination. For
 more detailed discussions of sampling and analytical methods, the reader is
 also referred to the references appended to this text.
    The structure for narrative biological criteria described here is  an appro-
 priate interim step for the eventual development of numeric biological criteria.
 The infrastructure developed now may be expanded and refined to meet fu-
-ture needs.
 References

 Capper, J., G. Power and F.R. Shivers, Jr. 1983. Chesapeake Waters, Pollution, Public Health,
    and Public Opinion, 1607-1972. Tidewater Publishers, Centreville, MD.
 Gallant, A.L. et al. 1989. Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources.
    EPA/600-3-89-060. Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR.
 U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency. 1990a. Biological Criteria National Program Guid-
    ance for Surface Waters. EPA/440-5-90-004. Office of Water, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
    Washington, DC.
 	. 1990b. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biologi-
    cal Integrity of Surface Waters. EPA/600/4-90/030. Environ. Monitor. Syst. Lab., U.S.
    Environ. Prot. Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
 	. 1990c. Protection of Environment. Code of Fed. Reg. (CFR), Part 131. Off. Fed. Regis-
    ter, Nat. Archives and Records Admin., Washington, DC.
 Additional  References

 Plafkin, J.L. et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
    Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. Office of Water, U.S.  Environ. Prot.
    Agency, Washington, DC.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century.
    Proceedings of a national conference. Office of Water, Standards and Applied Science
    Division, Washington, DC.
 	.  1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics  Control.
    EPA/505/2-90-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
 	. 1991. Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation.  Proceedings of  a symposium.
    EPA-440/5-91-005. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washing-
    ton, DC.
 	. 1991. Biological Criteria: Guide to Technical Literature. EPA-440/5-91-004. Office of
    Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
 	. 1991. Biological Criteria: State Development and Implementation Efforts. EPA-
    440/5-91-003. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.
                                                                              11

-------
    U.S.  EPA  Regional  Sources  of

    Technical  Assistance

    REGION 1:  JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203
       Regional Biologist: Pete Nolan/Celeste Barr (617) 860-4343
       Monitoring Coordinator: Diane Switzer (617) 860-4377
       Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Eric Hall (617) 565-3533

    REGION 2:  26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278
       Regional Biologist: Jim Kurtenbach (908) 321-6716
       Monitoring Coordinator: Randy Braun (908) 321-6692
       Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Felix Locicero (212) 264-5691

    REGION 3:  841 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107
       Regional Biologist: Ron Preston (304) 233-2315
       Monitoring Coordinator: Chuck Kanetsky (215) 597-8176
       Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Helene Drago (215) 597-9911

    REGION 4:  345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA  30365
       Regional Biologist: Hoke Howard/Jerry Stober/William Peltier (706) 546-2296
       Monitoring Coordinator: Larinda Tervelt (706) 347-2126
       Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Fritz Wagener/Jim Harrison (706) 347-33%

    REGION 5:  230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604
       Regional Biologist: Charles Steiner (312) 353-9070
       Monitoring Coordinator: Donna Williams (312) 886-6233
       Water Quality Standards Coordinators: David Pfiefer (312) 353-9024
                                      Tom Simon (312) 353-8341

    REGION 6:  1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202
       Regional Biologist: Evan Hornig/Philip Crocker/Terry Hollister (214) 655-2289
       Monitoring Coordinator: Charles Howell (214) 655-2289
       Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Cheryl Overstreet (214) 655-7145

    REGION 7:   726 'Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101
       Regional Biologist: Michael Tucker/Gary Welker (913) 551-5000
       Monitoring Coordinator: John Helvig (913) 551-5002
       Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Lawrence Shepard (913) 551-7441

    REGION 8:  999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO  80202-2405
       Regional Biologist: Leys Parrish (303) 236-5064
       Monitoring Coordinator: Phil Johnson (303) 293-1581
       Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Bill Wuerthele  (303) 293-1586

    REGION 9:  75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
       Regional Biologist: Peter Husby (415) 744-1488
       Monitoring Coordinator: Ed Liu (415) 744-2006
       Water Quality Standards Coordinator: Phillip Woods  (415) 744-1997

    REGION 10:1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101
       Regional Biologist: Joseph Cummins (206) 871-0748, ext. 1247
       Monitoring Coordinator: Gretchen Hayslip (206) 553-1685
       Water Quality Standards Coordinators: Sally Marquis (206) 553-2116
                                      Marica Lagerloeff (206) 553-0176

    HEADQUARTERS:  401 M Street SW, Biocriteria Program (WH 586),
    Washington, DC 20640
       Program Coordinators: George Gibson (202) 260-7580
                          Susan Jackson (202) 260-1800

    NOTE: Address provided is the EPA Regional Office; personnel indicated may be located at
    satellite facilities.
12

-------
          APPENDIX L
   Interim Guidance on Determination and
    Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
                           FEE 22 1994
                                                EPA-823-B-94-001
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Use of the Water-Effect Ratio in Water Quality
          Standards

FROM:     Tudor T. Davies, Director
          Office of Science and Technology

TO:       Water Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
          State Water Quality Standards Program Directors
PURPOSE

     There are two purposes for this memorandum.

     The first is to transmit the Interim Guidance on the
Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals.  EPA
committed to developing this guidance to support implementation
of federal standards for those States included in the National
Toxics Rule.

     The second is to provide policy guidance on whether a
State's application of a water-effect ratio is a site-specific
criterion adjustment subject to EPA review and
approval/disapproval.


BACKGROUND

     In the early 1980's, members of the regulated community
expressed concern that EPA's laboratory-derived water quality
criteria might not accurately reflect site-specific conditions
because of the effects of water chemistry and the ability of
species to adapt over time.  In response to these concerns, EPA
created three procedures to derive site-specific criteria.  These
procedures were published in the Water Quality Standards
Handbook. 1983.

-------
     Site-specific criteria are allowed by regulation and are
subject to EPA review and approval.  The Federal water quality
standards regulation at section 131.11(b)(1) provides States with
the opportunity to adopt water quality criteria that are
"...modified to reflect site-specific conditions."  Under section
131.5(a)(2), EPA reviews standards to determine "whether a State
has adopted criteria to protect the designated water uses."

     On December 22, 1992, EPA promulgated the National Toxics
Rule which established Federal water quality standards for 14
States which had not met the requirements of Clean Water Act
Section 303(c)(2)(B).  As part of that rule, EPA gave the States
discretion to adjust the aquatic life criteria for metals to
reflect site-specific conditions through use of a water-effect
ratio.   A water-effect ratio is a means to account for a
difference between the toxicity of the metal in laboratory
dilution water and its toxicity in the water at the site.

     In promulgating the National Toxics Rule, EPA committed to
issuing updated guidance on the derivation of water-effect
ratios.  The guidance  reflects new information since the
previous guidance and is more comprehensive in order to provide
greater clarity and increased understanding.   This new guidance
should help standardize procedures for deriving water-effect
ratios and make results more comparable and defensible.

     Recently, an issue arose concerning the most appropriate
form of metals upon which to base water quality standards.  On
October 1, 1993,  EPA issued guidance on this issue which
indicated that measuring the dissolved form of metal is the
recommended approach.   This new policy however, is prospective
and does not affect the criteria in the National Toxics Rule.
Dissolved metals criteria are not generally numerically equal to
total recoverable criteria and the October 1, 1993 guidance
contains recommendations for correction factors for fresh water
criteria.   The determination of site-specific criteria is
applicable to criteria expressed as either total recoverable
metal or as dissolved metal.

DISCUSSION

     Existing guidance and practice are that EPA will approve
site- specific criteria developed using appropriate procedures.
That policy continues for the options set forth in the interim
guidance transmitted today,  regardless of whether the resulting
criterion is equal to or more or less stringent than the EPA
national 304(a)  guidance.   This interim guidance supersedes all
guidance concerning water-effect ratios previously issued by the
Agency.

-------
     Each of the three options for deriving a final water-effect
ratio presented in this interim guidance meets the scientific and
technical acceptability test for deriving site-specific criteria.

Option 3 is the simplest, least restrictive and generally the
least expensive approach for situations where simulated
downstream water appropriately represents a "site."  It is a
fully acceptable approach for deriving the water-effect ratio
although it will generally provide a lower water-effect ratio
than the other 2 options.  The other 2 options may be more costly
and time consuming if more than 3 sample periods and water-effect
ratio measurements are made, but are more accurate, and may yield
a larger, but more scientifically defensible site specific
criterion.

      Site-specific criteria, properly determined, will fully
protect existing uses.  The waterbody or segment thereof to which
the site-specific criteria apply must be clearly defined.  A site
can be defined by the State and can be any size, small or large,
including a watershed or basin.  However, the site-specific
criteria must protect the site as a whole.  It is likely to be
more cost-effective to derive any site-specific criteria for as
large an area as possible or appropriate.  It is emphasized that
site-specific criteria are ambient water quality criteria
applicable to a site.  They are not intended to be direct
modifications to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)   permit limits.  In most cases the "site" will be
synonymous with a State's "segment" in its water quality
standards.  By defining sites on a larger scale, multiple
dischargers can collaborate on water-effect ratio testing and
attain appropriate site-specific criteria at a reduced cost.

     More attention has been given to water-effect ratios
recently because of the numerous discussions and meetings on the
entire question of metals policy and because WERs were
specifically applied in the National Toxics Rule.  In comments on
the proposed National Toxics Rule, the public questioned whether
the EPA promulgation should be based solely on the total
recoverable form of a metal.  For the reasons set forth in the
final preamble, EPA chose to promulgate the criteria based on the
total recoverable form with a provision for the application of a
water-effect ratio.  In addition,  this approach was chosen
because of the unique difficulties of attempting to authorize
site-specific criteria modifications for nationally promulgated
criteria.

     EPA now recommends the use of dissolved metals for States
revising their water quality standards.  Dissolved criteria may
also be modified by a site-specific adjustment.

-------
     While the regulatory application of the water-effect ratio
applied only to the 10 jurisdictions included in the final
National Toxics Rule for aquatic life metals criteria,  we
understood that other States would be interested in applying WERs
to their adopted water quality standards.  The guidance upon
which to base the judgment of the acceptability of the water-
effect ratio applied by the State is contained in the attached
Interim Guidance on The Determination and Use of Water-Effect
Ratios for Metals. It should be noted that this guidance also
provides additional information on the recalculation procedure
for site-specific criteria modifications.

Status of the Water-effect Ratio (WER)  in non-National Toxics
Rule States

     A central question concerning WERs is whether their use by a
State results in a site-specific criterion subject to EPA review
and approval under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act?

     Derivation of a water-effect ratio by a State is a site-
specific criterion adjustment subject to EPA review and
approval/disapproval under Section 303(c).   There are two options
by which this review can be accomplished.

     Option 1:  A State may derive and submit each individual
     water-effect ratio determination to EPA for review and
     approval.  This would be accomplished through the normal
     review and revision process used by a State.

     Option 2:  A State can amend its water quality standards to
     provide a formal procedure which includes derivation of
     water-effect ratios,  appropriate definition of sites,  and
     enforceable monitoring provisions to assure that designated
     uses are protected.  Both this procedure and the resulting
     criteria would be subject to full public participation
     requirements.  Public review of a site-specific criterion
     could be accomplished in conjunction with the public review
     required for permit issuance.   EPA would review and
     approve/disapprove this protocol as a revised standard once.
     For public information, we recommend that once a year the
     State publish a list of site-specific criteria.

     An exception to this policy applies to the waters of the
jurisdictions included in the National Toxics Rule.  The EPA
review is not required for the jurisdictions included in the
National Toxics Rule where EPA established the procedure for the
State for application to the criteria promulgated.  The National
Toxics Rule was a formal rulemaking process with notice and
comment by which EPA pre-authorized the use of a correctly
applied water-effect ratio.  That same process has not yet taken
place in States not included in the National Toxics Rule.

-------
However, the National Toxics Rule does not affect State authority
to establish scientifically defensible procedures to determine
Federally authorized WERs, to certify those WERs in NPDES permit
proceedings, or to deny their application based on the State's
risk management analysis.

     As described in Section 131.36(b) (iii) of the water quality
standards regulation  (the official regulatory reference to the
National Toxics Rule), the water-effect ratio is a site-specific
calculation.  As indicated on page 60866 of the preamble to the
National Toxics Rule, the rule was constructed as a rebuttable
presumption. The water-effect ratio is assigned a value of 1.0
until a different water-effect ratio is derived from suitable
tests representative of conditions in the affected waterbody.  It
is the responsibility of the State to determine whether to rebut
the assumed value of 1.0 in the National Toxics Rule and apply
another value of the water-effect ratio in order to establish a
site-specific criterion.  The site-specific criterion is then
used to develop appropriate NPDES permit limits.  The rule thus
provides a State with the flexibility to derive an appropriate
site-specific criterion for specific waterbodies.

     As a point of emphasis,  although a water-effect ratio
affects permit limits for individual dischargers, it is the State
in all cases that determines if derivation of a site-specific
criterion based on the water-effect ratio is allowed and it is
the State that ensures that the calculations and data analysis
are done completely and correctly.

CONCLUSION

     This interim guidance explains and clarifies the use of
site-specific criteria.   It is issued as interim guidance because
it will be included as part of the process underway for review
and possible revision of the national aquatic life criteria
development methodology guidelines.   As part of that review,  this
interim guidance is subject to amendment based on comments,
especially those from the users of the guidance.  At the end of
the guidelines revision process the guidance will be issued as
"final."

     EPA is interested in and encourages the submittal of high
quality datasets that can be used to provide insights into the
use of these guidelines and procedures.   Such data and technical
comments should be submitted to Charles E. Stephan at EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory at Duluth,  MN.  A complete
address, telephone number and fax number for Mr. Stephan are
included in the guidance itself.   Other questions or comments
should be directed to the Standards and Applied Science Division
(mail code 4305,  telephone 202-260-1315).

-------
     There is attached to this memorandum a simplified flow
diagram and an implementation procedure.  These are intended to
aid a user by placing the water-effect ratio procedure in the
context of proceeding from at site-specific criterion to a permit
limit.  Following these attachments is the guidance itself.

Attachments

cc:  Robert Perciasepe, OW
    Martha G. Prothro, OW
    William Diamond, SASD
    Margaret Stasikowski, HECD
    Mike Cook, OWEC
    Cynthia Dougherty, OWEC
    Lee Schroer, OGC
    Susan Lepow, OGC
    Courtney Riordan, ORD
    ORD (Duluth and Narragansett Laboratories)
    BSD Directors, Regions I - VIII, X
    BSD Branch, Region IX
    Water Quality Standards Coordinators, Regions I - X

-------
                WER Implementation
Preliminary Analysis

    Site Definition
    Study Plan Development
   Lab Procedures
     Testing Organisms
     Chemistry
     WER Calculation
Sampling  Design
                                Effluent Considerations
                                Receiving Water Considerations
                                 Implementation

                                 Site Specific Criteria
                                 Permit Limits
                                 Monitoring Requirements

-------
                WATER-EFFECT RATIO IMPLEMENTATION

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS & PLAN FORMULATION

     - Site definition

       • How many discharges must be accounted for?  Tributaries?
         See page 17.
       • What is the waterbody type? (i.e., stream, tidal river,
         bay, etc.).  See page 44 and Appendix A.
       • How can these considerations best be combined to define
         the relevant geographic "site"?  See Appendix A @ page
         82.

     - Plan Development for Regulatory Agency Review

       • Is WER method 1 or 2 appropriate? (e.g., Is design flow
         a meaningful concept or are other considerations
         paramount?).  See page 6.
       • Define the effluent & receiving water sample locations
       • Describe the temporal sample collection protocols
         proposed.  See page 48.
       • Can simulated site water procedure be done, or is
         downstream sampling required?   See Appendix A.
       • Describe the testing protocols - test species, test
         type,  test length, etc.   See page 45, 50; Appendix I.
       • Describe the chemical testing proposed.   See Appendix C.
       • Describe other details of  study - flow measurement,
         QA/QC,  number of sampling  periods proposed, to whom the
         results are expected to apply, schedule, etc.


SAMPLING DESIGN FOR STREAMS

     - Discuss the quantification of the design streamflow  (e.g.,
       7Q10)  - USGS gage directly,  by extrapolation from USGS
       gage,  or ?

     - Effluents

       • measure flows to determine average for sampling day
       • collect 24 hour composite  using "clean"  equipment and
         appropriate procedures;  avoid  the use of the plant's
         daily composite sample as  a shortcut.

     - Streams

       • measure flow (use current  meter or read  from gage if
         available)  to determine  dilution with effluent;  and to
         check if within acceptable range for use of the data
         (i.e.,  design flow to 10 times the design flow).
       • collect 24 hour composite  of upstream water.

-------
LABORATORY PROCEDURES (NOTE:  These are described in detail in
                       interim guidance).


     - Select appropriate primary & secondary tests

     - Determine appropriate cmcWER and/or cccWER

     - Perform chemistry using clean procedures,  with methods
       that have adequate sensitivity to measure low
       concentrations, and use appropriate QA/QC

     - Calculate final water-effect ratio (FWER)  for site.
       See page 36.

IMPLEMENTATION

     - Assign FWERs and the site specific criteria for each metal
       to each discharger (if more than one).

     - perform a waste load allocation and total maximum daily
       load  (if appropriate) so that each discharger is provided
       a permit limit.

     - establish monitoring condition for periodic evaluation of
       instream biology (recommended)

     - establish a permit condition for periodic testing of WER
       to verify site-specific criterion  (NTR recommendation)

-------
         Interim Guidance  on

      Determination and Use of

   Water-Effect Ratios for Metals
            February  1994
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

          Office  of Water
  Office of Science and Technology
          Washington,  B.C.

 Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratories
          Duluth,  Minnesota
     Narragansett, Rhode Island

-------
                             NOTICES
This document has been reviewed by the Environmental Research
Laboratories, Duluth, MN and Narragansett,  RI (Office of Research
and Development) and the Office of Science and Technology (Office
of Water), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.


Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                11

-------
                             FOREWORD
This document provides interim guidance concerning the
experimental determination of water-effect ratios (WERs) for
metals; some aspects of the use of WERs are also addressed.  It
is issued in support of EPA regulations and policy initiatives
involving the application of water quality criteria and standards
for metals.  This document is agency guidance only.   It does not
establish or affect legal rights or obligations.  It does not
establish a binding norm or prohibit alternatives not included in
the document.  It is not finally determinative of the issues
addressed.  Agency decisions in any particular case will be made
by applying the law and regulations on the basis of specific
facts when regulations are promulgated or permits are issued.

This document is expected to be revised periodically to reflect
advances in this rapidly evolving area.  Comments,  especially
those accompanied by supporting data,  are welcomed and should be
sent to: Charles E. Stephan, U.S. EPA, 6201 Congdon Boulevard,
Duluth MN 55804 (TEL: 218-720-5510; FAX: 218-720-5539).
                               111

-------
                           FEE 22 1994
       OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POSITION STATEMENT

   Section 131.11(b)(ii) of the water quality standards
regulation (40 CFR Part 131) provides the regulatory mechanism
for a State to develop site-specific criteria for use in water
quality standards.   Adopting site-specific criteria in water
quality standards is a State option--not a requirement.  The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  in 1983 provided guidance
on scientifically acceptable methods by which site-specific
criteria could be developed.

   The interim guidance provided in this document supersedes all
guidance concerning water-effect ratios and the Indicator Species
Procedure given in Chapter 4 of the Water Quality Standards
Handbook issued by EPA in 1983 and in Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria by
Modifying National Criteria, 1984.  Appendix  B also supersedes
the guidance in these earlier documents for the Recalculation
Procedure for performing site-specific criteria modifications.

   This interim guidance fulfills a commitment made in the final
rule to establish numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants
(57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992, also known as the "National
Toxics Rule").  This guidance also is applicable to pollutants
other than metals with appropriate modifications, principally to
chemical analyses.

   Except for the jurisdictions subject to the aquatic life
criteria in the national toxics rule, water-effect ratios are
site-specific criteria subject to review and approval by the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.  Site-specific criteria
are new or revised criteria subject to the normal EPA review
requirements established in Clean Water Act § 303(c).  For the
States in the National Toxics Rule, EPA has established that
site-specific water-effect ratios may be applied to the criteria
promulgated in the rule to establish site-specific criteria.  The
water-effect ratio portion of these criteria would still be
subject to State review before the development of total maximum
daily loads, waste load allocations or translation into NPDES
permit limits.  EPA would only review these water-effect ratios
during its oversight review of these State programs or review of
State-issued permits.
                                IV

-------
     Each of the three options for deriving a final water-effect
ratio presented on page 36 of this interim guidance meets the
scientific and technical acceptability test for deriving site-
specific criteria specified in the water quality standards
regulation (40 CFR 131.11(a)).  Option 3 is the simplest, least
restrictive and generally the least expensive approach for
situations where simulated downstream water appropriately
represents a "site."  Option 3 requires experimental
determination of three water-effect ratios with the primary test
species that are determined during any season (as long as the
downstream flow is between 2 and 10 times design flow
conditions.)   The final WER is generally (but not always) the
lowest experimentally determined WER.  Deriving a final water-
effect ratio using option 3 with the use of simulated downstream
water for a situation where this simulation appropriately
represents a "site", is a fully acceptable approach for deriving
a water-effect ratio for use in determining a site-specific
criterion, although it will generally provide a lower water-
effect ratio than the other 2 options.

   As indicated in the introduction to this guidance, the
determination of a water-effect ratio may require substantial
resources.  A discharger should consider  cost-effective,
preliminary measures described in this guidance (e.g., use of
"clean" sampling and chemical analytical techniques or in non-NTR
States, a recalculated criterion)  to determine if an indicator
species site-specific criterion is really needed.   It may be that
an appropriate site-specific criterion is actually being
attained.  In many instances, use of these other measures may
eliminate the need for deriving final water-effect ratios.  The
methods described in this interim guidance should be sufficient
to develop site-specific criteria that resolve concerns of
dischargers when there appears to be no instream toxicity from a
metal but, where (a) a discharge appears to exceed existing or
proposed water quality-based permit limits, or (b) an instream
concentration appears to exceed an existing or proposed water
quality criterion.

   This guidance describes 2 different methods for determining
water-effect ratios.  Method 1 has 3 options each of which may
only require 3 sampling periods.  However options 1 and 2 may be
expanded and require a much greater effort.  While this position
statement has discussed the simplest, least expensive option for
method 1  (the single discharge to a stream) to illustrate that
site specific criteria are feasible even when only small
dischargers are affected, water-effect ratios may be calculated
using any of the other options described in the guidance if the
State/discharger believe that there is reason to expect that a
more accurate site-specific criterion will result from the
increased cost and complexity inherent in conducting the
                                v

-------
additional tests and analyzing the results.   Situations where
this could be the case include,  for example,  where seasonal
effects in receiving water quality or in discharge quality need
to be assessed.

   In addition, EPA will consider other scientifically defensible
approaches in developing final water-effect  ratios as authorized
in 40 CFR 131.11.  However, EPA strongly recommends that before a
State/discharger implements any approach other than one described
in this interim guidance, discussions be held with appropriate
EPA regional offices and Office of Research  and Development's
scientists before actual testing begins.  These discussions would
be to ensure that time and resources are not wasted on
scientifically and technically unacceptable  approaches.  It
remains EPA's responsibility to make final decisions on the
scientific and technical validity of alternative approaches to
developing site-specific water quality criteria.

   EPA is fully cognizant of the continuing  debate between what
constitutes guidance and what is a regulatory requirement.
Developing site-specific criteria is a State regulatory option.
Using the methodology correctly as described in this guidance
assures the State that EPA will accept the result.  Other
approaches are possible and logically should be discussed with
EPA prior to implementation.

     The Office of Science and Technology believes that this
interim guidance advances the science of determining site-
specific criteria and provides policy guidance that States and
EPA can use in this complex area.  It reflects the scientific
advances in the past 10 years and the experience gained from
dealing with these issues in real world situations.  This
guidance will help improve implementation of water quality
standards and be the basis for future progress.
                             Tudor T. Davies, Director
                             Office of Science And Technology
                             Office of Water
                                VI

-------
                             CONTENTS


                                                             Page

Notices	ii

Foreword	iii

Office of Science and Technology Position Statement 	  iv

Appendices	viii

Figures	ix

Acknowledgments 	  x

Executive Summary 	  xi

Abbreviations 	  xiii

Glossary	xiv

Preface	xvi


Introduction  	  1


Method 1	17
   A. Experimental Design 	  17
   B. Background Information and Initial Decisions  	  44
   C. Selecting Primary and Secondary Tests 	  45
   D. Acquiring and Acclimating Test Organisms  	  47
   E. Collecting and Handling Upstream Water and Effluent .  .  48
   F. Laboratory Dilution Water 	  49
   G. Conducting Tests  	  50
   H. Chemical and Other Measurements 	  55
   I. Calculating and Interpreting the Results  	  57
   J. Reporting the Results	62


Method 2	65


References	76
                               Vll

-------
                           APPENDICES
                                                             Page

A.  Comparison of WERs Determined Using Upstream and
    Downstream Water  	  79

B.  The Recalculation Procedure 	  90

C.  Guidance Concerning the Use of "Clean Techniques" and
    QA/QC when Measuring Trace Metals 	  98

D.  Relationships between WERs and the Chemistry and
    Toxicology of Metals  	 109

E.  U.S. EPA Aquatic Life Criteria Documents for Metals .  .   . 134

F.  Considerations Concerning Multiple-Metal,  Multiple-
    Discharge, and Special Flowing-Water Situations 	 135

G.  Additivity and the Two Components of a WER Determined
    Using Downstream Water  	 139

H.  Special Considerations Concerning the Determination
    of WERs with Saltwater Species	145

I.  Suggested Toxicity Tests for Determining WERs
    for Metals	147

J.  Recommended Salts of Metals 	 153
                               Vlll

-------
                             FIGURES






                                                             Page



1.  Four Ways to Derive a Permit Limit	16




2.  Calculating an Adjusted Geometric Mean   	  71




3 .  An Example Derivation of a FWER	72




4.  Reducing the Impact of Experimental Variation 	  73




5.  Calculating an LC50 (or EC50) by Interpolation   	  74




6.  Calculating a Time-Weighted Average  	  75




Bl.  An Example of the Deletion Process Using Three Phyla   .  .  97




Dl.  A Scheme for Classifying Forms of Metal in Water  .... Ill




D2.  An Example of the Empirical Extrapolation Process .... 125




D3.  The Internal Consistency of the Two Approaches   	 126




D4.  The Application of the Two Approaches	128




D5.  A Generalized Complexation Curve  	 131




D6.  A Generalized Precipitation Curve 	 132
                                IX

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was written by:

     Charles E. Stephan, U.S. EPA, ORD, Environmental Research
          Laboratory, Duluth, MN.

     William H. Peltier, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Environmental
          Services Division, Athens, GA.

     David J. Hansen, U.S. EPA, ORD, Environmental Research
          Laboratory, Narragansett,  RI.

     Charles G. Delos, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Health
          and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.

     Gary A. Chapman, U.S. EPA, ORD, Environmental Research
          Laboratory  (Narragansett), Pacific Ecosystems Branch,
          Newport, OR.


The authors thank all the people who participated in the open
discussion of the experimental determination of water-effect
ratios on Tuesday evening, January 26, 1993 in Annapolis, MD.
Special thanks go to Herb Allen, Bill Beckwith, Ken Bruland, Lee
Dunbar, Russ Erickson, and Carlton Hunt for their technical input
on this project, although none of them necessarily agree with
everything in this document.  Comments by Kent Ballentine, Karen
Gourdine, Mark Hicks, Suzanne Lussier, Nelson Thomas, Bob Spehar,
Fritz Wagener, Robb Wood, and Phil Woods on various drafts, or
portions of drafts, were also very helpful, as were discussions
with several other individuals.
                                x

-------
                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A variety of physical and chemical characteristics of both the
water and the metal can influence the toxicity of a metal to
aquatic organisms in a surface water.  When a site-specific
aquatic life criterion is derived for a metal, an adjustment
procedure based on the toxicological determination of a water-
effect ratio (WER) may be used to account for a difference
between the toxicity of the metal in laboratory dilution water
and its toxicity in the water at the site.  If there is a
difference in toxicity and it is not taken into account, the
aquatic life criterion for the body of water will be more or less
protective than intended by EPA's Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses.  After a WER is determined for
a site, a site-specific aquatic life criterion can be calculated
by multiplying an appropriate national, state, or recalculated
criterion by the WER.  Most WERs are expected to be equal to or
greater than 1.0, but some might be less than 1.0.  Because most
aquatic life criteria consist of two numbers,  i.e., a Criterion
Maximum Concentration (CMC) and a Criterion Continuous
Concentration (CCC),  either a cmcWER or a cccWER or both might be
needed for a site.  The cmcWER and the cccWER cannot be assumed
to be equal, but it is not always necessary to determine both.

In order to determine a WER,  side-by-side toxicity tests are
performed to measure the toxicity of the metal in two dilution
waters.  One of the waters has to be a water that would be
acceptable for use in laboratory toxicity tests conducted for the
derivation of national water quality criteria for aquatic life.
In most situations,  the second dilution water will be a simulated
downstream water that is prepared by mixing upstream water and
effluent in an appropriate ratio; in other situations, the second
dilution water will be a sample of the actual site water to which
the site-specific criterion is to apply.  The WER is calculated
by dividing the endpoint obtained in the site water by the
endpoint obtained in the laboratory dilution water.  A WER should
be determined using a toxicity test whose endpoint is close to,
but not lower than,  the CMC and/or CCC that is to be adjusted.

A total recoverable WER can be determined if the metal in both of
the side-by-side toxicity tests is analyzed using the total
recoverable measurement, and a dissolved WER can be determined if
the metal is analyzed in both tests using the dissolved
measurement.  Thus four WERs can be determined:
      Total recoverable cmcWER.
      Total recoverable cccWER.
      Dissolved cmcWER.
      Dissolved cccWER.
A total recoverable WER is used to calculate a total recoverable
site-specific criterion from a total recoverable national, state,

                                xi

-------
or recalculated aquatic life criterion, whereas a dissolved WER
is used to calculate a dissolved site-specific criterion from a
dissolved criterion.  WERs are determined individually for each
metal at each site; WERs cannot be extrapolated from one metal to
another, one effluent to another, or one site water to another.

Because determining a WER requires substantial resources, the
desirability of obtaining a WER should be carefully evaluated:
1. Determine whether use of "clean techniques" for collecting,
   handling, storing, preparing, and analyzing samples will
   eliminate the reason for considering determination of a WER,
   because existing data concerning concentrations of metals in
   effluents and surface waters might be erroneously high.
2. Evaluate the potential for reducing the discharge of the
   metal.
3. Investigate possible constraints on the permit limits, such as
   antibacksliding and antidegradation requirements and human
   health and wildlife criteria.
4. Consider use of the Recalculation Procedure.
5. Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of determining a WER.
If the determination of a WER is desirable,  a detailed workplan
for should be submitted to the appropriate regulatory authority
(and possibly to the Water Management Division of the EPA
Regional Office) for comment.   After the workplan is completed,
the initial phase should be implemented, the data should be
evaluated, and the workplan should be revised if appropriate.

Two methods are used to determine WERs.  Method 1, which is used
to determine cccWERs that apply near plumes and to determine all
cmcWERs, uses data concerning three or more distinctly separate
sampling events.  It is best if the sampling events occur during
both low-flow and higher-flow periods.  When sampling does not
occur during both low and higher flows, the site-specific
criterion is derived in a more conservative manner due to greater
uncertainty.  For each sampling event, a WER is determined using
a selected toxicity test; for at least one of the sampling
events, a confirmatory WER is determined using a different test.

Method 2,  which is used to determine a cccWER for a large body of
water outside the vicinities of plumes, requires substantial
site-specific planning and more resources than Method 1.  WERs
are determined using samples of actual site water obtained at
various times, locations, and depths to identify the range of
WERs in the body of water.  The WERs are used to determine how
many site-specific CCCs should be derived for the body of water
and what the one or more CCCs should be.

The guidance contained herein replaces previous agency guidance
concerning  (a) the determination of WERs for use in the
derivation of site-specific aquatic life criteria for metals and
(b) the Recalculation Procedure.  This guidance is designed to
apply to metals, but the principles apply to most pollutants.

                               xii

-------
                          ABBREVIATIONS






ACR:   Acute-Chronic Ratio




CCC:   Criterion Continuous Concentration




CMC:   Criterion Maximum Concentration




CRM:   Certified Reference Material




FAV:   Final Acute Value




FCV:   Final Chronic Value




FW:    Freshwater




FWER:  Final Water-Effect Ratio




GMAV:  Genus Mean Acute Value




HCME:  Highest Concentration of the Metal in the Effluent




MDR:   Minimum Data Requirement




NTR:   National Toxics Rule




QA/QC:  Quality Assurance/Quality Control




SMAV:  Species Mean Acute Value




SW:    Saltwater




TDS:   Total Dissolved Solids




TIE:   Toxicity Identification Evaluation




TMDL:  Total Maximum Daily Load




TOC:   Total Organic Carbon




TRE:   Toxicity Reduction Evaluation




TSD:   Technical Support Document




TSS:   Total Suspended Solids




WER:   Water-Effect Ratio




WET:   Whole Effluent Toxicity




WLA:   Wasteload Allocation




                               xiii

-------
                             GLOSSARY
Acute-chronic ratio - an appropriate measure of the acute
     toxicity of a material divided by an appropriate
     measure of the chronic toxicity of the same material
     under the same conditions.

Appropriate regulatory authority - Usually the State water
     pollution control agency, even for States under the National
     Toxics Rule; if, however, a State were to waive its section
     401 authority, the Water Management Division of the EPA
     Regional Office would become the appropriate regulatory
     authority.

Clean techniques - a set of procedures designed to prevent
     contamination of samples so that concentrations of
     trace metals can be measured accurately and precisely.

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

Design flow - the flow used for steady-state wasteload
     allocation modeling.

Dissolved metal - defined here as "metal that passes through
     either a 0.45-^m or a 0.40-/im membrane filter".

Endpoint - the concentration of test material that is expected to
     cause a specified amount of adverse effect.

Final Water-Effect Ratio - the WER that is used in the
     calculation of a site-specific aquatic life criterion.

Flow-through test - a test in which test solutions flow into
     the test chambers either intermittently  (every few
     minutes) or continuously and the excess flows out.

Labile metal - metal that is in water and will readily
     convert from one form to another when in a
     nonequilibrium condition.

Particulate metal - metal that is measured by the total
     recoverable method but not by the dissolved method.

                               xiv

-------
Primary test - the toxicity test used in the determination
     of a Final Water-Effect Ratio (FWER); the specification
     of the test includes the test species, the life stage
     of the species, the duration of the test, and the
     adverse effect on which the endpoint is based.

Refractory metal - metal that is in water and will not
     readily convert from one form to another when in a
     nonequilibrium condition, i.e.,  metal that is in water
     and is not labile.

Renewal test - a test in which either the test solution in a
     test chamber is renewed at least once during the test
     or the test organisms are transferred into a new test
     solution of the same composition at least once during
     the test.

Secondary test - a toxicity test that is usually conducted
     along with the primary test only once to test the
     assumptions that, within experimental variation, (a)
     similar WERs will be obtained using tests that have
     similar sensitivities to the test material,  and (b)
     tests that are less sensitive to the test material will
     usually give WERs that are closer to 1.

Simulated downstream water - a site water prepared by mixing
     effluent and upstream water in a known ratio.

Site-specific aquatic life criterion - a water quality
     criterion for aquatic life that has been derived to be
     specifically appropriate to the water quality
     characteristics and/or species composition at a
     particular location.

Site water - upstream water, actual downstream water, or
     simulated downstream water in which a toxicity test is
     conducted side-by-side with the same toxicity test in a
     laboratory dilution water to determine a WER.

Static test - a test in which the solution and organisms
     that are in a test chamber at the beginning of the test
     remain in the chamber until the end of the test.

Total recoverable metal - metal that is in aqueous solution
     after the sample is appropriately acidified and
     digested and insoluble material is separated.

Water-effect ratio - an appropriate measure of the toxicity
     of a material obtained in a site water divided by the
     same measure of the toxicity of the same material
     obtained simultaneously in a laboratory dilution water.

                                xv

-------
                             PREFACE
Several issues need consideration when guidance such as this is
written:

1. Degrees of importance:   Procedures and methods are series of
   instructions, but some of the instructions are more important
   than others.  Some instructions are so important that,  if they
   are not followed, the results will be questionable or
   unacceptable; other instructions are less important, but
   definitely desirable.  Possibly the best way to express
   various degrees of importance is the approach described in
   several ASTM Standards,  such as in section 3.6 of Standard
   E729 (ASTM 1993a),  which is modified here to apply to WERs:
      The words "must",  "should", "may", "can", and "might" have
      specific meanings in this document.  "Must" is used to
      express an instruction that is to be followed, unless a
      site-specific consideration requires a deviation, and is
      used only in connection with instructions that directly
      relate to the validity of toxicity tests, WERs,  FWERs, and
      the Recalculation Procedure.  "Should" is used to state
      instructions that are recommended and are to be followed  if
      reasonably possible.   Deviation from one "should" will not
      invalidate a WER,  but deviation from several probably will.
      Terms such as "is desirable",  "is often desirable",  and
      "might be desirable"  are used in connection with less
      important instructions.  "May" is used to mean "is (are)
      allowed to", "can" is used to mean "is (are) able to", and
      "might" is used to mean "could possibly".  Thus the classic
      distinction between "may" and "can" is preserved, and
      "might" is not used as a synonym for either "may" or "can".
   This does not eliminate all problems concerning the degree of
   importance, however.   For example, a small deviation from a
   "must" might not invalidate a WER, whereas a large deviation
   would.  (Each "must" and "must not" is in bold print for
   convenience, not for emphasis, in this document.)

2. Educational and explanatory material:  Many people have asked
   for much detail in this document to ensure that as many WERs
   as possible are determined in an acceptable manner.  In
   addition,  some people want justifications for each detail.
   Much of the detail that is desired by some people is based on
   "best professional judgment", which is rarely considered an
   acceptable justification by people who disagree with a
   specified detail.  Even if details are taken from an EPA
   method or an ASTM standard, they were often included in those
   documents on the basis of best professional judgment.  In
   contrast,  some people want detailed methodology presented
   without explanatory material.  It was decided to include as
   much detail as is feasible, and to provide rationale and
   explanation for major items.

                               xv i

-------
3. Alternatives:  When more than one alternative is both
   scientifically sound and appropriately protective, it seems
   reasonable to present the alternatives rather than presenting
   the one that is considered best.  The reader can then select
   one based on cost-effectiveness, personal preference, details
   of the particular situation, and perceived advantages and
   disadvantages.

4. Separation of "science", "best professional -judgment" and
   "regulatory decisions":   These can never be completely
   separated in this kind of document; for example, if data are
   analyzed for a statistically significant difference,  the
   selection of alpha is an important decision,  but a rationale
   for its selection is rarely presented, probably because the
   selection is not a scientific decision.  In this document, an
   attempt has been made to focus on good science,  best
   professional judgment, and presentation of the rationale; when
   possible,  these are separated from "regulatory decisions"
   concerning margin of safety, level of protection,  beneficial
   use,  regulatory convenience, and the goal of zero discharge.
   Some "regulatory decisions" relating to implementation,
   however, should be integrated with, not separated from,
   "science"  because the two ought to be carefully considered
   together wherever science has implications for implementation.

5. Best professional "judgment:  Much of the guidance contained
   herein is  qualitative rather than quantitative,  and much
   judgment will usually be required to derive a site-specific
   water quality criterion for aquatic life.  In addition,
   although this version of the guidance for determining and
   using WERs attempts to cover all major questions that have
   arisen during use of the previous version and during
   preparation of this version, it undoubtedly does not  cover all
   situations,  questions, and extenuating circumstances  that
   might arise in the future.   All necessary decisions should be
   based on both a thorough knowledge of aquatic toxicology and
   an understanding of this guidance; each decision should be
   consistent with the spirit of this guidance,  which is to make
   best  use of "good science"  to derive the most appropriate
   site-specific criteria.   This guidance should be modified
   whenever sound scientific evidence indicates  that  a site-
   specific criterion produced using this guidance  will  probably
   substantially underprotect or overprotect the aquatic life at
   the site of concern.   Derivation of site-specific  criteria for
   aquatic life is a complex process and requires knowledge in
   many areas of aquatic toxicology; any deviation  from  this
   guidance should be carefully considered to ensure  that it is
   consistent with other parts of this guidance  and with "good
   science".

6. Personal bias:   Bias can never be eliminated,  and  some
   decisions  are at the fine line between "bias"  and  "best

                              xvii

-------
professional judgment".  The possibility of bias can be
eliminated only by adoption of an extreme position such as "no
regulation" or "no discharge".   One way to deal with bias is to
have decisions made by a team of knowledgeable people.

7. Teamwork:  The determination of a WER should be a cooperative
   team effort beginning with the completion of the initial
   workplan, interpretation of initial data, revision of the
   workplan, etc.  The interaction of a variety of knowledgeable,
   reasonable people will help obtain the best results for the
   expenditure of the fewest resources.  Members of the team
   should acknowledge their biases so that the team can make best
   use of the available information, taking into account its
   relevancy to the immediate situation and its quality.
                              xvi 11

-------
                           INTRODUCTION
National aquatic life criteria for metals are intended to protect
the aquatic life in almost all surface waters of the United
States  (U.S. EPA 1985).  This level of protection is accomplished
in two ways.  First, the national dataset is required to contain
aquatic species that have been found to be sensitive to a variety
of pollutants.  Second, the dilution water and the metal salt
used in the toxicity tests are required to have physical and
chemical characteristics that ensure that the metal is at least
as toxic in the tests as it is in nearly all surface waters.  For
example, the dilution water is to be low in suspended solids and
in organic carbon, and some forms of metal (e.g., insoluble metal
and metal bound by organic complexing agents) cannot be used as
the test material.  (The term "metal" is used herein to include
both "metals" and "metalloids".)

Alternatively, a national aquatic life criterion might not
adequately protect the aquatic life at some sites.  An untested
species that is important at a site might be more sensitive than
any of the tested species.  Also, the metal might be more toxic
in site water than in laboratory dilution water because, for
example, the site water has a lower pH and/or hardness than most
laboratory waters.  Thus although a national aquatic life
criterion is intended to be lower than necessary for most sites,
a national criterion might not adequately protect the aquatic
life at some sites.

Because a national aquatic life criterion might be more or less
protective than intended for the aquatic life in most bodies of
water, the U.S. EPA provided guidance (U.S. EPA 1983a,1984)
concerning three procedures that may be used to derive a site-
specific criterion:
1. The Recalculation Procedure is intended to take into account
   relevant differences between the sensitivities of the aquatic
   organisms in the national dataset and the sensitivities of
   organisms that occur at the site.
2. The Indicator Species Procedure provides for the use of a
   water-effect ratio  (WER) that is intended to take into account
   relevant differences between the toxicity of the metal in
   laboratory dilution water and in site water.
3. The Resident Species Procedure is intended to take into
   account both kinds of differences simultaneously.
A site-specific criterion is intended to come closer than the
national criterion to providing the intended level of protection
to the aquatic life at the site,  usually by taking into account
the biological and/or chemical conditions  (i.e., the species
composition and/or water quality characteristics) at the site.
The fact that the U.S. EPA has made these procedures available
should not be interpreted as implying that the agency advocates
that states derive site-specific criteria before setting state

-------
standards.  Also, derivation of a site-specific criterion does
not change the intended level of protection of the aquatic life
at the site.  Because a WER is expected to appropriately take
into account  (a)  the site-specific toxicity of the metal, and  (b)
synergism, antagonism, and additivity with other constituents of
the site water, using a WER is more likely to provide the
intended level of protection than not using a WER.

Although guidance concerning site-specific criteria has been
available since 1983  (U.S. EPA 1983a,1984), interest has
increased in recent years as states have devoted more attention
to chemical-specific water quality criteria for aquatic life.  In
addition, interest in water-effect ratios  (WERs)  increased when
the "Interim Guidance" concerning metals  (U.S. EPA 1992) made a
fundamental change in the way that WERs are experimentally
determined  (see Appendix A),  because the change is expected to
substantially increase the magnitude of many WERs.  Interest was
further focused on WERs when they were integrated into some of
the aquatic life criteria for metals that were promulgated by the
National Toxics Rule  (57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992).   The
newest guidance issued by the U.S. EPA (Prothro 1993)  concerning
aquatic life criteria for metals affected the determination and
use of WERs only insofar as it affected the use of total
recoverable and dissolved criteria.

The early guidance concerning WERs (U.S.  EPA 1983a,1984)
contained few details and needs revision, especially to take into
account newer guidance concerning metals  (U.S. EPA 1992; Prothro
1993) .   The guidance presented herein supersedes all guidance
concerning WERs and the Indicator Species Procedure given in
Chapter 4 of the Water Quality Standards Handbook (U.S. EPA
1983a)  and in U.S. EPA (1984).  All guidance presented in U.S.
EPA (1992) is superseded by that presented by Prothro  (1993) and
by this document.  Metals are specifically addressed herein
because of the National Toxics Rule (NTR) and because of current
interest in aquatic life criteria for metals; although most of
this guidance also applies to other pollutants, some obviously
applies only to metals.

Even though this document was prepared mainly because of the NTR,
the guidance contained herein concerning WERs is likely to have
impact beyond its use with the NTR.  Therefore, it is appropriate
to also present new guidance concerning the Recalculation
Procedure (see Appendix B) because the previous guidance  (U.S.
EPA 1983a,1984) concerning this procedure also contained few
details and needs revision.   The NTR does not allow use of the
Recalculation Procedure in jurisdictions subject to the NTR.

The previous guidance concerning site-specific procedures did not
allow the Recalculation Procedure and the WER procedure to be
used together in the derivation of a site-specific aquatic life
criterion; the only way to take into account both species

-------
composition and water quality characteristics in the
determination of a site-specific criterion was to use the
Resident Species Procedure.  A specific change contained herein
is that, except in jurisdictions that are subject to the NTR, the
Recalculation Procedure and the WER Procedure may now be used
together.  Additional reasons for addressing both the
Recalculation Procedure and the WER Procedure in this document
are that both procedures are based directly on the guidelines for
deriving national aquatic life criteria (U.S. EPA 1985)  and, when
the two are used together, use of the Recalculation Procedure has
specific implications concerning the determination of the WER.

This guidance is intended to produce WERs that may be used to
derive site-specific aquatic life criteria for metals from most
national and state aquatic life criteria that were derived from
laboratory toxicity data.  Except in jurisdictions that are
subject to the NTR, the WERs may also be used with site-specific
aquatic life criteria that are derived for metals using the
Recalculation Procedure described in Appendix B.  WERs obtained
using the methods described herein should not be used to adjust
aquatic life criteria that were derived for metals in other ways.
For example, because they are designed to be applied to criteria
derived on the basis of laboratory toxicity tests,  WERs
determined using the methods described herein cannot be used to
adjust the residue-based mercury Criterion Continuous
Concentration (CCC) or the field-based selenium freshwater
criterion.  For the purposes of the NTR,  WERs may be used with
the aquatic life criteria for arsenic,  cadmium,  chromium(III),
chromium(VI),  copper, lead, nickel, silver,  and zinc and with the
Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC)  for mercury.   WERs may also
be used with saltwater criteria for selenium.

The concept of a WER is rather simple:
   Two side-by-side toxicity tests are conducted -  one test using
   laboratory dilution water and the other using site water.  The
   endpoint obtained using site water is divided by the endpoint
   obtained using laboratory dilution water.  The quotient is the
   WER, which is multiplied times the national,  state,  or
   recalculated aquatic life criterion to calculate the site-
   specific criterion.
Although the concept is simple,  the determination and use of WERs
involves many considerations.

The primary purposes of this document are to:
1. Identify steps that should be taken before the determination
   of a WER is begun.
2. Describe the methods recommended by the U.S.  EPA for the
   determination of WERs.
3. Address some issues concerning the use of WERs.
4. Present new guidance concerning the Recalculation Procedure.

-------
Before Determining a WER

Because a national criterion is intended to protect aquatic life
in almost all bodies of water and because a WER is intended to
account for a difference between the toxicity of a metal in a
laboratory dilution water and its toxicity in a site water,
dischargers who want higher permit limits than those derived on
the basis of an existing aquatic life criterion will probably
consider determining a WER.  Use of a WER should be considered
only as a last resort for at least three reasons:
a. Even though some WERs will be substantially greater than 1.0,
   some will be about 1.0 and some will be less than 1.0.
b. The determination of a WER requires substantial resources.
c. There are other things that a discharger can do that might be
   more cost-effective than determining a WER.

The two situations in which the determination of a WER might
appear attractive to dischargers are when (a)  a discharge appears
to exceed existing or proposed water quality-based permit limits,
and (b) an instream concentration appears to exceed an existing
or proposed aquatic life criterion.  Such situations result from
measurement of the concentration of a metal in an effluent or a
surface water.  It would therefore seem reasonable to ensure that
such measurements were not subject to contamination.  Usually it
is much easier to verify chemical measurements by using "clean
techniques" for collecting, handling, storing, preparing,  and
analyzing samples, than to determine a WER.   Clean techniques and
some related QA/QC considerations are discussed in Appendix C.

In addition to investigating the use of "clean techniques", other
steps that a discharger should take prior to beginning the
experimental determination of a WER include:
1. Evaluate the potential for reducing the discharge of the
   metal.
2. Investigate such possible constraints on permit limits as
   antibacksliding and antidegradation requirements and human
   health and wildlife criteria.
3. Obtain assistance from an aquatic toxicologist who understands
   the basics of WERs  (see Appendix D), the U.S. EPA's national
   aquatic life guidelines  (U.S. EPA 1985),  the guidance
   presented by Prothro  (1993), the national criteria document
   for the metal(s) of concern  (see Appendix E), the procedures
   described by the U.S. EPA  (1993a,b,c) for acute and chronic
   toxicity tests on effluents and surface waters, and the
   procedures described by ASTM  (1993a,b,c,d,e) for acute and
   chronic toxicity tests in laboratory dilution water.
4. Develop an initial definition of the site to which the site-
   specific criterion is to apply.
5. Consider use of the Recalculation Procedure  (see Appendix B).
6. Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the determination of a WER.
   Comparative toxicity tests provide the most useful data, but
   chemical analysis of the downstream water might be helpful

-------
because the following are often true for some metals:
   a. The lower the percent of the total recoverable metal in the
      downstream water that is dissolved,  the higher the WER.
   b. The higher the concentration of total organic carbon (TOG)
      and/or total suspended solids (TSS),  the higher the WER.
   It is also true that the higher the concentration of nontoxic
   dissolved metal, the higher the WER.   Although some chemical
   analyses might provide useful information concerning the
   toxicities of some metals in water, at the present only
   toxicity tests can accurately reflect the toxicities of
   different forms of a metal (see Appendix D).
7. Submit a workplan for the experimental determination of the
   WER to the appropriate regulatory authority (and possibly to
   the Water Management Division of the EPA Regional Office)  for
   comment.  The workplan should include detailed descriptions of
   the site; existing criterion and standard; design flows; site
   water; effluent; sampling plan; procedures that will be used
   for collecting, handling, and analyzing samples of site water
   and effluent; primary and secondary toxicity tests; quality
   assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures;  Standard
   Operating Procedures  (SOPs);  and data interpretation.
After the workplan is completed, the initial phase should be
implemented; then the data obtained should be evaluated, and the
workplan should be revised if appropriate.   Developing and
modifying the workplan and analyzing and interpreting the data
should be a cooperative effort by a team of knowledgeable people.


Two Kinds of WERs

Most aquatic life criteria contain both a CMC and a CCC, and it
is usually possible to determine both a cmcWER and a cccWER.   The
two WERs cannot be assumed to be equal because the magnitude of a
WER will probably depend on the sensitivity of the toxicity test
used and on the percent effluent in the site water  (see Appendix
D), both of which can depend on which WER is to be determined.
In some cases, it is expected that a larger WER can be applied to
the CCC than to the CMC, and so it would be environmentally
conservative to apply cmcWERs to CCCs.  In such cases it is
possible to determine a cmcWER and apply it to both the CMC and
the CCC in order to derive a site-specific CMC,  a site-specific
CCC, and new permit limits.  If these new permit limits are
controlled by the new site-specific CCC, a cccWER could be
determined using a more sensitive test,  possibly raising the
site-specific CCC and the permit limits again.  A cccWER may, of
course, be determined whenever desired.   Unless the experimental
variation is increased, use of a cccWER will usually improve the
accuracy of the resulting site-specific CCC.

In some cases, a larger WER cannot be applied to the CCC than to
the CMC and so it might not be environmentally conservative to
apply a cmcWER to a CCC  (see section A.4 of Method 1).

-------
Steady-state and Dynamic Models

Some of the guidance contained herein specifically applies to
situations in which the permit limits were calculated using
steady-state modeling; in particular, some samples are to be
obtained when the actual stream flow is close to the design flow.
If permit limits were calculated using dynamic modeling,  the
guidance will have to be modified, but it is unclear at present
what modifications are most appropriate.   For example, it might
be useful to determine whether the magnitude of the WER is
related to the flow of the upstream water and/or the effluent.
Two Methods

Two methods are used to determine WERs.   Method 1 will probably
be used to determine all cmcWERs and most cccWERs because it can
be applied to situations that are in the vicinities of plumes.
Because WERs are likely to depend on the concentration of
effluent in the water and because the percent effluent in a water
sample obtained in the immediate vicinity of a plume is unknown,
simulated downstream water is used so that the percent effluent
in the sample is known.  For example, if a sample that was
supposed to represent a complete-mix situation was accidently
taken in the plume upstream of complete mix, the sample would
probably have a higher percent effluent and a higher WER than a
sample taken downstream of complete mix; use of the higher WER to
derive a site-specific criterion for the complete-mix situation
would result in underprotection.  If the sample were accidently
taken upstream of complete mix but outside the plume,
overprotection would probably result.

Method 1 will probably be used to determine all cmcWERs and most
cccWERs in flowing fresh waters, such as rivers and streams.
Method 1 is intended to apply not only to ordinary rivers and
streams but also to streams that some people might consider
extraordinary, such as streams whose design flows are zero and
streams that some state and/or federal agencies refer to as
"effluent-dependent", "habitat-creating", or "effluent-
dominated" .  Method 1 is also used to determine cmcWERs in such
large sites as oceans and large lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries
(see Appendix F).

Method 2 is used to determine WERs that apply outside the area of
plumes in large bodies of water.  Such WERs will be cccWERs and
will be determined using samples of actual site water obtained at
various times, locations, and depths in order to identify the
range of WERs that apply to the body of water.  These
experimentally determined WERs are then used to decide how many
site-specific criteria should be derived for the body of water
and what the criterion  (or criteria) should be.  Method 2
requires substantially more resources than Method 1.

-------
The complexity of each method increases when the number of metals
and/or the number of discharges is two or more:
a. The simplest  situation is when a WER is to be determined for
   only one metal and only one discharge has permit limits for
   that metal.   (This is the single-metal single-discharge
   situation.)
b. A more complex situation is when a WER is to be determined for
   only one metal, but more than one discharge has permit limits
   for that metal.   (This is the single-metal multiple-discharge
   situation.)
c. An even more  complex situation is when WERs are to be
   determined for more than one metal, but only one discharge has
   permit limits for any of the metals.  (This is the multiple-
   metal single-discharge situation.)
d. The most complex situation is when WERs are to be determined
   for more than one metal and more than one discharge has permit
   limits for some or all of the metals.  (This is the multiple-
   metal multiple-discharge situation.)
WERs need to  be  determined for each metal at each site because
extrapolation of a WER from one metal to another, one effluent to
another, or one  surface water to another is too uncertain.

Both methods  work well in multiple-metal situations, but special
tests or additional tests will be necessary to show that the
resulting combination of site-specific criteria will not be too
toxic.  Method 2 is better suited to multiple-discharge
situations than  is Method 1.  Appendix F provides additional
guidance concerning multiple-metal and multiple-discharge
situations, but  it does not discuss allocation of waste loads,
which is performed when a wasteload allocation (WLA) or a total
maximum daily load (TMDL)  is developed (U.S.  EPA 1991a).


Two Analytical Measurements

A total recoverable WER can be determined if the metal in both of
the side-by-side toxicity tests is analyzed using the total
recoverable measurement;  similarly,  a dissolved WER can be
determined if the metal in both tests is analyzed using the
dissolved measurement.   A total recoverable WER is used to
calculate a total recoverable site-specific criterion from an
aquatic life  criterion that is expressed using the total
recoverable measurement,  whereas a dissolved WER is used to
calculate a dissolved site-specific criterion from a criterion
that is expressed in terms of the dissolved measurement.   Figure
1 illustrates the relationships between total recoverable and
dissolved criteria,  WERs,  and the Recalculation Procedure.

Both Method 1 and Method 2 can be used to determine a total
recoverable WER and/or a dissolved WER.  The only difference in
the experimental procedure is whether the WER is based on
measurements of total recoverable metal or dissolved metal in the

-------
test solutions.  Both total recoverable and dissolved
measurements are to be performed for all tests to help judge the
quality of the tests, to provide a check on the analytical
chemistry, and to help understand the results; performing both
measurements also increases the alternatives available for use of
the results.  For example, a dissolved WER that is not useful
with a total recoverable criterion might be useful in the future
if a dissolved criterion becomes available.  Also, as explained
in Appendix D, except for experimental variation, use of a total
recoverable WER with a total recoverable criterion should produce
the same total recoverable permit limits as use of a dissolved
WER with a dissolved criterion; the internal consistency of the
approaches and the data can be evaluated if both total
recoverable and dissolved criteria and WERs are determined.  It
is expected that in many situations total recoverable WERs will
be larger and more variable than dissolved WERs.


The Quality of the Toxicity Tests

Traditionally, for practical reasons, the requirements concerning
such aspects as acclimation of test organisms to test temperature
and dilution water have not been as stringent for toxicity tests
on surface waters and effluents as for tests using laboratory
dilution water.  Because a WER is a ratio calculated from the
results of side-by-side tests, it might seem that acclimation is
not important for a WER as long as the organisms and conditions
are identical in the two tests.  Because WERs are used to adjust
aquatic life criteria that are derived from results of laboratory
tests, the tests conducted in laboratory dilution water for the
determination of WERs should be conducted in the same way as the
laboratory toxicity tests used in the derivation of aquatic life
criteria.  In the WER process, the tests in laboratory dilution
water provide the vital link between national criteria and site-
specific criteria, and so it is important to compare at least
some results obtained in the laboratory dilution water with
results obtained in at least one other laboratory.

Three important principles for making decisions concerning the
methodology for the side-by-side tests are:
1. The tests using laboratory dilution water should be conducted
   so that the results would be acceptable for use in the
   derivation of national criteria.
2. As much as  is feasible, the tests using site water should be
   conducted using the same procedures as the tests using  the
   laboratory dilution water.
3. All tests  should  follow any special requirements that are
   necessary because the  results are to be used  to calculate a
   WER.   Some  such special requirements are imposed because the
   criterion  for a rather complex situation is being changed
   based  on few data, so more  assurance is required that the data
   are high quality.

                                 8

-------
The most important special requirement is that the concentrations
of the metal are to be measured using both the total recoverable
and dissolved methods in all toxicity tests used for the
determination of a WER.  This requirement is necessary because
half of the tests conducted for the determination of WERs use a
site water in which the concentration of metal probably is not
negligible.  Because it is likely that the concentration of metal
in the laboratory dilution water is negligible,  assuming that the
concentration in both waters is negligible and basing WERs on the
amount of metal added would produce an unnecessarily low value
for the WER.  In addition, WERs are based on too few data to
assume that nominal concentrations are accurate.  Nominal
concentrations obviously cannot be used if a dissolved WER is to
be determined.  Measured dissolved concentrations at the
beginning and end of the test are used to judge the acceptability
of the test, and it is certainly reasonable to measure the total
recoverable concentration when the dissolved concentration is
measured.  Further, measuring the concentrations might lead to an
interpretation of the results that allows a substantially better
use of the WERs.
Conditions for Determining a WER

The appropriate regulatory authority might recommend that one or
more conditions be met when a WER is determined in order to
reduce the possibility of having to determine a new WER later:
1. Requirements that are in the existing permit concerning WET
   testing, Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE),  and/or
   Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)  (U.S.  EPA 1991a).
2. Implementation of pollution prevention efforts, such as
   pretreatment,  waste minimization, and source reduction.
3. A demonstration that applicable technology-based requirements
   are being met.
If one or more of these is not satisfied when the WER is
determined and is implemented later, it is likely that a new WER
will have to be determined because of the possibility of a change
in the composition of the effluent.

Even if all recommended conditions are satisfied, determination
of a WER might not be possible if the effluent, upstream water,
and/or downstream water are toxic to the test organisms.   In some
such cases, it might be possible to determine a WER,  but
remediation of the toxicity is likely to be required anyway.  It
is unlikely that a WER determined before remediation would be
considered acceptable for use after remediation.   If it is
desired to determine a WER before remediation and the toxicity is
in the upstream water, it might be possible to use a laboratory
dilution water or a water from a clean tributary in place of the
upstream water; if a substitute water is used, its water quality
characteristics should be similar to those of the upstream water
 (i.e., the pH should be within 0.2 pH units and the hardness,

-------
alkalinity, and concentrations of TSS and TOG should be within 10
% or 5 mg/L, whichever is greater,  of those in the upstream
water).   If the upstream water is chronically toxic,  but not
acutely toxic, it might be possible to determine a cmcWER even if
a cccWER cannot be determined; a cmcWER might not be useful,
however, if the permit limits are controlled by the CCC; in such
a case,  it would probably not be acceptable to assume that the
cmcWER is an environmentally conservative estimate of the cccWER.
If the WER is determined using downstream water and the toxicity
is due to the effluent, tests at lower concentrations of the
effluent might give an indication of the amount of remediation
needed.
Conditions for Using a WER

Besides requiring that the WER be valid,  the appropriate
regulatory authority might consider imposing other conditions for
the approval of a site-specific criterion based on the WER:
1. Periodic reevaluation of the WER.
   a. WERs determined in upstream water take into account
      constituents contributed by point and nonpoint sources and
      natural runoff; thus a WER should be reevaluated whenever
      newly implemented controls or other changes substantially
      affect such factors as hardness,  alkalinity, pH, suspended
      solids, organic carbon, or other toxic materials.
   b. Most WERs determined using downstream water are influenced
      more by the effluent than the upstream water.  Downstream
      WERs should be reevaluated whenever newly implemented
      controls or other changes might substantially impact the
      effluent, i.e., might impact the forms and concentrations
      of the metal, hardness, alkalinity, pH, suspended solids,
      organic carbon, or other toxic materials.  A special
      concern is the possibility of a shift from discharge of
      nontoxic metal to discharge of toxic metal such that the
      concentration of the metal does not increase; analytical
      chemistry might not detect the change but toxicity tests
      would.
   Even if no changes are known to have occurred, WERs should be
   reevaluated periodically.   (The NTR recommends that NPDES
   permits include periodic determinations of WERs in the
   monitoring requirements.)  With advance planning, it should
   usually be possible to perform such reevaluations under
   conditions that are at least reasonably similar to those that
   control the permit limits  (e.g., either design-flow or high-
   flow conditions) because there should be a reasonably long
   period of time during which the reevaluation can be performed.
   Periodic determination of WERs should be designed to answer
   questions, not just generate data.
2. Increased chemical monitoring of the upstream water, effluent,
   and/or downstream water, as appropriate, for water quality
   characteristics that probably affect the toxicity of the metal

                                10

-------
 (e.g., hardness, alkalinity, pH, TOG, and TSS) to determine
whether conditions change.  The conditions at the times the
samples were obtained should be kept on record for reference.
The WER should be reevaluated whenever hardness, alkalinity, pH,
TOC, and/or TSS decrease below the values that existed when the
WERs were determined.
3.  Periodic reevaluation of the environmental fate of the metal
   in the effluent (see Appendix A).
4.  WET testing.
5.  Instream bioassessments.

Decisions concerning the possible imposition of such conditions
should take into account:
a.  The ratio of the new and old criteria.  The greater the
   increase in the criterion, the more concern there should be
   about  (1) the fate of any nontoxic metal that contributes to
   the WER and  (2)  changes in water quality that might occur
   within the site.  The imposition of one or more conditions
   should be considered if the WER is used to raise the criterion
   by, for example, a factor of two, and especially if it is
   raised by a factor of five or more.  The significance of the
   magnitude of the ratio can be judged by comparison with the
   acute-chronic ratio,  the factor of two that is the ratio of
   the FAV to the CMC, and the range of sensitivities of species
   in the criteria document for the metal (see Appendix E).
b.  The size of the site.
c.  The size of the discharge.
d.  The rate of downstream dilution.
e.  Whether the CMC or the CCC controls the permit limits.
When WERs are determined using upstream water, conditions on the
use of a WER are more likely when the water contains an effluent
that increases the WER by adding TOC and/or TSS, because the WER
will be larger and any decrease in the discharge of such TOC
and/or TSS might decrease the WER and result in underprotection.
A WER determined using downstream water is likely to be larger
and quite dependent on the composition of the effluent; there
should be concern about whether a change in the effluent might
result in underprotection at some time in the future.


Implementation Considerations

In some situations a discharger might not want to or might not be
allowed to raise a criterion as much as could be justified by a
WER:
1.  The maximum possible increase is not needed and raising the
   criterion more than needed might greatly raise the cost if a
   greater increase would require more tests and/or increase the
   conditions imposed on approval of the site-specific criterion.
2.  Such other constraints as antibacksliding or antidegradation
   requirements or human health or wildlife criteria might limit
   the amount of increase regardless of the magnitude of the WER.

                                11

-------
3.  The permit limits might be limited by an aquatic life
   criterion that applies outside the site.  It is EPA policy
   that permit limits cannot be so high that they inadequately
   protect a portion of the same or a different body of water
   that is outside the site; nothing contained herein changes
   this policy in any way.
If no increase in the existing discharge is allowed, the only use
of a WER will be to determine whether an existing discharge needs
to be reduced.  Thus a major use of WERs might be where
technology-based controls allow concentrations in surface waters
to exceed national, state, or recalculated aquatic life criteria.
In this case, it might only be necessary to determine that the
WER is greater than a particular value; it might not be necessary
to quantify the WER.  When possible, it might be desirable to
show that the maximum WER is greater than the WER that will be
used in order to demonstrate that a margin of safety exists, but
again it might not be necessary to quantify the maximum WER.

In jurisdictions not subject to the NTR, WERs should be used to
derive site-specific criteria, not just to calculate permit
limits, because data obtained from ambient monitoring should be
interpreted by comparison with ambient criteria.  (This is not a
problem in jurisdictions subject to the NTR because the NTR
defines the ambient criterion as "WER x the EPA criterion".)  If
a WER is used to adjust permit limits without adjusting the
criterion, the permit limits would allow the criterion to be
exceeded.  Thus the WER should be used to calculate a site-
specific criterion, which should then be used to calculate permit
limits.  In some states, site-specific criteria can only be
adopted as revised criteria in a separate, independent water
quality standards review process.  In other states,  site-specific
criteria can be developed in conjunction with the NPDES
permitting process, as long as the adoption of a site-specific
criterion satisfies the pertinent water quality standards
procedural requirements (i.e., a public notice and a public
hearing).  In either case, site-specific criteria are to be
adopted prior to NPDES permit issuance.  Moreover, the EPA
Regional Administrator has authority to approve or disapprove all
new and revised site-specific criteria and to review NPDES
permits to verify compliance with the applicable water quality
criteria.

Other aspects of the use of WERs in connection with permit
limits, WLAs, and TMDLs are outside the scope of this document.
The Technical Support Document  (U.S. EPA 1991a) and Prothro
 (1993) provide more information concerning implementation
procedures.  Nothing contained herein should be interpreted as
changing the three-part approach that EPA uses to protect aquatic
life:  (1) numeric chemical-specific water quality criteria for
individual pollutants,  (2) whole effluent toxicity  (WET) testing,
and  (3)  instream bioassessments.
                                12

-------
Even though there are similarities between WET testing and the
determination of WERs, there are important differences.  For
example, WERs can be used to derive site-specific criteria for
individual pollutants, but WET testing cannot.  The difference
between WET testing and the determination of WERs is less when
the toxicity tests used in the determination of the WER are ones
that are used in WET testing.  If a WER is used to make a large
change in a criterion, additional WET testing and/or instream
bioassessments are likely to be recommended.


The Sample-Specific WER Approach

A major problem with the determination and use of aquatic life
criteria for metals is that no analytical measurement or
combination of measurements has yet been shown to explain the
toxicity of a metal to aquatic plants, invertebrates, amphibians,
and fishes over the relevant range of conditions in surface
waters  (see Appendix D).   It is not just that insufficient data
exist to justify a relationship; rather, existing data possibly
contradict some ideas that could possibly be very useful if true.
For example, the concentration of free metal ion could possibly
be a useful basis for expressing water quality criteria for
metals if it could be feasible and could be used in a way that
does not result in widespread underprotection of aquatic life.
Some available data,  however, might contradict the idea that the
toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms is proportional to the
concentration or the activity of the cupric ion.   Evaluating the
usefulness of any approach based on metal speciation is difficult
until it is known how many of the species of the metal are toxic,
what the relative toxicities are, whether they are additive (if
more than one is toxic),  and the quantitative effects of the
factors that have major impacts on the bioavailability and/or
toxicity of the toxic species.   Just as it is not easy to find a
useful quantitative relationship between the analytical chemistry
of metals and the toxicity of metals to aquatic life, it is also
not easy to find a qualitative relationship that can be used to
provide adequate protection for the aquatic life in almost all
bodies of water without  providing as much overprotection for some
bodies of water as results from use of the total recoverable and
dissolved measurements.

The U.S. EPA cannot ignore the existence of pollution problems
and delay setting aquatic life criteria until all scientific
issues have been adequately resolved.   In light of uncertainty,
the agency needs to derive criteria that are environmentally
conservative in most  bodies of water.   Because of uncertainty
concerning the relationship between the analytical chemistry and
the toxicity of metals,  aquatic life criteria for metals are
expressed in terms of analytical measurements that result in the
criteria providing more  protection than necessary for the aquatic
life in most bodies of water.  The agency has provided for the

                               13

-------
use of WERs to address the general conservatism,  but expects that
some WERs will be less than 1.0 because national,  state,  and
recalculated criteria are not necessarily environmentally
conservative for all bodies of water.

It has become obvious, however, that the determination and use of
WERs is not a simple solution to the existing general
conservatism.  It is likely that a permanent solution will have
to be based on an adequate quantitative explanation of how metals
and aquatic organisms interact.  In the meantime,  the use of
total recoverable and dissolved measurements to express criteria
and the use of site-specific criteria are intended to provide
adequate protection for almost all bodies of water without
excessive overprotection for too many bodies of water.  Work
needs to continue on the permanent solution and,  just in case, on
improved alternative approaches.

Use of WERs to derive site-specific criteria is intended to allow
a reduction or elimination of the general overprotection
associated with application of a national criterion to individual
bodies of water, but a major problem is that a WER will rarely be
constant over time, location, and depth in a body of water due to
plumes, mixing, and resuspension.  It is possible that dissolved
concentrations and WERs will be less variable than total
recoverable ones.  It might also be possible to reduce the impact
of the heterogeneity if WERs are additive across time, location,
and depth (see Appendix G).   Regardless of what approaches,
tools, hypotheses, and assumptions are utilized,  variation will
exist and WERs will have to be used in a conservative manner.
Because of variation between bodies of water, national criteria
are derived to be environmentally conservative for most bodies of
water, whereas the WER procedure, which is intended to reduce the
general conservatism of national criteria, has to be conservative
because of variation among WERs within a body of water.

The conservatism introduced by variation among WERs is due not to
the concept of WERs, but to the way they are used.  The reason
that national criteria are conservative in the first place is the
uncertainty concerning the linkage of analytical chemistry and
toxicity; the toxicity of solutions can be measured, but toxicity
cannot be modelled adequately using available chemical
measurements.  Similarly, the current way that WERs are used
depends on a linkage between analytical chemistry and toxicity
because WERs are used to derive site-specific criteria that are
expressed in terms of chemical measurements.

Without changing the amount or kind of toxicity testing that is
performed when WERs are determined using Method 2, a different
way of using the WERs could avoid some of the problems introduced
by the dependence on analytical chemistry.  The "sample-specific
WER approach" could consist of sampling a body of water at a
number of locations, determining the WER for each sample, and

                                14

-------
measuring the concentration of the metal in each sample.  Then
for each individual sample, a quotient would be calculated by
dividing the concentration of metal in the sample by the product
of the national criterion times the WER obtained for that sample.
Except for experimental variation, when the quotient for a sample
is less than 1, the concentration of metal in that sample is
acceptable; when the quotient for a sample is greater than 1, the
concentration of metal in that sample is too high.  As a check,
both the total recoverable measurement and the dissolved
measurement should be used because they should provide the same
answer if everything is done correctly and accurately.  This
approach can also be used whenever Method 1 is used; although
Method 1 is used with simulated downstream water, the sample-
specific WER approach can be used with either simulated
downstream water or actual downstream water.

This sample-specific WER approach has several interesting
features:
1. It is not a different way of determining WERs; it is merely a
   different way of using the WERs that are determined.
2. Variation among WERs within a body of water is not a problem.
3. It eliminates problems concerning the unknown relationship
   between toxicity and analytical chemistry.
4. It works equally well in areas that are in or near plumes and
   in areas that are away from plumes.
5. It works equally well in single-discharge and multiple-
   discharge situations.
6. It automatically accounts for synergism,  antagonism, and
   additivity between toxicants.
This way of using WERs is equivalent to expressing the national
criterion for a pollutant in terms of toxicity tests whose
endpoints equal the CMC and the CCC; if the site water causes
less adverse effect than is defined to be the endpoint, the
concentration of that pollutant in the site water does not exceed
the national criterion.  This sample-specific WER approach does
not directly fit into the current framework wherein criteria are
derived and then permit limits are calculated from the criteria.

If the sample-specific WER approach were to produce a number of
quotients that are greater than 1, it would seem that the
concentration of metal in the discharge(s)  should be reduced
enough that the quotient is not greater than 1.   Although this
might sound straightforward,  the discharger(s)  would find that a
substantial reduction in the discharge of a metal would not
achieve the intended result if the reduction was due to removal
of nontoxic metal.   A chemical monitoring approach that cannot
differentiate between toxic and nontoxic metal would not detect
that only nontoxic metal had been removed,  but the sample-
specific WER approach would.
                                15

-------
Figure  1:  Four Ways  to Derive  a  Permit Limit
                              Total Recoverable Criterion
                                _v
                                                      _v
                                               _v
                                                                       \/
                                         Recalculation
                                           Procedure
    Total
 Recoverable
  cmcWER
and/or cccWER
                                                  Total Recoverable
                                                 Site-specific Criterion
                              Total Recoverable Permit Limit
         Dissolved Criterion  =  (TR Criterion) (% dissolved hi toxicity tests)
                                                           v
                                                v
                                          Recalculation
                                           Procedure
                                                    \/
   Dissolved
  cmcWER
 and/or cccWER
                                                                  \/
                                                    Dissolved Site-
                                                   specific Criterion
        Net % contribution from the total recoverable metal hi the effluent
        to the dissolved metal hi the downstream water.  (This will probably
        change if the total recoverable concentration hi the effluent changes.)
                            Total Recoverable Permit Limit
  For both the total recoverable and dissolved measurements, derivation of an
  optional site-specific criterion is described on the right.  If both the
  Recalculation Procedure and the WER procedure are used, the Recalculation
  Procedure must be performed first. (The Recalculation Procedure cannot be
  used hi jurisdictions that are subject to the National Toxics Rule.)
                                           16

-------
METHOD 1: DETERMINING WERs FOR AREAS IN OR NEAR PLUMES
Method 1 is based on the determination of WERs using simulated
downstream water and so it can be used to determine a WER that
applies in the vicinity of a plume.  Use of simulated downstream
water ensures that the concentration of effluent in the site
water is known, which is important because the magnitude of the
WER will often depend on the concentration of effluent in the
downstream water.  Knowing the concentration of effluent makes it
possible to quantitatively relate the WER to the effluent.
Method 1 can be used to determine either cmcWERs or cccWERs or
both in single-metal, flowing freshwater situations, including
streams whose design flow is zero and "effluent-dependent"
streams (see Appendix F).   As is also explained in Appendix F,
Method 1 is used when cmcWERs are determined for "large sites",
although Method 2 is used when cccWERs are determined for "large
sites".  In addition, Appendix F addresses special considerations
regarding multiple-metal and/or multiple-discharge situations.

Neither Method 1 nor Method 2 covers all important methodological
details for conducting the side-by-side toxicity tests that are
necessary in order to determine a WER.  Many references are made
to information published by the U.S. EPA (1993a,b,c) concerning
toxicity tests on effluents and surface waters and by ASTM
(1993a,b,c,d,e,f) concerning tests in laboratory dilution water.
Method 1 addresses aspects of toxicity tests that (a)  need
special attention when determining WERs and/or (b)  are usually
different for tests conducted on effluents and tests conducted in
laboratory dilution water.  Appendix H provides additional
information concerning toxicity tests with saltwater species.


A. Experimental Design

   Because of the variety of considerations that have important
   implications for the determination of a WER, decisions
   concerning experimental design should be given careful
   attention and need to answer the following questions:
   1. Should WERs be determined using upstream water,  actual
      downstream water,  and/or simulated downstream water?
   2. Should WERs be determined when the stream flow is equal to,
      higher than,  and/or lower than the design flow?
   3. Which toxicity tests should be used?
   4. Should a cmcWER or a cccWER or both be determined?
   5. How should a FWER be derived?
   6. For metals whose criteria are hardness-dependent,  at what
      hardness should WERs be determined?
   The answers to these questions should be based on the reason
   that WERs are determined, but the decisions should also take
   into account some practical considerations.
                                17

-------
1.   Should WERs be determined using upstream water,  actual
    downstream water,  and/or simulated downstream water?

    a.  Upstream water provides the least complicated way of
       determining and using WERs because plumes,  mixing
       zones,  and effluent variability do not have to be taken
       into account.   Use of upstream water provides the least
       useful  WERs because it does not take into account the
       presence of the effluent,  which is the source of the
       metal.   It is easy to assume that upstream water will
       give smaller WERs than downstream water,  but  in some
       cases downstream water might give smaller WERs (see
       Appendix G).   Regardless of whether upstream water
       gives smaller or larger WERs,  a WER should be
       determined using the water to which the site-specific
       criterion is to apply (see Appendix A).

    b.  Actual  downstream water might seem to be the  most
       pertinent water to use when WERs are determined,  but
       whether this is true depends on what use is to be made
       of the  WERs.   WERs determined using actual downstream
       water can be quantitatively interpreted using the
       sample-specific WER approach described at the end of
       the Introduction.  If, however, it is desired to
       understand the quantitative implications of a WER for
       an effluent of concern,  use of actual downstream water
       is problematic because the concentration of effluent in
       the water can only be known approximately.

       Sampling actual downstream water in areas that are in
       or near plumes is especially difficult.   The  WER
       obtained is likely to depend on where the sample is
       taken because the WER will probably depend on the
       percent effluent in the sample (see Appendix  D).   The
       sample  could be taken at the end of the pipe, at the
       edge of the acute mixing zone, at the edge of the
       chronic mixing zone, or in a completely mixed
       situation.  If the sample is taken at the edge of a
       mixing  zone,  the composition of the sample will
       probably differ from one point to another along the
       edge of the mixing zone.

       If samples of actual downstream water are to  be taken
       close to a discharge, the mixing patterns and plumes
       should be well known.  Dye dispersion studies
       (Kilpatrick 1992) are commonly used to determine
       isopleths of effluent concentration and complete mix;
       dilution models  (U.S. EPA 1993d)  might also be helpful
       when selecting sampling locations.  The most  useful
       samples of actual downstream water are probably those
       taken just downstream of the point at which complete
       mix occurs or at the most distant point that  is within

                             18

-------
the site to which the site-specific criterion is to
apply.  When samples are collected from a complete-mix
situation, it might be appropriate to composite samples
taken over a cross section of the stream.  Regardless
of where it is decided conceptually that a sample
should be taken, it might be difficult to identify
where the point exists in the stream and how it changes
with flow and over time.  In addition, if it is not
known exactly what the sample actually represents,
there is no way to know how reproducible the sample is.
These problems make it difficult to relate WERs
determined in actual downstream water to an effluent of
concern because the concentration of effluent in the
sample is not known; this is not a problem,  however, if
the sample-specific WER approach is used to interpret
the results.

Simulated downstream water would seem to be the most
unnatural of the three kinds of water, but it offers
several important advantages because effluent and
upstream water are mixed at a known ratio.  This is
important because the magnitude of the WER will often
depend on the concentration of effluent in the
downstream water.  Mixtures can be prepared to simulate
the ratio of effluent and upstream water that exists at
the edge of the acute mixing zone, at the edge of the
chronic mixing zone, at complete mix, or at any other
point of interest.  If desired, a sample of effluent
can be mixed with a sample on upstream water in
different ratios to simulate different points in a
stream.  Also, the ratio used can be one that simulates
conditions at design flow or at any other flow.

The sample-specific WER approach can be used with both
actual and simulated downstream water.  Additional
quantitative uses can be made of WERs determined using
simulated downstream water because the percent effluent
in the water is known, which allows quantitative
extrapolations to the effluent.  In addition, simulated
downstream water can be used to determine the variation
in the WER that is due to variation in the effluent.
It also allows comparison of two or more effluents and
determination of the interactions of two or more
effluents.  Additivity of WERs can be studied using
simulated downstream water (see Appendix G); studies of
toxicity within plumes and studies of whether increased
flow of upstream water can increase toxicity are both
studies of additivity of WERs.  Use of simulated
downstream water also makes it possible to conduct
controlled studies of changes in WERs due to aging and
changes in pH.
                      19

-------
    In Method 1,  therefore,  WERs are determined using
    simulated downstream water that is prepared by mixing
    samples of effluent and upstream water in an appropriate
    ratio.   Most importantly,  Method 1 can be used to
    determine a WER that applies in the vicinity of a plume
    and can be quantitatively extrapolated to the effluent.

2.   Should WERs be determined when the stream flow is equal
    to, higher than,  and/or lower than the design flow?

    WERs are used in the derivation of site-specific criteria
    when it is desired that permit limits be based on a
    criterion that takes into account the characteristics of
    the water and/or the metal at the site.   In most cases,
    permit limits are calculated using steady-state models and
    are based on a design flow.   It is therefore important
    that WERs be adequately protective under design-flow
    conditions, which might be expected to require that some
    sets of samples of effluent  and upstream water be obtained
    when the actual stream flow is close to the design flow.
    Collecting samples when the  stream flow is close to the
    design flow will limit a WER determination to the low-flow
    season (e.g., from mid-July to mid-October in some places)
    and to years in which the flow is sufficiently low.

    It is also important, however, that WERs that are applied
    at design flow provide adequate protection at higher
    flows.   Generalizations concerning the impact of higher
    flows on WERs are difficult  because such flows might (a)
    reduce hardness,  alkalinity, and pH,  (b)  increase or
    decrease the concentrations  of TOG and TSS, (c)  resuspend
    toxic and/or nontoxic metal  from the sediment, and (d)
    wash additional pollutants into the water.  Acidic
    snowmelt, for example, might lower the WER both by
    diluting the WER and by reducing the hardness, alkalinity,
    and pH; if substantial labile metal is present,  the WER
    might be lowered more than the concentration of the metal,
    possibly resulting in increased toxicity at flows higher
    than design flow.  Samples taken at higher flows might
    give smaller WERs because the concentration of the
    effluent is more dilute; however, total recoverable WERs
    might be larger if the sample is taken just after an event
    that greatly increases the concentration of TSS and/or TOG
    because this might increase both (1)  the concentration of
    nontoxic particulate metal in the water and (2)  the
    capacity of the water to sorb and detoxify metal.

    WERs are not of concern when the stream flow is lower than
    the design flow because these are acknowledged times of
    reduced protection.  Reduced protection might not occur,
    however, if the WER is sufficiently high when the flow is
    lower than design flow.

                             20

-------
3.   Which toxicity tests should be used?

    a. As explained in Appendix D, the magnitude of an
       experimentally determined WER is likely to depend on
       the sensitivity of the toxicity test used.  This
       relationship between the magnitude of the WER and the
       sensitivity of the toxicity test is due to the aqueous
       chemistry of metals and is not related to the test
       organisms or the type of test.  The available data
       indicate that WERs determined with different tests do
       not differ greatly if the tests have about the same
       sensitivities, but the data also support the
       generalization that less sensitive toxicity tests
       usually give smaller WERs than more sensitive tests
       (see Appendix D).
    b. When the CCC is lower than the CMC, it is likely that a
       larger WER will result from tests that are sensitive at
       the CCC than from tests that are sensitive at the CMC.
    c. The considerations concerning the sensitivities of two
       tests should also apply to two endpoints for the same
       test.  For any lethality test, use of the LC25 is
       likely to result in a larger WER than use of the LC50,
       although the difference might not be measurable in most
       cases and the LC25 is likely to be more variable than
       the LC50.  Selecting the percent effect to be used to
       define the endpoint might take into account (a)  whether
       the endpoint is above or below the CMC and/or the CCC
       and  (b)  the data obtained when tests are conducted.
       Once the percent effect is selected for a particular
       test (e.g., a 48-hr LC50 with 1-day-old fathead
       minnows), the same percent effect must be used whenever
       that test is used to determine a WER for that effluent.
       Similarly, if two different tests with the same species
       (e.g.,  a lethality test and a sublethal test)  have
       substantially different sensitivities,  both a cmcWER
       and a cccWER could be obtained with the same species.
    d. The primary toxicity test used in the determination of
       a WER should have an endpoint in laboratory dilution
       water that is close to,  but not lower than, the CMC
       and/or CCC to which the WER is to be applied.
    e. Because the endpoint of the primary test in laboratory
       dilution water cannot be lower than the CMC and/or CCC,
       the magnitude of the WER is likely to become closer to
       1 as the endpoint of the primary test becomes closer to
       the CMC and/or CCC (see Appendix D).
    f. The WER obtained with the primary test should be
       confirmed with a secondary test that uses a species
       that is taxonomically different from the species used
       in the primary test.
       1)  The endpoint of the secondary test may be higher or
          lower than the CMC,  the CCC,  or the endpoint of the
          primary test.

                            21

-------
   2)  Because of the limited number of toxicity tests that
      have sensitivities near the CMC or CCC for a metal,
      it seems unreasonable to require that the two
      species be further apart taxonomically than being in
      different orders.
   Two different endpoints with the same species must not
   be used as the primary and secondary tests,  even if one
   endpoint is lethal and the other is sublethal.
g. If more sensitive toxicity tests generally give larger
   WERs than less sensitive tests, the maximum value of a
   WER will usually be obtained using a toxicity test
   whose endpoint in laboratory dilution water equals the
   CMC or CMC.  If such a test is not used, the maximum
   possible WER probably will not be obtained.
h. No rationale exists to support the idea that different
   species or tests with the same sensitivity will produce
   different WERs.  Because the mode of action might
   differ from species to species and/or from effect to
   effect, it is easy to speculate that in some cases the
   magnitude of a WER will depend to some extent on the
   species, life stage, and/or kind of test, but no data
   are available to support conclusions concerning the
   existence and/or magnitude of any such differences.
i. If the tests are otherwise acceptable, both cmcWERs and
   cccWERs may be determined using acute and/or chronic
   tests and using lethal and/or sublethal endpoints.  The
   important consideration is the sensitivity of the test,
   not the duration, species, life stage, or adverse
   effect used.
j. There is no reason to use species that occur at the
   site; they may be used in the determination of a WER if
   desired, but:
   1)  It might be difficult to determine which of the
      species that occur at the site are sensitive to the
      metal and are adaptable to laboratory conditions.
   2)  Species that occur at the site might be harder to
      obtain in sufficient numbers for conducting toxicity
      tests over the testing period.
   3)  Additional QA tests will probably be needed (see
      section C.3.b) because data are not likely to be
      available from other laboratories for comparison
      with the results in laboratory dilution water.
k. Because a WER is a ratio of results obtained with the
   same test in two different dilution waters,  toxicity
   tests that are used in WET testing, for example,  may be
   used, even if the national aquatic life guidelines
   (U.S. EPA 1985) do not allow use of the test in the
   derivation of an aquatic life criterion.  Of course, a
   test whose endpoint in laboratory dilution water is
   below the CMC and/or CCC that is to be adjusted cannot
   be used as a primary test.
                         22

-------
    1. Because there is no rationale that suggest that it
       makes any difference whether the test is conducted with
       a species that is warmwater or coldwater, a fish or an
       invertebrate, or resident or nonresident at the site,
       other than the fact that less sensitive tests are
       likely to give smaller WERs, such considerations as the
       availability of test organisms might be important in
       the selection of the test.  Information in Appendix I,
       a criteria document for the metal of concern  (see
       Appendix E),  or any other pertinent source might be
       useful when selecting primary and secondary tests.
    m. A test in which the test organisms are not fed might
       give a different WER than a test in which the organisms
       are fed just because of the presence of the food  (see
       Appendix D).   This might depend on the metal,  the type
       and amount of food, and whether a total recoverable or
       dissolved WER is determined.
    Different tests with similar sensitivities are expected to
    give similar WERs,  except for experimental variation.  The
    purpose of the secondary test is to provide information
    concerning this assumption and the validity of the WER.

4.   Should a cmcWER or a cccWER or both be determined?

    This question does not have to be answered if the
    criterion for the site contains either a CMC or a CCC but
    not both.  For example,  a body of water that is protected
    for put-and-take fishing might have only a CMC,  whereas a
    stream whose design flow is zero might have only a CCC.

    When the criterion contains both a CMC and a CCC, the
    simplistic way to answer the question is to determine
    whether the CMC or the CCC controls the existing permit
    limits; which one is controlling depends on (a)  the ratio
    of the CMC to the CCC,  (b)  whether the number of  mixing
    zones is zero,  one,  or two,  and (c)  which steady-state or
    dynamic model was used in the calculation of the  permit
    limits.  A better way to answer the question would be to
    also determine how much the controlling value would have
    to be changed for the other value to become controlling;
    this might indicate that it would not be cost-effective to
    derive, for example,  a site-specific CMC (ssCMC)  without
    also deriving a  site-specific CCC (ssCCC).   There are also
    other possibilities:  (1)  It might be appropriate  to use a
    phased approach,  i.e.,  determine either the cmcWER or the
    cccWER and then  decide whether to determine the  other.
    (2)  It might  be  appropriate and environmentally
    conservative  to  determine a WER that can be applied to
    both the CMC  and the CCC.   (3)  It is always allowable to
    determine and use both a cmcWER and a cccWER,  although
    both can be determined only if toxicity tests with
    appropriate sensitivities are available.

                            23

-------
Because the phased approach can always be used,  it is only
important to decide whether to use a different approach
when its use might be cost-effective.  Deciding whether to
use a different approach and selecting which one to use is
complex because a number of considerations need to be
taken into account:
a. Is the CMC equal to or higher than the CCC?
      If the CMC equals the CCC, two WERs cannot be
      determined if they would be determined using the
      same site water, but two WERs could be determined if
      the cmcWER and the cccWER would be determined using
      different site waters, e.g., waters that contain
      different concentrations of the effluent.
b. If the CMC is higher than the CCC, is there a toxicity
   test whose endpoint in laboratory dilution water is
   between the CMC and the CCC?
      If the CMC is higher than the CCC and there is a
      toxicity test whose endpoint in laboratory dilution
      water is between the CMC and the CCC, both a cmcWER
      and a cccWER can be determined.  If the CMC is
      higher than the CCC but no toxicity test has an
      endpoint in laboratory dilution water between the
      CMC and the CCC, two WERs cannot be determined if
      they would be determined using the same site water;
      two WERs could be determined if they were determined
      using different site waters, e.g., waters that
      contain different concentrations of the effluent.
c. Was a steady-state or a dynamic model used in the
   calculation of the permit limits?
      It is complex, but reasonably clear, how to make a
      decision when a steady-state model was used, but it
      is not clear how a decision should be made when a
      dynamic model was used.
d. If a steady-state model was used, were one or two
   design flows used, i.e., was the hydrologically based
   steady-state method used or was the biologically based
   steady-state method used?
      When the hydrologically based method is used, one
      design flow is used for both the CMC and the CCC,
      whereas when the biologically based method is used,
      there is a CMC design flow and a CCC design flow.
      When WERs are determined using downstream water, use
      of the biologically based method will probably cause
      the percent effluent  in the site water used in the
      determination of the  cmcWER to be different from the
      percent effluent in the site water used in the
      determination of the  cccWER; thus the two WERs
      should be determined  using two different site
      waters.  This does not impact WERs determined using
      upstream water.
                         24

-------
e. Is there an acute mixing zone?  Is there a chronic
   mixing zone?
      1. When WERs are determined using upstream water,
         the presence or absence of mixing zones has no
         impact; the cmcWER and the cccWER will both be
         determined using site water that contains zero
         percent effluent, i.e., the two WERs will be
         determined using the same site water.
      2. Even when downstream water is used, whether there
         is an acute mixing zone affects the point of
         application of the CMC or ssCMC, but it does not
         affect the determination of any WER.
      3. The existence of a chronic mixing zone has
         important implications for the determination of
         WERs when downstream water is used  (see Appendix
         A).  When WERs are determined using downstream
         water, the cmcWER should be determined using
         water at the edge of the chronic mixing zone,
         whereas the cccWER should be determined using
         water from a complete-mix situation.   (If the
         biologically based method is used,  the two
         different design flows should also be taken into
         account when determining the percent effluent
         that should be in the simulated downstream
         water.)  Thus the percent effluent in the site
         water used in the determination of the cmcWER
         will be different from the percent effluent in
         the site water used in the determination of the
         cccWER; this is important because the magnitude
         of a WER will often depend substantially on the
         percent effluent in the water (see Appendix D).
f. In what situations would it be environmentally
   conservative to determine one WER and use it to adjust
   both the cmcWER and the cccWER?
      Because  (1)  the CMC is never lower than the CCC and
      (2)  a more sensitive test will generally give a WER
      closer to 1,  it will be environmentally conservative
      to use a cmcWER to adjust a CCC when there are no
      contradicting considerations.  In this case,  a
      cmcWER can be determined and used to adjust both the
      CMC and the CCC.  Because water quality can affect
      the WER,  this approach is necessarily valid only if
      the cmcWER and the cccWER are determined in the same
      site water.   Other situations in which it would be
      environmentally conservative to use one WER to
      adjust both the CMC and the CCC are described below.
These considerations have one set of implications when
both the cmcWER and cccWER are to be determined using the
same site water, and another set of implications when the
two WERs are to be determined using different site waters,
e.g., when the site waters contain different
concentrations of effluent.

                        25

-------
When WERs are determined using upstream water,  the same
site water is used in the determination of both the cmcWER
and the cccWER.  Whenever the two WERs are determined in
the same site water,  any difference in the magnitude of
the cmcWER and the cccWER will probably be due to the
sensitivities of the toxicity tests used.   Therefore:
a. If more sensitive toxicity tests generally give larger
   WERs than less sensitive tests, the maximum cccWER (a
   cccWER determined with a test whose endpoint equals the
   CCC) will usually be larger than the maximum cmcWER
   because the CCC is never higher than the CMC.
b. Because the CCC is never higher than the CMC,  the
   maximum cmcWER will usually be smaller than the maximum
   cccWER and it will be environmentally conservative to
   use the cmcWER to adjust the CCC.
c. A cccWER can be determined separately from a cmcWER
   only if there is a toxicity test with an endpoint in
   laboratory dilution water that is between the CMC and
   the CCC.  If no such test exists or can be devised,
   only a cmcWER can be determined, but it can be used to
   adjust both the CMC and the CCC.
d. Unless the experimental variation is increased, use of
   a cccWER, instead of a cmcWER, to adjust the CCC will
   usually improve the accuracy of the resulting site-
   specific CCC.  Thus a cccWER may be determined and used
   whenever desired,  if a toxicity test has an endpoint in
   laboratory dilution water between the CMC and the CCC.
e. A cccWER cannot be used to adjust a CMC if the cccWER
   was determined using an endpoint that was lower than
   the CMC in laboratory dilution water because it will
   probably reduce the level of protection.
f. Even if there is a toxicity test that has an endpoint
   in laboratory dilution water that is between the CMC
   and the CCC, it is not necessary to decide initially
   whether to determine a cmcWER and/or a cccWER.  When
   upstream water is used, it is always allowable to
   determine a cmcWER and use it to derive a site-specific
   CMC and a site-specific CCC and then decide whether to
   determine a cccWER.
g. If there is a toxicity test whose endpoint in
   laboratory dilution water is between the CCC and the
   CMC, and if this test is used as the secondary test in
   the determination of the cmcWER, this test will provide
   information that should be very useful for deciding
   whether to determine a cccWER in addition to a cmcWER.
   Further, if it is decided to determine a cccWER, the
   same two tests used in the determination of the cmcWER
   could then be used in the determination of the cccWER,
   with a reversal of their roles as primary and secondary
   tests.  Alternatively, a cmcWER and a cccWER could be
   determined simultaneously if both tests are conducted
   on each sample of site water.

                         26

-------
When WERs  are determined using downstream water, the
magnitude  of each WER will probably depend on the
concentration of effluent in the downstream water used
 (see Appendix D).  The first important consideration is
whether the design flow is greater than zero, and the
second is  whether there is a chronic mixing zone.
a. If the  design flow is zero, cmcWERs and/or cccWERs that
   are determined for design-flow conditions will both be
   determined in 100 percent effluent.  Thus this case is
   similar to using upstream water in that both WERs are
   determined in the same site water.  When WERs are
   determined for high-flow conditions, it will make a
   difference whether a chronic mixing zone needs to be
   taken into account, which is the second consideration.
b. If there is no chronic mixing zone, both WERs will be
   determined for the complete-mix situation; this case is
   similar to using upstream water in that both WERs are
   determined using the same site water.  If there is a
   chronic mixing zone, cmcWERs should be determined in
   the site water that exists at the edge of the chronic
   mixing  zone, whereas cccWERs should be determined for
   the complete-mix situation (see Appendix A).   Thus the
   percent effluent will be higher in the site water used
   in the  determination of the cmcWER than in the site
   water used in the determination of the cccWER.  Because
   a site  water with a higher percent effluent will
   probably give a larger WER than a site water with a
   lower percent effluent,  both a cmcWER and a cccWER can
   be determined even if there is no test whose endpoint
   in laboratory dilution water is between the CMC and the
   CCC.   There are opposing considerations,  however:
   1)  The  site water used in the determination of the
      cmcWER will probably have a higher percent effluent
      than the site water used in the determination of the
      cccWER,  which will tend to cause the cmcWER to be
      larger than the cccWER.
   2)  If there is a toxicity test whose endpoint in
      laboratory dilution water is between the CMC and the
      CCC,  use of a more sensitive test in the
      determination of the  cccWER will tend to cause the
      cccWER to be larger than the cmcWER.
One consequence of these opposing considerations is that
it is not known whether use of the cmcWER to adjust the
CCC would be environmentally conservative;  if this
simplification is not known to be conservative,  it should
not be used.   Thus it is important whether there is a
toxicity test  whose endpoint in laboratory dilution water
is between the CMC and the  CCC:
a. If no toxicity test has  an endpoint in laboratory
   dilution water between the CMC and the CCC,  the two
   WERs  have to be determined with the same  test,  in which
   case  the cmcWER will probably be larger because the

                        27

-------
       percent  effluent  in the  site  water will  be  higher.
       Because  of  the  difference  in  percent  effluent  in  the
       site waters that  should  be used  in the determinations
       of  the two  WERs,  use of  the cmcWER to adjust the  CCC
       would not be environmentally  conservative,  but use  of
       the cccWER  to adjust the CMC  would be environmentally
       conservative.   Although  both  WERs could  be  determined,
       it  would also be  acceptable to determine only  the
       cccWER and  use  it to adjust both the  CMC and the  CCC.
    b.  If  there is a toxicity test whose endpoint  in
       laboratory  dilution water  is  between  the CMC and  the
       CCC, the two WERs could  be determined using different
       toxicity tests.   An environmentally conservative
       alternative to determining two WERs would be to
       determine a hybrid WER by  using  (1) a toxicity test
       whose endpoint  is above  the CMC  (i.e., a toxicity test
       that is  appropriate for  the determination of a cmcWER)
       and (2)  site water for the complete-mix  situation
       (i.e., site water appropriate for the determination of
       cccWER).  It would be environmentally conservative  to
       use this hybrid WER to adjust the CMC and it would be
       environmentally conservative  to  use this hybrid WER to
       adjust the  CCC.   Although  both WERs could be
       determined, it would also  be  acceptable  to  determine
       only the hybrid WER and  use it to adjust both  the CMC
       and the  CCC.  (This hybrid WER described here  in
       paragraph b is the same  as the cccWER described in
       paragraph a above in which no toxicity test had an
       endpoint in laboratory dilution  water between  the CMC
       and the  CCC.)

5.   How should  a FWER be derived?

    Background

    Because of  experimental variation and  variation  in the
    composition of surface waters and effluents, a single
    determination  of a WER does not  provide  sufficient
    information to justify adjustment  of  a criterion.  After a
    sufficient  number of WERs have been determined in an
    acceptable  manner, a Final  Water-Effect  Ratio  (FWER) is
    derived from the WERs, and the FWER is then used to
    calculate the   site-specific criterion.   If  both  a site-
    specific CMC and a site-specific CCC are to be derived,
    both a cmcFWER and a cccFWER have to be  derived,  unless an
    environmentally conservative estimate  is used  in place of
    the cmcFWER and/or the cccFWER.

    When a WER is  determined using upstream water, the two
    major  sources  of variation in the WER are  (a)  variability
    in the quality of the upstream water,  much of  which might
    be related to  season and/or flow,  and (b)  experimental

                             28

-------
variation.  When a WER is determined in downstream water,
the four major sources of variation are (a) variability in
the quality of the upstream water, much of which might be
related to season and/or flow, (b) experimental variation,
(c) variability in the composition of the effluent, and
(d) variability in the percent effluent in the downstream
water.  Variability and the possibility of mistakes and
rare events make it necessary to try to compromise between
(1) providing a high probability of adequate protection
and (2) placing too much reliance on the smallest
experimentally determined WER, which might reflect
experimental variation, a mistake, or a rare event rather
than a meaningful difference in the WER.

Various ways can be employed to address variability:
a. Replication can be used to reduce the impact of some
   sources of variation and to verify the importance of
   others.
b. Because variability in the composition of the effluent
   might contribute substantially to the variability of
   the WER, it might be desirable to obtain and store two
   or more samples of the effluent at slightly different
   times,  with the selection of the sampling times
   depending on such characteristics of the discharge as
   the average retention time, in case an unusual WER is
   obtained with the first sample used.
c. Because of the possibility of mistakes and rare events,
   samples of effluent and upstream water should be large
   enough that portions can be stored for later testing or
   analyses if an unusual WER is obtained.
d. It might be possible to reduce the impact of the
   variability in the percent effluent in the downstream
   water by establishing a relationship between the WER
   and the percent effluent.
Confounding of the sources can be a problem when more than
one source contributes substantial variability.

When permit limits are calculated using a steady-state
model, the limits are based on a design flow, e.g., the
7Q10.   It is usually assumed that a concentration of metal
in an effluent that does not cause unacceptable effects at
the design flow will not cause unacceptable effects at
higher flows because the metal is diluted by the increased
flow of the upstream water.  Decreased protection might
occur, however,  if an increase in flow increases toxicity
more than it dilutes the concentration of metal.  When
permit limits are based on a national criterion, it is
often assumed that the criterion is sufficiently
conservative that an increase in toxicity will not be
great enough to overwhelm the combination of dilution and
the assumed conservatism,  even though it is likely that
the national criterion is not overprotective of all bodies

                        29

-------
of water.  When WERs are used to reduce the assumed
conservatism, there is more concern about the possibility
of increased toxicity at flows higher than the design flow
and it is important to  (1) determine some WERs that
correspond to higher flows or (2) provide some
conservatism.  If the concentration of effluent in the
downstream water decreases as flow increases, WERs
determined at higher flows are likely to be smaller than
WERs determined at design flow but the concentration of
metal will also be lower.  If the concentration of TSS
increases at high flows, however, both the WER and the
concentration of metal might increase.  If they are
determined in an appropriate manner, WERs determined at
flows higher than the design flow can be used in two ways:
a. As environmentally conservative estimates of WERs
   determined at design flow.
b. To assess whether WERs determined at design flow will
   provide adequate protection at higher flows.

In order to appropriately take into account seasonal and
flow effects and their interactions, both ways of using
high-flow WERs require that the downstream water used in
the determination of the WER be similar to that which
actually exists during the time of concern.  In addition,
high-flow WERs can be used in the second way only if the
composition of the downstream water is known.  To satisfy
the requirements that (a) the downstream water used in the
determination of a WER be similar to the actual water and
(b) the composition of the downstream water be known, it
is necessary to obtain samples of effluent and upstream
water at the time of concern and to prepare a simulated
downstream water by mixing the samples at the ratio of the
flows of the effluent and the upstream water that existed
when the samples were obtained.

For the first way of using high-flow WERs, they are used
directly as environmentally conservative estimates of the
design-flow WER.  For the second way of using high-flow
WERs,  each is used to calculate the highest concentration
of metal that could be in the effluent without causing the
concentration of metal in the downstream water to exceed
the site-specific criterion that would be derived for that
water using the experimentally determined WER.  This
highest concentration of metal in the effluent (HCME) can
be calculated as:

 HCME =  [(CCC) (WER) (eFLOW + uFLOW) ]  - [ (uCONC) (uFLOW) ]
                          eFLOW

where:
CCC =   the national,  state,  or recalculated CCC (or CMC)
        that is to be adjusted.

                         30

-------
eFLOW = the flow of the effluent that was the basis of the
        preparation of the simulated downstream water.
        This should be the flow of the effluent that
        existed when the samples were taken.
uFLOW = the flow of the upstream water that was the basis
        of the preparation of the simulated downstream
        water.  This should be the flow of the upstream
        water that existed when the samples were taken.
uCONC = the concentration of metal in the sample of
        upstream water used in the preparation of the
        simulated downstream water.
In order to calculate a HCME from an experimentally
determined WER, the only information needed besides the
flows of the effluent and the upstream water is the
concentration of metal in the upstream water, which should
be measured anyway in conjunction with the determination
of the WER.

When a steady-state model is used to derive permit limits,
the limits on the effluent apply at all flows; thus, each
HCME can be used to calculate the highest WER (hWER) that
could be used to derive a site-specific criterion for the
downstream water at design flow so that there would be
adequate protection at the flow for which the HCME was
determined.  The hWER is calculated as:

     hWER = (HCME} (eFLOWdf) + (uCONCdf) (uFLOWdf)
                 (CCC) (eFLOWdf + uFLOWdf)

The suffix "df" indicates that the values used for these
quantities in the calculation of the hWER are those that
exist at design-flow conditions.   The additional datum
needed in order to calculate the hWER is the concentration
of metal in upstream water at design-flow conditions; if
this is assumed to be zero,  the hWER will be
environmentally conservative.  If a WER is determined when
uFLOW equals the design flow, hWER = WER.

The two ways of using WERs determined at flows higher than
design flow can be illustrated using the following
examples.   These examples were formulated using the
concept of additivity of WERs (see Appendix G).   A WER
determined in downstream water consists of two components,
one due to the effluent (the eWER)  and one due to the
upstream water (the uWER).   If the eWER and uWER are
strictly additive,  when WERs are determined at various
upstream flows, the downstream WERs can be calculated from
the composition of the downstream water  (the % effluent
and the % upstream water)  and the two WERs (the eWER and
the uWER)  using the equation:
                         31

-------
   WER =  (% effluent) (eWER)  + (% upstream water) (uWER)
                           100
 In the examples below, it is assumed that:
 a.  A site-specific CCC is being derived.
 b.  The national CCC is 2 ug/L.
 c.  The eWER is 40.
 d.  The eWER and uWER are constant and strictly additive.
 e.  The flow of the effluent (eFLOW)  is always 10 cfs.
 f.  The design flow of the upstream water  (uFLOWdf) is 40
    cfs.
 Therefore:

HCME =  [(2 ug/L) (WER) (10 cfs + uFLOW) ] -  [(uCONC) (uFLOW)]
                          10 ug/L
       hWER =   + (uCONCdf) (40 cfs)
                  (2 ug/L) (10 cfs + 40 cfs)


 In the first  example, the uWER is assumed to be 5 and so
 the upstream  site-specific CCC (ussCCC)  =  (CCC)(uWER) =
 (2 ug/L)(5)  = 10 ug/L.  uCONC is assumed to be 0.4 ug/L,
 which means that the assimilative capacity of the upstream
 water is  9.6  ug/L.

 eFLOW  uFLOW     At Complete Mix        HCME      hWER
 (cfs)    (cfs)    % Eff. % UPS.   WER     (ug/L)     	

  10       40      20.0   80.0  12.000     118.4     12.00
  10       63      13.7   86.3   9.795     140.5     14.21
  10       90      10.0   90.0   8.500     166.4     16.80
  10      190       5.0   95.0   6.750     262.4     26.40
  10      490       2.0   98.0   5.700     550.4     55.20
  10      990       1.0   99.0   5.350    1030.4    103.20
  10    1990       0.5   99.5   5.175    1990.4    199.20

 As the flow of the upstream water increases, the WER
 decreases to  a limiting value equal to uWER.  Because the
 assimilative  capacity is greater than zero, the HCMEs and
 hWERs increase due to the increased dilution of the
 effluent.   The increase in hWER at higher flows will not
 allow any use of the assimilative capacity of the upstream
 water because the allowed concentration of metal in the
 effluent  is controlled by the lowest hWER, which is the
 design-flow hWER in this example.  Any WER determined at a
 higher flow can be used as an environmentally conservative
 estimate  of the design-flow WER,  and the hWERs show that
 the WER of 12 provides adequate protection at all flows.
 When uFLOW equals the design flow of 40 cfs, WER = hWER.

                          32

-------
In the second example, uWER is assumed to be 1, which
means that ussCCC = 2 ug/L.  uCONC is assumed to be 2
ug/L, so that uCONC = ussCCC.  The assimilative capacity
of the upstream water is 0 ug/L.
eFLOW
(cfs)

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
uFLOW
(cfs)

  40
  63
  90
 190
 490
 990
1990
  At Complete Mix
% Eff. % UPS.
WER
20
13
10
5
2
1
0
.0
.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
80
86
90
95
98
99
99
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
8
6
4
2
1
1
1
.800
.343
.900
.950
.780
.390
.195
 HCME
(uq/L)

 80.00
 80.00
 80.00
 80.00
 80.00
 80.00
 80.00
                  hWER
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
                                  8 .800
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
                                  8.800
All the WERs in this example are lower than the comparable
WERs in the first example because the uWER dropped from 5
to 1; the limiting value of the WER at very high flow is
1.  Also, the HCMEs and hWERs are independent of flow
because the increased dilution does not allow any more
metal to be discharged when uCONC = ussCCC, i.e., when the
assimilative capacity is zero.  As in the first example,
any WER determined at a flow higher than design flow can
be used as an environmentally conservative estimate of the
design-flow WER and the hWERs show that the WER of 8.8
determined at design flow will provide adequate protection
at all flows for which information is available.  When
uFLOW equals the design flow of 40 cfs, WER = hWER.
In the third example, uWER is assumed to be 2, which means
that ussCCC = 4 ug/L.  uCONC is assumed to be 1 ug/L; thus
the assimilative capacity of the upstream water is 3 ug/L.
eFLOW
(cfs)

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
uFLOW
(cfs)

  40
  63
  90
 190
 490
 990
1990
  At Complete Mix
% Eff.  % UPS.
WER
20.
13 .
10.
5.
2.
1.
0.
0
7
0
0
0
0
5
80
86
90
95
98
99
99
.0
.3
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
9
7
5
3
2
2
2
.600
.206
.800
.900
.760
.380
.190
 HCME
(uq/L)

  92.0
  98.9
 107.0
 137.0
 227.0
 377.0
 677.0
                  hWER
                                   9.60
                                  10.29
                                  11.10
                                  14 .10
                                  23 .10
                                  38.10
                                  68.10
All the WERs in this example are intermediate between the
comparable WERs in the first two examples because the uWER
is now 2, which is between 1 and 5; the limiting value of
the WER at very high flow is 2.   As in the other examples,
any WER determined at a flow higher than design flow can
be used as an environmentally conservative estimate of the
                         33

-------
design-flow WER and the hWERs show that the WER of 9.6
determined at design flow will provide adequate protection
at all flows for which information is available.   When
uFLOW equals the design flow of 40 cfs, WER = hWER.

If this third example is assumed to be subject to acidic
snowmelt in the spring so that the eWER and uWER are less-
than-additive and result in a WER of 4.8 (rather than 5.8)
at a uFLOW of 90 cfs, the third HCME would be 87 ug/L, and
the third hWER would be 9.1.  This hWER is lower than the
design-flow WER of 9.6, so the site-specific criterion
would have to be derived using the WER of 9.1, rather than
the design-flow WER of 9.6, in order to provide the
intended level of protection.  If the eWER and uWER were
less-than-additive only to the extent that the third WER
was 5.3, the third HCME would be 97 ug/L and the third
hWER would be 10.1.  In this case, dilution by the
increased flow would more than compensate for the WERs
being less-than-additive, so that the design-flow WER of
9.6 would provide adequate protection at a uFLOW of 90
cfs.  Auxiliary information might indicate whether an
unusual WER is real or is an accident; for example,  if the
hardness, alkalinity, and pH of snowmelt are all low, this
information would support a low WER.

If the eWER and uWER were more-than-additive so that the
third WER was 10, this WER would not be an environmentally
conservative estimate of the design-flow WER.  If a WER
determined at a higher flow is to be used as an estimate
of the design-flow WER and there is reason to believe that
the eWER and the uWER might be more-than-additive, a test
for additivity can be performed  (see Appendix G).

Calculating HCMEs and hWERs is straightforward if the WERs
are based on the total recoverable measurement.  If they
are based on the dissolved measurement, it is necessary to
take into account the percent of the total recoverable
metal in the effluent that becomes dissolved  in the
downstream water.

To ensure adequate protection, a group of WERs should
include one or more  WERs corresponding to flows near  the
design  flow, as well as one or more WERs corresponding to
higher  flows.
a. Calculation of hWERs from WERs determined  at various
   flows and seasons identifies  the highest WER  that  can
   be used  in the derivation of  a site-specific  criterion
   and  still provide adequate protection at all  flows for
   which WERs are available.  Use of hWERs eliminates the
   need to  assume that WERs  determined at design  flow will
   provide  adequate  protection at higher flows.   Because
   hWERs are calculated  to apply at design flow,  they

                         34

-------
   apply to the flow on which the permit limits are based.
   The lowest of the hWERs ensures adequate protection at
   all flows, if hWERs are available for a sufficient
   range of flows, seasons, and other conditions.
b. Unless additivity is assumed, a WER cannot be
   extrapolated from one flow to another and therefore it
   is not possible to predict a design-flow WER from a WER
   determined at other conditions.  The largest WER is
   likely to occur at design flow because, of the flows
   during which protection is to be provided, the design
   flow is the flow at which the highest concentration of
   effluent will probably occur in the downstream water.
   This largest WER has to be experimentally determined;
   it cannot be predicted.

The examples also illustrate that if the concentration of
metal in the upstream water is below the site-specific
criterion for that water, in the limit of infinite
dilution of the effluent with upstream water, there will
be adequate protection.  The concern, therefore, is for
intermediate levels of dilution.  Even if the assimilative
capacity is zero,  as in the second example, there is more
concern at the lower or intermediate flows, when the
effluent load is still a major portion of the total load,
than at higher flows when the effluent load is a minor
contribution.
The Options

To ensure adequate protection over a range of flows, two
types of WERs need to be determined:
Type 1 WERs are determined by obtaining samples of
         effluent and upstream water when the downstream
         flow is between one and two times higher than
         what it would be under design-flow conditions.
Type 2 WERs are determined by obtaining samples of
         effluent and upstream water when the downstream
         flow is between two and ten times higher than
         what it would be under design-flow conditions.
The only difference between the two types of samples is
the downstream flow at the time the samples are taken.
For both types of WERs,  the samples should be mixed at the
ratio of the flows that existed when the samples were
taken so that seasonal and flow-related changes in the
water quality characteristics of the upstream water are
properly related to the flow at which they occurred.  The
ratio at which the samples are mixed does not have to be
the exact ratio that existed when the samples were taken,
but the ratio has to be known, which is why simulated
downstream water is used.  For each Type 1 WER and each
Type 2 WER that is determined, a hWER is calculated.

                         35

-------
Ideally, sufficient numbers of both types of WERs would be
available and each WER would be sufficiently precise and
accurate and the Type 1 WERs would be sufficiently similar
that the FWER could be the geometric mean of the Type 1
WERs, unless the FWER had to be lowered because of one or
more hWERs.   If an adequate number of one or both types of
WERs is not available, an environmentally conservative WER
or hWER should be used as the FWER.

Three Type 1 and/or Type 2 WERs, which were determined
using acceptable procedures and for which there were at
least three weeks between any two sampling events, must be
available in order for a FWER to be derived.  If three or
more are available, the FWER should be derived from the
WERs and hWERs using the lowest numbered option whose
requirements are satisfied:
1. If there are two or more Type 1 WERs:
   a. If at least nineteen percent of all of the WERs are
      Type 2 WERs, the derivation of the FWER depends on
      the properties of the Type 1 WERs:
      1) If the range of the Type 1 WERs is not greater
         than a factor of 5 and/or the range of the ratios
         of the Type 1 WER to the concentration of metal
         in the simulated downstream water is not greater
         than a factor of 5, the FWER is the lower of  (a)
         the adjusted geometric mean (see Figure 2) of all
         of the Type 1 WERs and (b) the lowest hWER.
      2) If the range of the Type 1 WERs is greater than a
         factor of 5 and the range of the ratios of the
         Type 1 WER to the concentration of metal in the
         simulated downstream water is greater than a
         factor of 5, the FWER is the lowest of  (a) the
         lowest Type 1 WER,  (b) the lowest hWER, and  (c)
         the geometric mean of all the Type 1 and Type 2
         WERs, unless an analysis of the joint
         probabilities of the occurrences of WERs and
         metal concentrations indicates that a higher WER
         would still provide the level of protection
         intended by the criterion.  (EPA intends to
         provide guidance concerning such an analysis.)
   b. If less than nineteen percent of all of the WERs are
      Type 2 WERs, the FWER is the lower of  (1) the lowest
      Type 1 WER and  (2) the lowest hWER.
2. If there is one Type 1 WER, the FWER is the lowest of
    (a)  the Type 1 WER,  (b) the lowest hWER, and  (c) the
   geometric mean of all of the Type 1 and Type 2 WERs.
3. If there are no Type 1 WERs, the FWER is the lower of
    (a)  the lowest Type 2 WER and  (b) the lowest hWER.
If fewer than three WERs are available and a site-specific
criterion is to be derived using a WER or a FWER, the WER
or FWER has to be assumed to be 1.  Examples of deriving
FWERs using these options are presented in Figure 3.

                         36

-------
The options are designed to ensure that:
a. The options apply equally well to ordinary flowing
   waters and to streams whose design flow is zero.
b. The requirements for deriving the FWER as something
   other than the lowest WER are not too stringent.
c. The probability is high that the criterion will be
   adequately protective at all flows, regardless of the
   amount of data that are available.
d. The generation of both types of WERs is encouraged
   because environmental conservatism is built in if both
   types of WERs are not available in acceptable numbers.
e. The amount of conservatism decreases as the quality and
   quantity of the available data increase.
The requirement that three WERs be available is based on a
judgment that fewer WERs will not provide sufficient
information.  The requirement that at least nineteen
percent of all of the available WERs be Type 2 WERs is
based on a judgment concerning what constitutes an
adequate mix of the two types of WERs: when there are five
or more WERs,  at least one-fifth should be Type 2 WERs.

Because each of these options for deriving a FWER is
expected to provide adequate protection, anyone who
desires to determine a FWER can generate three or more
appropriate WERs and use the option that corresponds to
the WERs that are available.  The options that utilize the
least useful WERs are expected to provide adequate
protection because of the way the FWER is derived from the
WERs.  It is intended that,  on the average, Option la will
result in the highest FWER,  and so it is recommended that
data generation should be designed to satisfy the
requirements of this option if possible.  For example,  if
two Type 1 WERs have been determined,  determining a third
Type 1 WER will require use of Option Ib,  whereas
determining a Type 2 WER will require use of Option la.

Calculation of the FWER as an adjusted geometric mean
raises three issues:
a. The level of protection would be greater if the lowest
   WER,  rather than an adjusted mean,  were used as the
   FWER.   Although true,  the intended level of protection
   is provided by the national aquatic life criterion
   derived according to the national guidelines;  when
   sufficient  data are available and it is clear how the
   data should be used,  there is no reason to add a
   substantial margin of safety and thereby change the
   intended level of protection.   Use of an adjusted
   geometric mean is acceptable if sufficient data are
   available concerning the WER to demonstrate that the
   adjusted geometric mean will provide the intended level
   of protection.   Use of the lowest of three or more WERs
   would be justified,  if,  for example,  the criterion had

                        37

-------
   been lowered to protect a commercially important
   species and a WER determined with that species was
   lower than WERs determined with other species.
b. The level of protection would be greater if the
   adjustment was to a probability of 0.95 rather than to
   a probability of 0.70.  As above, the intended level of
   protection is provided by the national aquatic life
   criterion derived according to the national guidelines.
   There is no need to substantially increase the level of
   protection when site-specific criteria are derived.
c. It would be easier to use the more common arithmetic
   mean, especially because the geometric mean usually
   does not provide much more protection than the
   arithmetic mean.  Although true, use of the geometric
   mean rather than the arithmetic mean is justified on
   the basis of statistics and mathematics; use of the
   geometric mean is also consistent with the intended
   level of protection.  Use of the arithmetic mean is
   appropriate when the values can range from minus
   infinity to plus infinity.  The geometric mean (GM) is
   equivalent to using the arithmetic mean of the
   logarithms of the values.  WERs cannot be negative, but
   the logarithms of WERs can.  The distribution of the
   logarithms of WERs is therefore more likely to be
   normally distributed than is the distribution of the
   WERs.  Thus, it is better to use the GM of WERs.   In
   addition, when dealing with quotients, use of the GM
   reduces arguments about the correct way to do some
   calculations because the same answer is obtained in
   different ways.  For example, if WER1 = (Nl)/(Dl) and
   WER2 =  (N2)/(D2), then the GM of WER1 and WER2 gives
   the same value as [(GM of Nl and N2)/(GM of Dl and D2)]
   and also equals the square root of
   { [(Nl) (N2)]/[(D1) (D2)] }.

Anytime the FWER is derived as the lowest of a series of
experimentally determined WERs and/or hWERs,  the magnitude
of the FWER will depend at least in part on experimental
variation.   There are at least three ways that the
influence of experimental variation on the FWER can be
reduced:
a. A WER determined with a primary test can be replicated
   and the geometric mean of the replicates used as the
   value of the WER for that determination.  Then the FWER
   would be the lowest of a number of geometric means
   rather than the lowest of a number of individual WERs.
   To be true replicates, the replicate determinations of
   a WER should not be based on the same test in
   laboratory dilution water, the same sample of site
   water, or the same sample of effluent.
b. If, for example, Option 3 is to be used with three Type
   2 WERs and the endpoints of both the primary and

                         38

-------
       secondary tests in laboratory dilution water are above
       the CMC and/or CCC to which the WER is to apply, WERs
       can be determined with both the primary and secondary
       tests for each of the three sampling times.  For each
       sampling time, the geometric mean of the WER obtained
       with the primary test and the WER obtained with the
       secondary test could be calculated; then the lowest of
       these three geometric means could be used as the FWER.
       The three WERs cannot consist of some WERs determined
       with one of the tests and some WERs determined with the
       other test; similarly the three WERs cannot consist of
       a combination of individual WERs obtained with the
       primary and/or secondary tests and geometric means of
       results of primary and secondary tests.
    c. As mentioned above,  because the variability of the
       effluent might contribute substantially to the
       variability of the WERs,  it might be desirable to
       obtain and store more than one sample of the effluent
       when a WER is to be determined in case an unusual WER
       is obtained with the first sample used.
    Examples of the first and second ways of reducing the
    impact of experimental variation are presented in Figure
    4.  The availability of these alternatives does not mean
    that they are necessarily cost-effective.

6.  For metals whose criteria are hardness-dependent, at what
    hardness should WERs be determined?

    The issue of hardness bears on such topics as acclimation
    of test organisms to the site water,  adjustment of the
    hardness of the site water,  and how an experimentally
    determined WER should be used.  If all WERs were
    determined at design-flow conditions,  it might seem that
    all WERs should be determined at the design-flow hardness.
    Some permit limits,  however,  are not based on the hardness
    that is most likely to occur at design flow; in addition,
    conducting all tests at design-flow conditions provides no
    information concerning whether adequate protection will be
    provided at other flows.  Thus, unless the hardnesses of
    the upstream water and the effluent are similar and do not
    vary with flow,  the hardness of the site water will not be
    the same for all WER determinations.

    Because the toxicity tests should be begun within 36 hours
    after the samples of effluent and upstream water are
    collected,  there is little time to acclimate organisms to
    a sample-specific hardness.   One alternative would be to
    acclimate the organisms to a preselected hardness and then
    adjust the hardness of the site water, but adjusting the
    hardness of the site water might have various effects on
    the toxicity of the metal due to competitive binding and
    ionic impacts on the test organisms and on the speciation

                             39

-------
of the metal; lowering hardness without also diluting the
WER is especially problematic.  The least objectionable
approach is to acclimate the organisms to a laboratory
dilution water with a hardness in the range of 50 to 150
mg/L and then use this water as the laboratory dilution
water when the WER is determined.  In this way,  the test
organisms will be acclimated to the laboratory dilution
water as specified by ASTM  (1993a,b,c,d,e).

Test organisms may be acclimated to the site water for a
short time as long as this does not cause the tests to
begin more than 36 hours after the samples were collected.
Regardless of what acclimation procedure is used, the
organisms used for the toxicity test conducted using site
water are unlikely to be acclimated as well as would be
desirable.  This is a general problem with toxicity tests
conducted in site water (U.S. EPA 1993a,b,c; ASTM 1993f),
and its impact on the results of tests is unknown.

For the practical reasons given above, an experimentally
determined WER will usually be a ratio of endpoints
determined at two different hardnesses and will thus
include contributions from a variety of differences
between the two waters, including hardness.   The
disadvantages of differing hardnesses are that  (a) the
test organisms probably will not be adequately acclimated
to site water and  (b) additional calculations will be
needed to account for the differing hardnesses; the
advantages are that it allows the generation of data
concerning the adequacy of protection at various flows of
upstream water and it provides a way of overcoming two
problems with the hardness equations:  (1) it is not known
how applicable they are to hardnesses outside the range of
25 to 400 mg/L and (2) it is not known how applicable they
are to unusual combinations of hardness,  alkalinity, and
pH or to unusual ratios of calcium and magnesium.

The additional calculations that are necessary to account
for the differing hardnesses will also overcome the
shortcomings of the hardness equations.  The purpose of
determining a WER is to determine how much metal can be in
a site water without lowering the intended level of
protection.  Each experimentally determined WER is
inherently referenced to the hardness of the laboratory
dilution water that was used in the determination of the
WER, but the hardness equation can be used to calculate
adjusted WERs that are referenced to other hardnesses for
the laboratory dilution water.  When used to adjust WERs,
a hardness equation  for a CMC or CCC can be used to
reference a WER to any hardness for a  laboratory dilution
water, whether it  is inside or outside the range of 25  to
400 mg/L, because  any inapproprlateness  in the  equation

                         40

-------
will be automatically compensated for when the adjusted
WER is used in the derivation of a FWER and permit limits.

For example, the hardness equation for the freshwater CMC
for copper gives CMCs of 9.2,  18,  and 34 ug/L at
hardnesses of 50,  100, and 200 mg/L,  respectively.  If
acute toxicity tests with Ceriodaphnia reticulata gave an
EC50 of 18 ug/L using a laboratory dilution water with a
hardness of 100 mg/L and an EC50 of 532.2 ug/L in a site
water, the resulting WER would be 29.57.  It can be
assumed that, within experimental variation, EC50s of 9.2
and 34 ug/L and WERs of 57.85 and 15.65 would have been
obtained if laboratory dilution waters with hardnesses of
50 and 200 mg/L, respectively, had been used,  because the
EC50 of 532.2 ug/L obtained in the site water does not
depend on what water is used for the laboratory dilution
water.  The WERs of 57.85 and 15.65 can be considered to
be adjusted WERs that were extrapolated from the
experimentally determined WER using the hardness equation
for the copper CMC.  If used correctly, the experimentally
determined WER and all of the adjusted WERs will result in
the same permit limits because they are internally
consistent and are all based on the EC50 of 532.2 ug/L
that was obtained in site water.

A hardness equation for copper can be used to adjust the
WER if the hardness of the laboratory dilution water used
in the determination of the WER is in the range of 25 to
400 mg/L  (preferably in the range of about 40 to 250 mg/L
because most of the data used to derive the equation are
in this range).  However, the hardness equation can be
used to adjust WERs to hardnesses outside the range of 25
to 400 mg/L because the basis of the adjusted WER does not
change the fact that the EC50 obtained in site water was
532.2 ug/L.  If the hardness of the site water was 16
mg/L, the hardness equation would predict an EC50 of 3.153
ug/L, which would result in an adjusted WER of 168.8.
This use of the hardness equation outside the range of 25
to 400 mg/L is valid only if the calculated CMC is used
with the corresponding adjusted WER.   Similarly, if the
hardness of the site water had been 447 mg/L,  the hardness
equation would predict an EC50 of 72.66 ug/L,  with a
corresponding adjusted WER of 7.325.   If the hardness of
447 mg/L were due to an effluent that contained calcium
chloride and the alkalinity and pH of the site water were
what would usually occur at a hardness of 50 mg/L rather
than 400 mg/L, any inappropriateness in the calculated
EC50 of 72.66 ug/L will be compensated for in the adjusted
WER of 7.325, because the adjusted WER is based on the
EC50 of 532.2 ug/L that was obtained using the site water.
                         41

-------
   In the above examples it was assumed that at a hardness of
   100 mg/L the EC50 for C. reticulata equalled the CMC,
   which is a very reasonable simplifying assumption.   If,
   however, the WER had been determined with the more
   resistant Daphnia pulex and ECSOs of 50 ug/L and 750 ug/L
   had been obtained using a laboratory dilution water  and a
   site water, respectively, the CMC given by the hardness
   equation could not be used as the predicted EC50.  A new
   equation would have to be derived by changing the
   intercept so that the new equation gives an EC50 of  50
   ug/L at a hardness of 100 mg/L; this new equation could
   then be used to calculate adjusted ECSOs, which could then
   be used to calculate corresponding adjusted WERs:

           Hardness         EC50          WER
             (mg/L)          (ucr/L)        	
              16            8.894        84.33
              50           26.022        28.82
             100           50.000*       15.00*
             200           96.073         7.81
             447          204.970         3.66

   The values marked with an asterisk are the assumed
   experimentally determined values; the others were
   calculated from these values.  At each hardness the
   product of the EC50 times the WER equals 750 ug/L because
   all of the WERs are based on the same EC50 obtained using
   site water.  Thus use of the WER allows application of the
   hardness equation for a metal to conditions to which  it
   otherwise might not be applicable.

   HCMEs can then be calculated using either the
   experimentally determined WER or an adjusted WER as long
   as the WER is applied to the CMC that corresponds to  the
   hardness on which the WER is based.  For example, if  the
   concentration of copper in the upstream water was 1 ug/L
   and the flows of the effluent and upstream water were 9
   and 73 cfs, respectively, when the samples were collected,
   the HCME calculated from the WER of 15.00 would be:

HCME =  (17.73 ug/L) (15) (9 + 73 cfs)  -  (1 ug/L) (73 cfs) = 2415    /£
                         9 cfs

   because the CMC is 17.73 ug/L at a hardness of 100 mg/L.
    (The value of 17.73 ug/L is used for the CMC instead  of 18
   ug/L to reduce roundoff error in this example.)  If the
   hardness of the site water was actually 447 ug/L, the HCME
   could also be calculated using the WER of 3.66 and the CMC
   of 72.66 ug/L that would be obtained from the CMC hardness
   equation:
                            42

-------
= (72.66 ug/L) (3.66) (9 + 73 cfs) - (1 ug/L} (73 cfs)  = 2415 ug/L _
 Either WER can be  used in the  calculation of the HCME as
 long as the CMC and the WER correspond to the same
 hardness and therefore to each other,  because:

         (17.73 ug/L) (15) = (72.66 ug/L) (3.66) .

 Although the HCME  will be correct as long as the hardness,
 CMC,  and WER correspond to each other,  the WER used in the
 derivation of the  FWER must be the one that is calculated
 using a hardness equation to be compatible with the
 hardness of the site water.  If the hardness of the site
 water was 447 ug/L,  the WER used in the derivation of the
 FWER has to be 3.66; therefore, the simplest approach is
 to calculate the HCME using the WER of 3.66 and the
 corresponding CMC  of 72.66 ug/L,  because these correspond
 to the hardness of 447 ug/L, which is the hardness of the
 site water.

 In contrast, the hWER should be calculated using the CMC
 that corresponds to the design hardness.  If the design
 hardness is 50 mg/L, the corresponding CMC is 9.2 ug/L.
 If the design flows of the effluent and the upstream water
 are 9 and 20 cfs,  respectively, and the concentration of
 metal in upstream  water at design conditions is 1 ug/L,
 the hWER obtained  from the WER determined using the site
 water with a hardness of 447 mg/L would be:

       =  (2415 ug/L) (9 cfs) + (1 ug/L) (20 cfs)  = g± 54
               (9.2  ug/L) (9 cfs +  20 cfs)

 None of these calculations provides a way of extrapolating
 a WER from one site-water hardness to another.  The only
 extrapolations that are possible are from one hardness of
 laboratory dilution water to another; the adjusted WERs
 are based on predicted toxicity in laboratory dilution
 water, but they are all based  on measured toxicity in site
 water.  If a WER is to apply to the design flow and the
 design hardness, one or more toxicity tests have to be
 conducted using samples of effluent and upstream water
 obtained under design-flow conditions and mixed at the
 design-flow ratio  to produce the design hardness.  A WER
 that is specifically appropriate to design conditions
 cannot be based on predicted toxicity in site water; it
 has to be based on measured toxicity in site water that
 corresponds to design-flow conditions.  The situation is
 more complicated if the design hardness is not the
 hardness that is most likely to occur when effluent and
 upstream water are mixed at the ratio of the design flows.
                          43

-------
B. Background Information and Initial Decisions

   1.   Information should be obtained concerning the effluent and
       the operating and discharge schedules of the discharger.

   2.   The spatial extent of the site to which the WER and the
       site-specific criterion are intended to apply should be
       defined (see Appendix A).   Information concerning
       tributaries, the plume, and the point of complete mix
       should be obtained.  Dilution models (U.S.  EPA 1993d)  and
       dye dispersion studies (Kilpatrick 1992) might provide
       information that is useful for defining sites for cmcWERs.

   3.   If the Recalculation Procedure (see Appendix B)  is to be
       used,  it should be performed.

   4.   Pertinent information concerning the calculation of the
       permit limits should be obtained:
       a. What are the design flows, i.e., the flow of the
          upstream water  (e.g.,  7Q10) and the flow of the
          effluent that are used in the calculation of the permit
          limits?  (The design flows for the CMC and CCC might be
          the same or different.)
       b. Is there a CMC  (acute)  mixing zone and/or a CCC
          (chronic) mixing zone?
       c. What are the dilution(s)  at the edge(s)  of the mixing
          zone(s)?
       d. If the criterion is hardness-dependent,  what is the
          hardness on which the permit limits are based?  Is this
          a hardness that is likely to occur under design-flow
          conditions?

   5.   It should be decided whether to determine a cmcWER and/or
       a cccWER.

   6.   The water quality criteria document (see Appendix E)  that
       serves as the basis of the aquatic life criterion should
       be read to identify any chemical or toxicological
       properties of the metal that are relevant.

   7.   If the WER is being determined by or for a discharger, it
       will probably be desirable to decide what is the smallest
       WER that is desired by the discharger (e.g., the smallest
       WER that would not require a reduction in the amount of
       metal discharged).  This "smallest desired WER" might be
       useful when deciding whether to determine a WER.  If a WER
       is determined, this "smallest desired WER" might be useful
       when selecting the range of concentrations to be tested in
       the site water.

   8.   Information should be read concerning health and safety
       considerations regarding collection and handling of

                               44

-------
       effluent and surface water samples and conducting toxicity
       tests (U.S. EPA 1993a; ASTM 1993a).   Information should
       also be read concerning safety and handling of the
       metallic salt that will be used in the preparation of the
       stock solution.

   9.   The proposed work should be discussed with the appropriate
       regulatory authority  (and possibly the Water Management
       Division of the EPA Regional Office)  before deciding how
       to proceed with the development of a detailed workplan.

   10.  Plans should be made to perform one  or more rangefinding
       tests in both laboratory dilution water and site water
       (see section G.7).
C. Selecting Primary and Secondary Tests

   1.   For each WER (cmcWER and/or cccWER)  to be determined,  the
       primary and secondary tests should be selected using the
       rationale presented in section A.3,  the information in
       Appendix I, the information in the criteria document for
       the metal  (see Appendix E),  and any other pertinent
       information that is available.  When a specific test
       species is not specified,  also select the species.
       Because at least three WERs must be determined with the
       primary test,  but only one must be determined with the
       secondary test, selection of the tests might be influenced
       by the availability of the species (and the life stage in
       some cases) during the planned testing period.
       a. The description of a "test" specifies not only the test
          species and the duration of the test but also the life
          stage of the species and the adverse effect on which
          the results are to be based,  all of which can have a
          major impact on the sensitivity of the test.
       b. The endpoint (e.g., LC50, EC50, IC50)  of the primary
          test in laboratory dilution water should be as close as
          possible,  but it must not be below,  the CMC and/or CCC
          to which the WER is to be applied, because for any two
          tests, the test that has the lower endpoint is likely
          to give the higher WER (see Appendix D).
          NOTE: If both the Recalculation Procedure and a WER are
                to be used in the derivation of the site-specific
                criterion, the Recalculation Procedure must be
                completed first because the recalculated CMC
                and/or CCC must be used in the selection of the
                primary and secondary tests.
       c. The endpoint (e.g., LC50, EC50, IC50)  of the secondary
          test in laboratory dilution water should be as close as
          possible,  but may be above or below, the CMC and/or CCC
          to which the WER is to be applied.


                               45

-------
   1)  Because few toxicity tests have endpoints close to         '""*"'"
      the CMC and CCC and because the major use of the
      secondary test is confirmation (see section I.V.b),
      the endpoint of the secondary test may be below the
      CMC or CCC.  If the endpoint of the secondary test
      in laboratory dilution water is above the CMC and/or
      CCC,  it might be possible to use the results to
      reduce the impact of experimental variation (see
      Figure 4).   If the endpoint of the primary test in
      laboratory dilution water is above the CMC and the
      endpoint of the secondary test is between the CMC
      and CCC, it should be possible to determine both a
      cccWER and a cmcWER using the same two tests.
   2)  It is often desirable to conduct the secondary test
      when the first primary test is conducted in case the
      results are surprising; conducting both tests the
      first time also makes it possible to interchange the
      primary and secondary tests, if desired, without
      increasing the number of tests that need to be
      conducted.   (If results of one or more rangefinding
      tests are not available, it might be desirable to
      wait and conduct the secondary test when more
      information is available concerning the laboratory
      dilution water and the site water.)

The primary and secondary tests must be conducted with
species in different taxonomic orders; at least one
species must be an animal and, when feasible, one species
should be a vertebrate and the other should be an
invertebrate.  -A plant cannot be used if nutrients and/or
chelators need to be added to either or both dilution
waters in order to determine the WER.  It is desirable to
use a test and species for which the rate of success is
known to be high and for which the test organisms are
readily available.   (If the WER is to be used with a
recalculated CMC and/or CCC, the species used in the
primary and secondary tests do not have to be on the list
of species that are used to obtain the recalculated CMC
and/or CCC.)

There are advantages to using tests suggested in Appendix
I or other tests of comparable sensitivity for which data
are available from one or more other laboratories.
a. A good indication of the sensitivity of the test is
   available.  This helps ensure that the endpoint in
   laboratory dilution water is close to the CMC and/or
   CCC and aids in the selection of concentrations of the
   metal to be used in the rangefinding and/or definitive
   toxicity tests in laboratory dilution water.  Tests
   with other species such as species that occur at the
   site may be used, but it is sometimes more difficult to
   obtain, hold, and test such species.

                         46

-------
          When a WER is determined and used, the results of the
          tests in laboratory dilution water provide the
          connection between the data used in the derivation of
          the national criterion and the data obtained in site
          water, i.e., the results in laboratory dilution water
          are a vital link in the derivation and use of a WER.
          It is, therefore, important to be able to judge the
          quality of the results in laboratory dilution water.
          Comparison of results with data from other laboratories
          evaluates all aspects of the test methodology
          simultaneously, but for the determination of WERs, the
          most important aspect is the quality of the laboratory
          dilution water because the dilution water is the most
          important difference between the two side-by-side tests
          from which the WER is calculated.  Thus,  two tests must
          be conducted for which data are available on the metal
          of concern in a laboratory dilution water from at least
          one other laboratory.  If both the primary and
          secondary tests are ones for which acceptable data are
          available from at least one other laboratory, these are
          the only two tests that have to be conducted.  If,
          however, the primary and/or secondary tests are ones
          for which no results are already available for the
          metal of concern from another laboratory,  the first or
          second time a WER is determined at least two additional
          tests must be conducted in the laboratory dilution
          water in addition to the tests that are conducted for
          the determination of WERs (see sections F.5 and 1.5).
          1) For the determination of a WER,  data are not
             required for a reference toxicant with either the
             primary test or the secondary test because the above
             requirement provides similar data for the metal for
             which the WER is actually being determined.
          2) See Section 1.5 concerning interpretation of the
             results of these tests before additional tests are
             conducted.
D. Acquiring and Acclimating Test Organisms

   1.  The test organisms should be obtained,  cultured, held,
       acclimated, fed, and handled as recommended by the U.S.
       EPA (1993a,b,c)  and/or by ASTM (1993a,b,c,d,e).   All test
       organisms must be acceptably acclimated to a laboratory
       dilution water that satisfies the requirements given in
       sections F.3 and F.4; an appropriate number of the
       organisms may be randomly or impartially removed from the
       laboratory dilution water and placed in the site water
       when it becomes available in order to acclimate the
       organisms to the site water for a while just before the
       tests are begun.
                               47

-------
   2.   The organisms used in a pair of side-by-side tests must be
       drawn from the same population and tested under identical
       conditions.
E. Collecting and Handling Upstream Water and Effluent

   1.   Upstream water will usually be mixed with effluent to
       prepare simulated downstream water.   Upstream water may
       also be used as a site water if a WER is to be determined
       using upstream water in addition to or instead of
       determining a WER using downstream water.  The samples of
       upstream water must be representative; they must not be
       unduly affected by recent runoff events  (or other erosion
       or resuspension events)  that cause higher levels of TSS
       than would normally be present, unless there is particular
       concern about such conditions.

   2.   The sample of effluent used in the determination of a WER
       must be representative;  it must be collected during a
       period when the discharger is operating normally.
       Selection of the date and time of sampling of the effluent
       should take into account the discharge pattern of the
       discharger.  It might be appropriate to collect effluent
       samples during the middle of the week to allow for
       reestablishment of steady-state conditions after shutdowns
       for weekends and holidays; alternatively, if end-of-the-
       week slug discharges are routine, they should probably be
       evaluated.  As mentioned above, because the variability of
       the effluent might contribute substantially to the
       variability of the WERs, it might be desirable to obtain
       and store more than one sample of the effluent when WERs
       are to be determined in case an unusual WER is obtained
       with the first sample used.

   3.   When samples of site water and effluent are collected for
       the determination of the WERs with the primary test, there
       must be at least three weeks between one sampling event
       and the next.  It is desirable to obtain samples in at
       least two different seasons and/or during times of
       probable differences in the characteristics of the site
       water and/or effluent.

   4.   Samples of upstream water and effluent must be collected,
       transported, handled, and stored as recommended by the
       U.S. EPA  (1993a).  For example, samples of effluent should
       usually be composites, but grab samples are acceptable if
       the residence time of the effluent is sufficiently long.
       A sufficient volume should be obtained so that some can be
       stored for additional testing or analyses if an unusual
       WER is obtained.  Samples must be stored at 0 to 4°C in
       the dark with no air space in the sample container.

                                48

-------
   5.  At the time of collection, the flow of both the upstream
       water and the effluent must be either measured or
       estimated by means of correlation with a nearby U.S.G.S.
       gauge, the pH of both upstream water and effluent must be
       measured, and samples of both upstream water and effluent
       should be filtered for measurement of dissolved metals.
       Hardness, TSS, TOG, and total recoverable and dissolved
       metal must be measured in both the effluent and the
       upstream water.  Any other water quality characteristics,
       such as total dissolved solids (TDS)  and conductivity,
       that are monitored monthly or more often by the permittee
       and reported in the Discharge Monitoring Report must also
       be measured.  These and the other measurements provide
       information concerning the representativeness of the
       samples and the variability of the upstream water and
       effluent.

   6.  "Chain of custody" procedures (U.S. EPA 1991b) should be
       used for all samples of site water and effluent,
       especially if the data might be involved in a legal
       proceeding.

   7.  Tests must be begun within 36 hours after the collection
       of the samples of the effluent and/or the site water,
       except that tests may be begun more than 36 hours after
       the collection of the samples if it would require an
       inordinate amount of resources to transport the samples to
       the laboratory and begin the tests within 36 hours.

   8.  If acute and/or chronic tests are to be conducted with
       daphnids and if the sample of the site water contains
       predators, the site water must be filtered through a 37-/mi
       sieve or screen to remove predators.


F.  Laboratory Dilution Water

   1.  The laboratory dilution water must satisfy the
       requirements given by U.S. EPA (1993a,b,c)  or ASTM
       (1993a,b,c,d,e).   The laboratory dilution water must be a
       ground water,  surface water,  reconstituted water, diluted
       mineral water, or dechlorinated tap water that has been
       demonstrated to be acceptable to aquatic organisms.  If a
       surface water is used for acute or chronic tests with
       daphnids and if predators are observed in the sample of
       the water, it must be filtered through a 37-/mi sieve or
       screen to remove the predators.   Water prepared by such
       treatments as deionization and reverse osmosis must not be
       used as the laboratory dilution water unless salts,
       mineral water, hypersaline brine, or sea salts are added
       as recommended by U.S. EPA (1993a)  or ASTM (1993a).
                               49

-------
   2.  The concentrations of both TOC and TSS must be less than 5
       mg/L.

   3.  The hardness of the laboratory dilution water should be
       between 50 and 150 mg/L and must be between 40 and 220
       mg/L.   If the criterion for the metal is hardness-
       dependent, the hardness of the laboratory dilution water
       must not be above the hardness of the site water,  unless
       the hardness of the site water is below 50 mg/L.

   4.  The alkalinity and pH of the laboratory dilution water
       must be appropriate for its hardness; values for
       alkalinity and pH that are appropriate for some hardnesses
       are given by U.S. EPA (1993a)  and ASTM (1993a); other
       corresponding values should be determined by
       interpolation.  Alkalinity should be adjusted using sodium
       bicarbonate, and pH should be adjusted using aeration,
       sodium hydroxide, and/or sulfuric acid.

   5.  It would seem reasonable that, before any samples of site
       water or effluent are collected, the toxicity tests that
       are to be conducted in the laboratory dilution water for
       comparison with results of the same tests from other
       laboratories  (see sections C.3.b and 1.5)  should be
       conducted.  These should be performed at the hardness,
       alkalinity, and pH specified in sections F.3 and F.4.


G. Conducting Tests

   1.  There must be no differences between the side-by-side
       tests other than the composition of the dilution water,
       the concentrations of metal tested, and possibly the water
       in which the test organisms are acclimated just prior to
       the beginning of the tests.

   2.  More than one test using site water may be conducted side-
       by-side with a test using laboratory dilution water; the
       one test in laboratory dilution water will be used in the
       calculation of several WERs, which means that it is very
       important that that one test be acceptable.

   3.  Facilities for conducting toxicity tests should be set up
       and test chambers should be selected and cleaned as
       recommended by the U.S.  EPA (1993a,b,c) and/or ASTM
       (1993a,b,c,d,e).

   4.  A stock solution should be prepared using an inorganic
       salt that is highly soluble in water.
       a. The salt does not have to be one that was used in tests
          that were used in the derivation of the national
          criterion.  Nitrate salts are generally acceptable;

                                50

-------
   chloride and sulfate salts of many metals are also
   acceptable  (see Appendix J).   It is usually desirable
   to avoid use of a hygroscopic salt.  The salt used
   should meet A.C.S. specifications for reagent-grade, if
   such specifications are available; use of a better
   grade is usually not worth the extra cost.  No salt
   should be used until information concerning safety and
   handling has been read.
b. The stock solution may be acidified (using metal-free
   nitric acid) only as necessary to get the metal into
   solution.
c. The same stock solution must be used to add metal to
   all tests conducted at one time.

For tests suggested in Appendix I, the appendix presents
the recommended duration and whether the static or renewal
technique should be used; additional information is
available in the references cited in the appendix.
Regardless of whether or not or how often test solutions
are renewed when these tests are conducted for other
purposes, the following guidance applies to all tests that
are conducted for the determination of WERs:
a. The renewal technique must be used for tests that last
   longer than 48 hr.
b. If the concentration of dissolved metal decreases by
   more than 50 % in 48 hours in static or renewal tests,
   the test solutions must be renewed every 24 hours.
   Similarly, if the concentration of dissolved oxygen
   becomes too low,  the test solutions must be renewed
   every 24 hours.  If one test  in a pair of tests is a
   renewal test, both tests must be renewal tests.
c. When test solutions are to be renewed,  the new test
   solutions must be prepared from the original unspiked
   effluent and water samples that have been stored at 0
   to 4°C in the dark with no air space in the sample
   container.
d. The static technique may be used for tests that do not
   last longer than 48 hours unless the above
   specifications require use of the renewal technique.
If a test is used that is not suggested in Appendix I, the
duration and technique recommended for a comparable test
should be used.

Recommendations concerning temperature,  loading,  feeding,
dissolved oxygen,  aeration,  disturbance,  and controls
given by the U.S.  EPA (1993a,b,c)  and/or ASTM
(1993a,b,c,d,e) must be followed.   The procedures that are
used must be used in both of the side-by-side tests.

To aid in the selection of the concentrations of metals
that should be used in the test  solutions in site water, a
static rangefinding test should  be conducted for 8 to 96

                         51

-------
hours, using a dilution factor of 10 (or 0.1)  or 3.2 (or
0.32) increasing from about a factor of 10 below the value
of the endpoint given in the criteria document for the
metal or in Appendix I of this document for tests with
newly hatched fathead minnows.  If the test is not in the
criteria document and no other data are available, a mean
acute value or other data for a taxonomically similar
species should be used as the predicted value.  This
rangefinding test will provide information concerning the
concentrations that should be used to bracket the endpoint
in the definitive test and will provide information
concerning whether the control survival will be
acceptable.  If dissolved metal is measured in one or more
treatments at the beginning and end of the rangefinding
test, these data will indicate whether the concentration
should be expected to decrease by more than 50 % during
the definitive test.  The rangefinding test may be
conducted in either of two ways:
a. It may be conducted using the samples of effluent and
   site water that will be used in the definitive test.
   In this case, the duration of the rangefinding test
   should be as long as possible within the limitation
   that the definitive test must begin within 36 hours
   after the samples of effluent and/or site water were
   collected, except as per section E.7.
b. It may be conducted using one set of samples of
   effluent and upstream water with the definitive tests
   being conducted using samples obtained at a later date.
   In this case the rangefinding test might give better
   results because it can last longer, but there is the
   possibility that the quality of the effluent and/or
   site water might change.  Chemical analyses for
   hardness and pH might indicate whether any major
   changes occurred from one sample to the next.
Rangefinding tests are especially desirable before the
first set of toxicity tests.  It might be desirable to
conduct rangefinding tests before each individual
determination of a WER to obtain additional information
concerning the effluent, dilution water, organisms, etc.,
before each set of side-by-side tests are begun.

Several considerations are important in the selection of
the dilution factor for definitive tests.  Use of
concentrations that are close together will reduce the
uncertainty in the WER but will require more
concentrations to cover a range within which the endpoints
might occur.  Because of the resources necessary to
determine a WER, it is important that endpoints in both
dilution waters be obtained whenever a set of side-by-side
tests are conducted.  Because static and renewal tests can
be used to determine WERs, it is relatively easy to use
more  treatments than would be used in flow-through tests.

                         52

-------
    The dilution factor for total recoverable metal must be
    between 0.65 and 0.99, and the recommended factor is 0.7.
    Although factors between 0.75 and 0.99 may be used,  their
    use will probably not be cost-effective.   Because there is
    likely to be more uncertainty in the predicted value of
    the endpoint in site water,  6 or 7 concentrations are
    recommended in the laboratory dilution water,  and 8  or 9
    in the simulated downstream water, at a dilution factor of
    0.7.  It might be desirable to use even more treatments in
    the first of the WER determinations, because the design of
    subsequent tests can be based on the results of the  first
    tests if the site water, laboratory dilution water,  and
    test organisms do not change too much.  The cost of  adding
    treatments can be minimized if the concentration of  metal
    is measured only in samples from treatments that will be
    used in the calculation of the endpoint.

9.  Each test must contain a dilution-water control.  The
    number of test organisms intended to be exposed to each
    treatment, including the controls, must be at least  20.
    It is desirable that the organisms be distributed between
    two or more test chambers per treatment.   If test
    organisms are not randomly assigned to the test chambers,
    they must be assigned impartially (U.S. EPA 1993a; ASTM
    1993a)  between all test chambers for a pair of side-by-
    side tests.  For example, it is not acceptable to assign
    20 organisms to one treatment, and then assign 20
    organisms to another treatment, etc.  Similarly, it  is not
    acceptable to assign all the organisms to the test using
    one of the dilution waters and then assign organisms to
    the test using the other dilution water.   The test
    chambers should be assigned to location in a totally
    random arrangement or in a randomized block design.

10. For the test using site water, one of the following
    procedures should be used to prepare the  test solutions
    for the test chambers and the "chemistry  controls" (see
    section H.I):
    a. Thoroughly mix the sample of the effluent and place the
       same known volume of the effluent in each test chamber;
       add the necessary amount of metal, which will be
       different for each treatment; mix thoroughly; let stand
       for 2 to 4 hours; add the necessary amount of upstream
       water to each test chamber; mix thoroughly; let stand
       for 1 to 3 hours. .
    b. Add the necessary amount of metal to a large sample of
       the effluent and also maintain an unspiked sample of
       the effluent; perform serial dilution  using a graduated
       cylinder and the well-mixed spiked and unspiked samples
       of the effluent; let stand for 2 to 4  hours; add  the
       necessary amount of upstream water to  each test
       chamber; mix thoroughly;  let stand for 1 to 3 hours.

                             53

-------
    c.  Prepare a large volume of simulated downstream water by
       mixing effluent and upstream water in the  desired
       ratio; place the same known volume of the  simulated
       downstream water in each test chamber;  add the
       necessary amount of metal,  which will be different for
       each treatment; mix thoroughly and let stand for 1 to 3
       hours.
    d.  Prepare a large volume of simulated downstream water by
       mixing effluent and upstream water in the  desired
       ratio; divide it into two portions; prepare a large
       volume of the highest test concentration of metal using
       one portion of the simulated downstream water; perform
       serial dilution using a graduated cylinder and the
       well-mixed spiked and unspiked samples of  the simulated
       downstream water; let stand for 1 to 3 hours.
    Procedures "a" and "b" allow the metal to equilibrate
    somewhat with the effluent before the solution is diluted
    with upstream water.

11.  For the test using the laboratory dilution water, either
    of  the following procedures may be used to prepare the
    test solutions for the test chambers and the  "chemistry
    controls" (see section H.I):
    a.  Place the same known volume of the laboratory dilution
       water in each test chamber; add the necessary amount of
       metal, which will be different for each treatment; mix
       thoroughly; let stand for 1 to 3 hours.
    b.  Prepare a large volume of the highest test
       concentration in the laboratory dilution water; perform
       serial dilution using a graduated cylinder and the
       well-mixed spiked and unspiked samples of  the
       laboratory dilution water; let stand for  1 to 3 hours.

12.  The test organisms, which have been acclimated as per
    section D.I, must be added to the test chambers for the
    site-by-side tests at the same time.  The time at which
    the test organisms are placed in the test chambers is
    defined as the beginning of the tests, which  must be
    within 36 hours of the collection of the samples, except
    as  per section E.7.

13.  Observe the test organisms and record the effects and
    symptoms as specified by the U.S. EPA  (1993a,b,c) and/or
    ASTM  (1993a,b,c,d,e).  Especially note whether the
    effects, symptoms, and time course of toxicity are the
    same in the side-by-side tests.

14.  Whenever solutions are renewed, sufficient solution should
    be prepared to allow for chemical analyses.
                             54

-------
H. Chemical and Other Measurements

   1.  To reduce the possibility of contamination of test
       solutions before or during tests,  thermometers and probes
       for measuring pH and dissolved oxygen must not be placed
       in test chambers that will provide data concerning effects
       on test organisms or data concerning the concentration of
       the metal.  Thus measurements of pH, dissolved oxygen, and
       temperature before or during a test must be performed
       either on "chemistry controls" that contain test organisms
       and are fed the same as the other test chambers or on
       aliquots that are removed from the test chambers.  The
       other measurements may be performed on the actual test
       solutions at the beginning and/or end of the test or the
       renewal.

   2.  Hardness  (in fresh water)  or salinity (in salt water), pH,
       alkalinity,  TSS, and TOC must be measured on the upstream
       water,  the effluent, the simulated and/or actual
       downstream water, and the laboratory dilution water.
       Measurement of conductivity and/or total dissolved solids
       (TDS)  is recommended in fresh water.

   3.  Dissolved oxygen, pH,  and temperature must be measured
       during the test at the times specified by the U.S.  EPA
       (1993a,b,c)  and/or ASTM (1993a,b,c,d,e).   The measurements
       must be performed on the same schedule for both of the
       side-by-side tests.   Measurements  must be performed on
       both the chemistry controls and actual test solutions at
       the end of the test.

   4.  Both total recoverable and dissolved metal must be
       measured in the upstream water,  the effluent,  and
       appropriate test solutions for each of the tests.
       a.  The  analytical measurements should be sufficiently
          sensitive and precise that variability in analyses will
          not  greatly increase the variability of the WERs.  If
          the  detection limit of  the analytical method that will
          be  used to determine the metal  is greater than one-
          tenth of the CCC or CMC that  is to be adjusted,  the
          analytical method should probably be improved or
          replaced (see Appendix  C).   If  additional sensitivity
          is  needed,  it is often  useful to separate the metal
          from the matrix because this  will simultaneously
          concentrate the metal and remove interferences.
          Replicate analyses  should be  performed if necessary to
          reduce the impact of analytical variability.
          1)  EPA methods (U.S. EPA 1983b,1991c)  should usually be
             used for both total  recoverable and dissolved
            measurements,  but in some  cases alternate methods
            might  have to be used in order to achieve the
             necessary sensitivity.   Approval for use of

                               55

-------
   alternate methods is to be requested from the
   appropriate regulatory authority.
All measurements of metals must be performed using
appropriate QA/QC techniques.   Clean techniques for
obtaining, handling, storing,  preparing,  and analyzing
the samples should be used when necessary to achieve
blanks that are sufficiently low (see Appendix C).
Rather than measuring the metal in all test solutions,
it is often possible to store samples and then analyze
only those that are needed to calculate the results of
the toxicity tests.  For dichotomous data (e.g.,
either-or data; data concerning survival),  the metal in
the following must be measured:
1) all concentrations in which some,  but not all,  of
   the test organisms were adversely affected.
2) the highest concentration that did not adversely
   affect any test organisms.
3) the lowest concentration that adversely affected all
   of the test organisms.
4) the controls.
For data that are not dichotomous (i.e.,  for count and
continuous data),  the metal in the controls and in the
treatments that define the concentration-effect curve
must be measured;  measurement of the concentrations of
metals in other treatments is desirable.
In each treatment in which the concentration of metal
is to be measured, both the total recoverable and
dissolved concentrations must be measured:
1) Samples must be taken for measurement of total
   recoverable metal once for a static test, and once
   for each renewal for renewal tests; in renewal
   tests, the samples are to be taken after the
   organisms have been transferred to the new test
   solutions.  When total recoverable metal is measured
   in a test chamber, the whole solution in the chamber
   must be mixed before the sample is taken for
   analysis; the solution in the test chamber must not
   be acidified before the sample is taken.  The sample
   must be acidified after it is placed in the sample
   container.
2) Dissolved metal must be measured at the beginning
   and end of each static test; in a renewal test,  the
   dissolved metal must be measured at the beginning of
   the test and just before the solution is renewed the
   first time.  When dissolved metal is measured in a
   test chamber, the whole solution in the test chamber
   must be mixed before a sufficient amount is removed
   for filtration; the solution in the test chamber
   must not be acidified before the sample is taken.
   The sample must be filtered within one hour after it
   is taken, and the filtrate must be acidified after
   filtration.

                      56

-------
   5.   Replicates,  matrix spikes,  and other QA/QC checks must be
       performed as required by the U.S.  EPA (1983a,1991c).


I.  Calculating and Interpreting the Results

   1.   To prevent roundoff error in subsequent  calculations,  at
       least four significant digits must be retained in all
       endpoints, WERs,  and FWERs.   This  requirement  is not  based
       on mathematics or statistics and does not reflect the
       precision of the  value;  its  purpose is to minimize concern
       about the effects of rounding off  on a site-specific
       criterion.  All of these numbers are intermediate values
       in the calculation of permit limits and  should not be
       rounded off as if they were  values of ultimate concern.

   2.   Evaluate the acceptability of each toxicity test
       individually.
       a.  If the procedures used deviated from  those  specified
          above, particularly in terms of acclimation,
          randomization,  temperature control, measurement of
          metal, and/or  disease or  disease-treatment,  the test
          should be rejected; if•deviations were numerous and/or
          substantial, the test must be rejected.
       b.  Most tests  are unacceptable if  more than 10 percent of
          the organisms  in the  controls were adversely affected,
          but the limit  is higher for some tests;  for the tests
          recommended in Appendix I,  the  references given should
          be consulted.
       c.  If an LC50  or  EC50 is to  be calculated:
          1)  The percent of the organisms that  were adversely
             affected must have been less than  50  percent, and
             should have been less  than 37 percent, in at least
             one treatment other than the control.
          2)  In laboratory dilution water the percent of the
             organisms that were adversely affected must have
             been greater than  50 percent,  and  should have been
             greater  than 63 percent,  in  at least  one treatment.
             In site  water the  percent of the organisms that  were
             adversely affected should have been greater than 63
             percent  in  at least one treatment.   (The LC50 or
             EC50 may be a "greater than" or "less  than" value in
             site water,  but not in laboratory  dilution water.)
          3)  If there was an inversion in the data  (i.e.,  if  a
             lower  concentration killed or affected a greater
             percentage  of the  organisms  than a higher
             concentration),  it must not  have involved more than
             two concentrations that killed or  affected between
             20 and 80 percent  of the test organisms.
          If an endpoint  other  than an LC50 or  EC50 is used or if
          Abbott's  formula is used,  the above requirements will
          have to be  modified accordingly.

                               57

-------
d. Determine whether there was anything unusual about the
   test results that would make them questionable.
e. If solutions were not renewed every 24 hours,  the
   concentration of dissolved metal must not have
   decreased by more than 50 percent from the beginning to
   the end of a static test or from the beginning to the
   end of a renewal in a renewal test in test
   concentrations that were used in the calculation of the
   results of the test.

Determine whether the effects, symptoms, and time course
of toxicity was the same in the side-by-side tests in the
site water and the laboratory dilution water.  For
example, did mortality occur in one acute test, but
immobilization in the other?  Did most deaths occur before
24 hours in one test, but after 24 hours in the other?  In
sublethal tests, was the most sensitive effect the same in
both tests?  If the effects, symptoms, and/or time course
of toxicity were different, it might indicate that the
test is questionable or that additivity, synergism, or
antagonism occurred in site water.  Such information might
be particularly useful when comparing tests that produced
unusually low or high WERs with tests that produced
moderate WERs.

Calculate the results of each test:
a. If the data for the most sensitive effect are
   dichotomous, the endpoint must be calculated as a LC50,
   EC50, LC25,  EC25, etc., using methods described by the
   U.S. EPA  (1993a) or ASTM  (1993a).  If two or more
   treatments affected between 0 and 100 percent in both
   tests in a side-by-side pair, probit analysis must be
   used to calculate results of both tests, unless the
   probit model is rejected by the goodness of fit test in
   one or both of the acute tests.  If probit analysis
   cannot be used, either because fewer than two
   percentages are between 0 and 100 percent or because
   the model does not fit the data, computational
   interpolation must be used  (see Figure 5); graphical
   interpolation must not be used.
   1) The same endpoint  (LC50, EC25, etc.) and the same
      computational method must be used for both tests
      used in the calculation of a WER.
   2) The selection of the percentage used to define the
      endpoint might be influenced by the percent effect
      that occurred in the tests and the correspondence
      with the CCC and/or CMC.
   3) If no treatment killed or affected more than 50
      percent of the test organisms and the  test was
      otherwise acceptable, the LC50 or EC50 should be
      reported to be greater than the highest test
      concentration.

                         58

-------
   4) If no treatment other than the control killed or
      affected less than 50 percent of the test organisms
      and the test was otherwise acceptable, the LC50 or
      EC50 should be reported to be less than the lowest
      test concentration.
b. If the data for the most sensitive effect are not
   dichotomous, the endpoint must be calculated using a
   regression-type method (Hoekstra and Van Ewijk 1993;
   Stephan and Rogers 1985),  such as linear interpolation
   (U.S. EPA 1993b,c) or a nonlinear regression method
   (Barnthouse et al. 1987;  Suter et al.  1987; Bruce and
   Versteeg 1992).   The selection of the percentage used
   to define the endpoint might be influenced by the
   percent effect that occurred in the tests and the
   correspondence with the CCC and/or CMC.  The endpoints
   in the side-by-side tests must be based on the same
   amount of the same adverse effect so that the WER is a
   ratio of identical endpoints.  The same computational
   method must be used for both tests used in the
   calculation of the WER.
c. Both total recoverable and dissolved results should be
   calculated for each test.
d. Results should be based on the time-weighted average
   measured metal concentrations (see Figure 6).

The acceptability of the laboratory dilution water must be
evaluated by comparing results obtained with two sensitive
tests using the laboratory dilution water with results
that were obtained using a comparable laboratory dilution
water in one or more other laboratories (see sections
C.3.b and F.5).
a. If, after taking into account any known effect of
   hardness on toxicity, the new values for the endpoints
   of both of the tests are (1)  more than a factor of 1.5
   higher than the respective means of the values from the
   other laboratories or  (2)  more than a factor of 1.5
   lower than the respective means of values from the
   other laboratories or  (3)  lower than the respective
   lowest values available from other laboratories or  (4)
   higher than the respective highest values available
   from other laboratories,  the new and old data must be
   carefully evaluated to determine whether the laboratory
   dilution water used in the WER determination was
   acceptable.   For example,  there might have been an
   error in the chemical measurements, which might mean
   that the results of all tests performed in the WER
   determination need to be adjusted and that the WER
   would not change.  It is also possible that the metal
   is more or less toxic in the laboratory dilution water
   used in the WER determination.  Further, if the new
   data were based on measured concentrations but the old
   data were based on nominal concentrations, the new data

                         59

-------
       should probably be considered to be better than the
       old.  Evaluation of results of any other toxicity tests
       on the same or a different metal using the same
       laboratory dilution water might be useful.
    b. If, after taking into account any known effect of
       hardness on toxicity, the new values for the endpoints
       of the two tests are not either both higher or both
       lower in comparison than data from other laboratories
       (as per section a above) and if both of the new values
       are within a factor of 2 of the respective means of the
       previously available values or are within the ranges of
       the values, the laboratory dilution water used in the
       WER determination is acceptable.
    c. A control chart approach may be used if sufficient data
       are available.
    d. If the comparisons do not indicate that the laboratory
       dilution water, test method, etc., are acceptable, the
       tests probably should be considered unacceptable,
       unless other toxicity data are available to indicate
       that they are acceptable.
    Comparison of results of tests between laboratories
    provides a check on all aspects of the test procedure; the
    emphasis here is on the quality of the laboratory dilution
    water because all other aspects of the side-by-side tests
    on which the WER is based must be the same,  except
    possibly for the concentrations of metal used and the
    acclimation just prior to the beginning of the tests.

6.   If all the necessary tests and the laboratory dilution
    water are acceptable,  a WER must be calculated by dividing
    the endpoint obtained using site water by the endpoint
    obtained using laboratory dilution water.
    a. If both a primary test and a secondary test were
       conducted using both waters, WERs must be calculated
       for both tests.
    b. Both total recoverable and dissolved WERs must be
       calculated.
    c. If the detection limit of the analytical method used to
       measure the metal is above the endpoint in laboratory
       dilution water, the detection limit must be used as the
       endpoint,  which will result in a lower WER than would
       be obtained if the actual concentration had been
       measured.   If the detection limit of the analytical
       method used is above the endpoint in site water,  a WER
       cannot be determined.

7.   Investigation of the WER.
    a. The results of the chemical measurements of hardness,
       alkalinity, pH, TSS, TOG,  total recoverable metal,
       dissolved metal, etc., on the effluent and the upstream
       water should be examined and compared with previously
       available values for the effluent and upstream water,

                             60

-------
respectively, to determine whether the samples were
representative and to get some indication of the
variability in the composition, especially as it might
affect the toxicity of the metal and the WER, and to
see if the WER correlates with one or more of the
measurements.
The WERs obtained with the primary and secondary tests
should be compared to determine whether the WER
obtained with the secondary test confirmed the WER
obtained with the primary test.  Equally sensitive
tests are expected to give WERs that are similar (e.g.,
within a factor of 3), whereas a test that is less
sensitive will probably give a smaller WER than a more
sensitive test (see Appendix D).   Thus a WER obtained
with a primary test is considered confirmed if either
or both of the following are true:
1) the WERs obtained with the primary and secondary
   tests are within a factor of 3.
2) the test, regardless of whether it is the primary or
   secondary test, that gives a higher endpoint in the
   laboratory dilution water also gives the larger WER.
If the WER obtained with the secondary test does not
confirm the WER obtained with the primary test, the
results should be investigated.  In addition, WERs
probably should be determined using both tests the next
time samples are obtained and it would be desirable to
determine a WER using a third test.  It is also
important to evaluate what the results imply about the
protectiveness of any proposed site-specific criterion.
If the WER is larger than 5, it should be investigated.
1) If the endpoint obtained using the laboratory
   dilution water was lower than previously reported
   lowest value or was more than a factor of two lower
   than an existing Species Mean Acute Value in a
   criteria document, additional tests in the
   laboratory dilution water are probably desirable.
2) If a total recoverable WER was larger than 5 but the
   dissolved WER was not, is the metal one whose WER is
   likely to be affected by TSS and/or TOC and was the
   concentration of TSS and/or TOC high?  Was there a
   substantial difference between the total recoverable
   and dissolved concentrations of the metal in the
   downstream water?
3) If both the total recoverable and dissolved WERs
   were larger than 5, is it likely that there is
   nontoxic dissolved metal in the downstream water?
The adverse effects and the time-course of effects in
the side-by-side tests should be compared.  If they are
different,  it might indicate that the site-water test
is questionable or that additivity, synergism, or
antagonism occurred in the site water.  This might be
especially important if the WER obtained with the

                      61

-------
          secondary test did not confirm the WER obtained with
          the primary test or if the WER was very large or small.

   8.   If at least one WER determined with the primary test was
       confirmed by a WER that was simultaneously determined with
       the secondary test, the cmcFWER and/or the cccFWER should
       be derived as described in section A.5.

   9.   All data generated during the determination of the WER
       should be examined to see if there are any implications
       for the national or site-specific aquatic life criterion.
       a. If there are data for a species for which data were not
          previously available or unusual data for a species for
          which data were available, the national criterion might
          need to be revised.
       b. If the primary test gives an LC50 or EC50 in laboratory
          dilution water that is the same as the national CMC,
          the resulting site-specific CMC should be similar to
          the LC50 that was obtained with the primary test using
          downstream water.  Such relationships might serve as a
          check on the applicability of the use of WERs.
       c. If data indicate that the site-specific criterion would
          not adequately protect a critical species, the site-
          specific criterion probably should be lowered.


J. Reporting the Results

   A report of the experimental determination of a WER to the
   appropriate regulatory authority must include the following:
   1.   Name(s) of the investigator(s),  name and location of the
       laboratory, and dates of initiation and termination of the
       tests.
   2.   A description of the laboratory dilution water, including
       source, preparation, and any demonstrations that an
       aquatic species can survive,  grow, and reproduce in it.
   3.   The name, location, and description of the discharger, a
       description of the effluent,  and the design flows of the
       effluent and the upstream water.
   4.   A description of each sampling station, date, and time,
       with an explanation of why they were selected, and the
       flows of the upstream water and the effluent at the time
       the samples were collected.
   5.   The procedures used to obtain, transport, and store the
       samples of the upstream water and the effluent.
   6.   Any pretreatment, such as filtration, of the effluent,
       site water, and/or laboratory dilution water.
   7.   Results of all chemical and physical measurements on
       upstream water, effluent, actual and/or simulated
       downstream water, and laboratory dilution water, including
       hardness  (or salinity), alkalinity, pH, and concentrations
       of total recoverable metal, dissolved metal, TSS,  and TOC.

                                62

-------
8.  Description of the experimental design, test chambers,
    depth and volume of solution in the chambers, loading and
    lighting, and numbers of organisms and chambers per
    treatment.
9.  Source and grade of the metallic salt, and how the stock
    solution was prepared, including any acids or bases used.
10. Source of the test organisms, scientific name and how
    verified, age, life stage, means and ranges of weights
    and/or lengths, observed diseases, treatments, holding and
    acclimation procedures, and food.
11. The average and range of the temperature,  pH, hardness (or
    salinity), and the concentration of dissolved oxygen  (as %
    saturation and as mg/L) during acclimation, and the method
    used to measure them.
12. The following must be presented for each toxicity test:
    a. The average and range of the measured concentrations of
       dissolved oxygen, as % saturation and as mg/L.
    b. The average and range of the test temperature and the
       method used to measure it.
    c. The schedule for taking samples of test solutions and
       the methods used to obtain, prepare, and store them.
    d. A summary table of the total recoverable and dissolved
       concentrations of the metal in each treatment,
       including all controls, in which they were measured.
    e. A summary table of the values of the toxicological
       variable(s) for each treatment, including all controls,
       in sufficient detail to allow an independent
       statistical analysis of the data.
    f. The endpoint and the method used to calculate it.
    g. Comparisons with other data obtained by conducting the
       same test on the same metal using laboratory dilution
       water in the same and different laboratories; such data
       may be from a criteria document or from another source.
    h. Anything unusual about the test, any deviations from
       the procedures described above, and any other relevant
       information.
13. All differences, other than the dilution water and the
    concentrations of metal in the test solutions, between the
    side-by-side tests using laboratory dilution water and
    site water.
14. Comparison of results obtained with the primary and
    secondary tests.
15. The WER and an explanation of its calculation.
A report of the derivation of a FWER must include the
following:
1.  A report of the determination of each WER that was
    determined for the derivation of the FWER; all WERs
    determined with secondary tests must be reported along
    with all WERs that were determined with the primary test.

                             63

-------
The design flow of the upstream water and the effluent and
the hardness used in the derivation of the permit limits,
if the criterion for the metal is hardness-dependent.
A summary table must be presented that contains the
following for each WER that was derived:
a. the value of the WER and the two endpoints from which
   it was calculated.
b. the hWER calculated from the WER.
c. the test and species that was used.
d. the date the samples of effluent and site water were
   collected.
e. the flows of the effluent and upstream water when the
   samples were taken.
f. the following information concerning the laboratory
   dilution water, effluent, upstream water, and actual
   and/or simulated downstream water: hardness (salinity),
   alkalinity, pH, and concentrations of total recoverable
   metal, dissolved metal, TSS, and TOG.
A detailed explanation of how the FWER was derived from
the WERs that are in the summary table.
                         64

-------
METHOD 2: DETERMINING cccWERs FOR AREAS AWAY FROM PLUMES
Method 2 might be viewed as a simple process wherein samples of
site water are obtained from locations within a large body of
fresh or salt water  (e.g., an ocean or a large lake, reservoir,
or estuary), a WER is determined for each sample,  and the FWER is
calculated as the geometric mean of some or all of the WERs.   In
reality, Method 2 is not likely to produce useful  results unless
substantial resources are devoted to planning and  conducting the
study.  Most sites to which Method 2 is applied will have long
retention times, complex mixing patterns, and a number of
dischargers.  Because metals are persistent, the long retention
times mean that the sites are likely to be defined to cover
rather large areas; thus such sites will herein be referred to
generically as "large sites".   Despite the differences between
them, all large sites require similar special considerations
regarding the determination of WERs.  Because Method 2 is based
on samples of actual surface water  (rather than simulated surface
water),  no sample should be taken in the vicinity  of a plume and
the method should be used to determine cccWERs, not cmcWERs.   If
WERs are to be determined for more than one metal, Appendix F
should be read.

Method 2 uses many of the same methodologies as Method 1, such as
those for toxicity tests and chemical analyses. Because the
sampling plan is crucial to Method 2 and the plan  has to be based
on site-specific considerations, this description  of Method 2
will be more qualitative than the description of Method 1.

Method 2 is based on use of actual surface water samples, but use
of simulated surface water might provide information that is
useful for some purposes:
1. It might be desirable to compare the WERs for two discharges
   that contain the same metal.   This might be accomplished by
   selecting an appropriate dilution water and preparing two
   simulated surface waters, one that contains a known
   concentration of one effluent and one that contains a known
   concentration of the other effluent.  The relative magnitude
   of the two WERs is likely to be more useful than the absolute
   values of the WERs themselves.
2. It might be desirable to determine whether the  eWER for a
   particular effluent is additive with the WER of the site water
   (see Appendix G).   This can be studied by determining WERs for
   several different known concentrations of the effluent in site
   water.
3. An event such as a rain might affect the WER because of a
   change in the water quality,  but it might also  reduce the WER
   just by dilution of refractory metal or TSS. A proportional
   decrease in the WER and in the concentration of the metal
   (such as by dilution of refractory metal) will  not result in
   underprotection; if,  however, dilution decreases the WER

                                65

-------
   proportionally more than it decreases the concentration of
   metal in the downstream water,  underprotection is likely to
   occur.  This is essentially a determination of whether the WER
   is additive when the effluent is diluted with rain water (see
   Appendix G).
4.  An event that increases TSS might increase the total
   recoverable concentration of the metal and the total
   recoverable WER without having much effect on either the
   dissolved concentration or the dissolved WER.
In all four cases, the use of simulated surface water is useful
because it allows for the determination of WERs using known
concentrations of effluent.

An important step in the determination of any WER is to define
the area to be included in the site.  The major principle that
should be applied when defining the area is the same for all
sites: The site should be neither too small nor too large.  If
the area selected is too small, permit limits might be
unnecessarily controlled by a criterion for an area outside the
site, whereas too large an area might unnecessarily incorporate
spatial complexities that are not relevant to the discharge(s) of
concern and thereby unnecessarily increase the cost of
determining the WER.  Applying this principle is likely to be
more difficult for large sites than for flowing-water sites.

Because WERs for large sites will usually be determined using
actual, rather than simulated, surface water, there are five
major considerations regarding experimental design and data
analysis:

1.  Total recoverable WERs at large sites might vary so much
   across time,  location, and depth that they are not very
   useful.  An assumption should be developed that an
   appropriately defined WER will be much more similar across
   time, location, and depth within the site than will a total
   recoverable WER.  If such an assumption cannot be used, it is
   likely that either the FWER will have to be set equal to the
   lowest WER and be overprotective for most of the site or
   separate site-specific criteria will have to be derived for
   two or more sites.
   a. One assumption that is likely to be worth testing is that
      the dissolved WER varies much less across time, location,
      and depth within a site than the total recoverable WER.  If
      the assumption proves valid, a dissolved WER can be applied
      to a dissolved national water quality criterion to derive a
      dissolved site-specific water quality criterion that will
      apply to the whole site.
   b. A  second assumption that might be worth testing is that the
      WER correlates with a water quality characteristic such as
      TSS or TOC across time, location, and depth.
   c. Another assumption that might be worth testing is that  the
      dissolved and/or total recoverable WER is mostly due  to

                                66

-------
   nontoxic metal rather than to a water quality
   characteristic that reduces toxicity.  If this is true and
   if there is variability in the WER, the WER will correlate
   with the concentration of metal in the site water.  This is
   similar to the first assumption, but this one can allow use
   of both total recoverable and dissolved WERs, whereas the
   first one only allows use of a dissolved WER.
If WERs are too variable to be useful and no way can be found
to deal with the variability, additional sampling will
probably be required in order to develop a WER and/or a site-
specific water quality criterion that is either (a)  spatially
and/or temporally dependent or (b) constant and
environmentally conservative for nearly all conditions.

An experimental design should be developed that tests whether
the assumption is of practical value across the range of
conditions that occur at different times, locations, and
depths within the site.  Each design has to be formulated
individually to fit the specific site.  The design should try
to take into account the times, locations, and depths at which
the extremes of the physical, chemical, and biological
conditions occur within the site, which will require detailed
information concerning the site.   In addition, the
experimental design should balance available resources with
the need for adequate sampling.
a. Selection of the number and timing of sampling events
   should take into account seasonal, weekly,  and daily
   considerations.  Intensive sampling should occur during the
   two most extreme seasons,  with confirmatory sampling during
   the other two seasons.   Selection of the day and time of
   sample collection should take into account the discharge
   schedules of the major industrial and/or municipal
   discharges.  For example,  it might be appropriate to
   collect samples during the middle of the week to allow for
   reestablishment of steady-state conditions after shutdowns
   for weekends and holidays; alternatively, end-of-the-week
   slug discharges are routine in some situations.  In coastal
   sites, the tidal cycle might be important if facilities
   discharge,  for example,  over a four-hour period beginning
   at slack high tide.  Because the highest concentration of
   effluent in the surface water probably occurs at ebb tide,
   determination of WERs using site water samples obtained at
   this time might result in inappropriately large WERs that
   would result in underprotection at other times; samples
   with unusually large WERs might be especially useful for
   testing assumptions.  The importance of each consideration
   should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
b. Selection of the number and locations of stations to be
   sampled within a sampling event should consider the site as
   a whole and take into account sources of water and
   discharges, mixing patterns, and currents  (and tides in
   coastal areas).  If the site has been adequately

                             67

-------
   characterized, an acceptable design can probably be
   developed using existing information concerning (1)  sources
   of the metal and other pollutants and (2)  the spatial and
   temporal distribution of concentrations of the metal and
   water quality factors that might affect the toxicity of the
   metal.   Samples should not be taken within or near mixing
   zones or plumes of dischargers; dilution models (U.S. EPA
   1993) and dye dispersion studies (Kilpatrick 1992)  can
   indicate areas that should definitely be avoided.   Maps,
   current charts, hydrodynamic models, and water quality
   models used to allocate waste loads and derive permit
   limits are likely to be helpful when determining when and
   where to obtain site-water samples.  Available information
   might provide an indication of the acceptability of site
   water for testing selected species.  The larger and more
   complex the site, the greater the number of sampling
   locations that will be needed.
c. In addition to determining the horizontal location of each
   sampling station, the vertical location (i.e., depth) of
   the sampling point needs to be selected.  Known mixing
   regimes, the presence of vertical stratification of TSS
   and/or salinity, concentration of metal, effluent plumes,
   tolerance of test species, and the need to obtain samples
   of site water that span the range of site conditions should
   be considered when selecting the depth at which the sample
   is to be taken.  Some decisions concerning depth cannot be
   made until information is obtained at the time of sampling;
   for example, a conductivity meter,  salinometer, or
   transmissometer might be useful for determining where and
   at what depth to collect samples.  Turbidity might
   correlate with TSS and both might relate to the toxicity of
   the metal in site water; salinity can indicate whether the
   test organisms and the site water are compatible.
Because each site is unique, specific guidance cannot be given
here concerning either the selection of the appropriate number
and locations of sampling stations within a site or the
frequency of sampling.  All available information concerning
the site should be utilized to ensure that the times,
locations, and depths of samples span the range of water
quality characteristics that might affect the toxicity of the
metal:
   a. High and low concentrations of TSS.
   b. High and low concentrations of effluents.
   c. Seasonal effects.
   d. The range of tidal conditions in saltwater situations.
The sampling plan should provide the data needed to allow an
evaluation of the usefulness of the assumption(s) that the
experimental design is intended to test.  Statisticians should
play a key role in experimental design and data analysis, but
professional judgment that takes into account pertinent
biological, chemical, and toxicological considerations is at
least as important as rigorous statistical analysis when

                             68

-------
   interpreting the data and determining the degree to which the
   data correspond to the assumption(s).

3.  The details of each sampling design should be formulated with
   the aid of people who understand the site and people who have
   a working knowledge of WERs.   Because of the complexity of
   designing a WER study for large sites, the design team should
   utilize the combined expertise and experience of individuals
   from the appropriate EPA Region, states, municipalities,
   dischargers, environmental groups,  and others who can
   constructively contribute to the design of the study.
   Building a team of cooperating aquatic toxicologists, aquatic
   chemists, limnologists, oceanographers, water quality
   modelers, statisticians, individuals from other key
   disciplines, as well as regulators and those regulated, who
   have knowledge of the site and the site-specific procedures,
   is central to success of the derivation of a WER for a large
   site.  Rather than submitting the workplan to the appropriate
   regulatory authority (and possibly the Water Management
   Division of the EPA Regional Office) for comment at the end,
   they should be members of the team from the beginning.

4.  Data from one sampling event should always be analyzed prior
   to the next sampling event with the goal of improving the
   sampling design as the study progresses.  For example, if the
   toxicity of the metal in surface water samples is related to
   the concentration of TSS, a water quality characteristic such
   as turbidity might be measured at the time of collection of
   water samples and used in the selection of the concentrations
   to be used in the WER toxicity tests in site water.  At a
   minimum, the team that interprets the results of one sampling
   event and plans the next should include an aquatic
   toxicologist,  a metals chemist,  a statistician,  and a modeler
   or other user of the data.

5.  The final interpretation of the data and the derivation of the
   FWER(s)  should be performed by a team.  Sufficient data are
   likely to be available to allow a quantitative estimate of
   experimental variation, differences between species, and
   seasonal differences.  It will be necessary to decide whether
   one site-specific criterion can be applied to the whole area
   or whether separate site-specific criteria need to be derived
   for two or more sites.   The interpretation of the data might
   produce two or more alternatives that  the appropriate
   regulatory authority could subject to a cost-benefit analysis.

Other aspects of the determination of a WER for a large site are
likely to be the same as described for Method 1.  For example:
a.  WERs should be determined using two or more sensitive species;
   the suggestions given in Appendix I should be considered when
   selecting the tests and species to be used.
                                69

-------
Chemical analyses of site water, laboratory dilution water,
and test solutions should follow the requirements for the
specific test used and those given in this document.
If tests in many surface water samples are compared to one
test in a laboratory dilution water, it is very important that
that one test be acceptable.  Use of (I)  rangefinding tests,
(2) additional treatments beyond the standard five
concentrations plus controls, and (3) dilutions that are
functions of the known concentration-effect relationships
obtained with the toxicity test and metal of concern will help
ensure that the desired endpoints and WERs can be calculated.
Measurements of the concentrations of both total recoverable
and dissolved metal should be targeted to the test
concentrations whose data will be used in the calculation of
the endpoints.
Samples of site water and/or effluent should be collected,
handled, and transported so that the tests can begin as soon
as is feasible.
If the large site is a saltwater site,  the considerations
presented in Appendix H ought to be given attention.
                             70

-------
Figure 2: Calculating an Adjusted Geometric Mean


Where n  = the  number of experimentally  determined  WERs  in a set,
the "adjusted  geometric mean" of the set is calculated  as
follows:

a.  Take  the logarithm of each of the WERs.  The logarithms  can  be
   to any base, but natural logarithms  (base e) are preferred for
   reporting purposes.
b.  Calculate x =  the arithmetic mean of the logarithms.
c.  Calculate s =  the sample standard deviation of  the
   logarithms:
                          s = -' (x ~ x
                                n - 1

d. Calculate SE = the standard error of the arithmetic mean:
   SE = s/Jn .    _
e. Calculate A = x - (t0.7) (SE) ,  where t0 7 is the value of Student's
   t statistic for a one-sided probability of 0.70 with n - 1
   degrees of freedom.  The values of  t0 7 for some common
   degrees of freedom (df) are:

                         d£         t0.7

                          1        0.727
                          2        0.617
                          3        0.584
                          4        0.569

                          5        0.559
                          6        0.553
                          7        0.549
                          8        0.546

                          9        0.543
                         10        0.542
                         11        0.540
                         12        0.539

   The values of  tQ1 for more degrees of freedom are available,
   for example,  on page T-5 of Natrella (1966) .
f. Take the antilogarithm of A.

This adjustment of the geometric mean accounts for the fact that
the means of fifty percent of the sets of WERs are expected to be
higher than the actual mean;  using the one-sided value of t for
0.70 reduces the percentage to thirty.
                                71

-------
Figure 3: An Example Derivation of a FWER
This example assumes that cccWERs were determined monthly using
simulated downstream water that was prepared by mixing upstream
water with effluent at the ratio that existed when the samples
were obtained.  Also, the flow of the effluent is always 10 cfs,
and the design flow of the upstream water is 40 cfs.  (Therefore,
the downstream flow at design-flow conditions is 50 cfs.)  The
concentration of metal in upstream water at design flow is 0.4
ug/L, and the CCC is 2 ug/L.  Each FWER is derived from the WERs
and hWERs that are available through that month.
Month
March
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
eFLOW
(cfs)

 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
 10
uFLOW
(cfs)

 850
 289
 300
 430
 120
  85
  40
  45
 150
 110
 180
 244
uCONC
(uq/L)
WER
 HCME
(uq/L)
hWER
FWER
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8
.6
.6
.6
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4
.6
.6
5
6
5
5
7
10
12
11
7
3
6
6
.2
.0
.8
.7
.0
.5
.0
.0
.5
.5
.9
.1
a
c
c
c
c
e
e
e
c
c
c
c
826
341
341
475
177
196
118
119
234
79
251
295
.4
.5
.6
.8
.2
.1
.4
.2
.0
.6
.4
.2
82
34
34
47
17
19
12
12
23
8
25
29
.80
.31
.32
.74
.88
.77
.00
.08
.56
.12
.30
.68
1
1
1
5
5
6
10
10
10
8
8
8
.Ob
.Ob
.Ob
.7d
.7d
.80f
.69g
.88g
.88g
.12h
.12h
.12h
   Neither Type 1 nor Type 2; the downstream flow (i.e., the sum
   of the eFLOW and the uFLOW) is > 500 cfs.
   The total number of available Type 1 and Type 2 WERs is less
   than 3.
   A Type 2 WER; the downstream flow is between 100 and 500 cfs.
   No Type 1 WER is available; the FWER is the lower of the
   lowest Type 2 WER and the lowest hWER.
   A Type 1 WER; the downstream flow is between 50 and 100 cfs.
   One Type 1 WER is available; the FWER is the geometric mean of
   all Type 1 and Type 2 WERs.
   Two or more Type 1 WERs are available and the range is less
   than a factor of 5; the FWER is the adjusted geometric mean
   (see Figure 2) of the Type 1 WERs, because all the hWERs are
   higher.
   Two or more Type 1 WERs are available and the range is not
   greater than a factor of 5; the FWER is the lowest hWER
   because the lowest hWER is lower than the adjusted geometric
   mean of the Type 1 WERs.
                                72

-------
Figure 4: Reducing the Impact of Experimental Variation


When the FWER is the lowest of, for example, three WERs, the
impact of experimental variation can be reduced by conducting
additional primary tests.  If the endpoint of the secondary test
is above the CMC or CCC to which the FWER is to be applied, the
additional tests can also be conducted with the secondary test.
Month
April
May
June
   Case 1

 (Primary
   Test)

  4.801
  2.552
  9.164
                   (Primary
                     Test)

                    4.801
                    2.552
                    9.164
           Case 2

          (Primary
            Test)

           3 .565
           4.190
           6.736
        Geometric
          Mean

          4.137
          3.270
          7.857
Lowest
  2 .552
                                           3.270
Month
April
May
June

Lowest
           Case  3

(Primary  (Second.
  Test)      Test)
4.801
2.552
9.164
           3.163
           5.039
           7.110
Geo.
 Mean

3.897
3.586
8.072

3.586
                                        Case 4

                             (Primary  (Second.
                               Test)      Test)
4 .801
2.552
9.164
3.163
2.944
7.110
Geo.
 Mean

3.897
2.741
8. 072

2.741
Case 1 uses the individual WERs obtained with the primary test
for the three months, and the FWER is the lowest of the three
WERs.  In Case 2, duplicate primary tests were conducted in each
month, so that a geometric mean could be calculated for each
month; the FWER is the lowest of the three geometric means.

In Cases 3 and 4, both a primary test and a secondary test were
conducted each month and the endpoints for both tests in
laboratory dilution water are above the CMC or CCC to which the
FWER is to be applied.  In both of these cases, therefore, the
FWER is the lowest of the three geometric means.

The availability of these alternatives does not mean that they
are necessarily cost-effective.
                                73

-------
Figure 5: Calculating an LC50  (or EC50) by Interpolation


When fewer than two treatments kill some but not all of the
exposed test organisms, a statistically sound estimate of an LC50
cannot be calculated.  Some programs and methods produce LCSOs
when there are fewer than two  "partial kills", but such results
are obtained using interpolation, not statistics.  If  (a) a test
is otherwise acceptable, (b) a sufficient number of organisms are
exposed to each treatment,  and (c) the concentrations are
sufficiently close together, a test with zero or one partial kill
can provide all the information that is needed concerning the
LC50.  An LC50 calculated by interpolation should probably be
called an "approximate LC50" to acknowledge the lack of a
statistical basis for its calculation, but this does not imply
that such an LC50 provides no useful toxicological information.
If desired, the binomial test can be used to calculate a
statistically sound probability that the true LC50 lies between
two tested concentrations (Stephan 1977).

Although more complex interpolation methods can be used, they
will not produce a more useful LC50 than the method described
here.  Inversions in the data between two test concentrations
should be removed by pooling the mortality data for those two
concentrations and calculating a percent mortality that is then
assigned to both concentrations.   Logarithms to a base other than
10 can be used if desired.   If PI and P2 are the percentages of
the test organisms that died when exposed to concentrations Cl
and C2, respectively, and if   Cl < C2,   PI < P2,   0 s PI s 50,
 and   50 s P2 < 100,  then:

                              = 50 - Pi
                               P2 - Pi

                    C = Log Cl + P(Log C2 - Log Cl)

                            LC50 = 10C
If PI = 0 and P2 = 100, LC50 = ^ (Cl) (C2)
If PI = P2 = 50, LC50 = ^ (Cl) (C2)  .
If PI = 50, LC50 = Cl.
If P2 = 50, LC50 = C2.
If Cl = 4 mg/L, C2 = 7 mg/L, PI = 15 %, and P2 = 100 %,
   then LC50 = 5.036565 mg/L.

Besides the mathematical requirements given above, the following
toxicological recommendations are given in sections G.8 and 1.2:
a. 0.65 < C1/C2 < 0.99.
b. 0 s PI < 37.
c. 63 < P2 s 100.
                                74

-------
Figure 6: Calculating a Time-Weighted Average


If a sampling plan  (e.g., for measuring metal in a treatment in a
toxicity test) is designed so that a series of values are
obtained over time in such a way that each value contains the
same amount of information (i.e., represents the same amount of
time),  then the most meaningful average is the arithmetic
average.  In most cases, however, when a series of values is
obtained over time, some values contain more information than
others; in these cases the most meaningful average is a time-
weighted average (TWA).   If each value contains the same amount
of information, the arithmetic average will equal the TWA.

A TWA is obtained by multiplying each value by a weight and then
dividing the sum of the products by the sum of the weights.  The
simplest approach is to let each weight be the duration of time
that the sample represents.  Except for the first and last
samples, the period of time represented by a sample starts
halfway to the previous sample and ends halfway to the next
sample.  The period of time represented by the first sample
starts at the beginning of the test, and the period of time
represented by the last sample ends at the end of the test.  Thus
for a 96-hr toxicity test, the sum of the weights will be 96 hr.

The following are hypothetical examples of grab samples taken
from 96-hr flow-through tests for two common sampling regimes:

Sampling   Cone.   Weight   Product    Time-weighted average
time (hr)  (mcr/L)   (hr)   (hr) (mq/L)  	(mg/L)	

    0       12       48       576
   96       14       48       672
                     96      1248          1248/96 = 13.00

    0        8       12        96
   24        6       24       144
   48        7       24       168
   72        9       24       216
   96        8       12.        96
                     96       720           720/96 = 7.500


When all the weights are the same, the arithmetic average equals
the TWA.  Similarly, if only one sample is taken, both the
arithmetic average and the TWA equal the value of that sample.

The rules are more complex for composite samples and for samples
from renewal tests.  In all cases, however, the sampling plan can
be designed so that the TWA equals the arithmetic average.
                                75

-------
                            REFERENCES


ASTM.  1993a.  Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with
Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.  Standard E729.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM.  1993b.  Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests
Starting with Embryos of Four Species of Saltwater Bivalve
Molluscs.  Standard E724.  American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM.  1993c.  Guide for Conducting Renewal Life-Cycle Toxicity
Tests with Daphnia macrna.  Standard E1193 .   American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM.  1993d.  Guide for Conducting Early Life-Stage Toxicity
Tests with Fishes.  Standard E1241.  American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM.  1993e.  Guide for Conducting Three-Brood, Renewal Toxicity
Tests with Ceriodaphnia dubia.  Standard E1295.  American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM.  1993f.  Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on
Aqueous Effluents with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and
Amphibians.  Standard E1192.  American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

Barnthouse, L.W., G.W. Suter,  A.E. Rosen, and J.J. Beauchamp.
1987.  Estimating Responses of Fish Populations to Toxic
Contaminants.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6:811-824.

Bruce, R.D., and D.J. Versteeg.  1992.  A Statistical Procedure
for Modeling Continuous Toxicity Data.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
11:1485-1494.

Hoekstra, J.A., and P.H. Van Ewijk.  1993.   Alternatives for the
No-Observed-Effect Level.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:187-194.

Kilpatrick, F.A.  1992.  Simulation of Soluble Waste Transport
and Buildup in Surface Waters Using Tracers.  Open-File Report
92-457.  U.S. Geological Survey, Books and Open-File Reports, Box
25425, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225.

Natrella, M.G.  1966.  Experimental Statistics.  National Bureau
of Standards Handbook 91.  (Issued August 1, 1963; reprinted
October 1966 with corrections).  U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
                                76

-------
Prothro, M.G.  1993.  Memorandum titled "Office of Water Policy
and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Metals Criteria".  October 1.

Stephan, C.E.  1977.  Methods for Calculating an LC50.  In:
Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluation.   (F.L. Mayer and J.L.
Hamelink, eds.)   ASTM STP 634.  American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.  pp. 65-84.

Stephan, C.E.,  and J.W. Rogers.  1985.  Advantages of Using
Regression Analysis to Calculate Results of Chronic Toxicity
Tests.  In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Eighth
Symposium.   (R.C. Bahner and D.J. Hansen, eds.)   ASTM STP 891.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
pp. 328-338.

Suter, G.W., A.E. Rosen, E. Linder, and D.F. Parkhurst.   1987.
Endpoints for Responses of Fish to Chronic Toxic Exposures.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6:793-809.

U.S. EPA.  1983a.  Water Quality Standards Handbook.  Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1983b.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes.  EPA-600/4-79-020.  National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1984.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-
Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria.
EPA-600/3-84-099  or  PB85-121101.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1985.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses.   PB85-227049.  National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1991a.  Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control.   EPA/505/2-90-001  or  PB91-127415.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1991b.  Manual for the Evaluation of Laboratories
Performing Aquatic Toxicity Tests.  EPA/600/4-90/031.  National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1991c.  Methods for the Determination of Metals in
Environmental Samples.  EPA-600/4-91-010.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
                                77

-------
U.S. EPA.  1992.  Interim Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals.  Office of
Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1993a.  Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms.  Fourth Edition.  EPA/600/4-90/027F.   National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1993b.  Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater
Organisms.  Third Edition.  EPA/600/4-91/002.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EP£.  1993c.  Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and
Estuarine Organisms.  Second Edition.  EPA/600/4-91/003.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1993d.  Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges.
Second Edition.  EPA/600/R-93/139.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
                                78

-------
Appendix A: Comparison of WERs Determined Using Upstream and
            Downstream Water
The "Interim Guidance" concerning metals (U.S. EPA 1992) made a
fundamental change in the way WERs should be experimentally
determined because it changed the source of the site water.  The
earlier guidance  (U.S. EPA 1983,1984) required that upstream
water be used as the site water, whereas the newer guidance  (U.S.
EPA 1992) recommended that downstream water be used as the site
water.  The change in the source of the site water was merely an
acknowledgement that the WER that applies at a location in a body
of water should, when possible, be determined using the water
that occurs at that location.

Because the change in the source of the dilution water was
expected to result in an increase in the magnitude of many WERs,
interest in and concern about the determination and use of WERs
increased.  When upstream water was the required site water,  it
was expected that WERs would generally be low and that the
determination and use of WERs could be fairly simple.  After
downstream water became the recommended site water, the
determination and use of WERs was examined much more closely.  It
was then realized that the determination and use of upstream WERs
was more complex than originally thought.   It was also realized
that the use of downstream water greatly increased the complexity
and was likely to increase both the magnitude and the variability
of many WERs.  Concern about the fate of discharged metal also
increased because use of downstream water might allow the
discharge of large amounts of metal that has reduced or no
toxicity at the end of the pipe.  The probable increases in the
complexity, magnitude, and variability of WERs and the increased
concern about fate, increased the importance of understanding the
relevant issues as they apply to WERs determined using both
upstream water and downstream water.


A. Characteristics of the Site Water

   The idealized concept of an upstream water is a pristine water
   that is relatively unaffected by people.   In the real world,
   however, many upstream waters contain naturally occurring
   ligands, one or more effluents,  and materials from nonpoint
   sources; all of these might impact a WER.  If the upstream
   water receives an effluent containing TOC and/or TSS that
   contributes to the WER,  the WER will probably change whenever
   the quality or quantity of the TOC and/or TSS changes.  In
   such a case, the determination and use of the WER in upstream
   water will have some of the increased complexity associated
   with use of downstream water and some of the concerns
   associated with multiple-discharge situations (see Appendix
   F).  The amount of complexity will depend greatly on the

                                79

-------
   number and type of upstream point and nonpoint  sources,  the
   frequency and magnitude of fluctuations,  and whether the WER
   is being determined above or below the point of complete mix
   of the upstream sources.

   Downstream water is a mixture of effluent and upstream water,
   each of which can contribute to the WER,  and so there are two
   components to a WER determined in downstream water:  the
   effluent component and the upstream component.   The  existence
   of these two components has the following implications:
   1. WERs determined using downstream water are likely to be
      larger and more variable than WERs determined using
      upstream water.
   2. The effluent component should be applied only where the
      effluent occurs, which has implications concerning
      implementation.
   3. The magnitude of the effluent component of a WER  will
      depend on the concentration of effluent in the downstream
      water.  (A consequence of this is that the effluent
      component will be zero where the concentration of effluent
      is zero, which is the point of item 2  above.)
   4. The magnitude of the effluent component of a WER  is likely
      to vary as the composition of the effluent varies.
   5. Compared to upstream water, many effluents contain higher
      concentrations of a wider variety of substances that can
      impact the toxicity of metals in a wider variety  of ways,
      and so the effluent component of a WER can be due to a
      variety of chemical effects in addition to such factors as
      hardness,  alkalinity,  pH, and humic acid.
   6. Because the effluent component might be due, in whole or in
      part, to the discharge of refractory metal  (see Appendix
      D), the WER cannot be thought of simply as being  caused by
      the effect of water quality on the toxicity  of the metal.
   Dealing with downstream WERs is so much simpler if the
   effluent WER (eWER) and the upstream WER (uWER) are  additive
   that it is desirable to understand the concept  of additivity
   of WERs, its experimental determination,  and its use (see
   Appendix G).


B. The Implications of Mixing Zones.

   When WERs are determined using upstream water,  the presence or
   absence of mixing zones has no impact; the cmcWER and the
   cccWER will both be determined using site water that contains
   zero percent of the effluent of concern,  i.e.,  the two WERs
   will be determined using the same site water.

   When WERs are determined using downstream water, the magnitude
   of each WER will probably depend on the concentration of
   effluent in the downstream water used  (see Appendix  D).  The
   concentration of effluent in the site water will depend on

                                80

-------
where the sample is taken, which will not be the same for the
cmcWER and the cccWER if there are mixing zone(s).   Most, if
not all, discharges have a chronic (CCC)  mixing zone; many,
but not all, also have an acute (CMC) mixing zone.   The CMC
applies at all points except those inside a CMC mixing zone;
thus if there is no CMC mixing zone,  the CMC applies at the
end of the pipe.  The CCC applies at all points outside the
CCC mixing zone.  It is generally assumed that if permit
limits are based on a point in a stream at which both the CMC
and the CCC apply, the CCC will control the permit limits,
although the CMC might control if different averaging periods
are appropriately taken into account.  For this discussion, it
will be assumed that the same design flow (e.g.,  7Q10)  is used
for both the CMC and the CCC.

If the cmcWER is to be appropriate for use inside the chronic
mixing zone, but the cccWER is to be appropriate for use
outside the chronic mixing zone, the concentration of effluent
that is appropriate for use in the determination of the two
WERs will not be the same.  Thus even if the same toxicity
test is used in the determination of the cmcWER and the
cccWER, the two WERs will probably be different because the
concentration of effluent will be different in the two site
waters in which the WERs are determined.

If the CMC is only of concern within the CCC mixing zone, the
highest relevant concentration of metal will occur at the edge
of the CMC mixing zone if there is a CMC mixing zone; the
highest concentration will occur at the end of the pipe if
there is no CMC mixing zone.  In contrast, within the CCC
mixing zone, the lowest cmcWER will probably occur at the
outer edge of the CCC mixing zone.  Thus the greatest level of
protection would be provided if the cmcWER is determined using
water at the outer edge of the CCC mixing zone, and then the
calculated site-specific CMC is applied at the edge of the CMC
mixing zone or at the end of the pipe,  depending on whether
there is an acute mixing zone.  The cmcWER is likely to be
lowest at the outer edge of the CCC mixing zone because of
dilution of the effluent, but this dilution will also dilute
the metal.  If the cmcWER is determined at the outer edge of
the CCC mixing zone but the resulting site-specific CMC is
applied at the end of the pipe or at the edge of the CMC
mixing zone, dilution is allowed to reduce the WER but it is
not allowed to reduce the concentration of the metal.  This
approach is environmentally conservative,  but it is probably
necessary given current implementation procedures.    (The
situation might be more complicated if the uWER is higher than
the eWER or if the two WERs are less-than-additive.)

A comparable situation applies to the CCC.  Outside the CCC
mixing zone, the CMC and the CCC both apply,  but it is assumed
that the CMC can be ignored because the CCC will be more

                             81

-------
   restrictive.  The cccWER should probably be determined for the
   complete-mix situation,  but the site-specific CCC will have to
   be met at the edge of the CCC mixing zone.   Thus dilution of
   the WER from the edge of the CCC mixing zone to the point of
   complete mix is taken into account,  but dilution of the metal
   is not.

   If there is neither an acute nor a chronic  mixing zone,  both
   the CMC and the CCC apply at the end of the pipe,  but the CCC
   should still be determined for the complete-mix situation.


C.  Definition of site.

   In the general context of site-specific criteria,  a "site" may
   be a state, region, watershed, waterbody,  segment of a
   waterbody, category of water  (e.g.,  ephemeral streams),  etc.,
   but the site-specific criterion is to be derived to provide
   adequate protection for the entire site, however the site is
   defined.  Thus, when a site-specific criterion is derived
   using the Recalculation Procedure, all species that "occur at
   the site" need to be taken into account when deciding what
   species, if any, are to be deleted from the dataset.
   Similarly, when a site-specific criterion is derived using a
   WER, the WER is to be adequately protective of the entire
   site.  If, for example,  a site-specific criterion is being
   derived for an estuary,  WERs could be determined using samples
   of the surface water obtained from various  sampling stations,
   which, to avoid confusion, should not be called "sites".   If
   all the WERs were sufficiently similar, one site-specific
   criterion could be derived to apply to the  whole estuary.  If
   the WERs were sufficiently different, either the lowest WER
   could be used to derive a site-specific criterion for the
   whole estuary, or the data might indicate that the estuary
   should be divided into two or more sites,  each with its own
   criterion.

   The major principle that should be applied  when defining the
   area to be included in the site is very simplistic: The site
   should be neither too small nor too large.
   1. Small sites are probably appropriate for cmcWERs,  but
      usually are not appropriate for cccWERs  because metals are
      persistent, although some oxidation states are not
      persistent and some metals are not persistent in the water
      column.  For cccWERs, the smaller the defined site, the
      more likely it is that the permit limits will be controlled
      by a criterion for an area that is outside the site,  but
      which could have been included in the site without
      substantially changing the WER or increasing the cost of
      determining the WER.
   2. Too large an area might unnecessarily increase the cost of
      determining the WER.   As the size of the site increases,

                                82

-------
    the  spatial  and  temporal variability  is  likely  to  increase,
    which  will probably  increase  the number  of water samples  in
    which  WERs will  need to be  determined before a  site-
    specific  criterion can be derived.
 3.  Events that  import or resuspend TSS and/or TOG  are likely
    to increase  the  total recoverable concentration of the
    metal  and the  total  recoverable WER while having a much
    smaller effect on the dissolved concentration and  the
    dissolved WER.   Where the concentration  of dissolved metal
    is substantially more constant than the  concentration of
    total  recoverable metal, the  site can probably  be  much
    larger for a dissolved criterion than for a total
    recoverable  criterion.  If  one criterion is not feasible
    for  the whole  area,  it might  be possible to divide it into
    two  or more  sites with separate total recoverable  or
    dissolved criteria or to make the criterion dependent on  a
    water  quality  characteristic  such as  TSS or salinity.
 4.  Unless the site  ends  where  one body of water meets another,
    at the outer edge of  the site there will usually be an
    instantaneous  decrease in the allowed concentration of the
    metal  in  the water column due to the  change from one
    criterion to another, but there will  not be an
    instantaneous  decrease in the actual  concentration of metal
    in the water column.  The site has to be large enough to
    include the  transition zone in which  the actual
    concentration  decreases so  that the criterion outside the
    site is not  exceeded.
 It  is,  of course, possible in  some situations that relevant
 distant conditions  (e.g., a lower downstream pH)  will
 necessitate  a low criterion that will control the permit
 limits  such  that  it is pointless to determine a WER.

 When a WER is determined in upstream water,  it is generally
 assumed that a  downstream effluent will not decrease  the WER.
 It  is therefore assumed  that the site can usually cover a
 rather  large geographic  area.

 When a  site-specific criterion is derived based on WERs
 determined using  downstream water,  the site should not be
 defined in the  same way that it would be defined if the WER
 were determined using upstream water.   The eWER should be
 allowed to affect the site-specific criterion wherever the
 effluent  occurs, but it should not be allowed to affect the
 criterion  in places where the effluent does not occur.  In
 addition,   insofar as the magnitude of the effluent component
 at a point in the site depends on the concentration of
 effluent,   the magnitude of the WER at a particular point will
 depend on  the concentration of effluent at that point.  To the
 extent that the eWER and the uWER are additive,  the WER and
 the concentration of metal in the plume will decrease
proportionally  (see Appendix G).
                             83

-------
   When WERs are determined using downstream  water,  the  following
   considerations should be taken into  account  when  the  site  is
   defined:
   1.  If a site-specific criterion is derived using  a  WER that
      applies to the complete-mix situation,  the  upstream edge of
      the site to which this criterion  applies  should  be the
      point  at which complete mix actually occurs.   If the site
      to which the complete-mix WER is  applied  starts  at the  end
      of the pipe and extends all the way across  the stream,
      there  will be an area beside the  plume  that will not be
      adequately protected by the site-specific criterion.
   2.  Upstream of the point of complete mix,  it will usually  be
      protective to apply a site-specific criterion  that was
      derived using a WER that was determined using  upstream
      water.
   3.  The plume might be an area in which the concentration of
      metal  could exceed a site-specific criterion without
      causing toxicity because of simultaneous  dilution  of the
      metal  and the eWER.  The fact that the  plume is  much larger
      than the mixing zone might not be important if there is no
      toxicity within the plume.  As long as  the  concentration of
      metal  in 100 % effluent does not  exceed that allowed by the
      additive portion of the eWER, from a toxicological
      standpoint neither the size nor the definition of  the plume
      needs  to be of concern because the metal  will  not  cause
      toxicity within the plume.  If there is no  toxicity within
      the plume, the area in the plume  might  be like a
      traditional mixing zone in that the concentration  of metal
      exceeds the site-specific criterion, but  it would  be
      different from a traditional mixing zone  in that the level
      of protection is not reduced.

   Special considerations are likely to be necessary in  order to
   take into account the eWER when defining a site related to
   multiple discharges  (see Appendix F).


D. The variability in the experimental  determination of  a WER.

   When a WER is determined using upstream water, the  two major
   sources of variation in the WER are   (a) variability in the
   quality of the site water, which might be related to  season
   and/or flow, and  (b) experimental variation.  Ordinary day-to-
   day variation will account for some  of the variability, but
   seasonal variation is likely to be  more important.

   As explained in Appendix D, variability in the concentration
   of nontoxic dissolved metal will contribute  to the  variability
   of both total recoverable WERs and  dissolved WERs;  variability
   in the concentration of nontoxic particulate metal  will
   contribute to the variability in a  total recoverable  WER,  but
   not to the variability in a dissolved WER.  Thus, dissolved

                                84

-------
WERs are expected to be less variable than total recoverable
WERs, especially where events commonly increase TSS and/or
TOG.  In some cases, therefore, appropriate use of analytical
chemistry can greatly increase the usefulness of the
experimental determination of WERs.  The concerns regarding
variability are increased if an upstream effluent contributes
to the WER.

When a WER is determined in downstream water, the four major
sources of variability in the WER are (a) variability in the
quality of the upstream water, which might be related to
season and/or flow,  (b) experimental variation, (c)
variability in the composition of the effluent, and (d)
variability in the ratio of the flows of the upstream water
and the effluent.  The considerations regarding the first two
are the same as for WERs determined using upstream water;
because of the additional sources of variability,  WERs
determined using downstream water are likely to be more
variable than WERs determined using upstream water.

It would be desirable if a sufficient number of WERs could be
determined to define the variable factors in the effluent and
in the upstream water that contribute to the variability in
WERs that are determined using downstream water.  Not only is
this likely to be very difficult in most cases, but it is also
possible that the WER will be dependent on interactions
between constituents of the effluent and the upstream water,
i.e., the eWER and uWER might be additive,  more-than-additive,
or less-than-additive (see Appendix G).   When interaction
occurs,  in order to completely understand the variability of
WERs determined using downstream water,  sufficient tests would
have to be conducted to determine the means and variances of:
   a. the effluent component of the WER.
   b. the upstream component of the WER.
   c. any interaction between the two components.
An interaction might occur,  for example,  if the toxicity of a
metal is affected by pH,  and the pH and/or the buffering
capacity of the effluent and/or the upstream water vary
considerably.

An increase in the variability of WERs decreases the
usefulness of any one WER.   Compensation for this  decrease in
usefulness can be attempted by determining WERs at more times;
although this will provide more .data,  it will not  necessarily
provide a proportionate increase in understanding.   Rather
than determining WERs at more times,  a better use  of resources
might be to obtain more information concerning a smaller
number of specially selected occasions.

It is likely that some cases will be so complex that achieving
even a reasonable understanding will require unreasonable
resources.   In contrast,  some WERs determined using the

                             85

-------
   methods presented herein might  be relatively easy to
   understand if appropriate chemical measurements  are performed
   when WERs are determined.
   1.  If the variation of the total recoverable WER is
      substantially greater than the variation of  the comparable
      dissolved WER,  there is probably a variable  and substantial
      concentration of particulate nontoxic metal.   It might  be
      advantageous to use a dissolved WER just because it  will
      have less variability than a total recoverable WER.
   2.  If the total recoverable and/or dissolved WER correlates
      with the total recoverable and/or dissolved  concentration
      of metal in the site water,  it is likely that a substantial
      percentage of the metal is nontoxic.   In this case  the  WER
      will probably also depend on the concentration of effluent
      in the site water and on the concentration of metal  in  the
      effluent.
   These approaches are more likely to be useful when WERs are
   determined using downstream water, rather than  upstream water,
   unless both the magnitude of the WER and the concentration of
   the metal in the upstream water are elevated by an upstream
   effluent and/or events that increase TSS and/or TOC.

   Both of these approaches can be applied to WERs  that are
   determined using actual downstream water,  but the second can
   probably provide much better information if it  is used with
   WERs determined using simulated downstream water that  is
   prepared by mixing a sample of  the effluent with a sample  of
   the upstream water.  In this way the composition and
   characteristics of both the effluent and the upstream  water
   can be determined, and the exact ratio in the downstream water
   is  known.

   Use of simulated downstream water is also a way to study the
   relation between the WER and the ratio of effluent to  upstream
   water at one point in time, which is the most direct way to
   test for additivity of the eWER and the uWER (see Appendix G).
   This can be viewed as a test of the assumption  that WERs
   determined using downstream water will decrease  as the
   concentration of effluent decreases.  If this assumption is
   true, as the flow increases, the concentration  of effluent in
   the downstream water will decrease and the WER  will decrease.
   Obtaining such information at one point in time is useful, but
   confirmation at one or more other times would be much  more
   useful.
E. The fate of metal that has reduced or no toxicity.

   Metal that has reduced or no toxicity at the end of the pipe
   might be more toxic at some time in the future.   For example,
   metal that is in the water column and is not toxic  now might
   become more toxic in the water column later or might move into

                                86

-------
the sediment and become toxic.  If a WER allows a surface
water to contain as much toxic metal as is acceptable, the WER
would not be adequately protective if metal that was nontoxic
when the WER was determined became toxic in the water column,
unless a compensating change occurred.  Studies of the fate of
metals need to address not only the changes that take place,
but also the rates of the changes.

Concern about the fate of discharged metal justifiably raises
concern about the possibility that metals might contaminate
sediments.  The possibility of contamination of sediment by
toxic and/or nontoxic metal in the water column was one of the
concerns that led to the establishment of EPA's sediment
quality criteria program, which is developing guidelines and
criteria to protect sediment.   A separate program was
necessary because ambient water quality criteria are not
designed to protect sediment.   Insofar as technology-based
controls and water quality criteria reduce the discharge of
metals, they tend to reduce the possibility of contamination
of sediment.  Conversely, insofar as WERs allow an increase in
the discharge of metals, they tend to increase the possibility
of contamination of sediment.

When WERs are determined in upstream water, the concern about
the fate of metal with reduced or no toxicity is usually small
because the WERs are usually small.  In addition,  the factors
that result in upstream WERs being greater than 1.0 usually
are (a) natural organic materials such as humic acids and  (b)
water quality characteristics such as hardness, alkalinity,
and pH.  It is easy to assume that natural organic materials
will not degrade rapidly, and it is easy to monitor changes in
hardness, alkalinity,  and pH.   Thus there is usually little
concern about the fate of the metal when WERs are determined
in upstream water, especially if the WER is small.  If the WER
is large and possibly due at least in part to an upstream
effluent, there is more concern about the fate of metal that
has reduced or no toxicity.

When WERs are determined in downstream water, effluents are
allowed to contain virtually unlimited amounts of nontoxic
particulate metal and nontoxic dissolved metal.  It would seem
prudent to obtain some data concerning whether the nontoxic
metal might become toxic at some time in the future whenever
(1) the concentration of nontoxic metal is large,  (2)  the
concentration of dissolved metal is below the dissolved
national criterion but the concentration of total recoverable
metal is substantially above the total recoverable national
criterion, or (3) the site-specific criterion is substantially
above the national criterion.   It would seem appropriate to:
a. Generate some data concerning whether "fate" (i.e.,
   environmental processes) will cause any of the nontoxic
   metal to become toxic due to oxidation of organic matter,

                            87

-------
      oxidation of sulfides, etc.  For example,  a WER could be
      determined using a sample of actual or simulated downstream
      water, the sample aerated for a period of time (e.g.,  two
      weeks),  the pH adjusted if necessary,  and another WER
      determined.  If aeration reduced the WER,  shorter and
      longer periods of aeration could be used to study the rate
      of change.
   b. Determine the effect of a change in water quality
      characteristics on the WER; for example, determine the
      effect of lowering the pH on the WER if influent lowers the
      pH of the downstream water within the area to which the
      site-specific criterion is to apply.
   c. Determine a WER in actual downstream water to demonstrate
      whether downstream conditions change sufficiently (possibly
      due to degradation of organic matter,  multiple dischargers,
      etc.) to lower the WER more than the concentration of the
      metal is lowered.
   If environmental processes cause nontoxic metal to become
   toxic, it is important to determine whether the time scale
   involves days, weeks, or years.
Summary

When WERs are determined using downstream water,  the site water
contains effluent and the WER will take into account not only the
constituents of the upstream water, but also the toxic and
nontoxic metal and other constituents of the effluent as they
exist after mixing with upstream water.  The determination of the
WER automatically takes into account any additivity, synergism,
or antagonism between the metal and components of the effluent
and/or the upstream water.  The effect of calcium,  magnesium, and
various heavy metals on competitive binding by such organic
materials as humic acid is also taken into account.  Therefore, a
site-specific criterion derived using a WER is likely to be more
appropriate for a site than a national, state, or recalculated
criterion not only because it takes into account the water
quality characteristics of the site water but also because it
takes into account other constituents in the effluent and
upstream water.

Determination of WERs using downstream water causes a general
increase in the complexity, magnitude, and variability of WERs,
and an increase in concern about the fate of metal that has
reduced or no toxicity at the end of the pipe.  In addition,
there are some other drawbacks with the use of downstream water
in the determination of a WER:
1. It might serve as a disincentive for some dischargers to
   remove any more organic carbon and/or particulate matter than
   required, although WERs for some metals will not be related to
   the concentration of TOG or TSS.
                                88

-------
2. If conditions change, a WER might decrease in the future.
   This is not a problem if the decrease is due to a reduction in
   nontoxic metal, but it might be a problem if the decrease is
   due to a decrease in TOG or TSS or an increase in competitive
   binding.
3. If a WER is determined when the effluent contains refractory
   metal but a change in operations results in the discharge of
   toxic metal in place of refractory metal, the site-specific
   criterion and the permit limits will not provide adequate
   protection.  In most cases chemical monitoring probably will
   not detect such a change, but toxicological monitoring
   probably will.

Use of WERs that are determined using downstream water rather
than upstream water increases:
1. The importance of understanding the various issues involved in
   the determination and use of WERs.
2. The importance of obtaining data that will provide
   understanding rather than obtaining data that will result in
   the highest or lowest WER.
3. The appropriateness of site-specific criteria.
4. The resources needed to determine a WER.
5. The resources needed to use a WER.
6. The resources needed to monitor the acceptability of the
   downstream water.
A WER determined using upstream water will usually be smaller,
less variable, and simpler to implement than a WER determined
using downstream water.  Although in some situations a downstream
WER might be smaller than an upstream WER, the important
consideration is that a WER should be determined using the water
to which it is to apply.
References

U.S. EPA.  1983.  Water Quality Standards Handbook.   Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1984.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical  Aquatic Site-
Specific Water Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria.
EPA-600/3-84-099  or  PB85-121101.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1992.  Interim Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals.   Office of
Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
Washington, DC.
                                89

-------
Appendix B: The Recalculation Procedure


NOTE: The National Toxics Rule (NTR)  does not allow use of the
      Recalculation Procedure in the derivation of a site-
      specific criterion.  Thus nothing in this appendix applies
      to jurisdictions that are subject to the NTR.


The Recalculation Procedure is intended to cause a site-specific
criterion to appropriately differ from a national aquatic life
criterion if justified by demonstrated pertinent toxicological
differences between the aquatic species that occur at the site
and those that were used in the derivation of the national
criterion.  There are at least three reasons why such differences
might exist between the two sets of species.  First, the national
dataset contains aquatic species that are sensitive to many
pollutants, but these and comparably sensitive species might not
occur at the site.  Second, a species that is critical at the
site might be sensitive to the pollutant and require a lower
criterion.   (A critical species is a species that is commercially
or recreationally important at the site, a species that exists at
the site and is listed as threatened or endangered under section
4 of the Endangered Species Act,  or a species for which there is
evidence that the loss of the species from the site is likely to
cause an unacceptable impact on a commercially or recreationally
important species, a threatened or endangered species, the
abundances of a variety of other species, or the structure or
function of the community.)  Third, the species that occur at the
site might represent a narrower mix of species than those in the
national dataset due to a limited range of natural environmental
conditions.  The procedure presented here is structured so that
corrections and additions can be made to the national dataset
without the deletion process being used to take into account taxa
that do and do not occur at the site; in effect, this procedure
makes it possible to update the national aquatic life criterion.

The phrase "occur at the site" includes the species, genera,
families, orders, classes, and phyla that:
a. are usually present at the site.
b. are present at the site only seasonally due to migration.
c. are present intermittently because they periodically return to
   or extend their ranges into the site.
d. were present at the site in the past, are not currently
   present at the site due to degraded conditions, and are
   expected to return to the site when conditions improve.
e. are present in nearby bodies of water, are not currently
   present at the site due to degraded conditions, and are
   expected to be present at the site when conditions improve.
The taxa that "occur at the site" cannot be determined merely by
sampling downstream and/or upstream of the site at one point in
time.  "Occur at the site" does not include taxa that were once

                                90

-------
present at the site but cannot exist at the site now due to
permanent physical alteration of the habitat at the site
resulting from dams, etc.

The definition of the  "site" can be extremely important when
using the Recalculation Procedure.  For example, the number of
taxa that occur at the site will generally decrease as the size
of the site decreases.  Also, if the site is defined to be very
small, the permit limit might be controlled by a criterion that
applies outside  (e.g., downstream of) the site.

   Note: If the variety of aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and
         fishes is so  limited that species in fewer than eight
         families occur at the site, the general Recalculation
         Procedure is not applicable and the following special
         version of the Recalculation Procedure must be used:
         1. Data must be available for at least one species in
            each of the families that occur at the site.
         2. The lowest Species Mean Acute Value that is available
            for a species that occurs at the site must be used as
            the FAV.
         3. The site-specific CMC and CCC must be calculated as
            described below in part 2 of step E, which is titled
            "Determination of the CMC and/or CCC".

The concept of the Recalculation Procedure is to create a dataset
that is appropriate for deriving a site-specific criterion by
modifying the national dataset in some or all of three ways:
   a. Correction of data that are in the national dataset.
   b. Addition of data to the national dataset.
   c. Deletion of data that are in the national dataset.
All corrections and additions that have been approved by U.S. EPA
are required,  whereas use of the deletion process is optional.
The Recalculation Procedure is more likely to result in lowering
a criterion if the net result of addition and deletion is to
decrease the number of genera in the dataset,  whereas the
procedure is more likely to result in raising a criterion if the
net result of addition and deletion is to increase the number of
genera in the dataset.

The Recalculation Procedure consists of the following steps:
A. Corrections are made in the national dataset.
B. Additions are made to the national dataset.
C. The deletion process may be applied if desired.
D. If the new dataset does not satisfy the applicable Minimum
   Data Requirements (MDRs),  additional pertinent data must be
   generated;  if the new data are approved by the U.S.  EPA,  the
   Recalculation Procedure must be started again at step B with
   the addition of the new data.
E. The new CMC or CCC or both are determined.
F. A report is written.
Each step is discussed in more detail below.

                               91

-------
A. Corrections

1. Only corrections approved by the U.S. EPA may be made.
2. The concept of "correction" includes removal of data that
   should not have been in the national dataset in the first
   place.  The concept of "correction" does not include removal
   of a datum from the national dataset just because the quality
   of the datum is claimed to be suspect.   If additional data are
   available for the same species,  the U.S. EPA will decide which
   data should be used, based on the available guidance (U.S. EPA
   1985); also, data based on measured concentrations are usually
   preferable to those based on nominal concentrations.
3. Two kinds of corrections are possible:
   a. The first includes those corrections that are known to and
      have been approved by the U.S. EPA;  a list of these will be
      available from the U.S. EPA.
   b. The second includes those corrections that are submitted to
      the U.S. EPA for approval.  If approved, these will be
      added to EPA's list of approved corrections.
4. Selective corrections are not allowed.   All corrections on
   EPA's newest list must be made.
B. Additions

1. Only additions approved by the U.S. EPA may be made.
2. Two kinds of additions are possible:
   a. The first includes those additions that are known to and
      have been approved by the U.S. EPA; a list of these will be
      available from the U.S. EPA.
   b. The second includes those additions that are submitted to
      the U.S. EPA for approval.  If approved, these will be
      added to EPA's list of approved additions.
3. Selective additions are not allowed.  All additions on EPA's
   newest list must be made.
C. The Deletion Process

The basic principles are:
1. Additions and corrections must be made as per steps A and B
   above, before the deletion process is performed.
2. Selective deletions are not allowed.  If any species is to be
   deleted, the deletion process described below must be applied
   to all species in the national dataset, after any necessary
   corrections and additions have been made to the national
   dataset.  The deletion process specifies which species must be
   deleted and which species must not be deleted.  Use of the
   deletion process is optional, but no deletions are optional
   when the deletion process is used.
3. Comprehensive information must be available concerning what
   species occur at the site; a species cannot be deleted based

                                92

-------
   on incomplete information concerning the species that do and
   do not satisfy the definition of "occur at the site".
4. Data might have to be generated before the deletion process is
   begun:
   a. Acceptable pertinent toxicological data must be available
      for at least one species in each class of aquatic plants,
      invertebrates, amphibians, and fish that contains a species
      that is a critical species at the site.
   b. For each aquatic plant, invertebrate, amphibian, and fish
      species that occurs at the site and is listed as threatened
      or endangered under section 4 of the Endangered Species
      Act, data must be available or be generated for an
      acceptable surrogate species.  Data for each surrogate
      species must be used as if they are data for species that
      occur at the site.
   If additional data are generated using acceptable procedures
   (U.S. EPA 1985)  and they are approved by the U.S. EPA, the
   Recalculation Procedure must be started again at step B with
   the addition of the new data.
5. Data might have to be generated after the deletion process is
   completed.  Even if one or more species are deleted, there
   still are MDRs (see step D below)  that must be satisfied.  If
   the data remaining after deletion do not satisfy the
   applicable MDRs,  additional toxicity tests must be conducted
   using acceptable procedures (U.S.  EPA 1985)  so that all MDRs
   are satisfied.  If the new data are approved by the U.S. EPA,
   the Recalculation Procedure must be started again at step B
   with the addition of new data.
6. Chronic tests do not have to be conducted because the national
   Final Acute-Chronic Ratio (FACR) may be used in the derivation
   of the site-specific Final Chronic Value (FCV).   If acute-
   chronic ratios (ACRs) are available or are generated so that
   the chronic MDRs are satisfied using only species that occur
   at the site, a site-specific FACR may be derived and used in
   place of the national FACR.   Because a FACR was not used in
   the derivation of the freshwater CCC for cadmium, this CCC can
   only be modified the same way as a FAV; what is acceptable
   will depend on which species are deleted.

If any species are to be deleted, the following deletion process
must be applied:
   a. Obtain a copy of the national dataset, i.e.,  tables 1, 2,
      and 3 in the national criteria document (see Appendix E).
   b. Make corrections in and/or additions to the national
      dataset as described in steps A and B above.
   c. Group all the species in the dataset taxonomically by
      phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.
   d. Circle each species that satisfies the definition of "occur
      at the site"  as presented on the first page of this
      appendix, and including any data for species that are
      surrogates of threatened or endangered species that occur
      at the site.

                                93

-------
e. Use the following step-wise process to determine
   which of the uncircled species must be deleted and
   which must not be deleted:

   1. Does the genus occur at the site?
        If "No", go to step 2.
        If "Yes", are there one or more species in the genus
                  that occur at the site but are not in the
                  dataset?
                     If "No", go to step 2.
                     If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*

   2. Does the family occur at the site?
        If "No", go to step 3.
        If "Yes", are there one or more genera in the family
                  that occur at the site but are not in the
                  dataset?
                     If "No", go to step 3.
                     If "Yes", retain the uncircled species.*

   3. Does the order occur at the site?
        If "No", go to step 4.
        If "Yes", does the dataset contain a circled species
                  that is in the same order?
                     If "No", retain the uncircled species.*
                     If "Yes", delete the uncircled species.*

   4. Does the class occur at the site?
        If "No", go to step 5.
        If "Yes", does the dataset contain a circled species
                  that is in the same class?
                     If "No", retain the uncircled species.*
                     If "Yes", delete the uncircled species.*

   5. Does the phylum occur at the site?
        If "No", delete the uncircled species.*
        If "Yes", does the dataset contain a circled species
                  that is in the same phylum?
                     If "No", retain the uncircled species.*
                     If "Yes", delete the uncircled species.*

   * = Continue the deletion process by starting at step 1 for
       another uncircled species unless all uncircled species
       in the dataset have been considered.

The  species that are circled and those that are retained
constitute the site-specific dataset.   (An example of the
deletion process is given in Figure Bl.)

This deletion process is designed to ensure that:
a. Each species that occurs both in the national dataset and
   at the site also occurs in the site-specific dataset.

                             94

-------
      Each species that occurs at the site but does not occur in
      the national dataset is represented in the site-specific
      dataset by all species in the national dataset that are in
      the same genus.
      Each genus that occurs at the site but does not occur in
      the national dataset is represented in the site-specific
      dataset by all genera in the national dataset that are in
      the same family.
      Each order, class, and phylum that occurs both in the
      national dataset and at the site is represented in the
      site-specific dataset by the one or more species in the
      national dataset that are most closely related to a species
      that occurs at the site.
D. Checking the Minimum Data Requirements

The initial MDRs for the Recalculation Procedure are the same as
those for the derivation of a national criterion.  If a specific
requirement cannot be satisfied after deletion because that kind
of species does not occur at the site, a taxonomically similar
species must be substituted in order to meet the eight MDRs:

   If no species of the kind required occurs at the site,  but a
   species in the same order does,  the MDR can only be satisfied
   by data for a species that occurs at the site and is in that
   order; if no species in the order occurs at the site, but a
   species in the class does, the MDR can only be satisfied by
   data for a species that occurs at the site and is in that
   class.  If no species in the same class occurs at the site,
   but a species in the phylum does, the MDR can only be
   satisfied by data for a species that occurs at the site and is
   in that phylum.  If no species in the same phylum occurs at
   the site, any species that occurs at the site and is not used
   to satisfy a different MDR can be used to satisfy the MDR.  If
   additional data are generated using acceptable procedures
   (U.S. EPA 1985) and they are approved by the U.S. EPA,  the
   Recalculation Procedure must be started again at step B with
   the addition of the new data.

If fewer than eight families of aquatic invertebrates,
amphibians, and fishes occur at the site, a Species Mean Acute
Value must be available for at least one species in each of the
families and the special version of the Recalculation Procedure
described on the second page of this appendix must be used.


E. Determining the CMC and/or CCC

1. Determining the FAV:
   a. If the eight family MDRs are satisfied, the site-specific
      FAV must be calculated from Genus Mean Acute Values using

                                95

-------
      the procedure described in the national aquatic life
      guidelines (U.S. EPA 1985) .
   b. If fewer than eight families of aquatic invertebrates,
      amphibians, and fishes occur at the site,  the lowest
      Species Mean Acute Value that is available for a species
      that occurs at the site must be used as the FAV, as per the
      special version of the Recalculation Procedure described on
      the second page of this appendix.
   The site-specific CMC must be calculated by dividing the site-
   specific FAV by 2.  The site-specific FCV must be calculated
   by dividing the site-specific FAV by the national FACR (or by
   a site-specific FACR if one is derived).   (Because a FACR was
   not used to derive the national CCC for cadmium in fresh
   water, the site-specific CCC equals the site-specific FCV.)
   The calculated FAV, CMC, and/or CCC must be lowered, if
   necessary, to (1) protect an aquatic plant,  invertebrate,
   amphibian, or fish species that is a critical species at the
   site, and  (2) ensure that the criterion is not likely to
   jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or
   threatened species listed under section 4 of the Endangered
   Species Act or result in the destruction or adverse
   modification of such species' critical habitat.
F. Writing the Report

The report of the results of use of the Recalculation Procedure
must include:
1. A list of all species of aquatic invertebrates, amphibians,
   and fishes that are known to "occur at the site",  along with
   the source of the information.
2. A list of all aquatic plant, invertebrate, amphibian, and fish
   species that are critical species at the site, including all
   species that occur at the site and are listed as threatened or
   endangered under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.
3. A site-specific version of Table 1 from a criteria document
   produced by the U.S. EPA after 1984.
4. A site-specific version of Table 3 from a criteria document
   produced by the U.S. EPA after 1984.
5. A list of all species that were deleted.
6. The new calculated FAV, CMC, and/or CCC.
7. The lowered FAV, CMC, and/or CCC, if one or more were lowered
   to protect a specific species.


Reference

U.S. EPA.  1985.  Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the Protecticn of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses.  PB85-227049.  National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.


                                96

-------
Figure Bl: An Example of the Deletion Process Using Three Phyla
SPECIES THAT ARE IN THE THREE PHYLA AND OCCUR AT THE SITE
Phylum    Class     Order      Family     Species
Annelida
Bryozoa
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Hirudin.  Rhynchob.
(No species in this
Osteich.  Cyprinif.
Osteich.  Cyprinif.
Osteich.  Cyprinif.
Osteich
Osteich
Osteich.
Osteich.
Cyprinif.
Salmonif.
Percifor.
Percifor.
Amphibia  Caudata
 Glossiph.  Glossip. complanata
phylum occur at the site.)
 Cyprinid.  Carassius auratus
 Cyprinid.  Notropis anogenus
 Cyprinid.  Phoxinus eos
 Catostom.  Carpiodes carpio
 Osmerida.  Osmerus mordax
 Centrarc.  Lepomis cyanellus
 Centrarc.  Lepomis humilis
 Ambystom.  Ambystoma gracile
SPECIES THAT ARE IN THE THREE PHYLA AND IN THE NATIONAL DATASET
Phylum    Class     Order      Family     Species            Code

                                          Tubifex tubifex      P
                                          Lophopod. carter!    D
                                          Petromyzon marinus   D
                                          Carassius auratus    S
                                          Notropis hudsonius   G
                                          Notropis stramineus  G
                                          Phoxinus eos         S
                                          Phoxinus oreas       D
                                          Tinea tinea          D
                                          Ictiobus bubalus     F
                                          Oncorhynchus mykiss  O
                                          Lepomis cyanellus    S
                                          Lepomis macrochirus  G
                                          Perca flavescens     D
                                          Xenopus laevis       C
Annelida
Bryozoa
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Chordata
Oligoch.
Phylact .
Cephala .
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Osteich.
Amphibia
Haplotax.
	
Petromyz .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Cyprinif .
Salmonif .
Percifor.
Percifor.
Percifor.
Anura
Tubif ici
Lophopod
Petromyz
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Cyprinid
Catostom
Salmonid
Centrarc
Centrarc
Percidae
Pipidae
Explanations of Codes:
  S = retained because this Species occurs at the site.
  G = retained because there is a species in this Genus that
      occurs at the site but not in the national dataset.
  F = retained because there is a genus in this Family that
      occurs at the site but not in the national dataset.
  O = retained because this Order occurs at the site and is not
      represented by a lower taxon.
  C = retained because this Class occurs at the site and is not
      represented by a lower taxon.
  P = retained because this Phylum occurs at the site and is not
      represented by a lower taxon.
  D = deleted because this species does not satisfy any of the
      requirements for retaining species.
                                97

-------
Appendix C: Guidance Concerning the Use of "Clean Techniques" and
            QA/QC when Measuring Trace Metals


   Note: This version of this appendix contains more information
         than the version that was Appendix B of Prothro  (1993) .


Recent information  (Shiller and Boyle 1987; Windom et al. 1991)
has raised questions concerning the quality of reported
concentrations of trace metals in both fresh and salt  (estuarine
and marine) surface waters.  A lack of awareness of true ambient
concentrations of metals in fresh and salt surface waters can be
both a cause and a result of the problem.  The ranges of
dissolved metals that are typical in surface waters of the United
States away from the immediate influence of discharges (Bruland
1983; Shiller and Boyle 1985,1987; Trefry et al.  1986; Windom et
al. 1991) are:

           Metal        Salt water          Fresh water
          	         (ucr/L)               (uq/L)
          Cadmium     0.01  to  0.2        0.002 to 0.08
          Copper      0.1   to  3.          0.4   to 4.
          Lead        0.01  to  1.          0.01  to 0.19
          Nickel      0.3   to  5.          1.    to 2.
          Silver      0.005 to  0.2        	
          Zinc        0.1   to 15.          0.03  to 5.

The U.S. EPA  (1983,1991) has published analytical methods for
monitoring metals in waters and wastewaters,  but these methods
are inadequate for determination of ambient concentrations of
some metals in some surface waters.  Accurate and precise
measurement of these low concentrations requires appropriate
attention to seven areas:
1. Use of "clean techniques" during collecting, handling,
   storing,  preparing, and analyzing samples to avoid
   contamination.
2. Use of analytical methods that have sufficiently low detection
   limits.
3. Avoidance of interference in the quantification (instrumental
   analysis) step.
4. Use of blanks to assess contamination.
5. Use of matrix spikes  (sample spikes) and certified reference
   materials  (CRMs)  to assess interference and contamination.
6. Use of replicates to assess precision.
7. Use of certified standards.
In a strict sense, the term "clean techniques" refers to
techniques that reduce contamination and enable the accurate and
precise measurement of trace metals in fresh and salt surface
waters.  In a broader sense, the term also refers to related
issues concerning detection limits, quality control,  and quality

                                98

-------
assurance.  Documenting data quality demonstrates the amount of
confidence that can be placed in the data, whereas increasing the
sensitivity of methods reduces the problem of deciding how to
interpret results that are reported to be below detection limits.

This appendix is written for those analytical laboratories that
want guidance concerning ways to lower detection limits, increase
accuracy, and/or increase precision.  The ways to achieve these
goals are to increase the sensitivity of the analytical methods,
decrease contamination, and decrease interference.  Ideally,
validation of a procedure for measuring concentrations of metals
in surface water requires demonstration that agreement can be
obtained using completely different procedures beginning with the
sampling step and continuing through the quantification step
(Bruland et al.  1979), but few laboratories have the resources to
compare two different procedures.  Laboratories can, however, (a)
use techniques that others have found useful for improving
detection limits, accuracy, and precision, and (b) document data
quality through use of blanks, spikes,  CRMs, replicates, and
standards.

Nothing contained or not contained in this appendix adds to or
subtracts from any regulatory requirement set forth in other EPA
documents concerning analyses of metals.  A WER can be acceptably
determined without the use of clean techniques as long as the
detection limits, accuracy, and precision are acceptable.  No
QA/QC requirements beyond those that apply to measuring metals in
effluents are necessary for the determination of WERs.   The word
"must" is not used in this appendix.  Some items, however,  are
considered so important by analytical chemists who have worked to
increase accuracy and precision and lower detection limits in
trace-metal analysis that "should" is in bold print to draw
attention to the item.  Most such items are emphasized because
they have been found to have received inadequate attention in
some laboratories performing trace-metal analyses.

In general, in order to achieve accurate and precise measurement
of a particular concentration, both the detection limit and the
blanks should be less than one-tenth of that concentration.
Therefore,  the term "metal-free" can be interpreted to mean that
the total amount of contamination that  occurs during sample
collection and processing (e.g., from gloves, sample containers,
labware,  sampling apparatus, cleaning solutions,  air,  reagents,
etc.)  is sufficiently low that blanks are less than one-tenth of
the lowest concentration that needs to  be measured.

Atmospheric particulates can be a major source of contamination
(Moody 1982; Adeloju and Bond 1985).  The term "class-100"  refers
to a specification concerning the amount of particulates in air
(Moody 1982); although the specification says nothing about the
composition of the particulates, generic control of particulates
can greatly reduce trace-metal blanks.   Except during collection

                                99

-------
of samples, initial cleaning of equipment,  and handling of
samples containing high concentrations of metals,  all handling of
samples, sample containers, labware,  and sampling apparatus
should be performed in a class-100 bench, room,  or glove box.

Neither the "ultraclean techniques" that might be necessary when
trace analyses of mercury are performed nor safety in analytical
laboratories is addressed herein.  Other documents should be
consulted if one or both of these topics are of concern.
Avoiding contamination by use of "clean techniques"

Measurement of trace metals in surface waters should take into
account the potential for contamination during each step in the
process.  Regardless of the specific procedures used for
collection, handling, storage, preparation (digestion,
filtration, and/or extraction),  and quantification (instrumental
analysis),  the general principles of contamination control should
be applied.  Some specific recommendations are:
a. Powder-free (non-talc, class-100) latex, polyethylene, or
   polyvinyl chloride  (PVC, vinyl)  gloves should be worn during
   all steps from sample collection to analysis.   (Talc seems to
   be a particular problem with zinc; gloves made with talc
   cannot be decontaminated sufficiently.)  Gloves should only
   contact surfaces that are metal-free; gloves should be changed
   if even suspected of contamination.
b. The acid used to acidify samples for preservation and
   digestion and to acidify water for final cleaning of labware,
   sampling apparatus, and sample containers should be metal-
   free.  The quality of the acid used should be better than
   reagent-grade.  Each lot of acid should be analyzed for the
   metal(s) of interest before use.
c. The water used to prepare acidic cleaning solutions and to
   rinse labware, sample containers, and sampling apparatus may
   be prepared by distillation,  deionization, or reverse osmosis,
   and should be demonstrated to be metal-free.
d. The work area, including bench tops and hoods, should be
   cleaned  (e.g., washed and wiped dry with lint-free,  class-100
   wipes)  frequently to remove contamination.
e. All handling of samples in the laboratory, including filtering
   and analysis, should be performed in a class-100 clean bench
   or a glove box fed by particle-free air or nitrogen; ideally
   the clean bench or glove box should be located within a class-
   100 clean room.
f. Labware, reagents, sampling apparatus, and sample containers
   should never be left open to the atmosphere; they should be
   stored in a class-100 bench,  covered with plastic wrap, stored
   in a plastic box, or turned upside down on a clean surface.
   Minimizing the time between cleaning and using will help
   minimize contamination.

                               100

-------
g. Separate sets of sample containers, labware, and sampling
   apparatus should be dedicated for different kinds of samples,
   e.g., surface water samples, effluent samples, etc.
h. To avoid contamination of clean rooms, samples that contain
   very high concentrations of metals and do not require use of
   "clean techniques" should not be brought into clean rooms.
i. Acid-cleaned plastic, such as high-density polyethylene
   (HDPE),  low-density polyethylene (LDPE),  or a fluoroplastic,
   should be the only material that ever contacts a sample,
   except possibly during digestion for the total recoverable
   measurement.
   1. Total recoverable samples can be digested in some plastic
      containers.
   2. HDPE and LDPE might not be acceptable for mercury.
   3. Even if acidified, samples and standards containing silver
      should be in amber containers.
j. All labware,  sample containers,  and sampling apparatus should
   be acid-cleaned before use or reuse.
   1. Sample containers, sampling apparatus, tubing, membrane
      filters, filter assemblies, and other labware should be
      soaked in acid until metal-free.  The amount of cleaning
      necessary might depend on the amount of contamination and
      the length of time the item will be in contact with
      samples.  For example, if an acidified sample will be
      stored in a sample container for three weeks, ideally the
      container should have been soaked in an acidified metal-
      free solution for at least three weeks.
   2. It might be desirable to perform initial cleaning, for
      which reagent-grade acid may be used,  before the items are
      taken into a clean room.  For most metals, items should be
      either  (a)  soaked in 10 percent concentrated nitric acid at
      50°C for at least one hour, or  (b)  soaked in 50 percent
      concentrated nitric acid at room temperature for at least
      two days;  for arsenic and mercury,  soaking for up to two
      weeks at 50°C in 10 percent concentrated nitric acid might
      be required.  For plastics that might be damaged by strong
      nitric acid, such as polycarbonate and possibly HDPE and
      LDPE, soaking in 10 percent concentrated hydrochloric acid,
      either in place of or before soaking in a nitric acid
      solution,  might be desirable.
   3. Chromic acid should not be used to clean items that will be
      used in analysis of metals.
   4. Final soaking and cleaning of sample containers, labware,
      and sampling apparatus should be performed in a class-100
      clean room using metal-free acid and water.  The solution
      in an acid bath should be analyzed periodically to
      demonstrate that it is metal-free.
k. Labware, sampling apparatus, and sample containers should be
   stored appropriately after cleaning:
   1. After the labware and sampling apparatus are cleaned, they
      may be stored in a clean room in a weak acid bath prepared
      using metal-free acid and water.  Before use, the items

                               101

-------
   should be rinsed at least three times with metal-free water.
   After the final rinse,  the items should be moved immediately,
   with the open end pointed down, to a class-100 clean bench.
   Items may be dried on a class-100 clean bench; items should
   not be dried in an oven or with laboratory towels.   The
   sampling apparatus should be assembled in a class-100 clean
   room or bench and double-bagged in metal-free polyethylene
   zip-type bags for transport to the field; new bags  are usually
   metal-free.
   2.  After sample containers are cleaned, they should be filled
      with metal-free water that has been acidified to a pH of 2
      with metal-free nitric acid (about 0.5 mL per liter)  for
      storage until use.
1.  Labware, sampling apparatus, and sample containers  should be
   rinsed and not rinsed with sample as necessary to prevent high
   and low bias of analytical results because acid-cleaned
   plastic will sorb some metals from unacidified solutions.
   1.  Because samples for the dissolved measurement are not
      acidified until after filtration, all sampling apparatus,
      sample containers, labware, filter holders, membrane
      filters,  etc., that contact the sample before or during
      filtration should be rinsed with a portion of the solution
      and then that portion discarded.
   2.  For the total recoverable measurement, labware,  etc., that
      contact the sample only before it is acidified should be
      rinsed with sample,  whereas items that contact the sample
      after it is acidified should not be rinsed.  For example,
      the sampling apparatus should be rinsed because  the sample
      will not be acidified until it is in a sample container,
      but the sample container should not be rinsed if the sample
      will be acidified in the sample container.
   3.  If the total recoverable and dissolved measurements are to
      be performed on the same sample  (rather than on  two samples
      obtained at the same time and place), all the apparatus and
      labware,  including the sample container, should  be rinsed
      before the sample is placed in the sample container;  then
      an unacidified aliquot should be removed for the total
      recoverable measurement  (and acidified, digested, etc.) and
      an unacidified aliquot should be removed for the dissolved
      measurement  (and filtered, acidified, etc.)   (If a
      container is rinsed and filled with sample and an
      unacidified aliquot is removed for the dissolved
      measurement and then the solution in the container is
      acidified before removal of an aliquot for the total
      recoverable measurement, the resulting measured  total
      recoverable concentration might be biased high because the
      acidification might desorb metal that had been sorbed onto
      the walls of the sample container; the amount of bias will
      depend on the relative volumes involved and on the amount
      of sorption and desorption.)
m.  Field samples should be collected in a manner that  eliminates
   the potential for contamination from sampling platforms,

                               102

-------
   probes, etc.  Exhaust from boats and the direction of wind and
   water currents should be taken into account.   The people who
   collect the samples should be specifically trained on how to
   collect field samples.  After collection, all handling of
   samples in the field that will expose the sample to air should
   be performed in a portable class-100 clean bench or glove box.
n. Samples should be acidified  (after filtration if dissolved
   metal is to be measured) to a pH of less than 2, except that
   the pH should be less than 1 for mercury.  Acidification
   should be done in a clean room or bench, and so it might be
   desirable to wait and acidify samples in a laboratory rather
   than in the field.  If samples are acidified in the field,
   metal-free acid can be transported in plastic bottles and
   poured into a plastic container from which acid can be removed
   and added to samples using plastic pipettes.   Alternatively,
   plastic automatic dispensers can be used.
o. Such things as probes and thermometers should not be put in
   samples that are to be analyzed for metals.  In particular, pH
   electrodes and mercury-in-glass thermometers should not be
   used if mercury is to be measured.  If pH is measured, it
   should be done on a separate aliquot.
p. Sample handling should be minimized.  For example, instead of
   pouring a sample into a graduated cylinder to measure the
   volume, the sample can be weighed after being poured into a
   tared container, which is less likely to be subject to error
   than weighing the container from which the sample is poured.
   (For saltwater samples, the salinity or density should be
   taken into account if weight is converted to volume.)
q. Each reagent used should be verified to be metal-free.  If
   metal-free reagents are not commercially available, removal of
   metals will probably be necessary.
r. For the total recoverable measurement, samples should be
   digested in a class-100 bench, not in a metallic hood.  If
   feasible,  digestion should be done in the sample container by
   acidification and heating.
s. The longer the time between collection and analysis of
   samples,  the greater the chance of contamination,  loss, etc.
t. Samples should be stored in the dark, preferably between 0 and
   4°C with no air space in the sample container.
Achieving low detection limits

a. Extraction of the metal from the sample can be extremely
   useful if it simultaneously concentrates the metal and
   eliminates potential matrix interferences.   For example,
   ammonium 1-pyrrolidinedithiocarbamate and/or diethylammonium
   diethyldithiocarbamate can extract cadmium, copper, lead,
   nickel, and zinc (Bruland et al.  1979; Nriagu et al.  1993).
b. The detection limit should be less than ten percent of the
   lowest concentration that is to be measured.

                               103

-------
Avoiding interferences

a. Potential interferences should be assessed for the specific
   instrumental analysis technique used and for each metal to be
   measured.
b. If direct analysis is used, the salt present in high-salinity
   saltwater samples is likely to cause interference in most
   instrumental techniques.
c. As stated above, extraction of the metal from the sample is
   particularly useful because it simultaneously concentrates the
   metal and eliminates potential matrix interferences.
Using blanks to assess contamination

a. A laboratory (procedural, method) blank consists of filling a
   sample container with analyzed metal-free water and processing
   (filtering, acidifying, etc.)  the water through the laboratory
   procedure in exactly the same way as a sample.   A laboratory
   blank should be included in each set of ten or fewer samples
   to check for contamination in the laboratory,  and should
   contain less than ten percent of the lowest concentration that
   is to be measured.  Separate laboratory blanks should be
   processed for the total recoverable and dissolved
   measurements, if both measurements are performed.
b. A field (trip)  blank consists of filling a sample container
   with analyzed metal-free water in the laboratory, taking the
   container to the site,  processing the water through tubing,
   filter, etc., collecting the water in a sample container, and
   acidifying the water the same as a field sample.  A field
   blank should be processed for each sampling trip.  Separate
   field blanks should be processed for the total recoverable
   measurement and for the dissolved measurement,  if filtrations
   are performed at the site.   Field blanks should be processed
   in the laboratory the same as laboratory blanks.
Assessing accuracy

a. A calibration curve should be determined for each analytical
   run and the calibration should be checked about every tenth
   sample.  Calibration solutions should be traceable back to a
   certified standard from the U.S. EPA or the National Institute
   of Science and Technology  (NIST).
b. A blind standard or a blind calibration solution should be
   included in each group of about twenty samples.
c. At least one of the following should be included in each group
   of about twenty samples:
   1. A matrix spike  (spiked sample;  the method of known
      additions).

                               104

-------
   2. A CRM, if one is available in a matrix that closely
      approximates that of the samples.  Values obtained for the
      CRM should be within the published values.
The concentrations in blind standards and solutions,  spikes, and
CRMs should not be more than 5 times the median concentration
expected to be present in the samples.
Assessing precision

a. A sampling replicate should be included with each set of
   samples collected at each sampling location.
b. If the volume of the sample is large enough, replicate
   analysis of at least one sample should be performed along with
   each group of about ten samples.
Special considerations concerning the dissolved measurement

Whereas total recoverable measurements are especially subject to
contamination during digestion, dissolved measurements are
subject to both loss and contamination during filtration.
a. Because acid-cleaned plastic sorbs metal from unacidified
   solutions and because samples for the dissolved measurement
   are not acidified before filtration,  all sampling apparatus,
   sample containers, labware, filter holders,  and membrane
   filters that contact the sample before or during filtration
   should be conditioned by rinsing with a portion of the
   solution and discarding that portion.
b. Filtrations should be performed using acid-cleaned plastic
   filter holders and acid-cleaned membrane filters.  Samples
   should not be filtered through glass fiber filters, even if
   the filters have been cleaned with acid.  If positive-pressure
   filtration is used, the air or gas should be passed through a
   0.2-/mi in-line filter;  if vacuum filtration  is used,  it should
   be performed on a class-100 bench.
c. Plastic filter holders should be rinsed and/or dipped between
   filtrations, but they do not have to be soaked between
   filtrations if all the samples contain about the same
   concentrations of metal.  It is best to filter samples from
   low to high concentrations.  A membrane filter should not be
   used for more than one filtration.  After each filtration, the
   membrane filter should be removed and discarded, and the
   filter holder should be either rinsed with metal-free water or
   dilute acid and dipped in a metal-free acid bath or rinsed at
   least twice with metal-free dilute acid; finally, the filter
   holder should be rinsed at least twice with metal-free water.
d. For each sample to be filtered, the filter holder and membrane
   filter should be conditioned with the sample,  i.e., an initial
   portion of the sample should be filtered and discarded.

                               105

-------
The accuracy and precision of the dissolved measurement should be
assessed periodically.  A large volume of a buffered solution
(such as aerated 0.05 N sodium bicarbonate for analyses in fresh
water and a combination of sodium bicarbonate and sodium chloride
for analyses in salt water)  should be spiked so that the
concentration of the metal of interest is in the range of the low
concentrations that are to be measured.  Sufficient samples
should be taken alternately for  (a) acidification in the same way
as after filtration in the dissolved method and (b) filtration
and acidification using the procedures specified in the dissolved
method until ten samples have been processed in each way.  The
concentration of metal in each of the twenty samples should then
be determined using the same analytical procedure.  The means of
the two groups of ten measurements should be within 10 percent,
and the coefficient of variation for each group of ten should be
less than 20 percent.  Any values deleted as outliers should be
acknowledged.
Reporting results

To indicate the quality of the data, reports of results of
measurements of the concentrations of metals should include a
description of the blanks, spikes, CRMs, replicates, and
standards that were run, the number run, and the results
obtained.  All values deleted as outliers should be acknowledged.
Additional information

The items presented above are some of the important aspects of
"clean techniques"; some aspects of quality assurance and quality
control are also presented.  This is not a definitive treatment
of these topics; additional information that might be useful is
available in such publications as Patterson and Settle (1976),
Zief and Mitchell  (1976), Bruland et al.  (1979), Moody and Beary
(1982), Moody  (1982), Bruland (1983), Adeloju and Bond (1985),
Berman and Yeats (1985),  Byrd and Andreae (1986),  Taylor  (1987),
Sakamoto-Arnold  (1987), Tramontano et al.  (1987),  Puls and
Barcelona (1989), Windom et al.   (1991), U.S. EPA  (1992),  Horowitz
et al.  (1992), and Nriagu et al.  (1993).
                               106

-------
References

Adeloju, S.B., and A.M. Bond.  1985.  Influence of Laboratory
Environment on the Precision and Accuracy of Trace Element
Analysis.  Anal. Chem. 57:1728-1733.

Berman, S.S., and P.A. Yeats.  1985.  Sampling of Seawater for
Trace Metals.  CRC Reviews in Analytical Chemistry 16:1-14.

Bruland, K.W., R.P. Franks, G.A. Knauer, and J.H. Martin.  1979.
Sampling and Analytical Methods for the Determination of Copper,
Cadmium, Zinc, and Nickel at the Nanogram per Liter Level in Sea
Water.  Anal. Chim. Acta 105:233-245.

Bruland, K.W.  1983.  Trace Elements in Sea-water.  In: Chemical
Oceanography, Vol. 8.  (J.P. Riley and R. Chester, eds.)
Academic Press, New York, NY.  pp. 157-220.

Byrd, J.T., and M.O. Andreae.  1986.  Dissolved and Particulate
Tin in North Atlantic Seawater.  Marine Chem. 19:193-200.

Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg.  1992.  The Effect
of Membrane Filtration Artifacts on Dissolved Trace Element
Concentrations.  Water Res. 26:753-763.

Moody, J.R.  1982.  NBS Clean Laboratories for Trace Element
Analysis.  Anal. Chem. 54:1358A-1376A.

Moody, J.R., and E.S. Beary.  1982.  Purified Reagents for Trace
Metal Analysis.  Talanta 29:1003-1010.

Nriagu, J.O., G. Lawson,  H.K.T. Wong, and J.M. Azcue.  1993.  A
Protocol for Minimizing Contamination in the Analysis of Trace
Metals in Great Lakes Waters.  J. Great Lakes Res. 19:175-182.

Patterson, C.C., and D.M. Settle.  1976.  The Reduction in Orders
of Magnitude Errors in Lead Analysis of Biological Materials and
Natural Waters by Evaluating and Controlling the Extent and
Sources of Industrial Lead Contamination Introduced during Sample
Collection and Processing.   In: Accuracy in Trace Analysis:
Sampling, Sample Handling,  Analysis.   (P.O. LaFleur, ed.)
National Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 422, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Prothro, M.G.  1993.  Memorandum titled "Office of Water Policy
and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
Aquatic Life Metals Criteria".  October 1.

Puls, R.W., and M.J. Barcelona.  1989.  Ground Water Sampling for
Metals Analyses.  EPA/540/4-89/001.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
                               107

-------
Sakamoto-Arnold, C.M., A.K. Hanson, Jr., D.L. Huizenga, and D.R.
Kester.  1987.  Spatial and Temporal Variability of Cadmium in
Gulf Stream Warm-core Rings and Associated Waters.  J. Mar. Res.
45:201-230.
Shiller, A.M., and E. Boyle.
Nature 317:49-52.
1985.   Dissolved Zinc in Rivers.
Shiller, A.M., and E.A. Boyle.  1987.  Variability of Dissolved
Trace Metals in the Mississippi River.  Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta
51:3273-3277.

Taylor, J.K.  1987.  Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements.
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

Tramontano, J.M., J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church.  1987.  A
Method for the Collection, Handling, and Analysis of Trace Metals
in Precipitation.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:749-753.

Trefry, J.H., T.A. Nelsen, R.P. Trocine, S. Metz., and T.W.
Vetter.  1986.  Trace Metal Fluxes through the Mississippi River
Delta System.  Rapp.  P.-v. Reun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer. 186:277-
288.

U.S. EPA.  1983.  Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes.  EPA-600/4-79-020.  National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.  Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, and 4.1.4

U.S. EPA.  1991.  Methods for the Determination of Metals in
Environmental Samples.  EPA-600/4-91-010.  National Technical
Information Service,  Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1992.  Evaluation of Trace-Metal Levels in Ambient
Waters and Tributaries to New York/New Jersey Harbor for Waste
Load Allocation.  Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences under
Contract No. 68-C8-0105.

Windom, H.L., J.T. Byrd, R.G. Smith, and F. Huan.  1991.
Inadequacy of NASQAN Data for Assessing Metals Trends in the
Nation's Rivers.  Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1137-1142.   (Also see
the comment and response: Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1940-1941.)

Zief, M., and J.W. Mitchell.  1976.  Contamination Control in
Trace Element Analysis.  Chemical Analysis Series, Vol. 47.
Wiley, New York, NY.
                               108

-------
Appendix D: Relationships between WERs and the Chemistry and
            Toxicology of Metals


The aquatic toxicology of metals is complex in part because the
chemistry of metals in water is complex.  Metals usually exist in
surface water in various combinations of particulate and
dissolved forms, some of which are toxic and some of which are
nontoxic.   In addition, all toxic forms of a metal are not
necessarily equally toxic, and various water quality
characteristics can affect the relative concentrations and/or
toxicities of some of the forms.

The toxicity of a metal has sometimes been reported to be
proportional to the concentration or activity of a specific
species of the metal.  For example, Allen and Hansen (1993)
summarized reports by several investigators that the toxicity of
copper is related to the free cupric ion, but other data do not
support a correlation  (Erickson 1993a).   For example, Borgmann
(1983), Chapman and McCrady (1977), and French and Hunt  (1986)
found that toxicity expressed on the basis of cupric ion activity
varied greatly with pH, and Cowan et al. (1986) concluded that at
least one of the copper hydroxide species is toxic.  Further,
chloride and sulfate salts of calcium,  magnesium, potassium, and
sodium affect the toxicity of the cupric ion (Nelson et al.
1986).  Similarly for aluminum, Wilkinson et al.  (1993) concluded
that  "mortality was best predicted not by the free A13+ activity
but rather as a function of the sum s ( [A13+]  +  [AlF2+] ) " and that
"no longer can the reduction of Al toxicity in the presence of
organic acids be interpreted simply as a consequence of the
decrease in the free A13+ concentration" .

Until a model has been demonstrated to explain the quantitative
relationship between chemical and toxicological measurements,
aquatic life criteria should be established in an environmentally
conservative manner with provision for site-specific adjustment.
Criteria should be expressed in terms of feasible analytical
measurements that provide the necessary conservatism without
substantially increasing the cost of implementation and site-
specific adjustment.  Thus current aquatic life criteria for
metals are expressed in terms of the total recoverable
measurement and/or the dissolved measurement,  rather than a
measurement that would be more difficult to perform and would
still require empirical adjustment.  The WER is operationally
defined in terms of chemical and toxicological measurements to
allow site-specific adjustments that account for differences
between the toxicity of a metal in laboratory dilution water and
in site water.
                               109

-------
Forms of Metals

Even if the relationship of toxicity to the forms of metals is
not understood well enough to allow setting site-specific water
quality criteria without using empirical adjustments,  appropriate
use and interpretation of WERs requires an understanding of how
changes in the relative concentrations of different forms of a
metal might affect toxicity.  Because WERs are defined on the
basis of relationships between measurements of toxicity and
measurements of total recoverable and/or dissolved metal, the
toxicologically relevant distinction is between the forms of the
metal that are toxic and nontoxic whereas the chemically relevant
distinction is between the forms that are dissolved and
particulate.  "Dissolved metal" is defined here as "metal that
passes through either a 0.45-^m or a 0.40-/xm membrane  filter"  and
"particulate metal" is defined as "total recoverable metal minus
dissolve^ metal".  Metal that is in or on particles that pass
through the filter is operationally defined as "dissolved".

In addition, some species of metal can be converted from one form
to another.  Some conversions are the result of reequilibration
in response to changes in water quality characteristics whereas
others are due to such fate processes as oxidation of sulfides
and/or organic matter.  Reequilibration usually occurs faster
than fate processes and probably results in any rapid changes
that are due to effluent mixing with receiving water or changes
in pH at a gill surface.  To account for rapid changes due to
reequilibration, the terms "labile" and "refractory" will be used
herein to denote metal species that do and do not readily convert
to other species when in a nonequilibrium condition, with
"readily" referring to substantial progression toward equilibrium
in less than about an hour.  Although the toxicity and lability
of a form of a metal are not merely yes/no properties, but rather
involve gradations, a simple classification scheme such as this
should be sufficient to establish the principles regarding how
WERs are related to various operationally defined forms of metal
and how this affects the determination and use of WERs.

Figure Dl presents the classification scheme that results from
distinguishing forms of metal based on analytical methodology,
toxicity tests, and lability, as described above.  Metal that is
not measured by the total recoverable measurement is assumed to
be sufficiently nontoxic and refractory that it will not be
further considered here.  Allowance is made for toxicity due to
particulate metal because some data indicate that particulate
metal might contribute to toxicity and bioaccumulation, although
other data imply that little or no toxicity can be ascribed to
particulate metal  (Erickson 1993b).  Even if the toxicity of
particulate metal is not negligible in a particular situation, a
dissolved criterion will not be underprotective if the dissolved
criterion was derived using a dissolved WER  (see below) or if
there are sufficient compensating factors.

                               110

-------
Figure Dl:  A Scheme for Classifying Forms of Metal in Water


     Total recoverable metal
          Dissolved
               Nontoxic
                    Labile
                    Refractory
               Toxic
                    Labile
          Particulate
               Nontoxic
                    Labile
                    Refractory
               Toxic
                    Labile
     Metal not measured by the total recoverable measurement
Not only can some changes in water quality characteristics shift
the relative concentrations of toxic and nontoxic labile species
of a metal, some changes in water quality can also increase or
decrease the toxicities of the toxic species of a metal and/or
the sensitivities of aquatic organisms.  Such changes might be
caused by  (a) a change in ionic strength that affects the
activity of toxic species of the metal in water,  (b)  a
physiological effect whereby an ion affects the permeability of a
membrane and thereby alters both uptake and apparent toxicity,
and (c) toxicological additivity, synergism, or antagonism due to
effects within the organism.

Another possible complication is that a form of metal that is
toxic to one aquatic organism might not be toxic to another.
Although such differences between organisms have not been
demonstrated, the possibility cannot be ruled out.
The Importance of Lability

The only common metal measurement that can be validly
extrapolated from the effluent and the upstream water to the
downstream water merely by taking dilution into account is the
total recoverable measurement.  A major reason this measurement
is so useful is because it is the only measurement that obeys the
law of mass balance  (i.e., it is the only measurement that is
conservative).   Other metal measurements usually do not obey the
law of mass balance because they measure some, but not all, of
the labile species of metals.  A measurement of refractory metal

                               111

-------
would be conservative in terms of changes in water quality
characteristics, but not necessarily in regards to fate
processes; such a measurement has not been developed,  however.

Permit limits apply to effluents, whereas water quality criteria
apply to surface waters.  If permit limits and water quality
criteria are both expressed in terms of total recoverable metal,
extrapolations from effluent to surface water only need to take
dilution into account and can be performed as mass balance
calculations.  If either permit limits or water quality criteria
or both are expressed in terms of any other metal measurement,
lability needs to be taken into account,  even if both are
expressed in terms of the same measurement.

Extrapolations concerning labile species of metals from effluent
to surface water depend to a large extent on the differences
between the water quality characteristics of the effluent and
those of the surface water.  Although equilibrium models of the
speciation of metals can provide insight, the interactions are
too complex to be able to make useful nonempirical extrapolations
from a wide variety of effluents to a wide variety of surface
waters of either (a) the speciation of the metal or (b) a metal
measurement other than total recoverable.

Empirical extrapolations can be performed fairly easily and the
most common case will probably occur when permit limits are based
on the total recoverable measurement but water quality criteria
are based on the dissolved measurement.   The empirical
extrapolation is intended to answer the question "What percent of
the total recoverable metal in the effluent becomes dissolved in
the downstream water?"  This question can be answered by:
a. Collecting samples of effluent and upstream water.
b. Measuring total recoverable metal and dissolved metal in both
   samples.
c. Combining aliquots of the two samples in the ratio of the
   flows when the samples were obtained and mixing for an
   appropriate period of time under appropriate conditions.
d. Measuring total recoverable metal and dissolved metal in the
   mixture.
An example is presented in Figure D2.  This percentage cannot be
extrapolated from one metal to another or from one effluent to
another.  The data needed to calculate the percentage will be
obtained each time a WER is determined using simulated downstream
water if both dissolved and total recoverable metal are measured
in the effluent, upstream water, and simulated downstream water.

The interpretation of the percentage is not necessarily as
straightforward as might be assumed.  For example, some of the
metal that is dissolved in the upstream water might sorb onto
particulate matter in the effluent, which can be viewed as a
detoxification of the upstream water by the effluent.  Regardless
of the interpretation, the described procedure provides a simple

                               112

-------
way of relating the total recoverable concentration in the
effluent to the concentration of concern in the downstream water.
Because this empirical extrapolation can be used with any
analytical measurement that is chosen as the basis for expression
of aquatic life criteria, use of the total recoverable
measurement to express permit limits on effluents does not place
any restrictions on which analytical measurement can be used to
express criteria.  Further, even if both criteria and permit
limits are expressed in terms of a measurement such as dissolved
metal, an empirical extrapolation would still be necessary
because dissolved metal is not likely to be conservative from
effluent to downstream water.
Merits of Total Recoverable and Dissolved WERs and Criteria

A WER is operationally defined as the value of an endpoint
obtained with a toxicity test using site water divided by the
value of the same endpoint obtained with the same toxicity test
using a laboratory dilution water.  Therefore, just as aquatic
life criteria can be expressed in terms of either the total
recoverable measurement or the dissolved measurement, so can
WERs.  A pair of side-by-side toxicity tests can produce both a
total recoverable WER and a dissolved WER if the metal in the
test solutions in both of the tests is measured using both
methods.  A total recoverable WER is obtained by dividing
endpoints that were calculated on the basis of total recoverable
metal, whereas a dissolved WER is obtained by dividing endpoints
that were calculated on the basis of dissolved metal.  Because of
the way they are determined, a total recoverable WER is used to
calculate a total recoverable site-specific criterion from a
national, state, or recalculated aquatic life criterion that is
expressed using the total recoverable measurement, whereas a
dissolved WER is used to calculate a dissolved site-specific
criterion from a national, state, or recalculated criterion that
is expressed in terms of the dissolved measurement.

In terms of the classification scheme given in Figure Dl, the
basic relationship between a total recoverable national water
quality criterion and a total recoverable WER is:
• A total recoverable criterion treats all the toxic and
      nontoxic metal in the site water as if its average
      toxicity were the same as the average toxicity of all
      the toxic and nontoxic metal in the toxicity tests in
      laboratory dilution water on which the criterion is
      based.
• A total recoverable WER is a measurement of the actual
      ratio of the average toxicities of the total
      recoverable metal and replaces the assumption that
      the ratio is 1.
                               113

-------
Similarly, the basic relationship between a dissolved national
criterion and a dissolved WER is:
• A dissolved criterion treats all the toxic and nontoxic
      dissolved metal in the site water as if its average
      toxicity were the same as the average toxicity of all
      the toxic and nontoxic dissolved metal in the
      toxicity tests in laboratory dilution water on which
      the criterion is based.
• A dissolved WER is a measurement of the actual ratio of
      the average toxicities of the dissolved metal and
      replaces the assumption that the ratio is 1.
In both cases, use of a criterion without a WER involves
measurement of toxicity in laboratory dilution water but only
prediction of toxicity in site water, whereas use of a criterion
with a WER involves measurement of toxicity in both laboratory
dilution water and site water.

When WERs are used to derive site-specific criteria, the total
recoverable and dissolved approaches are inherently consistent.
They are consistent because the toxic effects caused by the metal
in the toxicity tests do not depend on what chemical measurements
are performed; the same number of organisms are killed in the
acute lethality tests regardless of what, if any,  measurements of
the concentration of the metal are made.  The only difference is
the chemical measurement to which the toxicity is referenced.
Dissolved WERs can be derived from the same pairs of toxicity
tests from which total recoverable WERs are derived, if the metal
in the tests is measured using both the total recoverable and
dissolved measurements.  Both approaches start at the same place
(i.e., the amount of toxicity observed in laboratory dilution
water) and end at the same place (i.e., the amount of toxicity
observed in site water).   The combination of a total recoverable
criterion and WER accomplish the same thing as the combination of
a dissolved criterion and WER.  By extension, whenever a
criterion and a WER based on the same measurement of the metal
are used together, they will end up at the same place.  Because
use of a total recoverable criterion with a total recoverable WER
ends up at exactly the same place as use of a dissolved criterion
with a dissolved WER,  whenever one WER is determined,  both should
be determined to allow (a)  a check on the analytical chemistry,
(b)  use of the inherent internal consistency to check that the
data are used correctly,  and  (c)  the option of using either
approach in the derivation of permit limits.

An examination of how the two approaches (the total recoverable
approach and the dissolved approach)  address the four relevant
forms of metal (toxic and nontoxic particulate metal and toxic
and nontoxic dissolved metal) in laboratory dilution water and in
site water further explains why the two approaches are inherently
consistent.  Here, only the way in which the two approaches
address each of the four forms of metal in site water will be
considered:

                               114

-------
a. Toxic dissolved metal:
      This form contributes to the toxicity of the site water and
      is measured by both chemical measurements.  If this is the
      only form of metal present, the two WERs will be the same.
b. Nontoxic dissolved metal:
      This form does not contribute to the toxicity of the site
      water, but it is measured by both chemical measurements.
      If this is the only form of metal present, the two WERs
      will be the same.  (Nontoxic dissolved metal can be the
      only form present, however, only if all of the nontoxic
      dissolved metal present is refractory.  If any labile
      nontoxic dissolved metal is present, equilibrium will
      require that some toxic dissolved metal also be present.)
c. Toxic particulate metal:
      This form contributes to the toxicological measurement in
      both approaches; it is measured by the total recoverable
      measurement, but not by the dissolved measurement.  Even
      though it is not measured by the dissolved measurement, its
      presence is accounted for in the dissolved approach because
      it increases the toxicity of the site water and thereby
      decreases the dissolved WER.  It is accounted for because
      it makes the dissolved metal appear to be more toxic than
      it is.  Most toxic particulate metal is probably not toxic
      when it is particulate; it becomes toxic when it is
      dissolved at the gill surface or in the digestive system;
      in the surface water, however, it is measured as
      particulate metal.
d. Nontoxic particulate metal:
      This form does not contribute to the toxicity of the site
      water; it is measured by the total recoverable measurement,
      but not by the dissolved measurement.   Because it is
      measured by the total recoverable measurement, but not by
      the dissolved measurement, it causes the total recoverable
      WER to be higher than the dissolved WER.
In addition to dealing with the four forms of metal similarly,
the WERs used in the two approaches comparably take synergism,
antagonism, and additivity into account.  Synergism and
additivity in the site water increase its toxicity and therefore
decrease the WER; in contrast, antagonism in the site water
decreases toxicity and increases the WER.

Each of the four forms of metal is appropriately taken into
account because use of the WERs makes the two approaches
internally consistent.  In addition, although experimental
variation will cause the measured WERs to deviate from the actual
WERs, the measured WERs will be internally consistent with the
data from which they were generated.  If the percent dissolved is
the same at the test endpoint in the two waters, the two WERs
will be the same.  If the percent of the total recoverable metal
that is dissolved in laboratory dilution water is less than 100
percent, changing from the total recoverable measurement to the
dissolved measurement will lower the criterion but it will

                               115

-------
comparably lower the denominator in the WER,  thus increasing the
WER.  If the percent of the total recoverable metal that is
dissolved in the site water is less than 100  percent,  changing
from the total recoverable measurement to the dissolved
measurement will lower the concentration in the site water that
is to be compared with the criterion,  but it  also lowers the
numerator in the WER, thus lowering the WER.   Thus when WERs are
used to adjust criteria, the total recoverable approach and the
dissolved approach result in the same interpretations of
concentrations in the site water (see Figure  D3)  and in the same
maximum acceptable concentrations in effluents (see Figure D4).

Thus, if WERs are based on toxicity tests whose endpoints equal
the CMC or CCC and if both approaches are used correctly, the two
measurements will produce the same results because each WER is
based on measurements on the site water and then the WER is used
to calculate the site-specific criterion that applies to the site
water when the same chemical measurement is used to express the
site-specific criterion.  The equivalency of  the two approaches
applies if they are based on the same sample  of site water.  When
they are applied to multiple samples,  the approaches can differ
depending on how the results from replicate samples are used:
a. If an appropriate averaging process is used, the two will be
   equivalent.
b. If the lowest value is used,  the two approaches will probably
   be equivalent only if the lowest dissolved WER and the lowest
   total recoverable WER were obtained using  the same sample of
   site water.

There are several advantages to using a dissolved criterion even
when a dissolved WER is not used.  In some situations use of a
dissolved criterion to interpret results of measurements of the
concentration of dissolved metal in site water might demonstrate
that there is no need to determine either a total recoverable WER
or a dissolved WER.  This would occur when so much of the total
recoverable metal was nontoxic particulate metal that even though
the total recoverable criterion was exceeded, the corresponding
dissolved criterion was not exceeded.   The particulate metal
might come from an effluent, a resuspension event, or runoff that
washed particulates into the body of water.  In such a situation
the total recoverable WER would also show that the site-specific
criterion was not exceeded, but there would be no need to
determine a WER if the criterion were expressed on the basis of
the dissolved measurement.  If the variation over time in the
concentration of particulate metal is much greater than the
variation in the concentration of dissolved metal, both the total
recoverable concentration and the total recoverable WER are
likely to vary so much over time that a dissolved criterion would
be much more useful than a total recoverable  criterion.
                               116

-------
Use of a dissolved criterion without a dissolved WER has three
disadvantages, however:
1. Nontoxic dissolved metal in the site water is treated as if it
   is toxic.
2. Any toxicity due to particulate metal in the site water is
   ignored.
3. Synergism, antagonism, and additivity in the site water are
   not taken into account.
Use of a dissolved criterion with a dissolved WER overcomes all
three problems.  For example, if (a) the total recoverable
concentration greatly exceeds the total recoverable criterion,
(b) the dissolved concentration is below the dissolved criterion,
and (c) there is concern about the possibility of toxicity of
particulate metal, the determination of a dissolved WER would
demonstrate whether toxicity due to particulate metal is
measurable.

Similarly, use of a total recoverable criterion without a total
recoverable WER has three comparable disadvantages:
1. Nontoxic dissolved metal in site water is treated as if it is
   toxic.
2. Nontoxic particulate metal in site water is treated as if it
   is toxic.
3. Synergism, antagonism, and additivity in site water are not
   taken into account.
Use of a total recoverable criterion with a total recoverable WER
overcomes all three problems.  For example, determination of a
total recoverable WER would prevent nontoxic particulate metal
(as well as nontoxic dissolved metal) in the site water from
being treated as if it is toxic.
Relationships between WERs and the Forms of Metals

Probably the best way to understand what WERs can and cannot do
is to understand the relationships between WERs and the forms of
metals.  A WER is calculated by dividing the concentration of a
metal that corresponds to a toxicity endpoint in a site water by
the concentration of the same metal that corresponds to the same
toxicity endpoint in a laboratory dilution water.  Therefore,
using the classification scheme given in Figure Dl:

                    WER = —^—s +  s + As + As
                                 TL
The subscripts "5" and  "L" denote  site water and laboratory
dilution water, respectively, and:

R   = the concentration of Refractory metal in a water.  (By
      definition, all refractory metal is nontoxic metal.)
                               117

-------
N   = the concentration of Nontoxic labile metal in a water.

T   = the concentration of Toxic labile metal in a water.

AN  = the concentration of metal added during a WER determination
      that is Nontoxic labile metal after it is added.

AT  = the concentration of metal added during a WER determination
      that is Toxic labile metal after it is added.

For a total recoverable WER, each of these five concentrations
includes both particulate and dissolved metal, if both are
present; for a dissolved WER only dissolved metal is included.


Because the two side-by-side tests use the same endpoint and are
conducted under identical conditions with comparable test
organisms, Ts + ATS = TL + ATL  when the  toxic  species  of  the  metal
are equally toxic in the two waters.  If a difference in water
quality causes one or more of the toxic species of the metal to
be more toxic in one water than the other, or causes a shift in
the ratios of various toxic species, we can define

                               Tq + ATq
                           H = —^	? .


Thus H  is a multiplier that accounts for a proportional  increase
or decrease in the toxicity of the toxic forms in site water as
compared to their toxicities in laboratory dilution water.
Therefore, the general WER equation is:

                  WER = RS + Ns + ANS + H(TL H- ATL)
                        RL + NL + A^VL + (TL + ATL)  •

Several things are obvious from this equation:
1. A WER should not be thought of as a simple ratio such as H.
   H is the ratio of the toxicities of the toxic species of the
   metal,  whereas the WER is the ratio of the sum of the toxic
   and the nontoxic species of the metal.   Only under a very
   specific set of conditions will WER = H.  If these conditions
   are satisfied and if,  in addition, H = 1, then  WER = 1.
   Although it might seem that all of these conditions will
   rarely be satisfied, it is not all that rare to find that an
   experimentally determined WER is close to 1.
2. When the concentration of metal in laboratory dilution water
   is negligible, RL = NL = TL = 0 and

                          Rq + Nq + ANq + H(ATT)
                     WER = —	-	— .
                               ANL + ATL
                               118

-------
   Even though laboratory dilution water is low in TOG and TSS,
   when metals are added to laboratory dilution water in toxicity
   tests, ions such as hydroxide, carbonate, and chloride react
   with some metals to form some particulate species and some
   dissolved species, both of which might be toxic or nontoxic.
   The metal species that are nontoxic contribute to AATL ,  whereas
   those that are toxic contribute to ATL.   Hydroxide,  carbonate,
   chloride, TOC, and TSS can increase &NS.   Anything that causes
   ANS to differ from &NL  will cause  the  WER to differ  from 1.
3. Refractory metal and nontoxic labile metal  in the site water
   above that in the laboratory dilution water will increase the
   WER.  Therefore, if the WER is determined in downstream water,
   rather than in upstream water, the WER will be increased by
   refractory metal and nontoxic labile metal  in the effluent.
Thus there are three major reasons why WERs might be larger or
smaller than I:
a. The toxic species of the metal might be more toxic in one
   water than in the other, i.e., H # i .
b. AJV might be higher in one water than in the other.
c. R and/or N might be higher in one  water  than  in  the  other.

The last reason might have great practical importance in some
situations.  When a WER is determined in downstream water, if
most of the metal in the effluent is nontoxic,  the WER and the
endpoint in site water will correlate with the concentration of
metal in the site water.   In addition, they will depend on the
concentration of metal in the effluent and the concentration of
effluent in the site water.  This correlation will be best for
refractory metal because its toxicity cannot be affected by water
quality characteristics;  even if the effluent and upstream water
are quite different so that the water quality characteristics of
the site water depend on the percent effluent,  the toxicity of
the refractory metal will remain constant at zero and the portion
of the WER that is due to refractory metal will be additive.
The Dependence of WERs on the Sensitivity of Toxicity Tests

It would be desirable if the magnitude of the WER for a site
water were independent of the toxicity test used in the
determination of the WER, so that any convenient toxicity test
could be used.  It can be seen from the general WER equation that
the WER will be independent of the toxicity test only if:

                            H(TT  + ATT)
                          -           -
which would require that Rs = Ns = &NS = RL = NL = &NL = 0 .   (It would
be easy to assume that TL = 0 ,  but it can be misleading in some
situations to make more simplifications than are necessary.)

                               119

-------
This is the simplistic concept of a WER  that would  be
advantageous if it were true, but which  is not  likely  to be true
very often.  Any situation in which one  or more of  the terms is
greater than zero can cause the WER to depend on the sensitivity
of the toxicity test, although the difference in the WERs might
be small .

Two situations that might be common can  illustrate  how the WER
can depend on the sensitivity of the toxicity test.  For these
illustrations, there is no advantage to  assuming that  H= 1, so
H will be retained for generality.
1. The simplest situation is when Rs > o ,  i.e.,  when a
   substantial concentration of refractory metal occurs in the
   site water.  If, for simplification,  it is assumed  that
   Ns = ANS = RL = NL = ANL = 0 , then :

                     Rq + H(T, + ATr)        R~
                WER = —?— - — ^ - — L— = - ^ - + H .
                        (TL + ATL)      (TL  + ATL)

   The quantity TL + &TL obviously changes as the sensitivity of
   the toxicity test changes.  When Rs =  o , then WER = H and the
   WER is  independent of the sensitivity of the toxicity test.
   When Rs  > 0 , then the WER will decrease as the sensitivity of
   the test decreases because TL + &TL will increase.

2. More complicated situations occur when  (Ns +  &NS)  > 0.  If, for
   simplification, it is assumed that Rs = RL = NL = ANL = 0, then:


                  (Ns + *Ns)  + H(TL + A^}    (Ns + A}    -
                        (TL + ATL)          (TL + ATL)     •

   a.  If  (Ns + &NS) > 0  because  the site water contains a
      substantial concentration of a complexing agent  that  has  an
      affinity for the metal and if complexation converts toxic
      metal into nontoxic metal, the complexation reaction  will
      control the toxicity of the solution  (Allen 1993) .  A
      complexation curve can be graphed  in  several ways, but  the
      S- shaped curve presented in Figure D5 is most  convenient
      here.  The vertical axis is "% uncomplexed" , which is
      assumed to correlate with "% toxic".  The "% complexed"  is
      then the "% nontoxic".  The ratio  of  nontoxic  metal to
      toxic metal is:

                    %nontoxic _   % compl exed  _ v
                     % toxic     ^uncomplexed

      For the complexed nontoxic metal :

                    concentration of nontoxic metal
                V =
                     concentration of toxic metal


                               120

-------
In the site water, the concentration  of  complexed nontoxic
metal is  (Ns + ANS)  and the concentration of toxic metal is
 (T3 + ATS) ,  so that :

                =  (Ns + ANS) _  (Ns + ANS)
               s   (Ts + ATS)   H(TL + ATL)

and

         VJi(TT + AT,)  + H(TT + ATT)
   WER =  -^-^ -         L - ±- = tyf + H = H(VS + 1) .
If the WER is determined using a sensitive  toxicity test so
that the % uncomplexed  (i.e., the  %  toxic)  is  10  %,  then
Vs = (90 %)/(lO %) = 9 ,  whereas if a less sensitive  test  is
used so that the % uncomplexed is  50  %,  then
vs = (50 %)/(50 %) = 1 .   Therefore,  if a portion of  the WER  is
due to a complexing agent in the site water, the  magnitude
of the WER can decrease as the sensitivity  of  the toxicity
test decreases because the % uncomplexed will  decrease.   In
these situations, the largest WER  will be obtained with the
most sensitive toxicity test; progressively smaller WERs
will be obtained with less sensitive  toxicity  tests.   The
magnitude of a WER will depend not only  on  the  sensitivity
of the toxicity test but also on the  concentration of  the
complexing agent and on its binding  constant  (complexation
constant, stability constant).  In addition, the  binding
constants of most complexing agents  depend  on pH.

If the laboratory dilution water contains a low
concentration of a complexing agent,

                          NT + ANr
                        -   L _ L
                      L   TL + ATL

and

              + ATL) + H(TL + ATL]    VgH + H _ H(VS
         VL(TL + ATL) + (TL + ATL)     VL + 1      V
                                            L
The binding constant of the complexing agent  in  the
laboratory dilution water is probably different  from that
of the complexing agent in the site water.  Although
changing from a more sensitive test to a  less sensitive
test will decrease both vs and VL, the amount of effect  is
not likely to be proportional.

If the change from a more sensitive test  to a less
sensitive test were to decrease  VL proportionately more
than Vs,  the change could result in a larger  WER, rather

                         121

-------
      than a smaller WER,  as resulted in the case above when it
      was assumed that the laboratory dilution water did not
      contain any complexing agent.   This is probably most likely
      to occur if H = 1 and if Vs < VL, which would mean that
      WER < 1.  Although this is likely to be a rare situation,
      it does demonstrate again the  importance of determining
      WERs using toxicity tests that have endpoints in laboratory
      dilution water that are close  to the CMC or CCC to which
      the WER is to be applied.

   b.  If  (Ns + AJVS) > 0 because the site water  contains  a
      substantial concentration of  an ion that will precipitate
      the metal of concern and if precipitation converts toxic
      metal into nontoxic metal,  the precipitation reaction will
      control the toxicity of the solution.  The "precipitation
      curve" given in Figure D6 is  analogous to the "complexation
      curve" given in Figure D5;  in the precipitation curve, the
      vertical axis is "% dissolved", which is assumed to
      correlate with "% toxic".   If  the endpoint for a toxicity
      test is below the solubility limit of the precipitate,
      (Ns + &NS) = 0,  whereas  if the endpoint for  a toxicity test
      is above the solubility limit, (Ns + &NS) >  0.   If WERs are
      determined with a series of toxicity tests that have
      increasing endpoints that are  above the solubility limit,
      the WER will reach a maximum value and then decrease.  The
      magnitude of the WER will depend not only on the
      sensitivity of the toxicity test but also on the
      concentration of the precipitating agent,  the solubility
      limit, and the solubility of  the precipitate.

Thus,  depending on the composition of the site water,  a WER
obtained with an insensitive test might be larger, smaller, or
similar to a WER obtained with a sensitive test.  Because of the
range of possibilities that exist,  the best toxicity test to use
in the experimental determination of a WER is one whose endpoint
in laboratory dilution water is close to the CMC or CCC that is
to be adjusted.  This is the rationale that was used in the
selection of the toxicity tests that are suggested in Appendix I.

The available data indicate that a less sensitive toxicity test
usually gives a smaller WER than a more sensitive test  (Hansen
1993a).   Thus, use of toxicity tests whose endpoints are higher
than the CMC or CCC probably will not result in underprotection;
in contrast, use of tests whose endpoints are substantially below
the CMC or CCC might result in underprotection.

The factors that cause Rs and (Ns + &NS)  to  be greater  than  zero
are all external to the test organisms; they are chemical  effects
that affect the metal in the water.   The magnitude of the  WER  is
therefore expected to depend on the toxicity test used only in
regard to the sensitivity of the test.  If the endpoints for two

                               122

-------
different tests occur at the same concentration of the metal, the
magnitude of the WERs obtained with the two tests should be the
same; they should not depend on  (a)  the duration of the test, (b)
whether the endpoint is based on a lethal or sublethal effect, or
(c) whether the species is a vertebrate or an invertebrate.

Another interesting consequence of the chemistry of complexation
is that the % uncomplexed will increase if the solution is
diluted (Allen and Hansen 1993).   The concentration of total
metal will decrease with dilution but the % uncomplexed will
increase.   The increase will not offset the decrease and so the
concentration of uncomplexed metal will decrease.  Thus the
portion of a WER that is due to complexation will not be strictly
additive  (see Appendix G),  but the amount of nonadditivity might
be difficult to detect in toxicity studies of additivity.  A
similar effect of dilution will occur for precipitation.

The illustrations presented above were simplified to make it
easier to understand the kinds of effects that can occur.  The
illustrations are qualitatively valid and demonstrate the
direction of the effects,  but real-world situations will probably
be so much more complicated that the various effects cannot be
dealt with separately.
Other Properties of WERs

1. Because of the variety of factors that can affect WERs,  no
   rationale exists at present for extrapolating WERs from one
   metal to another, from one effluent to another,  or from one
   surface water to another.  Thus WERs should be individually
   determined for each metal at each site.

2. The most important information that the determination of a WER
   provides is whether simulated and/or actual downstream water
   adversely affects test organisms that are sensitive to the
   metal.   A WER cannot indicate how much metal needs to be
   removed from or how much metal can be added to an effluent.
   a. If the site water already contains sufficient metal that it
      is toxic to the test organisms, a WER cannot  be determined
      with a sensitive test and so an insensitive test will have
      to be used.  Even if a WER could be determined with a
      sensitive test, the WER cannot indicate how much metal has
      to be removed.  For example, if a WER indicated that there
      was 20 percent too much metal in an effluent, a 30 percent
      reduction by the discharger would not reduce  toxicity if
      only nontoxic metal was removed.  The next WER
      determination would show that the effluent still contained
      too much metal.  Removing metal is useful only if the metal
      removed is toxic metal.  Reducing the total recoverable
      concentration does not necessarily reduce toxicity.

                               123

-------
   b. If the simulated or actual downstream water is not toxic, a
      WER can be determined and used to calculate how much
      additional metal the effluent could contain and still be
      acceptable.  Because an unlimited amount of refractory
      metal can be added to the effluent without affecting the
      organisms, what the WER actually determines is how much
      additional toxic metal can be added to the effluent.

3.  The effluent component of nearly all WERs is likely to be due
   mostly to either  (a)  a reduction in toxicity of the metal by
   TSS or TOG, or  (b) the presence of refractory metal.  For both
   of these, if the percentage of effluent in the downstream
   water decreases, the magnitude of the WER will usually
   decrease.  If the water quality characteristics of the
   effluent and the upstream water are quite different, it is
   possible that the interaction will not be additive; this can
   affect the portion of the WER that is due to reduced toxicity
   caused by sorption and/or binding, but it cannot affect the
   portion of the WER that is due to refractory metal.

4.  Test organisms are fed during some toxicity tests, but not
   during others; it is not clear whether a WER determined in a
   fed test will differ from a WER determined in an unfed test.
   Whether there is a difference is likely to depend on the
   metal, the type and amount of food, and whether a total
   recoverable or dissolved WER is determined.  This can be
   evaluated by determining two WERs using a test in which the
   organisms usually are not fed - one WER with no food added to
   the tests and one with food added to the tests.  Any effect of
   food is probably due to an increase in TOG and/or TSS.  If
   food increases the concentration of nontoxic metal in both the
   laboratory dilution water and the site water, the food will
   probably decrease the WER.  Because complexes of metals are
   usually soluble, complexation is likely to lower both total
   recoverable and dissolved WERs; sorption to solids will
   probably reduce only total recoverable WERs.  The food might
   also affect the acute-chronic ratio.  Any feeding during a
   test should be limited to the minimum necessary.
Ranges of Actual Measured WERs

The acceptable WERs found by Brungs et al.  (1992)  were total
recoverable WERs that were determined in relatively clean fresh
water.  These WERs ranged from about 1 to 15 for both copper and
cadmium,  whereas they ranged from about 0.7 to 3 for zinc.  The
few WERs that were available for chromium,  lead, and nickel
ranged from about 1 to 6.   Both the total recoverable and
dissolved WERs for copper in New York harbor range from about 0.4
to 4 with most of the WERs being between 1 and 2 (Hansen 1993b).
                               124

-------
Figure D2: An Example of  the  Empirical  Extrapolation Process
Assume the following  hypothetical  effluent  and upstream water

Effluent:
   DE:
           100 ug/L
            10 ug/L    (10 % dissolved)
            24 cfs
Upstream water:
   Ta:      40 ug/L
   Du\      38 ug/L
   0^:      48 Cfs

Downstream water:
   TD:      60 ug/L
   DD:      36 ug/L
   O-,:      72 cfs
                       (95  %  dissolved)
                       (60  % dissolved)
where:

T  = concentration of total  recoverable  metal.
D  = concentration of dissolved metal.
Q  = flow.

The subscripts E, U, and D signify  effluent,  upstream water,  and
downstream water, respectively.

By conservation of flow:  QD = QE + Qu .

By conservation of total recoverable metal:  TDQD = TEQE + TUQU .

If P  =  the percent of the total recoverable  metal  in the
        effluent that becomes dissolved  in  the  downstream water,

                        p = loo (^A, ~
For the data given above, the percent of  the  total  recoverable
metal in the effluent that becomes dissolved  in the downstream
water is:

        p = 100 [(36 ug/L) (72 cfs) - (38 ug/L) (48 cfs)}    _„ %
                        (100 ug/L) (24 cfs)

which is greater than the 10 %  dissolved  in the effluent and less
than the 60 % dissolved in the  downstream water.
                                125

-------
Figure D3: The Internal Consistency of the Two Approaches


The internal consistency of the total recoverable and dissolved
approaches can be illustrated by considering the use of WERs to
interpret the total recoverable and dissolved concentrations of  a
metal in a site water.  For this hypothetical example, it will be
assumed that the national CCCs for the metal are:
      200 ug/L as total recoverable metal.
      160 ug/L as dissolved metal.
It will also be assumed that the concentrations of the metal in
the site water are:
      300 ug/L as total recoverable metal.
      120 ug/L as dissolved metal.
The total recoverable concentration in the site water exceeds the
national CCC, but the dissolved concentration does not.


The following results might be obtained if WERs are determined:

   In Laboratory Dilution Water
      Total recoverable LC50 = 400 ug/L.
         % of the total recoverable metal that is dissolved = 80.
             (This is based on the ratio of the national CCCs,
            which were determined in laboratory dilution water.)
      Dissolved LC50 = 320 ug/L.

   In Site Water
      Total recoverable LC50 = 620 ug/L.
         % of the total recoverable metal that is dissolved = 40.
           (This is based on the data given above for site water).
      Dissolved LC50 = 248 ug/L.

   WERs
      Total recoverable WER =  (620 ug/L)/(400 ug/L) =1.55
      Dissolved WER =  (248 ug/L)/(320 ug/L) = 0.775


   Checking the Calculations

     Total recoverable WER _  1.55 _  lab water % dissolved  _  80  _ 2
         Dissolved WER       0.775   site water % dissolved   40
   Site-specific CCCs  (ssCCCs)

      Total recoverable  ssCCC =  (200 ug/L) (1.55)  =  310  ug/L.
      Dissolved ssCCC  =  (160 ug/L) (0.775)  =  124 ug/L.
   Both concentrations  in  site water  are below  the  respective
   ssCCCs.

                               126

-------
 In  contrast,  the  following results might have been obtained when
 the WERs  were determined:

    In  Laboratory  Dilution  Water
       Total  recoverable  LC50  =  400 ug/L.
          % of the total  recoverable metal that is dissolved = 80.
       Dissolved LC50  = 320 ug/L.

    In  Site Water
       Total  recoverable  LC50  =  580 ug/L.
          % of the total  recoverable metal that is dissolved = 40.
       Dissolved LC50  = 232 ug/L.

    WERs
       Total  recoverable  WER = (580 ug/L)/(400 ug/L)  =1.45
       Dissolved WER =  (232 ug/L)/(320 ug/L)  = 0.725


    Checking  the Calculations

     Total recoverable WER _   1.45 _  lab water % dissolved _ 80
         Dissolved WER       0.725   site water % dissolved   40
                                                            = 2
   Site-specific CCCs  (ssCCCs)

      Total recoverable ssCCC =  (200 ug/L)(1.45)  =  290  ug/L.
      Dissolved ssCCC  =  (160 ug/L)(0.725)  =  116 ug/L.


   In this case, both  concentrations in site water  are  above  the
   respective ssCCCs.
In each case, both approaches resulted in the same conclusion
concerning whether the concentration in site water exceeds  the
site-specific criterion.


The two key assumptions are:
1. The ratio of total recoverable metal to dissolved metal  in
   laboratory dilution water when the WERs are determined equals
   the ratio of the national CCCs.
2. The ratio of total recoverable metal to dissolved metal  in
   site water when the WERs are determined equals the ratio of
   the concentrations reported in the site water.
Differences in the ratios that are outside the range of
experimental variation will cause problems for the derivation of
site-specific criteria and, therefore,  with the internal
consistency of the two approaches.
                               127

-------
Figure D4:  The Application of the Two Approaches


Hypothetical upstream water and effluent will be used to
demonstrate the equivalence of the total recoverable and
dissolved approaches.  The upstream water and the effluent will
be assumed to have specific properties in order to allow
calculation of the properties of the downstream water, which will
be assumed to be a 1:1 mixture of the upstream water and
effluent.  It will also be assumed that the ratios of the forms
of the metal in the upstream water and in the effluent do not
change when the total recoverable concentration changes.
Upstream water   (Flow = 3 cfs)
   Total recoverable:              400 ug/L
      Refractory particulate:         200 ug/L
      Toxic dissolved:                200 ug/L   (50 % dissolved)
Effluent   (Flow = 3 cfs)
   Total recoverable:              440 ug/L
      Refractory particulate:         396 ug/L
      Labile nontoxic particulate:     44 ug/L
      Toxic dissolved:                  0 ug/L   (0 % dissolved)
         (The labile nontoxic particulate, which is 10 % of the
         total recoverable in the effluent, becomes toxic
         dissolved in the downstream water.)
Downstream water   (Flow = 6 cfs)
   Total recoverable:              420 ug/L
      Refractory particulate:         298 ug/L
      Toxic dissolved:                122 ug/L   (29 % dissolved)

   The values for  the downstream water are calculated from the
   values for the  upstream water and the effluent:
      Total recoverable:       [3(400) + 3(440)1/6  = 420 ug/L
      Dissolved:               [3(200) + 3(44 + 0)1/6 = 122 ug/L
      Refractory particulate:  [3(200) + 3(396)1/6  = 298 ug/L
Assumed National CCC  (nCCC)
   Total recoverable  =  300 ug/L
   Dissolved  = 240 ug/L
                                128

-------
Upstream site-specific CCC  (ussCCC)

   Assume: Dissolved cccWER = 1.2
      Dissolved ussCCC =  (1.2)(240 ug/L) = 288 ug/L
   By calculation: TR ussCCC =  (288 ug/L)/(0.5)  =  576  ug/L
      Total recoverable cccWER  =  (576 ug/L)/(300 ug/L)  =1.92

                          nCCC     cccWER    ussCCC       Cone.
   Total recoverable:   300 ug/L    1.92    576  ug/L     400  ug/L
   Dissolved:           240 ug/L    1.2     288  ug/L     200  ug/L
         % dissolved        80  %    	         50 %         50  %
      Neither concentration exceeds its respective ussCCC.

     Total recoverable WER   1.92    lab water % dissolved    80   .. ,
                                                           -1.6
        Dissolved WER       1.2    site water % dissolved   50
Downstream site-specific CCC  (dssCCC)

   Assume: Dissolved cccWER = 1.8
      Dissolved dssCCC =  (1.8) (240 ug/L) = 432 ug/L
   By calculation: TR dssCCC =
      {(432 ug/L-[(200 ug/L)/2])/O.l} + { (400 ug/L)/2}  =  3520  ug/L
            This calculation determines the amount of dissolved
            metal contributed by the effluent, accounts for  the
            fact that ten percent of the total recoverable metal
            in the effluent becomes dissolved, and adds the  total
            recoverable metal contributed by the upstream flow.
      Total recoverable cccWER =  (3520 ug/L)/(300 ug/L)  = 11.73

                          nCCC     cccWER    dssCCC       Cone.
   Total recoverable:   300 ug/L    11.73   3520 ug/L   420  ug/L
   Dissolved:           240 ug/L     1.80    432 ug/L   122  ug/L
         % dissolved        80 %    	         12.27  %    29  %
      Neither concentration exceeds its respective dssCCC.

  Total recoverable WER _ 11.73  _  lab water % dissolved  _   80  _
                                                             O • O ^
      Dissolved WER        1.80    site water % dissolved   12.27
Calculating the Maximum Acceptable Concentration  in  the  Effluent

   Because neither the total recoverable concentration nor  the
   dissolved concentration in the downstream water exceeds  its
   respective site-specific CCC, the concentration of metal in
   the effluent could be increased.  Under the assumption that
   the ratios of the two forms of the metal in the effluent do
   not change when the total recoverable concentration changes,
   the maximum acceptable concentration of total  recoverable
   metal in the effluent can be calculated as follows:

                               129

-------
   Starting with the  total  recoverable dssCCC of 3520 ug/L

           (6 cfs) (3520 ugr/L) - (3 cfs) (400 ugr/L)  = 664Q   /L
                          3  cfs

   Starting with the  dissolved dssCCC of  432  ug/L

          (6 cfs) (432 ug/L) -  (3  cfs)  (400 ug/L) (0.5) = 664Q   /L
                       (3 cfs) (0.10)
Checking the Calculations

   Total recoverable:

       (3 cfs) (6640 ug/L) + (3 cfs) (400 ug/L)  _
                      T^f5                 352°

   Dissolved:

       (3 cfs)(6640 ug/L) (0.10)  + (3 cfs)(400 ug/L) (0.5Q)  = 432   /L
                           6 CfS

   The value of 0.10  is used  because  this is the percent of the
   total recoverable  metal  in the effluent  that becomes dissolved
   in the downstream  water.

   The values of  3520 ug/L  and 432 ug/L equal the downstream
   site-specific  CCCs derived above.
Another Way to Calculate  the  Maximum Acceptable Concentration

   The maximum acceptable concentration of total recoverable
   metal in the effluent  can  also be calculated from the
   dissolved dssCCC of  432 ug/L using a partition coefficient to
   convert from the dissolved dssCCC of 432 ug/L to the total
   recoverable dssCCC of  3520 ug/L:
           [6 cfs] [ 432 U9/L  - (3 cfs) (400 ug/L)]
                   °'1227                     = 6640 ug/L
                         3 cfs

   Note that the value  used for the partition coefficient in this
   calculation  is  0.1227  (the one that applies to the downstream
   water when the  total recoverable concentration of metal in the
   effluent is  6640  ug/L)',  not 0.29 (the one that applies when
   the concentration of metal in the effluent is only 420 ug/L).
   The three ways  of calculating the maximum acceptable
   concentration give the  same result if each is used correctly.

                                130

-------
Figure D5: A Generalized Complexation Curve
The curve is for a constant concentration of the complexing

ligand and an increasing concentration of the metal.
    100
 a
 LU
 x
 LU
 o
 o
 z
          LOG  OF  CONCENTRATION  OF  METAL
                          131

-------
Figure D6: A Generalized Precipitation Curve
The curve is for a constant concentration of the precipitating
ligand and an increasing concentration of the metal.
    100
  Q
  LJJ
  O
  CO
          LOG OF CONCENTRATION OF METAL
                           132

-------
References

Allen, H.E.  1993.  Importance of Metal Speciation to Toxicity.
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation Workshop on
Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals.  Anaheim, CA.  pp. 55-62.

Allen, H.E., and D.J. Hansen.  1993.  The Importance of Trace
Metal Speciation to Water Quality Criteria.  Paper presented at
Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.  Houston, TX.
November 15.

Borgmann, U.  1983.  Metal Speciation and Toxicity of Free Metal
Ions to Aquatic Biota.  IN: Aquatic Toxicology.   (J.O. Nriagu,
ed.)  Wiley, New York, NY.

Brungs, W.A., T.S. Holderman, and M.T. Southerland.  1992.
Synopsis of Water-Effect Ratios for Heavy Metals as Derived for
Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria.  U.S. EPA Contract 68-CO-
0070.

Chapman, G.A., and J.K. McCrady.  1977.  Copper Toxicity: A
Question of Form.  In: Recent Advances in Fish Toxicology.   (R.A.
Tubb, ed.)   EPA-600/3-77-085  or  PB-273 500.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.  pp. 132-151.

Erickson, R.  1993a.  Memorandum to C. Stephan.  July 14.

Erickson, R.  1993b.  Memorandum to C. Stephan.  November 12.

French, P., and D.T.E. Hunt.  1986.  The Effects of Inorganic
Complexing upon the Toxicity of Copper to Aquatic Organisms
(Principally Fish).  IN: Trace Metal Speciation and Toxicity to
Aquatic Organisms - A Review.  (D.T.E. Hunt,  ed.)   Report TR 247.
Water Research Centre, United Kingdom.

Hansen, D.J.  1993a.  Memorandum to C.E. Stephan.   April 29.

Hansen, D.J.  1993b.  Memorandum to C.E. Stephan.   October 6.

Nelson, H., D. Benoit, R.  Erickson, V. Mattson, and J. Lindberg.
1986.  The Effects of Variable Hardness, pH,  Alkalinity,
Suspended Clay,  and Humics on the Chemical Speciation and Aquatic
Toxicity of Copper.  PB86-171444.  National Technical Information
Service, Springfield,  VA.

Wilkinson,  K.J.,  P.M.  Bertsch, C.H. Jagoe, and P.G.C. Campbell.
1993.  Surface Complexation of Aluminum on Isolated Fish Gill
Cells.  Environ.  Sci.  Technol. 27:1132-1138.
                               133

-------
Appendix E: U.S. EPA Aquatic Life Criteria Documents for Metals
 Metal
EPA Number
NTIS Number
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
440/5-86-008
440/5-80-020
440/5-84-033
440/5-80-024
440/5-84-032
440/5-84-029
440/5-84-031
440/5-84-027
440/5-84-026
440/5-86-004
440/5-87-006
440/5-80-071
440/5-80-074
440/5-87-003
PB88-245998
PB81-117319
PB85-227445
PB81-117350
PB85-227031
PB85-227478
PB85-227023
PB85-227437
PB85-227452
PB87-105359
PB88-142237
PB81-117822
PB81-117848
PB87-153581
All are available from:
          National Technical Information Service  (NTIS)
          5285 Port Royal Road
          Springfield, VA 22161
             TEL: 703-487-4650
                               134

-------
Appendix F: Considerations Concerning Multiple-Metal, Multiple-
            Discharge, and Special Flowing-Water Situations


Multiple-Metal Situations

Both Method 1 and Method 2 work well in multiple-metal
situations, although the amount of testing required increases as
the number of metals increases.  The major problem is the same
for both methods: even when addition of two or more metals
individually is acceptable, simultaneous addition of the two or
more metals, each at its respective maximum acceptable
concentration, might be unacceptable for at least two reasons:
1. Additivity or synergism might occur between metals.
2. More than one of the metals might be detoxified by the same
   complexing agent in the site water.  When WERs are determined
   individually, each metal can utilize all of the complexing
   capacity; when the metals are added together, however, they
   cannot simultaneously utilize all of the complexing capacity.
Thus a discharger might feel that it is cost-effective to try to
justify the lowest site-specific criterion that is acceptable to
the discharger rather than trying to justify the highest site-
specific criterion that the appropriate regulatory authority
might approve.

There are two options for dealing with the possibility of
additivity and synergism between metals:
a. WERs could be developed using a mixture of the metals but it
   might be necessary to use several primary toxicity tests
   depending on the specific metals that are of interest.  Also,
   it might not be clear what ratio of the metals should be used
   in the mixture.
b. If a WER is determined for each metal individually, one or
   more additional toxicity tests must be conducted at the end to
   show that the combination of all metals at their proposed new
   site-specific criteria is acceptable.  Acceptability must be
   demonstrated with each toxicity test that was used as a
   primary toxicity test in the determination of the WERs for the
   individual metals.  Thus if a different primary test was used
   for each metal,  the number of acceptability tests needed would
   equal the number of metals.  It is possible that a toxicity
   test used as the primary test for one metal might be more
   sensitive than the CMC (or CCC)  for another metal and thus
   might not be usable in the combination test unless antagonism
   occurs.   When a primary test cannot be used, an acceptable
   alternative test must be used.
The second option is preferred because it is more definitive; it
provides data for each metal individually and for the mixture.
The first option leaves the possibility that one of the metals is
antagonistic towards another so that the toxicity of the mixture
would increase if the metal causing the antagonism were not
present.

                               135

-------
Multiple-Discharge Situations

Because the National Toxics Rule (NTR)  incorporated WERs into the
aquatic life criteria for some metals,  it might be envisioned
that more than one criterion could apply to a metal at a site if
different investigators obtained different WERs for the same
metal at the site.  In jurisdictions subiect to the NTR, as well
as in all other jurisdictions, EPA intends that there should be
no more than one criterion for a pollutant at a point in a body
of water.  Thus whenever a site-specific criterion is to be
derived using a WER at a site at which more than one discharger
has permit limits for the same metal, it is important that all
dischargers work together with the appropriate regulatory
authority to develop a workplan that is designed to derive a
site-specific criterion that adequately protects the entire site.

Method 2 is ideally suited for taking into account more than one
discharger.

Method 1 is straightforward if the dischargers are sufficiently
far downstream of each other that the stream can be divided into
a separate site for each discharger.  Method 1 can also be fairly
straightforward if the WERs are additive, but it will be complex
if the WERs are not additive.  Deciding whether to use a
simulated downstream water or an actual downstream water can be
difficult in a flowing-water multiple-discharge situation.  Use
of actual downstream water can be complicated by the existence of
multiple mixing zones and plumes and by the possibility of
varying discharge schedules; these same problems exist, however,
if effluents from two or more discharges are used to prepare
simulated downstream water.  Dealing with a multiple-discharge
situation is much easier if the WERs are additive, and use of
simulated downstream water is the best way to determine whether
the WERs are additive.  Taking into account all effluents will
take into account synergism, antagonism, and additivity.  If one
of the discharges stops or is modified substantially, however, it
will usually be necessary to determine a new WER, except possibly
if the metal being discharged is refractory.  Situations
concerning intermittent and batch discharges need to be handled
on a case-by-case basis.
Special Flowing-Water Situations

Method 1 is intended to apply not only to ordinary rivers and
streams but also to streams that some people might consider
"special", such as streams whose design flows are zero and
streams that some state and/or federal agencies might refer to as
"effluent-dependent",  "habitat-creating",  "effluent-dominated",
etc.   (Due to differences between agencies,  some streams whose
design flows are zero are not considered "effluent-dependent",

                               136

-------
etc., and some  "effluent-dependent" streams have design flows
that are greater than zero.)  The application of Method 1 to
these kinds of  streams has the following implications:
1. If the design flow is zero, at least some WERs ought to be
   determined in 100% effluent.
2. If thunderstorms, etc., occasionally dilute the effluent
   substantially, at least one WER should be determined in
   diluted effluent to assess whether dilution by rainwater might
   result in underprotection by decreasing the WER faster than it
   decreases the concentration of the metal.  This might occur,
   for example, if rainfall reduces hardness, alkalinity, and pH
   substantially.  This might not be a concern if the WER
   demonstrates a substantial margin of safety.
3. If the site-specific criterion is substantially higher than
   the national criterion, there should be increased concern
   about the fate of the metal that has reduced or no toxicity.
   Even if the WER demonstrates a substantial margin of safety
   (e.g., if the site-specific criterion is three times the
   national criterion, but the experimentally determined WER is
   11), it might be desirable to study the fate of the metal.
4. If the stream merges with another body of water and a site-
   specific criterion is desired for the merged waters, another
   WER needs to be determined for the mixture of the waters.
5. Whether WET testing is required is not a WER issue, although
   WET testing might be a condition for determining and/or using
   a WER.
6. A concern about what species should be present and/or
   protected in a stream is a beneficial-use issue,  not a WER
   issue, although resolution of this issue might affect what
   species should be used if a WER is determined.  (If the
   Recalculation Procedure is used,  determining what species
   should be present and/or protected is obviously important.)
7. Human health and wildlife criteria and other issues might
   restrict an effluent more than an aquatic life criterion.
Although there are no scientific reasons why "effluent-
dependent",  etc., streams and streams whose design flows are zero
should be subject to different guidance than other streams,  a
regulatory decision (for example,  see 40 CFR 131) might require
or allow some or all such streams to be subject to different
guidance.  For example,  it might be decided on the basis of a use
attainability analysis that one or more constructed streams do
not have to comply with usual aquatic life criteria because it is
decided that the water quality in such streams does not need to
protect sensitive aquatic species.   Such a decision might
eliminate any further concern for site-specific aquatic life
criteria and/or for WET testing for such streams.  The water
quality might be unacceptable for other reasons,  however.

In addition to its use with rivers and streams, Method 1 is also
appropriate for determining cmcWERs that are applicable to near-
field effects of discharges into large bodies of fresh or salt
water,  such as an ocean or a large lake,  reservoir,  or estuary:

                               137

-------
a. The near-field effects of a pipe that extends far into a large
   body of fresh or salt water that has a current,  such as an
   ocean, can probably best be treated the same as a single
   discharge into a flowing stream.  For example,  if a mixing
   zone is defined, the concentration of effluent at the edge of
   the mixing zone might be used to define how to prepare a
   simulated site water.  A dye dispersion study (Kilpatrick
   1992)  might be useful, but a dilution model (U.S. EPA 1993) is
   likely to be a more cost-effective way of obtaining
   information concerning the amount of dilution at the edge of
   the mixing zone.
b. The near-field effects of a single discharge that is near a
   shore of a large body of fresh or salt water can also probably
   best be treated the same as a single discharge into a flowing
   stream, especially if there is a definite plume and a defined
   mixing zone.  The potential point of impact of near-field
   effects will often be an embayment,  bayou, or estuary that is
   a nursery for fish and invertebrates and/or contains
   commercially important shellfish beds.  Because of their
   importance, these areas should receive special consideration
   in the determination and use of a WER, taking into account
   sources of water and discharges, mixing patterns, and currents
   (and tides in coastal areas).   The current and flushing
   patterns in estuaries can result in increased pollutant
   concentrations in confined embayments and at the terminal up-
   gradient portion of the estuary due to poor tidal flushing and
   exchange.  Dye dispersion studies (Kilpatrick 1992)  can be
   used to determine the spatial concentration of the effluent in
   the receiving water, but dilution models  (U.S.  EPA 1993)  might
   not be sufficiently accurate to be useful.  Dye studies of
   discharges in near-shore tidal areas are especially complex.
   Dye injection into the discharge should occur over at least
   one, and preferably two or three, complete tidal cycles;
   subsequent dispersion patterns should be monitored in the
   ambient water on consecutive tidal cycles using an intensive
   sampling regime over time, location, and depth.   Information
   concerning dispersion and the community at risk can be used to
   define the appropriate mixing zone(s), which might be used to
   define how to prepare simulated site water.


References

Kilpatrick, F.A.  1992.  Simulation of Soluble Waste Transport
and Buildup in Surface Waters Using Tracers.  Open-File Report
92-457.  U.S. Geological Survey,  Books and Open-File Reports, Box
25425, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225.

U.S.  EPA.  1993.  Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges.
Second Edition.  EPA/600/R-93/139.   National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
                               138

-------
Appendix G: Additivity and the Two Components of a WER Determined
            Using Downstream Water


The Concept of Additivity of WERs

In theory, whenever samples of effluent and upstream water are
taken, determination of a WER in 100 % effluent would quantify
the effluent WER  (eWER) and determination of a WER in 100 %
upstream water would quantify the upstream WER  (uWER);
determination of WERs in known mixtures of the two samples would
demonstrate whether the eWER and the uWER are additive.  For
example, if eWER = 40, uWER = 5, and the two WERs are additive, a
mixture of 20 % effluent and 80 % upstream water would give a WER
of 12, except possibly for experimental variation, because:

      20 (eWER)  +80 (uWER)  =  20 (40)  + 80 (5)  =  800 + 400  = 1200 = 12
             100               100          100      100

Strict additivity of an eWER and an uWER will probably be rare
because one or both WERs will probably consist of a portion that
is additive and a portion that is not.  The portions of the eWER
and uWER that are due to refractory metal will be strictly
additive, because a change in water quality will not make the
metal more or less toxic.  In contrast, metal that is nontoxic
because it is complexed by a complexing agent such as EDTA will
not be strictly additive because the % uncomplexed will decrease
as the solution is diluted; the amount of change in the %
uncomplexed will usually be small and will depend on the
concentration and the binding constant of the complexing agent
(see Appendix D).  Whether the nonrefractory portions of the uWER
and eWER are additive will probably also depend on the
differences between the water quality characteristics of the
effluent and the upstream water, because these will determine the
water quality characteristics of the downstream water.  If, for
example, 85 % of the eWER and 30 % of the uWER are due to
refractory metal, the WER obtained in the mixture of 20 %
effluent and 80 % upstream water could range from 8 to 12.  The
WER of 8 would be obtained if the only portions of the eWER and
uWER that are additive are those due to refractory metal,
because:

    20(0.85) (eWER) + 80(0.30) (uWER) = 20(0.85) (40) + 80 (0.30) (5)  = 8
                100                          100

The WER could be as high as 12 depending on the percentages of
the other portions of the WERs that are also additive.  Even if
the eWER and uWER are not strictly additive, the concept of
additivity of WERs can be useful insofar as the eWER and uWER are
partially additive, i.e., insofar as a portion of at least one of
the WERs is additive.  In the example given above, the WER
determined using downstream water that consisted of 20 % effluent

                               139

-------
and 80 % upstream water would be 12 if the eWER and uWER were
strictly additive; the downstream WER would be less than 12 if
the eWER and uWER were partially additive.


The Importance of Additivity

The major advantage of additivity of WERs can be demonstrated
using the effluent and upstream water that were used above.  To
simplify this illustration, the acute-chronic ratio will be
assumed to be large, and the eWER of 40 and the uWER of 5 will be
assumed to be cccWERs that will be assumed to be due to
refractory metal and will therefore be strictly additive.  In
addition, the complete-mix downstream water at design-flow
conditions will be assumed to be 20 % effluent and 80 % upstream
water, so that the downstream WER will be 12 as calculated above
for strict additivity.

Because the eWER and the uWER are cccWERs and are strictly
additive, this metal will cause neither acute nor chronic
toxicity in downstream water if (a) the concentration of metal in
the effluent is less than 40 times the CCC and (b)  the
concentration of metal in the upstream water is less than 5 times
the CCC.  As the effluent is diluted by mixing with upstream
water, both the eWER and the concentration of metal will be
diluted simultaneously; proportional dilution of the metal and
the eWER will prevent the metal from causing acute or chronic
toxicity at any dilution.  When the upstream flow equals the
design flow, the WER in the plume will decrease from 40 at the
end of the pipe to 12 at complete mix as the effluent is diluted
by upstream water; because this WER is due to refractory metal,
neither fate processes nor changes in water quality
characteristics will affect the WER.  When stream flow is higher
or lower than design flow, the complete-mix WER will be lower or
higher, respectively, than 12, but toxicity will not occur
because the concentration of metal will also be lower or higher.

If the eWER and the uWER are strictly additive and if the
national CCC is 1 mg/L, the following conclusions are valid when
the concentration of the metal in 100 % effluent is less than 40
mg/L and the concentration of the metal in 100 % upstream water
is less than 5 mg/L:
1. This metal will not cause acute or chronic toxicity in the
   upstream water, in 100 % effluent, in the plume, or in
   downstream water.
2. There is no need for an acute or a chronic mixing zone where a
   lesser degree of protection is provided.
3. If no mixing zone exists, there is no discontinuity at the
   edge of a mixing zone where the allowed concentration of metal
   decreases instantaneously.
These results also apply to partial additivity as long as the
concentration of metal does not exceed that allowed by the amount

                               140

-------
of additivity that exists.  It would be more difficult to take
into account the portions of the eWER and uWER that are not
additive.

The concept of additivity becomes unimportant when the ratios,
concentrations of the metals, or WERs are very different.  For
example, if eWER = 40, uWER = 5, and they are additive, a mixture
of 1 % effluent and 99 % upstream water would have a WER of 5.35.
Given the reproducibility of toxicity tests and WERs, it would be
extremely difficult to distinguish a WER of 5 from a WER of 5.35.
In cases of extreme dilution, rather than experimentally
determining a WER, it is probably acceptable to use the limiting
WER of 5 or to calculate a WER if additivity has been
demonstrated.

Traditionally it has been believed that it is environmentally
conservative to use a WER determined in upstream water (i.e., the
uWER) to derive a site-specific criterion that applies downstream
(i.e., that applies to areas that contain effluent).  This belief
is probably based on the assumption that a larger WER would be
obtained in downstream water that contains effluent, but the
belief could also be based on the assumption that the uWER is
additive.  It is possible that in some cases neither assumption
is true, which means that using a uWER to derive a downstream
site-specific criterion might result in underprotection.   It
seems likely, however, that WERs determined using downstream
water will usually be at least as large as the uWER.

Several kinds of concerns about the use of WERs are actually
concerns about additivity:
1. Do WERs need to be determined at higher flows in addition to
   being determined at design flow?
2. Do WERs need to be determined when two bodies of water mix?
3. Do WERs need to be determined for each additional effluent in
   a multiple-discharge situation.
In each case, the best use of resources might be to test for
additivity of WERs.


Mixing Zones

In the example presented above,  there would be no need for a
regulatory mixing zone with a reduced level of protection if:
1. The eWER is always 40 and the concentration of the metal in
   100 % effluent is always less than 40 mg/L.
2. The uWER is always 5 and the concentration of the metal in 100
   % upstream water is always less than 5 mg/L.
3. The WERs are strictly additive.
If,  however,  the concentration exceeded 40 mg/L in 100 %
effluent, but there is some assimilative capacity in the upstream
water,  a regulatory mixing zone would be needed if the discharge
were to be allowed to utilize some or all of the assimilative

                               141

-------
capacity.  The concept of additivity of WERs can be used to
calculate the maximum allowed concentration of the metal in the
effluent if the eWER and the uWER are strictly additive.

If the concentration of metal in the upstream water never exceeds
0.8 mg/L, the discharger might want to determine how much above
40 mg/L the concentration could be in 100 % effluent.  If, for
example, the downstream water at the edge of the chronic mixing
zone under design-flow conditions consists of 70 % effluent and
30 % upstream water, the WER that would apply at the edge of the
mixing zone would be:

       IQ(eWER) + 3Q(uWER)   70(40)  + 30(5)    2800 + 150   _..  c
                      —  ^ 	:	  = 	 — ^ y  K
              100               100           100

Therefore,  the maximum concentration allowed at this point would
be 29.5 rug/L.  If the concentration of the metal in the upstream
water was 0.8 mg/L, the maximum concentration allowed in 100 %
effluent would be 41.8 mg/L because:

     70(41.8 mg/L) + 30(0.8 mg/L)  _  2926 mg/L + 24 mg/L   00 c   ,,
                loo            =        loo	 = 29'5 mg/L  •

Because the eWER is 40,  if the concentration of the metal in 100
% effluent is 41.8 mg/L,  there would be chronic toxicity inside
the chronic mixing zone.   If the concentration in 100 % effluent
is greater than 41.8 mg/L,  there would be chronic toxicity past
the edge of the chronic mixing zone.  Thus even if the eWER and
the uWER are taken into account and they are assumed to be
completely additive, a mixing zone is necessary if the
assimilative capacity of the upstream water is used to allow
discharge of more metal.

If the complete-mix downstream water consists of 20 % effluent
and 80 % upstream water at design flow, the complete-mix WER
would be 12 as calculated above.  The complete-mix approach to
determining and using downstream WERs would allow a maximum
concentration of 12 mg/L at the edge of the chronic mixing zone,
whereas the alternative approach resulted in a maximum allowed
concentration of 29.5 mg/L.  The complete-mix approach would
allow a maximum concentration of 16.8 mg/L in the effluent
because:

      70 (16 .8 mg/L)  +30 (0.8 mg/L)  _  1176 mg/L + 24 mg/L   , 0   ,,
                 100                     loo        = 12 mg/L •

In this example,  the complete-mix approach limits the
concentration of the metal in the effluent to 16.8 mg/L, even
though it is known that as long as the concentration in 100 %
effluent is less than 40 mg/L, chronic toxicity will not occur
inside or outside the mixing zone.  If the WER of 12 is used to
derive a site-specific CCC of 12 mg/L that is applied to a site

                               142

-------
that starts at the edge of the chronic mixing zone and extends
all the way across the stream, there would be overprotection at
the edge of the chronic mixing zone  (because the maximum allowed
concentration is 12 mg/L, but a concentration of 29.5 mg/L will
not cause chronic toxicity), whereas there would be
underprotection on the other side of the stream  (because the
maximum allowed concentration is 12 mg/L, but concentrations
above 5 mg/L can cause chronic toxicity.)


The Experimental Determination of Additivity

Experimental variation makes it difficult to quantify additivity
without determining a large number of WERs, but the advantages of
demonstrating additivity might be sufficient to make it worth the
effort.  It should be possible to decide whether the eWER and
uWER are strictly additive based on determination of the eWER in
100 % effluent, determination of the uWER in 100 % upstream
water, and determination of WERs in 1:3, 1:1, and 3:1 mixtures of
the effluent and upstream water,  i.e.,  determination of WERs in
100, 75, 50, 25, and 0 % effluent.  Validating models of partial
additivity and/or interactions will probably require
determination of more WERs and more sophisticated data analysis
(see, for example, Broderius 1991).

In some cases chemical measurements or manipulations might help
demonstrate that at least some portion of the eWER and/or the
uWER is additive:
1. If the difference between the dissolved WER and the total
   recoverable WER is explained by the difference between the
   dissolved and total recoverable concentrations,  the difference
   is probably due to particulate refractory metal.
2. If the WERs in different samples of the effluent correlate
   with the concentration of metal in the effluent,  all,  or
   nearly all,  of the metal in the effluent is probably nontoxic.
3. A WER that remains constant as the pH is lowered to 6.5 and
   raised to 9.0 is probably additive.
The concentration of refractory metal is likely to be low in
upstream water except during events that increase TSS and/or TOG;
the concentration of refractory metal is more likely to be
substantial in effluents.  Chemical measurements might help
identify the percentages of the eWER and the uWER that are due to
refractory metal, but again experimental variation will limit the
usefulness of chemical measurements when concentrations are low.
Summary

The distinction between the two components of a WER determined
using downstream water has the following implications:
1. The magnitude of a WER determined using downstream water will
   usually depend on the percent effluent in the sample.

                               143

-------
   Insofar as the eWER and uWER are additive,  the magnitude of a
   downstream WER can be calculated from the eWER,  the uWER,  and
   the ratio of effluent and upstream water in the downstream
   water.
   The derivation and implementation of site-specific criteria
   should ensure that each component is applied only where it
   occurs.
   a.  Underprotection will occur if, for example, any portion of
      the eWER is applied to an area of a stream where the
      effluent does not occur.
   b.  Overprotection will occur if, for example,  an unnecessarily
      small portion of the eWER is applied to an area of a stream
      where the effluent occurs.
   Even though the concentration of metal might be higher than a
   criterion in both a regulatory mixing zone and a plume, a
   reduced level of protection is allowed in a mixing zone,
   whereas a reduced level of protection is not allowed in the
   portion of a plume that is not inside a mixing zone.
   Regulatory mixing zones are necessary if, and only if, a
   discharger wants to make use of the assimilative capacity of
   the upstream water.
   It  might be cost-effective to quantify the eWER and uWER,
   determine the extent of additivity, study variability over
   time, and then decide how to regulate the metal in the
   effluent.
Reference

Broderius,  S.J.  1991.  Modeling the Joint Toxicity of
Xenobiotics to Aquatic Organisms:  Basic Concepts and Approaches.
In: Aquatic Toxicology and Risk Assessment: Fourteenth Volume.
(M.A. Mayes and M.G. Barren,  eds. )   ASTM STP 1124.   American
Society for Testing and Materials,  Philadelphia, PA.  pp.  107-
127.
                               144

-------
Appendix H: Special Considerations Concerning the Determination
            of WERs with Saltwater Species


1. The test organisms should be compatible with the salinity of
   the site water, and the salinity of the laboratory dilution
   water should match that of the site water.  Low-salinity
   stenohaline organisms should not be tested in high-salinity
   water, whereas high-salinity stenohaline organisms should not
   be tested in low-salinity water; it is not known,  however,
   whether an incompatibility will affect the WER.  If the
   community to be protected principally consists of euryhaline
   species, the primary and secondary toxicity tests should use
   the euryhaline species suggested in Appendix I (or
   taxonomically related species)  whenever possible,  although the
   range of tolerance of the organisms should be checked.
   a. When Method 1 is used to determine cmcWERs at saltwater
      sites, the selection of test organisms is complicated by
      the fact that most effluents are freshwater and they are
      discharged into salt waters having a wide range of
      salinities.  Some state water quality standards require a
      permittee to meet an LC50 or other toxicity limit at the
      end of the pipe using a freshwater species.  However, the
      intent of the site-specific and national water quality
      criteria program is to protect the communities that are at
      risk.  Therefore, freshwater species should not be used
      when WERs are determined for saltwater sites unless such
      freshwater species (or closely related species)  are in the
      community at risk.  The addition of a small amount of brine
      and the use of salt-tolerant freshwater species is
      inappropriate for the same reason.  The addition of a large
      amount of brine and the use of saltwater species that
      require high salinity should also be avoided when salinity
      is likely to affect the toxicity of the metal.   Salinities
      that are acceptable for testing euryhaline species can be
      produced by dilution of effluent with sea water and/or
      addition of a commercial sea salt or a brine that is
      prepared by evaporating site water; small increases in
      salinity are acceptable because the effluent will be
      diluted with salt water wherever the communities at risk
      are exposed in the real world.   Only as a last  resort
      should freshwater species that tolerate low levels of
      salinity and are sensitive to metals,  such as Daphnia magna
      and Hyalella azteca,  be used.
   b. When Method 2 is used to determine cccWERs at saltwater
      sites:
      1)  If the site water is low-salinity but all the sensitive
         test organisms are high-salinity stenohaline organisms,
         a commercial sea salt or a brine that is prepared by
         evaporating site water may be added in order to increase
         the salinity to the minimum level that is acceptable to
         the test organisms; it should be determined  whether the

                               145

-------
      salt or brine reduces the toxicity of the metal and thereby
      increases the WER.
      2)  If the site water is high-salinity,  selecting test
         organisms should not be difficult because many of the
         sensitive test organisms are compatible with high-
         salinity water.

2. It is especially important to consider the availability of
   test organisms when saltwater species are to be used,  because
   many of the commonly used saltwater species are not cultured
   and are only available seasonally.

3. Many standard published methodologies for tests with saltwater
   species recommend filtration of dilution water, effluent,
   and/or test solutions through a 37-/xm sieve or screen  to
   remove predators.  Site water should be filtered only if
   predators are observed in the sample of the water because
   filtration might affect toxicity.  Although recommended in
   some test methodologies, ultraviolet treatment is often not
   needed and generally should be avoided.

4. If a natural salt water is to be used as the laboratory
   dilution water, the samples should probably be collected at
   slack high tide  (+ 2 hours).  Unless there is stratification,
   samples should probably be taken at mid-depth; however, if a
   water quality characteristic, such as salinity or TSS, is
   important, the vertical and horizontal definition of the point
   of sampling might be important.  A conductivity meter,
   salinometer, and/or transmissometer might be useful for
   determining where and at what depth to collect the laboratory
   dilution water; any measurement of turbidity will probably
   correlate with TSS.

5. The salinity of the laboratory dilution water should be within
   ± 10 percent or 2 mg/L  (whichever is higher) of that of the
   site water.
                               146

-------
Appendix I: Suggested Toxicity Tests for Determining WERs for
            Metals


Selecting primary and secondary toxicity tests for determining
WERs for metals should take into account the following:
1. WERs determined with more sensitive tests are likely to be
   larger than WERs determined with less sensitive tests (see
   Appendix D).   Criteria are derived to protect sensitive
   species and so WERs should be derived to be appropriate for
   sensitive species.  The appropriate regulatory authority will
   probably accept WERs derived with less sensitive tests because
   such WERs are likely to provide at least as much protection as
   WERs determined with more sensitive tests.
2. The species used in the primary and secondary tests must be in
   different orders and should include a vertebrate and an
   invertebrate.
3. The test organism  (i.e., species and life stage) should be
   readily available throughout the testing period.
4. The chances of the test being successful should be high.
5. The relative sensitivities of test organisms vary
   substantially from metal to metal.
6. The sensitivity of a species to a metal usually depends on
   both the life stage and kind of test used.
7. Water quality characteristics might affect chronic toxicity
   differently than they affect acute toxicity  (Spehar and
   Carlson 1984;  Chapman, unpublished; Voyer and McGovern 1991) .
8. The endpoint of the primary test in laboratory dilution water
   should be as close as possible  (but must not be below) the CMC
   or CCC to which the WER is to be applied; the endpoint of the
   secondary test should be as close as possible  (and should not
   be below) the CMC or CCC.
9. Designation of tests as acute and chronic has no bearing on
   whether they may be used to determine a cmcWER or a cccWER.
The suggested toxicity tests should be considered, but the actual
selection should depend on the specific circumstances that apply
to a particular WER determination.

Regardless of whether test solutions are renewed when tests are
conducted for other purposes, if the concentrations of dissolved
metal and dissolved oxygen remain acceptable when determining
WERs, tests whose duration is not longer than 48 hours may be
static tests, whereas tests whose duration is longer than 48
hours must be renewal tests.  If the concentration of dissolved
metal and/or the concentration of dissolved oxygen does not
remain acceptable, the test solutions must be renewed every 24
hours.  If one test in a pair of side-by-side tests is a renewal
test, both of the tests must be renewed on the same schedule.

Appendix H should be read if WERs are to be determined with
saltwater species.
                               147

-------
      Suggested Tests1 for Determining cmcWERs and cccWERs2
         (Concentrations are to be measured in all tests.)
  Metal
Water3
   cmcWERs4
                  cccWERs4
Aluminum

Arsenic(III)


Cadmium
 FW

 FW
 SW

 FW
 SW
DA

DA
BM

DA
MY
   GM
   CR

SL5  or  FM
   CR
CDC

CDC
MYC

CDC
MYC
 X

FMC
BM

FMC
 X
Chrom(III)
Chrom(VI)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
FW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
FW
SW
GM
DA
MY
DA
BM
DA
BM
DA
MY
DA
MY
Y
CR
DA
BM
DA
BM
SL or DA
GM
NE
FM or GM
AR
GM
MYC
GM
BM
FX
BM
Y
MYC
FMC
CR
FM
MY
FMC
CDC
MYC
CDC
BMC
CDC
MYC
Y
Y
CDC
MYC
Y
MYC
CDC
MYC
CDC
MYC
CDC
GM
NEC
FM
AR
X
X
Y
Y
FMC
BMC
Y
X
FMC
BMC
FMC
BMC
   The description of a test specifies not only the test species
   and the duration of the test but also the life stage of the
   species and the adverse effeet(s)  on which the endpoint is to
   be based.

   Some tests that are sensitive and are used in criteria
   documents  are not suggested here because the chances of the
   test organisms being available and the test being successful
   might be low.  Such tests may be used if desired.
                               148

-------
   FW = Fresh Water; SW = Salt Water.

   Two-letter codes are used for acute tests, whereas codes for
   chronic tests contain three letters and end in "C".   One-
   letter codes are used for comments.

   In acute tests on cadmium with salmonids, substantial numbers
   of fish usually die after 72 hours.   Also, the fish are
   sensitive to disturbance, and it is sometimes difficult to
   determine whether a fish is dead or immobilized.
ACUTE TESTS

AR. A 48-hr EC50 based on mortality and abnormal development from
    a static test with embryos and larvae of sea urchins of a
    species in the genus Arbacia (ASTM 1993a) or of the species
    Strongylocentrotus purpuratus (Chapman 1992).

BM. A 48-hr EC50 based on mortality and abnormal larval
    development from a static test with embryos and larvae of a
    species in one of four genera (Crassostrea, Mulinia, Mytilus,
    Mercenaria) of bivalve molluscs (ASTM 1993b).

CR. A 48-hr EC50  (or LC50 if there is no immobilization) from a
    static test with Acartia or larvae of a saltwater crustacean;
    if molting does not occur within the first 48  hours, renew at
    48 hours and continue the test to 96 hours  (ASTM 1993a).

DA. A 48-hr EC50  (or LC50 if there is no immobilization) from a
    static test with a species in one of three genera
    (Ceriodaphnia, Daphnia, Simocephalus)  in the family Daphnidae
    (U.S. EPA 1993a; ASTM 1993a).

FM. A 48-hr LC50 from a static test at 25°C with fathead minnow
    (Pimephales promelas) larvae that are 1 to 24  hours old (ASTM
    1993a; U.S. EPA 1993a).  The embryos must be hatched in the
    laboratory dilution water, except that organisms to be used
    in the site water may be hatched in the site water.  The
    larvae must not be fed before or during the test and at least
    90 percent must survive in laboratory dilution water for at
    least six days after hatch.
       Note: The following 48-hr LCSOs were obtained at a
             hardness of 50 mg/L with fathead minnow larvae that
             were 1 to 24 hours old.  The metal was measured
             using the total recoverable procedure (Peltier
             1993) :
                          Metal              LC50  Ucr/L)
                         Cadmium                13.87
                         Copper                  6.33
                         Zinc                  100.95

                               149

-------
FX. A 96-hr LC50 from a renewal test (renew at 48 hours)  at 25°C
    with fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)  larvae that are 1
    to 24 hours old (ASTM 1993a; U.S. EPA 1993a).  The embryos
    must be hatched in the laboratory dilution water,  except that
    organisms to be used in the site water may be hatched in the
    site water.  The larvae must not be fed before or during the
    test and at least 90 percent must survive in laboratory
    dilution water for at least six days after hatch.
       Note: A 96-hr LC50 of 188.14 /Kj/L was obtained at  a
             hardness of 50 mg/L in a test on nickel with fathead
             minnow larvae that were 1 to 24 hours old.  The
             metal was measured using the total recoverable
             procedure  (Peltier 1993) .   A 96-hr LC50 is used for
             nickel because substantial mortality occurred after
             48 hours in the test on nickel, but not in the tests
             on cadmium, copper, and zinc.

GM. A 96-hr EC50  (or LC50 if there is no immobilization)  from a
    renewal test  (renew at 48 hours) with a species in the genus
    Gammarus (ASTM 1993a).

MY. A 96-hr EC50  (or LC50 if there is no immobilization)  from a
    renewal test  (renew at 48 hours) with a species in one of two
    genera  (Mysidopsis,  Holmesimysis [nee Acanthomysis])  in the
    family Mysidae (U.S. EPA 1993a; ASTM 1993a).   Feeding is
    required during all acute and chronic tests with mysids; for
    determining WERs,  mysids should be fed four hours before the
    renewal at 48 hours and minimally on the non-renewal days.

NE. A 96-hr LC50 from a renewal test (renew at 48 hours)  using
    juvenile or adult polychaetes in the genus Nereidae  (ASTM
    1993a).

SL. A 96-hr EC50  (or LC50 if there is no immobilization)  from a
    renewal test  (renew at 48 hours) with a species in one of two
    genera  (Oncorhynchus,  Salmo) in the family Salmonidae  (ASTM
    1993a).
CHRONIC TESTS

BMC. A 7-day IC25 from a survival and development renewal test
     (renew every 48 hours) with a species of bivalve mollusc,
     such as a species in the genus Mulinia.  One such test has
     been described by Burgess et al. 1992.   [Note: When
     determining WERs, sediment must not be in the test chamber.]
     [Note: This test has not been widely used.]

CDC. A 7-day IC25 based on reduction in survival and/or
     reproduction in a renewal test with a species in the genus
     Ceriodaphnia in the family Daphnidae  (U.S. EPA 1993b).  The

                               150

-------
     test solutions must be renewed every 48 hours.   (A 21-day
     life-cycle test with Daphnia magna is also acceptable.)

FMC. A 7-day IC25 from a survival and growth renewal test  (renew
     every 48 hours) with larvae  (< 48-hr old) of the fathead
     minnow  (Pimephales promelas)  (U.S. EPA 1993b).  When
     determining WERs, the fish must be fed four hours before
     each renewal and minimally during the non-renewal days.

MYC. A 7-day IC25 based on reduction in survival, growth, and/or
     reproduction in a renewal test with a species in one of two
     genera  (Mysidopsis, Holmesimysis  [nee Acanthomysis]) in the
     family Mysidae  (U.S. EPA 1993c).  Mysids must be fed during
     all acute and chronic tests; when determining WERs, they
     must be fed four hours before each renewal.   The test
     solutions must be renewed every 24 hours.

NEC. A 20-day IC25 from a survival and growth renewal test  (renew
     every 48 hours) with a species in the genus Neanthes  (Johns
     et al. 1991).   [Note: When determining WERs, sediment must
     not be in the test chamber.]   [Note: This test has not been
     widely used.]
COMMENTS

X. Another sensitive test cannot be identified at this time, and
   so other tests used in the criteria document should be
   considered.

Y. Because neither the CCCs for mercury nor the freshwater
   criterion for selenium is based on laboratory data concerning
   toxicity to aquatic life, they cannot be adjusted using a WER.
REFERENCES

ASTM.  1993a.  Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with
Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.  Standard E729.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM.  1993b.  Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests
Starting with Embryos of Four Species of Saltwater Bivalve
Molluscs.  Standard E724.   American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

Burgess, R., G. Morrison,  and S. Rego.  1992.  Standard Operating
Procedure for 7-day Static Sublethal Toxicity Tests for Mulinia
lateralis.  U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Narragansett, RI.

                               151

-------
Chapman, G.A.  1992.  Sea Urchin  (Stronqvlocentrotus purpuratus)
Fertilization Test Method.  U.S. EPA, Newport, OR.

Johns, D.M., R.A. Pastorok, and T.C. Ginn.  1991.  A Sublethal
Sediment Toxicity Test using Juvenile Neanthes sp.
(Polychaeta:Nereidae).  In: Aquatic Toxicology and Risk
Assessment: Fourteenth Volume.  ASTM STP 1124.   (M.A. Mayes and
M.G. Barron, eds.)   American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.  pp. 280-293.

Peltier, W.H.  1993.  Memorandum to C.E. Stephan.  October 19.

Spehar, R.L., and A.R. Carlson.  1984.  Derivation of Site-
Specific Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium and the St. Louis
River Basin, Duluth, Minnesota.  Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:651-
665.

U.S. EPA.  1993a.  Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms.  Fourth Edition.  EPA/600/4-90/027F.   National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1993b.  Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater
Organisms.  Third Edition.  EPA/600/4-91/002.  National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA.  1993c.  Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and
Estuarine Organisms.  Second Edition.  EPA/600/4-91/003.
National Technical Information Service,  Springfield, VA.

Voyer, R.A., and D.G. McGovern.  1991.  Influence of Constant and
Fluctuating Salinity on Responses of Mysidopsis bahia Exposed to
Cadmium in a Life-Cycle Test.  Aquatic Toxicol.  19:215-230.
                               152

-------
Appendix J: Recommended Salts of Metals


The following  salts  are recommended for use when determining a
WER for the metal  listed.   If available,  a salt that meets
American Chemical  Society  (ACS)  specifications for reagent-grade
should be used.
Aluminum
*Aluminum chloride  6-hydrate.-  A1C13«6H20
 Aluminum sulfate 18-hydrate:  A12 (SO4) 3»18H20
 Aluminum potassium sulfate  12-hydrate:  A1K(S04) 2*12H20

Arsenic(III)
*Sodium arsenite: NaAs02

Arsenic(V)
 Sodium arsenate 7-hydrate,  dibasic: Na2HAsO4»7H20

Cadmium
 Cadmium chloride 2.5-hydrate: CdCl2*2.5H20
 Cadmium sulfate hydrate:  3CdS04«8H20

Chromium(III)
*Chromic chloride 6-hydrate  (Chromium  chloride): CrCl3«6H2O
*Chromic nitrate 9-hydrate (Chromium nitrate):  Cr(NO3) 3»9H2O
 Chromium potassium sulfate  12-hydrate:  CrK(S04) 2«12H20

Chromium(VI)
 Potassium chromate:   K2CrO4
 Potassium dichromate:   K2Cr207
*Sodium chromate 4-hydrate:  Na2Cr04»4H20
 Sodium dichromate  2-hydrate:   Na2Cr207«2H2O

Copper
*Cupric chloride 2-hydrate (Copper  chloride):  CuCl2«2H20
 Cupric nitrate 2.5-hydrate  (Copper nitrate):  Cu (NO3) 2»2 . 5H2O
 Cupric sulfate 5-hydrate  (Copper sulfate):  CuSO4»5H2O

Lead
*Lead chloride: PbCl2
 Lead nitrate: Pb(NOJ
                    3' 2
Mercury
 Mercuric chloride: HgCl2
 Mercuric nitrate monohydrate:  Hg(NO3)2»H2O
 Mercuric sulfate: HgS04
                                153

-------
Nickel
*Nickelous chloride 6-hydrate  (Nickel  chloride):  NiCl2*6H2O
*Nickelous nitrate 6-hydrate  (Nickel nitrate):  Ni(NO3) 2»6H2O
 Nickelous sulfate 6-hydrate  (Nickel sulfate):  NiS04»6H20

Selenium(IV)
*Sodium selenite 5-hydrate: Na2Se03»5H20

Selenium(VI)
*Sodium selenate 10-hydrate: Na2SeO4»10H2O

Silver
 Silver nitrate: AgN03
   (Even if acidified, standards  and samples  containing silver
   must be in amber containers.)

Zinc
 Zinc chloride: ZnCl2
*Zinc nitrate 6-hydrate:  Zn (NO3) 2«6H2O
 Zinc sulfate 7-hydrate:  ZnS04«7H2O


*Note: ACS reagent-grade  specifications  might not be available
       for this salt.
No salt should be used until  information concerning the safety
and handling of that  salt has been  read.
                                154

-------
        APPENDIX M
            Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




         SECOND EDITION

-------
         APPENDIX N
     Integrated Risk Information System
          Background Paper
                                      t
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
       ACKGROUND
         \     i
             *"•  f, ••
         'PAPER
    Integrated Risk Information System
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
    Office of Research and Development
FEBRUARY, 1993                   VERSION 1.0

-------
                  IR/S Background Paper
     On February 25, 1993, a FEDERAL REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490) was
published on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This background paper is
a companion piece to that notice.
                           Table of Contents

      Introduction	1

      General Background 	1

      Data Base Contents	3
           Noncancer Health Effects Information  	3
           Cancer Effects Health Information	4
           Scientific Contacts	4
           Bibliographies 	5
           Supplementary Information	5

      Use and Development of Health Hazard Information	5

      Management	6

      Oversight  	6

      Information Development Process	6
           CRAVE	6
           RfD/RfC 	8

      Methods and Guidelines	10

      Public Involvement	11

                                   ss

                For further information on IRIS, please contact:

                           IRIS User Support
                (Operated by Computer Sciences Corporation)
                   26 W. Martin Luther King Drive (MS-190)
                           Cincinnati, OH 45268

              Telephone (513) 569-7254  Facsimile (513) 569-7916

-------
Introduction

      This background paper provides the history, purposes, and goals of the
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and a detailed description of the current
processes used by the two Agency scientific work groups responsible for developing
the health hazard information in IRIS.  This background will help interested persons to
better understand the focus and contents of the companion FEDERAL REGISTER
notice.

      The February 25, 1993 FEDERAL REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490):  (1)
announces the availability of this paper that describes IRIS, its contents, and the
current processes used by the two Agency work groups responsible for developing
IRIS information; (2) discusses an Agency activity to review IRIS processes and solicits
comments on this review; (3) highlights points in the current process where public
input, including information submissions, is  encouraged; (4) describes how to access
IRIS; and (5) announces a new process to publish regularly a list of the substances
scheduled for IRIS work group review and to solicit pertinent data, studies, and
comments on these substances.
General Background

      IRIS is an EPA data base, updated monthly, containing Agency consensus
positions on the potential adverse human health effects of approximately 500 specific
substances.   It contains summaries of EPA qualitative and quantitative human health
information that support two of the four major steps of the risk assessment process
outlined in the National Research Council's (NRC) 1983 publication, "Risk Assessment
in the Federal Government:  Managing the Process."

      The risk assessment process described in the 1983 NRC publication consists of
four major steps: hazard identification, dose-response evaluation, exposure
assessment, and risk characterization.  IRIS includes information in support of the first
two of those steps, hazard identification and dose-response evaluation. Hazard
identification is the qualitative determination of how likely it is that a substance will
increase the incidence and/or severity of an adverse health effect.  Dose-response
evaluation is the quantitative relationship between the magnitude of the effect and the
dose inducing such an effect.  IRIS information supporting risk characterization
consists of brief statements on the quality of data and very general statements on
confidence in the dose-response evaluation.  IRIS consensus information does not
include exposure assessment  information.  Combined with specific situational
exposure assessment  information, the summary health hazard  information in IRIS may
be used as one source in evaluating potential public health risks of or from
environmental contaminants.

-------
       Many EPA program offices and program support offices, including the Office
of Research and Development, both at Headquarters and in EPA's ten Regional
offices, are involved in assessment activities in support of various legislative mandates.
In the 1980s, as health risk assessment became a more widespread practice across
Agency programs, the need became clear for greater consensus and consistency in
the areas of hazard identification and dose-response assessment.  It was determined
that an internal process should be established for reaching an Agency-wide judgment
on the potential health effects of substances of common interest to these offices, and
a system developed for communicating that Agency judgment to EPA risk assessors
and risk managers. These would provide the needed consistency and coordination.
In 1986, two EPA work groups with representation from program offices involved in
risk assessment were convened to carry out such an internal process to reach
consensus Agency positions on a chemical-by-chemical basis.  In 1986, the IRIS data
base was created for  EPA staff as the official repository of that consensus information.

      On June 2,  1988, a FEDERAL REGISTER notice (53 FR 20162-20164) of public
availability of IRIS was published. That notice described IRIS, the types of risk
information it contains, and how to get access to the system.  It informed the public
about the establishment of the IRIS Information Submission Desk.  The submission
desk was intended to provide opportunity for public input.  The notice explained the
procedures for submission of data or comments by interested parties on substances
either on IRIS or scheduled for review by the work groups. As stated in the June 1988
notice, a list of the substances scheduled for work group review has been a separate
file on IRIS since it became publicly available.  It was hoped that users would submit
pertinent information to the IRIS Information Submission Desk.  In fact, few users have
taken advantage of the opportunity to submit data and comments.

      Therefore, data submission procedures are reiterated in the  FEDERAL
REGISTER notice (58 FR 11490) related to this paper and a list of the substances
scheduled for review by specific work groups is included. The data submission
procedures will be reprinted in the FEDERAL REGISTER every 6 months with a new or
revised list of substances scheduled for work group review. For the latest status of
the substances scheduled for review, interested persons should first check the IRIS
data base itself or contact:

      IRIS User Support (Operated by Computer Sciences Corporation)
      U.S. EPA
      26 W. Martin Luther King Drive (MS-190)
      Cincinnati, OH  45268
      Telephone:  (513) 569-7254  Facsimile: (513) 569-7916

-------
Data Base Contents

      The core of IRIS is the three consensus health hazard information summary
sections:  the reference dose for noncancer health effects resulting from oral
exposure, the reference concentration for noncancer health effects resulting from
inhalation exposure, and the carcinogen assessment for both oral and inhalation
exposure. All of these terms are commonly used for judging the effects of lifetime
exposure to a given substance or mixture.  Citations for the scientific methodologies
that are the basis for the consensus health hazard sections on IRIS are included on
page 10 of this paper.

      In addition, an IRIS substance file may include supplemental information such
as summaries of health advisories, regulatory actions, and physical/chemical
properties.

Noncancer Health Effects Information

      An oral reference dose (RfD) is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps
an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is believed likely to be without an appreciable risk of certain
deleterious effects during a lifetime ("Reference  Dose [RfD]; Description and Use in
Health Risk Assessment" Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 8:471-486, 1988).
RfDs are developed by an  assessment method that assumes that there is a dose
threshold below which adverse effects will not occur. An RfD, which is expressed in
milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), is based on the determination of a
critical effect from a review of all toxicity data and a judgment of the necessary
uncertainty and modifying factors based on a review of available data.  IRIS substance
files contain the following information pertaining to the oral RfD:  reference dose
summary tables, principal and supporting studies,  uncertainty and modifying factors
used in calculating the RfD, a statement of  confidence in the RfD, EPA documentation
and review, EPA scientific contacts, and complete bibliographies for references cited.

      The inhalation reference concentration (RfC) is analogous to the oral RfD
(Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation Concentrations, EPA/600/8-90/066A).
It is also based on the assumption that thresholds exist for noncancer toxic effects.
The RfC considers toxic effects for both the respiratory system (portal-of-entry) and for
effects peripheral to the respiratory system (extra-respiratory). The inhalation RfC is
expressed in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/cu.m).  The RfC method departs from
that used to determine the oral RfD primarily by the integration of the anatomical and
physiological dynamics of the respiratory system (i.e., portal-of-entry) with the
physicochemical properties of the substance or substances entering the system.
Different dosimetric adjustments are  made according to whether the substance is a
particle or gas and whether the observed toxicity is respiratory or extra-respiratory.
These adjustments scale the concentration of the substance that causes an observed
effect in laboratory animals (or in humans, when available from occupational
epidemiology studies) to a human equivalent concentration for ambient exposures.

-------
IRIS substance files contain the following inhalation RfC information:  reference
concentration summary tables, description of dosimetric adjustment, principal and
supporting studies, uncertainty and modifying factors used to calculate the RfC, a
statement of confidence in the RfC, EPA documentation and review,  EPA scientific
contacts, and complete bibliographies for references cited.

Cancer Health Effects Information

      The carcinogen assessment of an IRIS substance file contains health hazard
identification and dose-response assessments developed from procedures outlined in
the EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (51 FR 33992-43003, September
24, 1986). Each cancer assessment, as a rule, is based on an Agency document that
has received external peer review. The hazard identification involves a judgment in the
form of a weight-of-evidence classification of the likelihood that the substance is a
human carcinogen.  It includes the type of data used as the basis of the classification.
This judgment is made independently of considerations of the strength of the possible
response. The dose-response assessment is a quantitative estimate of the potential
activity or magnitude of a substance's carcinogenic effect, usually expressed as a
cancer unit risk.  A cancer unit risk is an upper-bound estimate on the increased
likelihood that an individual will develop cancer when exposed to a substance over a
lifetime at a concentration of either 1 microgram per liter (1 vg/L) in drinking water for
oral exposure or 1  microgram per cubic meter (1 /;g/cu.m) in air for continuous
inhalation exposure.  Generally, a slope factor for dietary use is also given.  It is an
upper-bound estimate of cancer risk for humans per milligram of agent per kilogram  of
body weight per day.

      IRIS contains the following information in the cancer assessment section:  EPA
weight-of-evidence classification  and its basis, a summary of human  carcinogenicity
studies when available, a  summary of animal carcinogenicity studies, a summary of
other data supporting the classification, oral and/or inhalation quantitative estimates,
dose-response data used to derive these estimates and the method  of calculation,
statements of confidence  in magnitude of unit risk, documentation and review, EPA
scientific contacts, and complete bibliographies for references cited.

Scientific Contacts

      It is important to note that in each of the three sections described above, EPA
staff names and telephone numbers are included as scientific contacts for further
information.  The Agency believes that the inclusion of Agency scientific contacts able
to discuss the basis for the Agency's position, has been very valuable. These
individuals play a major role in providing public access to IRIS and a conduit for
valued public comment.

-------
 Bibliographies

      IRIS contains full bibliographic citations for each substance file, directing the
 user to the primary cited studies and pertinent scientific literature. One of the major
 intents of IRIS was to encourage users to evaluate the primary literature used to
 develop the IRIS information in light of the assumptions and uncertainties underlying
 the risk assessment process.

 Supplementary Information

      In addition to the RfD, RfC, and carcinogenicity sections, IRIS substance files
 may contain one or  more of three supplementary information sections:  a summary of
 an Office of Water's Drinking Water Health Advisory, a summary of EPA regulatory
 actions, and a summary of physical/chemical properties. The only purpose of these
 supplemental sections is to serve as accessory information to the consensus health
 hazard information.  Since the primary intent of the  IRIS data base is to communicate
 EPA consensus health hazard information, these other sections are only included as
 auxiliary material to provide a broader profile of a substance and are never added until
 at least one of the consensus health hazard sections described above (namely, the
 RfD section, RfC section, or carcinogenicity section) is prepared and approved for final
 inclusion on the data base.  These supplemental sections should not be used as the
 sole or primary source of information on the current status  of EPA substance-specific
 regulations.
Use and Development of Health Hazard Information

      The type of substance-specific consensus health hazard information on IRIS
may become part of the supporting materials used to develop site-specific EPA health
hazard assessments. These assessments may in turn lead to EPA risk management
decisions, generally resulting in the formal Agency rulemaking process. This
rulemaking process often  includes FEDERAL REGISTER publication of a proposed rule
where the public is encouraged to comment. These comments may be directed at
both the proposed  rule  and the scientific basis of the decision, including information
obtained from IRIS  and  thus offer a further opportunity for comment on the risk
information in the context  of its use.

      The area of human health risk assessment has evolved over the past several
years.  As the risk assessment community has grown and the field itself has matured,
new approaches to the  assessment and use of human health risk information have
been developed. The evolving nature of risk assessment has also resulted in changes
to IRIS. The development of methodologies such as those for the inhalation RfC
determination illustrates the ability of the IRIS information development process to
grow with the changing science. Areas of future growth may include less-than-lifetime
risk information and developmental toxicity risk information and other endpoint-specific
health hazard information.  Also, on several occasions, the information in IRIS has

-------
been reevaluated and modified to reflect new information and approaches.  New
studies on individual substances are continually being conducted by Federal, private,
and academic institutions and may have significant impact on IRIS information.  In
those cases, the IRIS substance information is  reevaluated in light of the new data;
any changes resulting from that revaluation are included on the system.
Management of the Data Base

      The IRIS data base is managed and maintained by the Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment  (OHEA), Office of Research and Development (ORD).  IRIS
is an Agency system primarily funded by OHEA with additional significant support from
EPA program offices.
Oversight

      Oversight activities for IRIS are conducted by the IRIS Oversight Committee, a
subgroup of the Agency's Risk Assessment Council.  Committee membership consists
of senior Agency risk assessors. The main purpose of the IRIS Oversight Committee
is to serve as a forum for discussion and advice on significant scientific or science
policy issues involving IRIS. The Council, which is chaired by EPA's Deputy
Administrator, receives periodic status reports on IRIS and related work group
activities.
Information Development Process

      There are two EPA work groups, the Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification
Endeavor (CRAVE) and the Oral Reference Dose/Inhalation Reference Concentration
(RfD/RfC) Work Group, that develop consensus health hazard information for IRIS.
Each group consists of EPA scientists from a mix of pertinent disciplines and
represents intra-Agency membership. The work groups serve as the Agency's final
review for EPA risk assessment information.  When the work groups reach consensus
on the health effects information and the  dose-response assessment for a particular
substance, the descriptive summary is added to IRIS.

CRAVE: Information Development Procedures

      The goals of the CRAVE are to reach Agency consensus on Agency carcinogen
risk assessments; to arrive at a unified view on potential cancer risk from exposure to
specific substances across Agency programs; and  to identify, discuss, and resolve
general issues associated with methods used to estimate carcinogenic risks for
specific agents. The major outputs of the work group are summaries of risk

-------
information that have been previously developed and documented by scientific experts
in Agency program and program support offices, and results of discussions of general
issues in carcinogen risk assessment.

      Scientists are selected by executive appointment from respective member
offices.  Membership is open to all major Agency program and regional offices, ORD,
and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE). Substances are discussed
at the request of Agency offices or regions according to an established timetable. The
CRAVE  priorities are determined by the member offices. The office requesting review
prepares a summary describing both a judgment on the weight-of-evidence for
potential health  hazard effects and any dose-response information for the substances
according to an established format. Literature files on the substances including critical
studies, pertinent EPA documents, and other relevant supporting documentation are
made available to work group members in advance of the meeting. Generally, the
judgment and the dose-response assessment are expected to have appeared in a
publicly  available document of some sort.

      The CRAVE usually meets bimonthly for two days. Work group members
normally receive draft summaries for pre-meeting review at least one week prior to the
scheduled meeting.  At the meeting, data and documentation are examined, and there
is discussion of the basis for the risk information and the methods by which it was
derived.  In addition, the nature and extent of previous internal and external peer
review, including the comments received,  are reviewed by the work group.  The
summary is revised by the office originating the review to reflect the meeting
discussion and accurately express the consensus view of the work group.  After the
process of revision is completed, the summary is circulated again to the work group
for final  approval prior to its inclusion on IRIS.

      Consensus means that no member office is aware either of information that
would conflict with the final carcinogenicity summary, or  of analyses that would
suggest that a different view is more credible.  Such assurance rests on the
capabilities of the individuals who represent their offices; thus, every effort is made to
seek scientists who are both expert in  the area of human health assessment and who
can represent their office.

      Peer review has generally been part of the IRIS information development
processes from  the beginning of the system.  In the preparation of summaries,
emphasis has been placed on the use of peer-reviewed  EPA assessments.  These
have included Office of Pesticide Programs assessments that have received both
program office peer review and Science Advisory Panel review. Other EPA
documentation includes assessments prepared  by OHEA such as Health Assessment
Documents, Health and Environmental Effects Documents, and Health Effects
Assessments. These documents receive OHEA review and program office review and
some receive Science Advisory Board  (SAB) or other external review.  Assessments
developed by or for the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and incorporated

-------
in either Drinking Water or Ambient Water Criteria Documents, or in Drinking Water
Health Advisories generally receive extensive Agency review and SAB review prior to
discussion by CRAVE.

      On occasion, risk assessments that were contained in draft documents have
been discussed by CRAVE. In these instances, results of the work group
deliberations have been incorporated into the document development process at the
program office or program  support office level.  Loading of the information on IRIS is
delayed pending completion of the document.

      If consensus is not reached at the meeting it is generally because an issue is
raised that requires resolution. Work group deliberations continue until consensus is
achieved.  In the case of substance-specific issues, the substance is referred back to
the member office that initiated the review for more information and clarification.  In
some instances,  it has been necessary for more than one program office to engage in
a dialogue to resolve the issue.

      For general issues, CRAVE practice has been to form a subcommittee to
prepare an issue paper that is subsequently  discussed at a special meeting.  As
examples of this  process, issue papers have been developed for (1) issues relating to
accuracy and precision of quantitative dose-response information, (2) factors involving
confidence in quantitative estimates, and (3)  use of split classifications and combining
estimates.

      When consensus is not achieved on a particular substance at a meeting of the
CRAVE, it is considered to  have  "under review" status. If after three months,  there is
no further activity to bring the substance back to the work group for additional review,
the substance  loses its  "under review" status. The substance is then dropped from
the work group review list after notifying the responsible office.  Any office may
resubmit the substance for further discussion at any time.

Reference Dose  (RfD)/Reference Concentration (RfCV. Information Development
Procedures

      The purpose of the RfD/RfC Work Group is to reach consensus on oral RfDs and
inhalation RfCs for noncancer chronic human health effects developed by or in support
of program offices and the  regions.  The work group also works to resolve inconsistent
RfDs or RfCs among program offices and to identify, discuss, and resolve generic issues
associated with methods used to estimate RfDs and RfCs.

      Scientists  are selected by  executive appointment from respective member offices.
Membership is open to all  major Agency program and regional offices.  There are two
work group co-chairs.  In addition, scientists from the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry and the  Food and Drug  Administration are invited to  work group
meetings as observers to assist the Agency in the information  gathering process. Their


                                       8

-------
involvement fosters  better communication and coordination among  federal  agencies
regarding assessment approaches and data evaluation.  Members reflect a variety of
pertinent scientific disciplines including expertise in the fields of general and inhalation
human toxicology.

      Member offices schedule substances for discussion through the work group co-
chairs for specific meetings, usually one or two months in advance. Regional requests
for specific substance discussions are routed through the co-chairs, who then either
schedule these substances in the usual manner or, if the region has not prepared a file,
requests an appropriate office to undertake that task.

      The RfD/RfC Work Group usually meets once a month for two days. Substances
are discussed at the request of any Agency office or region.  The  requesting office
generally prepares a file that consists of a summary sheet, a copy of the critical study and
supporting documentation, and distributes these  to work group members prior to the
meeting.

      Consensus generally means that no member office is aware either of information
that would conflict with the RfD or RfC, or of analyses that would suggest a different value
that is more credible.  Such assurance rests on the capabilities of the individuals who
represent their offices; thus, a large effort is conducted biannually to seek scientists who
are both expert in this area of assessment and can represent their offices.

      RfD or RfC  summaries  are  not  always based  on existing EPA assessment
documents but may  be based on assessments prepared specifically for the work group.
This is a fundamental difference between the usual processes of the RfD/RfC Work Group
and those of CRAVE.  As stated previously, the  general rule has been that for  a
substance to  be brought to the CRAVE Work Group for review there  should be an
existing peer-reviewed Agency health effects document. However, for RfDs there may or
may not be an existing EPA document on which to base work group deliberations and
in  the case of RfCs, there have  not, to date, been any  existing peer-reviewed EPA
documents.  Thus,  RfC deliberations are based on extensive assessment summaries
prepared expressly  for the work group.   Therefore, when an  Agency peer-reviewed
document is not available, as with RfCs and some RfDs, extensive assessment summaries
are included on  IRIS  once the work group has completed verification and  reached
consensus.

      The work group co-chairs assure that the final summary accurately expresses the
consensus view of the group at the meeting as specified in the meeting notes.  Once
unanimous consensus is reached, the substance-specific summary for either an RfD or
RfC is  prepared  for inclusion on IRIS.   In some cases, the work group agrees  that
adequate information is not available to derive an RfD or RfC. A message is then put on
IRIS to that effect and the reasons  for the "not verifiable"  status.  In most cases the
message states that the health effects data for a specific substance were reviewed by the
work group and determined to be inadequate for derivation of an RfD or  RfC.

-------
      Conflicts that arise during a meeting regarding a given RfD or RfC generally are
resolved outside the meeting by scientists from the appropriate offices, and then brought
back to the work group for clarification and subsequent consensus.  Conflicts that arise
regarding the methods by which RfDs or RfCs are estimated, or the incorporation of new
methods, are generally taken up at separately scheduled meetings of the work group, for
which the sponsoring office prepares the appropriate material for review.

      While,  as  discussed above, the RfD/RfC Work Group process is somewhat
different from that  of  the CRAVE,  they  both  use  generally the same consensus
procedures.  Other procedural similarities are discussed in the following paragraphs.

      On occasion, scientific issues on individual substances, methods, or on a general
question cannot  be resolved at the work  group level. In the event  that an issue  is
unresolvable in the work group  processes, the issue is referred to the Risk Assessment
Council. In some cases, the issue is brought to the  IRIS Oversight Subcommittee for
review and  discussion, prior to consideration by the  full Council.  If an issue is raised to
the Council,  it may be referred  by the Council to the Risk Assessment Forum for
consultation.

      Both the  CRAVE and  RfD/RfC  Work Groups, through the IRIS  Information
Submission Desk,  discussed  in  the  companion FEDERAL REGISTER notice,  have
received comments and studies from interested parties outside of the Agency that were
either pertinent to  the work group's initial review or resulted in  reconsideration of a
particular substance assessment.  Further, the work  groups often contact the authors of
a primary  study  if clarifications are necessary,  and  consult with  outside experts on
scientific issues that require expertise that is not present in the work group. Also, through
professional societies  and other  private sector organizations, the work groups  have
fostered discussions and exchanges regarding new and innovative approaches to human
health assessment methodologies.
Methods and Guidelines

      Both Agency work groups responsible for the development of the health hazard
information on IRIS use Agency scientific methods documents and EPA's risk assessment
guidelines as the  basis for their work. These guidelines and methodologies used to
develop the RfD or RfC have been peer reviewed by the SAB.

      Summaries of methods used for development of oral RfDs and carcinogenicity
information on IRIS are contained in IRIS background documents that are available on the
system. A paper copy of the oral RfD and CRAVE background documents, "Reference
Dose (RfD); Description and Use in Health Risk Assessment" (Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology 8:471-486, 1988) and The U.S. EPA Approach for Assessing the Risks
Associated with Chronic Exposures to Carcinogens,  respectively, is also available from
IRIS User  Support by calling: (513) 569-7254.

                                      10

-------
      The draft methods document, Interim Methods for Development of Inhalation
Concentrations (EPA/600/8-90/066A), is the basis for the inhalation RfCs.  A copy of the
document is available from the Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) by
calling: (513) 569-7562.  Please cite the EPA document number (EPA/600/8-90/066A)
when requesting a copy.  A revised RfC methodology document based on SAB peer-
review comments will undergo a second SAB review and will be available later this year.

      The CRAVE  background document is based on  EPA's 1986 Guidelines  for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (51 FR 33992-34003).  A copy of the EPA risk assessment
guidelines (EPA/600/8-87/045) is also available by calling  CERI.

Public Involvement

      The section in the companion FEDERAL REGISTER notice (February 25, 1993,
58 FR 11490) on Current Opportunities for Public Involvement in the IRIS Process
elaborates on opportunities for public input and dialogue.
                                    11

-------
        APPENDIX O
            Reserved
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




         SECOND EDITION

-------
         APPENDIX P
             List of 126
          CWA Section 307(a)
        Priority Toxic Pollutants
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
                     126 Priority Pollutants
A. Chlorinated Benzenes
     Chlorobenzene
     1,2-dichlorobenzene
     1,3-dichlorobenzene
     1,4-dichlorobenzene
     1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
     Hexachlorobenzene

B. Chlorinated Ethanes
     Chioroethane
     1,1-dichloroethane
     1,2-dichloroethane
     1,1,1-trichloroethane
     1,1,2-trichloroethane
     1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
     Hexachloroethane

C. Chlorinated Phenols
     2-chlorophenol
     2,4-dichlorophenol
     2,4,6-trichlorophenol
     Parametachlorocresol (4-chloro-3-methyl phenol)

D. Other Chlorinated Organics
     Chloroform (trichloromethane)
     Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
     Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
     Bi s(2-chloroethy1)ether
     2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
     2-chloronaphthalene
     3,3-dichlorobenzidine
     1,1-dichloroethylene
     1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
     1,2-dichloropropane
     1,2-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
     Tetrachloroethylene
     Trichloroethylene
     Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
     Hexachlorobutadiene
     Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
     2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

E. Haloethers
     4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
     2-bromophenyl phenyl ether
     Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether

F. Halomethanes
     Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
     Methyl chloride (chloromethane)

-------
     Methyl Bromide (bromomethane)
     Bromoform (tribromomethane)
     Dichlorobromomethane
     Chlorodibromomethane

G. Nitrosamines
     N-nitrosodimethylamine
     N-nitrosodiphenylamine
     N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine

H. Phenols (other than chlorinated)
     2-nitrophenol
     4-nitrophenol
     2,4-dinitrophenol
     4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol)
     P ent ach1oropheno1
     Phenol
     2,4-dimethylphenol

I. Phthalate Esters
     Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
     Butyl benzyl phthalate
     Di-N-butyl phthalate
     Di-n-octyl phthalate
     Diethyl phthalate
     Dimethyl phthalate

J. Polnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons  (PAHs)
     Acenaphthene
     1,2-benzanthracene  (benzo(a)  anthracene)
     Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-pyrene)
     3,4-benzofluoranthene  (benzo(b) fluoranthene)
     11,12-benzofluoranthene (benzo(k) fluoranthene)
     Chrysene
     Acenaphthalene
     Anthracene
     1,12-benzoperylene  (bonze(ghi)  perylene)
     Fluorene
     Fluoranthene
     Phenanthrene
     1,2,5,6-bibenzanthracene  (dibenzo(ah)  anthracene)
     Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene  (2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
     Pyrene

K. Pesticides  and Metabolites
     Aldrin
     Dieldrin
     Chlordane  (technical mixture and metobolites)
     Alpha-endosulfan
     Beta-endosulfan
     Endosulfan sulfate
     Endrin
     Endrin aldehyde
     Heptachlor
     Heptachlor epoxide  (BHC-hexachlorocyclohexane)

-------
     Alpha-BHC
     Beta-BHC
     Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
     Delta-BHC
     Toxaphene

L. DDT and Metabolites
     4,4-DDT
     4,4-DDE (p.p-DDX)
     4,4-DDD (p.p-TDE)

M. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
     PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
     PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
     PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
     PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
     PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
     PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
     PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)

N. Other Organics
     Acrolein
     Acrylonitrile
     Benzene
     Benzidine
     2,4-dinitrotoluene
     2,6-dinitrotoluene
     1,2-diphenylhydrazine
     Ethylbenzene
     Isophorone
     Naphthalene
     Nitrobenzene
     Toluene

0. Inorganics
     Antimony
     Arsenic
     Asbestos
     Beryllium
     Cadmium
     Chromium
     Copper
     Cyanide, total
     Lead
     Mercury
     Nickel
     Selenium
     Silver
     Thallium
     Zinc

-------
          APPENDIX Q
       Wetlands and 401 Certification:
      Opportunities and Guidelines for
      States and Eligible Indian Tribes
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
&EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Office of Water
            (A-104F)
April 1989
Wetlands And
401 Certification

Opportunities And
Guidelines For States
And Eligible  Indian Tribes

-------
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                        28 1989
                                                                       OFFICE OF
                                                                         WATER
NOTE TO THE READER

      I am pleased to introduce this handbook, "Wetlands and 401 Certification,"
developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection.  This document examines the
Section 401 State water quality certification process and how it applies to wetlands.  We
strongly encourage States to use this handbook as one reference when establishing a
wetlands protection program or improving wetlands protection tools.

      Protection of wetland resources has become an important national priority as
evidenced by President Bush's 1990 Budget statement calling for "no net loss" of
wetlands.  In addition, the National Wetlands Policy Forum included a recommendation
in their  1988 report which says that States should "make more aggressive use of their
certification authorities under Section 401 of the  Clean Water Act, to  protect wetlands
from chemical and other types of alterations".  This handbook is intended to help States
do just that

      EPA would like to work with States who wish to delve into 401 certification for
wetlands.  You will find EPA Regional contacts listed in Appendix A of the document
The Office of Wetlands Protection plans to provide additional technical support
including guidance focused on wetland-specific water quality standards.

      It is very important to begin now to address the loss and degradation of this
nation's wetlands.  That is why 401 certification is a perfect tool, already in place, for
States just getting started.  It can also help States fill some gaps in their own statutory
authorities protecting wetlands.  States can make great strides using their existing 401
certification authorities, while developing the capability and the complementary
programs to provide more comprehensive protection for wetlands in the future.
                                                 Director
                                                 Office of Wetlands Protection

-------
                         ENDNOTES
1. The state water quality certification process is authorized by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1341.

2. A Tribe is eligible for treatment as a State if it meets the
following criteria: 1) it is federally recognized; 2) it carries
out substantial government duties and powers over a Federal
Indian Reservation; 3) it has appropriate regulatory authority
over surface waters of the reservation; and 4) it is reasonably
expected to be capable of administering the relevant Clean Water
Act program.  EPA is currently developing regulations to
implement Section 518(e) for programs including Section 401
certification which will provide further explanation of the
process tribes must go through to achieve state status.  In
addition, the term "state" also includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

3.   The National Wetlands Policy Forum, chaired by Governor Kean
of New Jersey, represents a very diverse group of perspectives
concerned with policy issues to protect and manage the nation's
wetland resources.  The goal of the Forum was to develop sound,
broadly supported recommendations to improve federal, state, and
local wetlands policy.  The Forum released its recommendations in
a report, "Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda" which
can be obtained from The Conservation Foundation, 1250 24th
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037.

4. 33 U.S.C. §4.1313  (c)(2)(A).

5. Section 301(b)(l)(c) of the Clean Water Act.

6. If the applicant is a federal agency, however, at least one
federal court has ruled that the state's certification decision
may be reviewed by the federal courts.

7. 33 C.F.R. §328.3 (Corps regulations); 40 C.F.R. §232.2(q)  (EPA
regulations).

8. For instance, except for wetlands designated as having unusual
local importance, New York's freshwater wetlands law regulates
only those wetlands over 12.4 acres in size.

9.  Alaska Administrative Code, Title 6, Chapter 50.

-------
10. Kentucky Environmental Protection Act, KRS 224.005(28).

11. Tennessee Water Quality Control Act, §69-3-103(29).

12. Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Chapter 21, §26.

13. K.R.S. 224.005(28)(Kentucky enabling legislation defining
waters of the state); 401 K.A.R. 5:029(1)(bb)(Kentucky water
quality standards defining surface waters); Ohio Water Pollution
Control Act, §6111.01(H)(enabling legislation defining waters of
the state); Ohio Administrative Code, §3745-1-02(ODD) (water
quality standards defining surface waters of the state).

14. Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Chapter 21, §26  (enabling
legislation defining waters of the state); 314 Code of Mass.
Regs. 4.01(5)(water quality standards defining surface waters).

15. Ohio Administrative Code, 3745-32-01(N).

16. 40 C.F.R. §131.

17. A use attainability analysis (40 C.F.R. §131.10(g)) must show
at least one of six factors in order to justify not meeting the
minimum "fishable/swimmable" designated uses or to remove such a
designated use.  The  analysis must show that attaining a use is
not feasible because  of: naturally occurring pollutant
concentrations; natural flow conditions or water levels that
cannot be made up by  effluent discharges without violating state
water conservation requirements; human caused pollution that
cannot be remedied or that would cause more environmental damage
if corrected; hydrologic modifications, if it is not feasible to
restore the water to  its original conditions or operate the
modification to attain the use; natural non-water quality
physical conditions precluding attainment of aquatic life
protection uses; or controls more stringent than those required
by §301(b) and §306 would result in substantial and widespread
economic and social impact.

18. Questions and Answers on Antidegradation  (EPA, 1985).  this
document is designated as Appendix A of Chapter 2 of EPA's Water
Quality Standards Handbook.

19. The regulations implementing Section 404(b)(l) of the Clean
Water Act are known as the "(b)(1) Guidelines" and are located at
40 C.F.R. §230.

20. 40 C.F.R. §230.l(d)

21. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(C).

22. Code of Maryland  Regulations Title  10,  §10.50.01.02(8)(2)(a).


                                ii

-------
23. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0170.  The rule states in full:

        The waters of the state may, in a state of nature,
     have some characteristics or properties approaching or
     exceeding the limits specified in the water quality
     standards.  The standards shall be construed as
     limiting the addition of pollutants of human activity
     to those of natural origin, where such be present, so
     that in total the specified limiting concentrations
     will not be exceeded in the waters by reason of such
     controllable additions.  Where the background level of
     the natural origin is reasonably definable and
     normality is higher than the specified standards the
     natural level may be used as the standard for
     controlling the addition of pollutants of human
     activity which are comparable in nature and
     significance with those of natural origin.  The natural
     background level may be used instead of the specified
     water quality standard as a maximum limit of the
     addition of pollutants, in those instances where the
     natural level is lower than the specified standard and
     reasonable justification exists for preserving the
     quality to that found in a state of nature.

24.  No. 83-1352-1  (Chancery Court, 7th Division, Davidson
County, 1984)(unpublished opinion).

25. These criteria are at 401 K.A.R. 5:031, §2(4) and §4(1)(c),
respectively.

26. Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-32-05.

27. Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-1-05(C).

28. Copies of Ohio's review guidelines are available from Ohio
EPA, 401 Coordinator, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149.

29. 40 CFR §131.12.

30. 48 Fed. Reg. 51,400, 51,403 (1983)(preamble).

31. Kentucky Water Quality Standards, Title 401 K.A.R. 5:031, §7,

32. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0180, Subpart 7.

33. 314 Code of Massachusetts Regulation, §4.04(4).

34. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0180, Subpart 9.

35. H.R. Rep. No. 91-127, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1969).

                                • ••
                                ill

-------
36. 115 Cong. Rec. H9030 (April 15, 1969)(House debate); 115
Cong. Rec. S28958-59 (Oct. 7, 1969)(Senate debate).
37.  C.F.R. §323.2(d).  However, in Reid v. Marsh, a case
predating these regulations, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern Corps District of Ohio ruled that "even minimal
discharges of dredged material are not exempt from Section 404
review".  In this district, the Corps treats all dredging
projects under Section 404.
38. West Virginia Code, §47-5A-l (emphasis added).
39. Clean Water Act, §401(a)(2).
40. 40 C.F.R. S230.10(a).
41. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(d).
42. Arnold irrigation District v. Department of Environment
Quality. 717 Pac.Rptr.2d 1274 (Or.App. 1986).
43. Maraac Corporation v. Department of Natural RMQurCM «*
State of West Virginia. C.A. No. CA-81-1792 (Cir. Ct.,  Kanawha
County 1982).
44. 33 U.S.C. §1313(C)(2)(A).
45. West Va. Admin. Code, S47-5A-9.3 (a).
46. Unpublished paper by Dr. Paul Hill of West Virginia's
Department of Natural Resources.  Prepared for EPA-sponsored
December 1987 workshop on "The Role of Section 401 Certification
in Wetlands Protection".
47. 33 C.F.R. §325.2(b)(ii).
48. 18 C.F.R. §4.38(e)(2).
49. 40 C.F.R. §124.53(C)(3).
50. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 299.04.
51. West Va. Admin. Code, S47-5A-4.3.
52. Ifl.
53. 40 C.F.R. §121.2.  EPA's regulations implementing Section 401
were issued under the 1970 Water Pollution Control Act,  (not the
later Clean Water Act) and thus, may have some anomalies as a
result.
                                IV

-------
54. This is a reference to Section  10 of the Rivers  and Harbors
Act.

55. Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-32-05.

56. See, e.g.. P. Adamus, Wetland Evaluation Technique  (WET),
Volume II: Methodology Y-87(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987);  L.  Cowardin,
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats  of the United
States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979).  See also  Lonard
and Clairain, Identification of Wetland Functions  and Values,  in
Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium  (Chester,  VT:
Association of State Wetland Managers, 1986)(list  of twenty  five
methodologies).


57. See, e.g.. R. Tiner, Wetlands of the United States;   Current
Status and Recent Trends  (U.S. Govt. Printing Office
1984)(National Wetlands Inventory).  The National  Wetlands
Inventory has mapped approximately  45 percent of the lower forty
eight states and 12 percent of Alaska. A number of regional  and
state reports may be obtained from  the National Wetlands
Inventory of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Newton Corner,
MA.  Region 5 maps can also be ordered from the U.S. Geological
Survey's National Cartographic Information Center  in Reston, VA.

58. The new joint Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictions! Wetlands. can be obtained from the  U.S. Government
Printing Office 1989).


59. See, e.g.. Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Commission,  Guidance
Paper No. 3, Guidelines for Protecting Non-Tidal Wetlands in the
Critical Area (Maryland Department  of Natural Resources,  April
1987).

60.  For information on the Wetlands Values Data Base contact:
Data Base Administrator, U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service,  National
Energy Center, 2627 Redwing Road, Creekside One, Fort Collins,
Colorado, 80526.  Phone:  (303) 226-9411.

61. For example, Florida's Section  380 process designates "Areas
of Critical State Concern" which often include wetlands.  Florida
Statutes §380.05.

62. 40 C.F.R. §230.80 (1987).


63. 16 U.S.C. §1452(3) (1980).  See also. U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers, Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 10 (1986).

-------
64. See D. Burke, Technical and Programmatic Support for 401
Certification in Maryland, (Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Water Resources Administration, December
1987)(unpublished); A. Lam, Geographic Information Systems  for
River Corridor and Wetland Management in River Corridor Handbook
(N.Y.Department of Environmental Conservation)(J. Kusler and E.
Meyers eds., 1988).

     The system described by Burke is called MIPS (Map and  Image
Processing System) and is capable of translating a myriad of
information to the scale specified by the user.

65. see, e.g.. [multiple authors], "Ecological Considerations in
Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters," (Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, 1985); E. Stockdale, "The Use of Wetlands
for Stormwater Management and Nonpoint Pollution Control:   A
Review of the Literature," (Dept. of Ecology, state of Washington
1986); "Viability of Freshwater Wetlands for Urban Surface  Water
Management and Nonpoint Pollution: An Annotated Bibliography,"
prepared by The Resource Planning Section of King County,
Washington Department of Planning and Community Development
(July, 1986).

66. The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, Fla.
Stat. §403.91 - 403.938, required the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation to establish specific criteria for
wetlands that receive and treat domestic wastewater treated to
secondary standards.  The rule is at Fla. Admin. Code, §17-6.

67. Maximization of sheet flow.

68. Hydrologic loading and retention rates.

69. Id.;  Sfifi Alas L. Schwartz, Criteria for Wastewater Discharge
to Florida Wetlands,  (Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation)(Dec. 1987)(unpublished report).

70.  Copies of the draft, "Use. of Advance Identification
Authorities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Guidance
for Regional Offices", can be obtained from the Regulatory
Actitivities Division of the Office of Wetlands Protection  (A-
104F), EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
                                VI

-------
Acknowledgements:

This document was prepared by Katherine Ransel of the Environmental Law
Institute, and Dianne Fish of EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection, Wetlands
Strategies and State Programs Division.  Many thanks to the reviewers of the
draft handbook, and to those States who gave us information on their programs.

For additional copies contact:

      Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division
      Office of Wetlands Protection A-104F
      Environmental Protection Agency
      401 M Street, SW
      Washington, D.C 20460

      Phone: (202) 382-5043

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                         Page

I.     INTRODUCTION	5

II.    WHAT IS WATER  QUALITY CERTIFICATION &
      HOW DOES IT WORK?		8

ffl.   401 CERTIFICATION CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL TO
      PROTECT WETLANDS	9
IV.   THE ROLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE
      CERTIFICATION PROCESS

      A.    Wetlands Should be Specifically Designated as
            Surface Waters of the States	10

      B.    General Requirements of EPA's Water Quality
            Standards Regulations ....~~~.....................~................................................. 12

      C    Applying Water Quality Standards to Wetlands
            - What States are Doing Now .M.Mm.M.M...MM..MM................M.............—..... 14

            1.     Using Narrative Criteria ~.~~.~~........—_	...........	.—15

            2.     Highest Tier of Protection - Wetlands as
                   Outstanding Resource Waters	18

V.    USING 401 CERTIFICATION

      A    The Permits/Licenses Covered &
            the Scope of Review ..........................................—......	.................	20

            1.     Federal Permits/Licenses Subject to

-------
     B.    Conditioning 401 Certifications for
           Wetland Protection	23

           1.    What are Appropriate Conditions?	23

           2.    The Role of Mitigation in Conditioning Certification	25

           3.    The Role of Other State Laws		25

     C.    Special Considerations for Review of Section 404 Permits:
           Nationwide and After-the-Fact Permits	27

           1.    Nationwide Permits [[[ 27

           2.    After-the-Fact Permits	29


VL  DEVELOPING 401 CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING
     REGULATIONS: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS	30

     A.    Review Timeframe and "Complete" Applications	31

     B.    Requirements for the Applicant	32

     C    Permit Fees	33

     D.    Basis for Certification Decisions ...~.~[[[ 33
VIL   EXISTING AND EMERGING SOURCES OF DATA TO AID 401
      CERTIFICATION AND STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS	35

-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:     State and Federal Contacts for 401
                  Certification	42

APPENDIX B:     Federal Definitions: Waters of the U.S. & Wetlands	50

APPENDIX C:     Scope of Project Review: Pennsylvania Dam
                  Proposal Example	51

APPENDIX D:     Examples of Certification Conditions from
                  Maryland, West Virginia, and Alaska	54


APPENDIX E:     Example Conditions to Minimize Impacts from
                  Section 404(b)(l)Guidelines	62




ENDNOTES	i

-------
I.  INTRODUCTION

      This handbook has been developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection ' •
(OWP) to highlight the potential of the State water quality certification process for
protecting wetlands, and to provide information and guidance to the States.1
Throughout this document, the term "State" includes those Indian Tribes which qualify
for treatment as States under the federal Qean Water Act (CWA) Section 518(e).2 We
encourage Tribes who are interested in expanding their protection of wetlands and
other waters under this new provision of the CWA to examine water quality
certification as  a readily available tool to begin their programs.

      One of OWP's key mandates is  to broaden EPA's wetlands protection efforts in
areas which complement our authority  under the Qean Water Act Section 404
regulatory program.  Thus, we are exploring and working with other laws, regulations,
and  nonregulatory approaches to enhance their implementation to protect wetlands. In
addition, the National Wetlands Policy Forum has recommended in its report issued in
November 1988, that States "make more aggressive use of their certification authorities
under Section 401 of the CWA, to protect their wetlands from chemical and other types
of alterations."3

       In light  of these directives, we have examined the role of the Section 401 State
water quality certification process and are working with States to improve its application
to wetlands. This process offers the opportunity to fulfill many goals for wetland
protection because:

       *     It is a cooperative federal/State program and it increases the role of
             States in decisions regarding the protection of natural resources;

       *     It gives States extremely broad authority to review proposed activities in
             and/or affecting State waters (including wetlands) and, in effect, to deny
             or place conditions on federal permits or licenses that authorize such
             activities;

       *     It is an existing program which can be vastly improved to protect
             wetlands without major legislative initiatives;

       *     Its proper implementation for wetlands should integrate many State
             programs related to wetlands, water quality, and aquatic resource
             preservation and enhancement, to ensure consistency of activities with
             these State requirements. Examples of such programs include coastal
             zone management, floodplain management, and nonpoint source
             programs.

-------
      The issues discussed in this handbook were identified through discussions with
State 401 certification program personnel and through a workshop held in December
1987 with many of the States who actively apply 401 certification to wetlands. The '
handbook includes examples of how some States have successfully approached the
issues discussed.  Because the water quality  certification process is continually evolving,
we do not attempt to address all the issues here.   This handbook is a first step towards
clarifying how 401 certification applies to wetlands, and helping States use this tool
more effectively.

      EPA would like to work with the States to  ensure that their authority under
Section 401 is exercised in a manner that achieves the goals of the Clean Water Act
and  reflects the State role at the forefront in administering water quality programs.
Clearly, the integrity of waters of the  VS. cannot be protected by an exclusive focus on
wastewater effluents in open waters.  While the federal Section 404 program addresses
many discharges into wetlands, and other federal agencies have environmental review
programs which benefit wetlands, these do not substitute for  a State's responsibilities
under Section 401. A State's authority under Section 401 includes consideration of a
broad range of chemical, physical, and biological impacts. The State's responsibility
includes acting upon the recognition that wetlands are critical components of healthy,
functioning aquatic systems.
       To help States implement the guidance provided in this handbook and to foster
 communication on 401 issues, you will find a list of State 401 certification contacts and
 federal EPA contacts in Appendix A  In order to keep this and other wetland contact
 lists current, EPA has asked the Council of State Governments to establish a
 computerized database of State wetland programs and contacts (See Appendix A for
 details.)  EPA is also refining a list of Tribal contacts to foster communication with
 interested Tribes.

-------
                     SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED

The following is a summary of the activities needed to make 401 certification a
more effective tool to protect wetlands.  States can undertake many of these
activities right away, while also taking other actions which lay the groundwork for
improving future 401 certification decisions.  Tribes, who primarily are just
beginning to develop wetlands programs, should consider these actions (along
with developing water quality standards) as first steps to becoming more involved
in wetlands regulatory efforts.  The actions below are discussed throughout the
handbook.

    *     All states should begin by including wetlands in their definitions of
          state waters.

    *     States should develop or modify their existing 401 certification and
          water quality standard regulations and guidelines to accomodate
          special wetland considerations.

    *     , States should make more effective use of their existing narrative water
          quality standards (including the antidegradation policy) to protect the
          integrity of wetlands,

    *     States should Initiate or improve upon existing inventories of their
          wetiand resources.
           States should designate uses for these wetlands based on wetland
           functions associated with each wetland type.  Such estimated uses
           could be verified when needed for individual applications with an
           assessment-tool such as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique, or Habitat
           Evaluation Procedure, or region-specific evaluation methods.

           States should tap into the potential of the outstanding resource waters
           designation of the antidegradation policy for their wetlands.

           States should incorporate 401 certification for wetlands into their water
           quality management planning process.  This process can integrate
           wetland resource information with different water management
           programs affecting  wetlands (including coastal zone management,
           nonpoint source and wastewater programs).

-------
H.    WHAT IS WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND HOW DOES IT WORK?

      States may grant or deny "certification" for a federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United States,  if it is the
State where the discharge will originate. The decision to grant or deny certification is
based on a State's determination from data submitted by an applicant (and any other
information available to the State) whether the proposed activity will comply with the
requirements of certain sections of the Clean Water Act enumerated in Section
401(a)(l).  These requirements address effluent limitations for conventional and
nonconventional pollutants, water quality standards, new source performance standards,
and toxic pollutants (Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307).  Also included are
requirements of State law or regulation more stringent than those sections or their
federal implementing regulations.

       States adopt surface water quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the Clean
Water Act and have broad authority to base those standards on the waters' use and
value for "public water supplies,  propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational  purposes,
and ... other purposes."4 All permits must include effluent limitations at least as
stringent as needed to maintain established beneficial uses and to attain the quality of
water designated by States for their waters.5  Thus, the States' water quality standards
are a critical concern of the 401 certification process.

       If a State grants water quality certification to an applicant for a federal license
or permit, it is in  effect saying that the proposed activity wfll comply with State water
quality standards (and the other CWA and State law provisions enumerated above).
The State may thus deny certification because the applicant has not demonstrated that
 the project will comply with those requirements. Or it may place whatever limitations
or conditions on the certification it determines are necessary to assure compliance  with
those provisions, and with any other "appropriate" requirements of State  law.

       If a State denies certification, the federal permitting or licensing agency is
 prohibited from issuing a permit or license.  While the procedure varies from State to
 State, a State's decision to grant or deny certification  is ordinarily subject to  an
 administrative appeal, with review in the State courts designated for appeals of agency
 decisions.  Court review is  typically limited to the question of whether the State
 agency's decision is supported by the record and is not arbitrary or capricious.  The
 courts generally presume regularity in agency procedures and defer to agency expertise
 in their review.6

       States may also waive water quality certification, either affirmatively or
involuntarily.  Under Section 401(a)(l), if the State fails to act on a certification request
                                          8

-------
"within a reasonable time (which shall not exceed one year)" after the receipt of an
application, it forfeits  its authority to grant conditionally or to deny certification.

      The most important regulatory tools for the implementation of 401 certification
are the States' water quality standards regulations and their 401 certification
implementing regulations and guidelines.  While  all of the States have some form of
water quality standards, not all States have standards which can be easily applied to
wetlands. Most Tribes do not yet have  water quality standards, and developing them
would be a first step prior to having the authority to conduct water quality certification.
Also, many States have not  adopted regulations implementing their authority to grant,
deny and condition water quality certification.  The remainder of this handbook
discusses specific approaches, and elements of water quality standards and 401
certification regulations that OWP views as effective to implement the States' water
quality certification authority, both generally, and specifically with regard  to wetlands.
       401 CERTIFICATION CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL TO PROTECT
       WETLANDS

       In States without a wetlands regulatory program, the water quality certification
 process may be the only way in which a  State can exert any direct control over projects
 in or affecting wetlands. It is thus critical for these States to develop a program that
 fully includes wetlands in their water quality certification process.

       But even in States which have their own wetlands regulatory programs, the water
 quality certification process can be an extremely valuable tool to protect wetlands.
 First, most State wetland regulatory laws are more limited in the wetlands that are
 subject to regulation than is the Clean Water Act  The Clean Water Act covers all
 interstate wetlands; wetlands adjacent to other regulated waters; and all other wetlands,
 the use, degradation or destruction of which  could affect interstate or foreign
 commerce.7  This definition is extremely broad and one would be hard pressed to find a
 wetland for which it could be shown that its  use or destruction clearly would not affect
 interstate commerce.  Federal jurisdiction extends beyond that of States which regulate
 only coastal  and/or shoreline wetlands, for instance.  And in States that regulate inland
 wetlands, often size limitations prevent States from regulating wetlands that are subject
 to federal jurisdiction.8

       Even if State jurisdiction is as encompassing or more so than federal jurisdiction,
 however, water quality certification may  still  be a valuable  and essential wetlands
 protection device.  In  the State of Massachusetts, for instance, a 401  certification is not
 simply "rubber stamped11 on the permitting decisions made pursuant to the
 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act  The State has denied certification to proposed
 projects requiring a federal permit even though the State wetlands permitting authority

-------
(in Massachusetts, permits are granted by local "conservation commissions") has granted
authorization for a project

      There may be a number of reasons that a proposed activity may receive
authorization under a State wetland regulatory program, but fail to pass muster under a
401 certification review. The most commonly cited reason, however, is that water
quality personnel  have a specialized understanding of the requirements and
implementation of the State's water quality standards and the ways in which certain
activities may interfere with their attainment

      It is important, however, to keep in mind the limitations of 401 certification
when considering a  comprehensive approach to protecting your wetland resources.  The
primary limitation is that if 401 certification is the only tool a State has to protect
wetlands, it cannot place limits on activities which do not require a federal license or
permit Some activities such as drainage or groundwater pumping, can have severe
impacts on the viability of wetlands, but may not require a permit or license. Ideally,
401 certification should be combined with other programs in  the State offering wetlands
protection opportunities (such as coastal management and floodplain management).
For example, Alaska has integrated its 401 certification  and coastal management
consistency review processes so that the provisions of each program augment the other
to provide more comprehensive protection. This approach not only strengthens
protection, it reduces duplication of State efforts and coordinates permit review for
applicants.9
IV.    THE ROLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE CERTIFICATION
       PROCESS

       A.    Wetlands Should be Specifically Designated as Surface Waters of the
             States

       In order to bring wetlands fully into the State water quality certification process,
a first step is to include the term "wetlands" in the State water quality standards'
definition of surface waters. EPA will be working with all States through the triennial
review process of State standards to ensure that their definitions are at least as.
comprehensive as the federal definitions for waters (see Appendix B for  federal
definitions of "Waters of the U.S." and the term "wetlands").

       It may seem minor, but from every standpoint, it is important to have wetlands
specifically designated as surface waters in State water quality standards. First, it
precludes any arguments that somehow wetlands are not covered by water quality
standards.  Second, it predisposes decision makers (from 401 certification program
managers, to the head of the agency or a water quality board, all the way to the judges

                                        10

-------
on the courts that may review these decisions) to consider the importance of wetlands
as part of the aquatic ecosystem.  Third, it makes it clear that wetlands are to be
treated as waters in and of themselves for purposes of compliance with water quality
standards and not just as they relate to other surface waters.

      The third point is critical and bears further explanation. When States include
wetlands in the definition of surface waters covered by their water quality standards,
they clarify that activities in or affecting wetlands are subject to the same analysis in the
certification decision as are projects affecting lakes, rivers, or streams. This is not to
say that a wetland project's effects on adjacent or downstream waters are not also part
of the water quality certification analysis.  Rather, it is to say that wetlands, either
adjacent to gx isolated from other waters,  are waterbodies in and of themselves  and an
applicant for water quality certification must show that a proposed project will not
violate water quality standards in  those wetlands, as well as in other waters.

      The States currently have a variety  of definitions of "waters of the State"  in the
legislation  that enables water quality standards (e.&, multi-media environmental
protection acts, water quality acts, and the like).  Only three States currently have the
term "wetlands" explicitly listed as one of the types of waters in this enabling legislation
(Nebraska, Rhode Island, West Virginia).  These States need only to repeat that
definition in their water quality standards and their 401 certification implementing
regulations.

      While most States do not have the  term "wetlands" in their enabling legislation,
many use the term "marshes" in a list of different types of waters to illustrate "waters of
the State"  in their enabling legislation. Kentucky, for example, defines waters of the
State as:

      . . . any and all rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs,
      springs, wells, marshes, and  all other bodies of surface or underground  water,
      natural or artificial, situated wholly or partly within or bordering upon the
      Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction.20

      When used in this way, the term "marshes" is typically understood to be generic
in nature rather than being descriptive of a type of wetland, and can therefore be
considered as the equivalent of the term "wetlands".  In these States, however, in order
to ensure that the term "marshes" is interpreted as the equivalent of wetlands, the best
approach is to include the term "wetlands" in the definition of surface waters used in
the State's water quality standards and in the 401 certification implementing regulations.

      There is another group of  States that has neither the term "wetlands" or
"marshes" in the enabling legislation's  definition of waters of the State.  These
definitions  typically contain language that describes in some generic manner, however,

                                         11

-------
all waters that exist in the State. They may not specifically designate any particular
type of water body, as, for instance, Tennessee's Water Quality Control Act:

       . . . any and all water, public or private, on or beneath the surface of the
       ground, which [is] contained within, flowfsj through, or borderfs] upon
       Tennessee or any portion thereof. . . .n

       Or they may specify some types of surface waters and then generically include all
others with  a clause such as "and all other water bodies" or "without limitation", as does
Massachusetts:

       All waters within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, including, without
       limitation, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, springs, impoundments, estuaries, and
       coastal waters and groundwaters.12

       In these  States, as in the States with "marshes" in the enabling legislation's
definition of waters, regulators should clarify that wetlands are  pan of the surface
waters of the State subject to the States' water quality standards by including that term,
and any others  they deem appropriate, in a definition of surface waters in their water
quality standards and in their 401 certification implementing regulations.

       Both Kentucky and Ohio, for instance, which have the term "marshes," but not
the term "wetlands" in their enabling legislation, have included  the term "wetlands" in
their surface water quality standards' definition of waters.13  Massachusetts, which does
not have the term "wetlands" or "marshes" in its enabling legislation, has put the term
"wetlands" into  its water quality standards also.14  Additionally,  Ohio's 401 certification
implementing regulations include the term "wetlands" in the definition of waters covered
by those regulations and specifically address activities affecting  the integrity  of
wetlands.15
       B.     General Requirements of EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulations.14

       When the States review their water quality standards for applicability to projects
 affecting wetlands, it is important to have in mind the basic concepts and requirements
 of water quality standards generally.  Congress has given the States broad authority to
 adopt water quality standards, directing only that the States designate water uses that
 protect the public health and welfare and that take into account use of State waters for
 drinking water, the propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, and agricultural,
 industrial and other purposes.
                                          12

-------
      EPA's water quality standards regulations require States to adopt water quality
standards which have three basic components:  use designations,  criteria to protect • •
those uses, and an antidegradation policy.

      EPA directs that, where attainable, designated uses must include, at a minimum,
uses necessary to protect the goals of the CWA for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation  in and on the waters.  This
baseline is  commonly referred to as  the "fishable/swimmable" designation. If the State
does not designate these minimum uses, or wishes to remove such a designated use, it
must justify it through a use attainability analysis based on at least one of six factors.17
In no event, however, may a beneficial existing use (any use which is actually attained
in the water body on or after November 28,  1975) be removed from a water body  or
segment

      Criteria, either pollutant-specific numerical criteria or narrative criteria, must
protect the designated and existing uses. Many of the existing numeric criteria are not
specifically adapted to the characteristics of wetlands  (see last section of handbook for
steps in this direction). However, almost all  States have some form of the narrative
standards (commonly known as the "free froms") which say that all waters shall be  free
from substances that: settle to form  objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum, oil or
other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;
injure, or are toxic,or produce adverse physiological responses in  humans, animals,  or
plants; or produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.  States  have also used other
narrative criteria to protect wetland  quality.  The use of criteria to protect wetlands is
discussed in the following section.

      In addition, EPA also requires that all States adopt an antidegradation policy.
Several States have used their antidegradation policy  effectively to protect the quality of
their wetland resources. At a minimum, a State's antidegradation policy must be
consistent with the following provisions:

(1)   Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses in
      all segments of a water body  must be maintained;

(2)   if the quality of the water is higher than that  necessary to support propagation
      of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on  the water, that quality
      shall be maintained and protected, unless the  State finds  that lowering the water
      quality is justified  by  overriding economic or social needs determined after  full
      public involvement In no event, however, may water quality fall below that
      necessary to protect the existing beneficial uses;

(3)   if the waters have been designated as  outstanding resource waters (ORWs)  no
      degradation  (except temporary) of water quality is allowed.

                                         13

-------
       In the case of wetland fills, however, EPA allows a slightly different
interpretation of the antidegradation policy.18  Because on the federal level, the
Congress has anticipated the issuance of at least some permits by virtue of Section 404,
it is EPA's policy that, except in the case of ORWs, the "existing use" requirements of
the antidegradation policy are met if the wetland fill does not cause or  contribute to
"significant degradation" of the  aquatic environment as defined by Section 230.10(c) of
the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines.19

       These Guidelines lay a substantial foundation for protecting wetlands and other
special aquatic sites from degradation or destruction.  The purpose section of the
Guidelines states that:

"... from a national perspective, the degradation or destruction of special aquatic sites,
such as filling operations in wetlands,  is considered to be among the most severe
environmental impacts covered by these Guidelines. The guiding principal should be
that degradation or destruction of special sites may represent an irreversible loss  of
valuable aquatic resources."20

       The Guidelines also state that the following effects contribute to  significant
degradation,  either individually or collectively:

"... significant adverse effects  on (1) human health or welfare, including effects on
municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites
(e*, wetlands); (2) on the life  stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on
aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, concentration or spread of pollutants or
their byproducts beyond the site  through biological, physical, or chemical process;  (3)
on  ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, including  loss of fish  and wildlife
habitat or  loss of the capacity of a wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water or
reduce wave energy;  or (4) on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values."21

       The Guidelines may be used by the States to determine "significant degradation"
for wetland fills. Of course, the States are free to adopt stricter requirements for
wetland fills in their own antidegradation policies, just as they may adopt more stringent
requirements than federal law requires for their water quality standards in general.
       C    Applying Water Quality Standards Regulations to Wetlands - What States
             are Doing Now

       Some States have taken the lead in using 401 certification as a wetlands
protection tool to protect them for their water quality and other irreplaceable functions,
such as storage places for flood waters, erosion control, foodchain support and habitat
                                         14

-------
for a wide variety of plants and animals. These States have taken several different
approaches to wetlands protection in their water quality certification process.
             1. Using Narrative Criteria

       States have applied a variety of narrative criteria to projects in or affecting
wetlands in the 401  certification determination.  For example, Maryland's water quality
standards contain a  narrative directive, which the agency relied upon to deny
certification for a non-tidal wetland fill. The standard provides that "[a]ll waters of this
State shall be protected for the basic uses of water contact recreation,  fish, other
aquatic life, wildlife, and water supply."22  In its denial, Maryland stated:

       Storm waters  are relieved of much of their sediment loads via overbanJdng
       into  the adjacent wetland and a resultant decrease in nutrient and sediment
       loading to downstream receiving waters is occurring. To permit the fill of this
       area would eliminate these benefits and in the future, would leave the
       waterway susceptible to adverse increased volumes of storm  waters and their
       associated pollutants. It is our determination that [a specified waterway] ...
       requires protection of these wetland areas to assure that the  waters of this
       State are protected for the basic uses offish, other aquatic life, wildlife and
       water supply.

       Because wetlands vary tremendously in background levels of certain parameters
measured by  the traditional numerical/chemical criteria applied to  surface waters, some
States have relied on "natural water quality" criteria to protect wetlands in  the 401
certification process.  Minnesota, for instance, has taken this approach in denying
certification for a flood control project because of the State's "primary concern ... that
the project would likely change Little Diann Lake from an acid bog to a fresh-
circumneutral water chemistry type of wetland."  The agency was concerned that
"introduction of lake water into the closed acid system of Little Diann  Lake would
completely destroy  the character of this natural resource."  It relied on a provision of its
water quality standards allowing the State to limit the addition of pollutants according
to background levels instead of to the levels specified by criteria for that class of waters
generally.  The denial letter pointed  out that this rule "States that the  natural
background level may be used instead of the specified water quality standards, where
reasonable justification exists for preserving the quality found in the State of nature."
According to the denial letter, because of the clear potential for impacts to the bog, the
State was invoking  that particular provision.23

       Tennessee has relied on  broad prohibitory language in its water quality standards
to deny water quality certification for wetland fill projects and has been upheld in court.
Hollis v. Tennessee Water Quality  Control Board24 was brought by a 401 certification

                                           15

-------
applicant who proposed to place fill along the southeastern shoreline of a natural
swamp lake.  The court upheld the denial of 401 certification, explaining:

      Reelfoot Lake is classified for fish and aquatic life, recreation, and livestock
      watering and wildlife uses. The [Water Quality] Board has established
      various standards for the waters in each classification. Among other things,
      these standards pertain to dissolved  oxygen, pH, temperature, toxic substances,
      and other pollutants.  The Permit Hearing Panel found the petitioner's
      activity will violate the "other pollutants" standard in each classification.
      Collectively, these ["other pollutants"] standards provide that other pollutants
      shall not be added to the water that will be detrimental to fish or aquatic
      life, to recreation, and to livestock watering and wildlife.

      The court found that while there was no evidence that the project in and of
itself would "kill" Reelfoot Lake, there was evidence that the shoreline was important to
recreation because tourists visit Reelfoot  to view its natural beauty and the lacustrine
wetlands function as a spawning ground for fish and produce food for both fish and
wildlife.  It found that although the evidence in the record did not quantify the damage
to fish and aquatic life, recreation, and wildlife that would result from the proposed fill,
the opinion of the State's expert that the activity would be detrimental to these uses
was sufficient to uphold the denial of certification.

       Kentucky has also relied on narrative criteria.  It denied an application to place
spoil from underground mine construction in a wetland area because wetlands are
protected from pollution as "Waters of the Commonwealth" and because placing spoil
or any fill material (pollutants under KRS 224:005(28)) in a wetland specifically violated
at least  two water quality criteria.  One of Kentucky's criteria, applicable to all surface
waters, provides that the waters "shall not be aesthetically or otherwise degraded by
substances that.. . fijnjure, [are] toxic to or produce adverse physiological or behavioral
responses in humans,  animals, fish and other aquatic life."

       The other criterion, applicable to  warm water aquatic habitat, provides that
"[fjlow shall not be altered to a degree which will adversely affect the aquatic
community"25  This second criterion which addresses hydrological changes is a
particularly important but often overlooked component to include in water quality
standards to help maintain  wetland quality. Changes in flow can severely alter the
plant and animal species composition of a wetland, and destroy the  entire wetland
system if the change is great enough.

       Ohio has adopted 401 certification regulations applicable to wetlands (and other
waters)  that, together with internal review guidelines, result in an approach to the 401
certification decision similar to that of the 404(b)(l) Guidelines.  Its 401 certification
regulations first direct that  no certification may be issued unless  the applicant has

                                          16

-------
demonstrated that activities permitted by Section 404 or by Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act (RHA) will not:

       (1) prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water
       quality standards;

       (2) result in a violation of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 or 307 of the CWA;
       additionally, the agency may deny a request notwithstanding the applicant's
       demonstration of the above if it concludes that the activity "will result in adverse
       long or short  term impacts on water quality."26

       Ohio has placed all of its wetlands as a class in the category of "State resource
waters." For these  waters, Ohio has proposed amendments to its standards to say  that
"[p]resent ambient water quality and uses shall be maintained and protected without
exception." v  The  proposed standards also require that point source discharges to
State resource waters  be regulated  according to Ohio's biological criteria for aquatic
life.

       However, Ohio has not yet developed biological indices specifically for wetlands.
Thus,  for projects affecting wetlands,  it bases its certification decisions on internal
review guidelines that are similar to the  federal Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. Ohio's
guidelines  are  structured by type of activity.  For instance, for fills, their requirements
are as follows:

       (a)  if the project is  not water dependent, certification is denied;

       (b)  if the project is  water dependent, certification is denied if there is a  viable
       alternative (e.g., available upland nearby is viable alternative);

       (c) if no viable alternatives east and impacts to wetland cannot be made acceptable
       through  conditions on certification  (e,g., fish movement criteria, creation of
       floodways to  bypass oxbows, flow through criteria), certification is denied.

Ohio's internal review guidelines also call for (1) an historical overview and ecological
evaluation of the site (including biota inventory and existing bioaccumulation studies);
(2) a sediment physical characterization  (to predict contaminant levels) and (3) a
sediment analysis.28

       Using these guidelines, Ohio frequently conditions or denies certification for
projects  that eliminate wetland uses.  For instance, Ohio has issued a proposed denial
of an application to fill a three acre wetland area adjacent to Lake Erie for a
                                          17

-------
recreational and picnic area for a lakefront marina based on its classification of
wetlands as "State resource waters:"

       Wetlands serve a vital ecological Junction including food chain production, provision
       of spawning, nursery and resting habitats for various aquatic species, natural
      filtration of surface water runoff, ground water recharge, and erosion and flood
       abatement.  The CL4.C Section 3745-1-05(6) includes wetlands fin the] State
       Resource Waters category and allows no further water quality degradation which
       would interfere with or become injurious to the existing uses.  The addition of fill
       material to  the wetland would cause severe adverse effects to the wetland. This fill
       would eliminate valuable wetland habitat,  thereby degrading the existing use.

       The justification for this denial, according to Ohio program managers, was not
 only that the project would interfere with existing uses, but in addition, the project was
 not water dependent as called for in Ohio's internal guidelines. Ohio 401 certification
 program personnel note that these review guidelines  present the general approach to
 certification, but with regard to projects that are determined to be of public necessity,
 this approach may give way to other public interest concerns.  For example, a highway
 is not water dependent per se; if, however, safety and financial considerations point to a
 certain route that necessitates filling  wetlands, the agency may allow it  In that event,
 however, mitigation by wetland creation and/or restoration would be sought by the
 agency as a condition of certification.
              2.     Highest Her of Protection: Wetlands as Outstanding Resource
                    Waters

       One extremely promising approach taken by some of the States has been to
 designate wetlands as outstanding resource waters (ORW), in which water quality must
 be maintained and protected according to EPA's regulations on antidegradation (Le., no
 degradation for any purposes is allowed, except for short term  changes which have no
 long term consequences).29  This approach provides wetlands with significant protection
 if the States' antidegradation policies are at least as protective  as that of EPA.  EPA
 designed this classification not only for the highest quality waters, but also for water
 bodies which are "important, unique, or sensitive ecologically, but whose water quality
 as measured by the traditional  parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, etc.) may not be
 particularly high or whose character cannot be adequately described by these
 parameters.1130  This description is particularly apt for many wetland systems.

       The designation of wetlands as outstanding resource waters has occurred in
 different ways in  different States.  Minnesota, for instance, has designated  some of its
 rare, calcareous fens as ORWs and intends to deny fills in these fens.
                                          18

-------
       Ohio has issued for comment, proposed revised water quality standards that
include a newly created "outstanding State resource waters" category. Ohio intends- to
prohibit all point source discharges to these waters.  Of fourteen specific water bodies
proposed to be included in this category by the Ohio EPA at this time, ten are
wetlands: four fens; three bogs; and three marshes.

       Because the designation of wetlands as ORWs is such an appropriate
classification for many wetland systems, it would behoove the States to adopt
regulations which maximize the ability of State agencies and citizens to have wetlands
and other waters placed in this category.   The State of Kentucky has set out
procedures for the designation of these waters in its water  quality standards.  Certain
categories of waters automatically included as ORWs are: waters designated under the
Kentucky Wild Rivers Act or the Federal Wild and Scenic  Rivers Act; waters within a
formally dedicated nature preserve or published in the registry of natural areas and
concurred upon by the cabinet; and waters that support federally recognized
endangered or threatened species. In addition, Kentucky's water quality standards
include a provision allowing anyone to propose waters for the ORW classification.31

       Minnesota has a section in its water quality standards  that could be called an
"emergency" provision for the designation of outstanding resource waters.   Normally it
is necessary under Minnesota's water quality standards for the agency to provide an
opportunity for a hearing before identifying and establishing outstanding resource waters
and before prohibiting or .restricting any discharges to those waters.  The "emergency"
provision allows the agency to prohibit new or expanded discharges for unlisted waters
'to the extent... necessary to preserve the existing high quality, or to preserve the
wilderness, scientific, recreational, or other special characteristics that make the water an
outstanding resource value water."3* This provision allows the  agency to protect the
waterbody while completing the listing process which could take several years.

       Moreover, some States have improved on the formulation of the ORW
classification by spelling out the protection provided by that designation more
specifically than do EPA's regulations. For instance, Massachusetts' water quality
standards state that for "National Resource Waters:"

       Waters so designated may not be degraded and are not subject to a variance,
      procedure. New discharges of pollutants to such waters are prohibited.
       Existing  discharges shall be eliminated unless the discharger is able to
       demonstrate that:  (a) Alternative means of disposal are not reasonably
       available or feasible; and (b) The discharge will not affect the  quality of the
       water as a national resource.33
                                         19

-------
This provision explicitly outlines how the State intends to maintain and protect the
water quality of ORWs.  Another provision which Minnesota uses to control discharges
to waters that flow into ORWs for their effect on ORWs is that:

       The agency shall require new or expanded discharges that flow into
       outstanding resource value waters [to] be controlled so as to assure no
       deterioration in the quality of the downstream outstanding resource value
       water.34
V.     USING 401 CERTIFICATION

       A. The Permits/Licenses Covered and the Scope of Review

       The language of Section 401(a)(l) is written very broadly with respect to the
activities it covers. "[A]ny activity, including, but not limited to, the construction or
operation of facilities, which mav result in anv discharge" requires water quality
certification.

       When the Congress first enacted the water quality certification provision in 1970,
it spoke of the "wide variety of licenses and permits ... issued by various Federal
agencies," which "involve activities or operations potentially affecting water quality."35
The purpose of the water quality certification requirement, the Congress said, was  to
ensure that no license or permit would be issued "for an activity that through
inadequate planning or otherwise  could in fact become a source of pollution."36


              L Federal Permits/Licenses Subject to Certification

       The first consideration is which federal permits or licenses are subject to 401
certification.  OWP has identified five federal permits and/or licenses which authorize
activities which may result in a discharge to the waters. These are; permits for point
source discharges under Section 402 and discharges of dredged and fill material under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; permits for activities in navigable waters which
may affect navigation under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA);
and licenses required for hydroelectric projects issued  under the Federal Power Act

       There are likely other federal permits and licenses, such as permits for activities
on public lands, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses, which may result in a
discharge and thus require 401 certification. Each State should work with EPA and the
federal agencies active  in its State to determine whether 401 certification  is in fact
applicable.
                                         20

-------
      Indeed, it is not always clear when 401 certification should apply.  For instance,
there remains some confusion under Sections 9 and 10 of RHA concerning which ..
projects may involve or result in a discharge, and thus require State certification. In
many cases there is an overlap between Section 404 CWA and Sections 9 and 10 RHA.
Where these permits overlap, 401 certification always applies. Under the Section 404
regulations, the question of whether dredging involves a discharge and is therefore
subject to Section 404, depends on whether there is more than "de minimis, incidental
soil movement occurring during normal dredging operations".37

      Where only a Section 9 or 10 permit is required, 401 certification would apply if
the activity may lead to a discharge. For example, in the case of pilings, which the
Corps sometimes considers subject to Section  10 only, a 401 certification would be
required for  the Section 10 permit if structures on top of the pilings may result in a
discharge.

       States should notify the regional office  of federal permitting or licensing agencies
of their authority to review these permits and licenses (e.g., the Corps of Engineers for
Section 404 in nonauthorized States, and Sections 9 and  10 of the RHA; EPA for
Section 402 permits in nonauthorized States; and the  Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERQ for hydropower licenses).  In their 401 certification implementing
regulations, States should also give notice to applicants for these particular federal
permits and  licenses, and for all other permits and licenses that may result in a
discharge to waters of the State, of their obligation to obtain 401 certification from the
State.

       West  Virginia's 401 certification implementing  regulations, for instance, state
that:

       1.1.  Scope.... Section 401 of the Clean  Water Act requires that any
       applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity which will or
       may discharge into waters of the United States (as defined in the Clean
       Water Act) must present the federal authority with a certification from the
       appropriate State agency. Federal permits  and licenses issued by the federal
       government requiring certification include permits issued by the United States
       Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33
       U.S.C 1344 and licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory
       Commission under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 1791 et seq.38

       Because West Virginia has been authorized to administer the NPDES permitting
program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act,  applicants for NPDES permits do
not have to apply for water  quality certification separately.  In addition,  West Virginia
has not specifically designated Rivers and Harbors Act permits in the above regulation.
However, because the regulation States that such permits or licenses include Section

                                         21

-------
404 and FERC licenses, those and all other permits not specifically designated but
which may result in a discharge to the waters would be covered by the regulation's -.
language.  The better approach would be to enumerate all such licenses and permits
that are known to the State and include a phrase for all others generically.
             2.  Scope of Review Under Section 401

       An additional issue is the scope of the States' review under Section 401.
Congress intended for the States to use the water quality certification process to ensure
that no federal license or permits would be issued that would violate State standards or
become a source of pollution in the future.  Also, because the States' certification of a
construction permit or license also operates as certification for an operating permit
(except for in certain instances specified in Section 401(a)(3)), it is imperative for a
State review to consider all potential water quality impacts of the project, both direct
and indirect, over the life of the project

       A second component of the scope  of the review is when an activity requiring 401
certification in one State (i.e. the State in which the discharge originates) will have an
impact on the water quality of another State.39  The statute provides that after receiving
notice of application  from a federal permitting or licensing agency, EPA will notify any
States whose water quality may be affected.  Such States have the right to submit their
objections and request a hearing.  EPA may  also submit its evaluation and
recommendations.  If the use of conditions cannot insure compliance with the affected
State's water quality requirements, the federal permitting or licensing agency shall not
issue such permit or license.

       The following  example of 401 certification denial by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (DER) for a proposed FERC hydroelectric
project illustrates the breadth of the scope of review under Section 401 (see Appendix
C for full description of project and impacts  addressed). The City of Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania proposed  to construct a hydroelectric power project on the Susquehanna
River.  The Pennsylvania DER considered a full range of potential impacts  on the
aquatic system in its  review.  The impacts included those on State waters located at the
dam site, as well as those downstream and upstream from the site. The impacts
considered were  not just from the discharge initiating the certification review, but water
quality impacts from  the entire project  Thus, potential impacts such as flooding,
changes in dissolved oxygen, loss of wetlands, and changes in groundwater, both from
construction and future operation of the project, were all considered in the State's
decision.

       The concerns  expressed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources are not necessarily all those that a State should consider in a dam

                                         22

-------
certification review; each project will have its own specific impacts and potential water
quality problems.  The point of the illustration is to show that all of the potential
effects of a proposed activity on water quality - direct and indirect, short and long
term, upstream and downstream, construction and operation - should be part of a
State's certification review.
       B.     Conditioning 401 Certifications for Wetland Protection

       In 401(d), the Congress has given the States the authority to place any conditions
on a water quality certification that are  necessary to  assure that the applicant will
comply with effluent limitations, water quality standards, standards of performance or
pretreatment standards; with any State law provisions or regulations more stringent than
those sections; and with "any other appropriate requirement of State law."

       The legislative history of the subsection indicates that the Congress meant for the
States to impose whatever conditions on the certification are necessary to ensure that
an applicant complies with all State requirements that are related to water quality
concerns.

             1.     What are Appropriate Conditions?

        There are any number of possible conditions that could be placed on a
certification that have as  their purpose preventing water quality deterioration.

       By way of example, the State of Maryland issued a certification with conditions
for placement  of fill to construct a 35-foot earthen dam located 200 feet downstream of
an existing dam. Maryland used some general conditions applicable to many of the
proposed projects it considers, along with specific conditions tailored to the proposed
project Examples of the conditions placed on this particular certification include:

       The applicant shall obtain and certify compliance with a grading and sediment
       control plan which has been approved by the [county] Soil Conservation District
       The approved plan shall be available at the project site during all phases of
       construction.

       Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces shall be controlled to prevent the
       washing of debris into the waterway.  The natural vegetation shall be maintained
       and restored when  disturbed  or eroded.  Stormwater drainage facilities shall be
       designed, implemented, operated, and maintained in accordance with the
       requirements of the applicable approving authority.
                                          23

-------
      The applicant is required to provide a mixing tower release structure to achieve in-
      stream compliance with Class III trout temperature (20[degrees] C) and dissolved
      oxygen (5.0 mg/liter) standards prior to the Piney Run/Church Creek confluence.
      The design of this structure shall be approved by the Maryland Department of the
      Environment (MDE).

      The applicant is required to provide a watershed management plan to minimize
      pollutant loadings into the reservoir.  This plan shall be reviewed and approved by
      MDE prior to operation of the new dam facility.  In conjunction with this plan's
      development any sources of pollutant loading identified during field surveys shall be
      eliminated or minimized to the extent possible given available technology.

      The applicant is required to provide to MDE an operating and maintenance plan for
      the dam assuring minimum downstream flows in accordance with the requirements
      of the DNR and assuring removal of accumulated sediments with subsequent
      approved disposal of the materials removed.

      The applicant is  to provide mitigation for the wetlands lost as a  result of the
      construction of this project and its subsequent operation.  Wetland recreation should
      be located in the newfy created headwaters areas to: a) assure adequate filtration of
      runoff prior to its entry into the reservoir and b) replace the aquatic resource being
      lost on an acre for acre basis.

      See Appendix D for the full list of conditions placed on this certification.  While
few of these conditions are based directly on traditional water quality standards, all are
valid and relate to the maintenance of water quality or the designated use of the waters
in some way.  Some of the conditions are clearly requirements of State or local law
related to water quality other than those promulgated pursuant to the CWA sections
enumerated in Section 401(a)(l).  Other conditions were designed to minimize the
project's adverse  effects on water quality over the life of the project

      In addition, Appendix D contains a list of conditions which West Virginia and
Alaska placed on the certification  of some Section 404 nationwide permits.  Many of
the West Virginia conditions are typical of ones it uses on individual proposals as well.
For any particular project, West Virginia wfll include more specific conditions designed
to address the  potential adverse effects of the  project in addition to those enumerated
in Appendix D. The conditions from Alaska are used on a nationwide permit (#26)
regarding isolated waters and waters above  headwaters.  These conditions are discussed
in Section V. C(l).
                                         24

-------
             2.     The Role of Mitigation in Conditioning Certification

      Many States are trying to determine the role that mitigation should play in 40l
certification decisions.  We cannot answer this question definitively for each State, but
offer as a guide EPA's general framework for mitigation under the Section 404(b)(l)
Guidelines used to evaluate applications for Section 404 permits.  In assuring
compliance of a project with the Guidelines, EPA's approach  is to first, consider
avoidance of adverse impacts, next, determine ways to minimize the impacts, and
finally, require appropriate and practicable compensation for unavoidable impacts.

      The Guidelines provide for avoiding adverse impacts by selecting the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative.  In addition, wetlands are "special
aquatic sites." For such sites, if the proposed activity is not "water dependent,"
practicable alternatives with less adverse environmental impacts are presumed to be
available unless the applicant clearly demonstrates otherwise.40

       The Guidelines also require an applicant to take "appropriate and practicable"
steps to minimize the impacts of the least environmentally damaging alternative
selected.41 Examples in the Guidelines  for minimizing impacts through project
modifications and best management practices are provided  in Appendix E.

       After these two steps are* complete, appropriate compensation is required for the
remaining unavoidable adverse impacts.  Compensation would consist of restoration of
previously altered wetlands or creation of wetlands from upland sites. In most cases,
compensation on or adjacent to the project site is preferred over off-site locations. The
restoration or creation should be functionally equivalent to the values which  are lost
Finally, compensating with the same type of wetland lost is preferred to using another
wetland type.

       The States may choose to adopt mitigation policies which require additional
replacement to help account for the uncertainty in the science of wetland creation and
restoration. What is important from EPA's perspective is that mitigation not be used as
a trade-off for avoidable losses of wetlands, and that mitigation compensate, to the
fullest extent possible, for the functional values provided to the local ecosystem by the
wetlands  unavoidably lost by the project.
             3.     The Role of Other State Laws

       Another question that has been asked is what State law or other requirements
 are appropriately used to condition a 401 certification.  The legislative history of
 Section 401(d) indicates that Congress meant for the States to condition certifications
 on compliance with any State and local law requirements related to water quality

                                         25

-------
preservation. The courts that have touched on the issue have also indicated that
conditions that  relate in any way to water quality maintenance are appropriate.  Each
State will have  to make these determinations for itself, of course; there are any number
of State and local programs that have components related to water quality preservation
and enhancement.

      One  issue that has arisen in two  court cases is whether a State may use State
law requirements, other than those that are more stringent than the  provisions of
Sections  301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the CWA(401(a)(l)), to deny water quality
certification.  An Oregon State court has ruled that a State may, and indeed must,
include conditions on certifications reflecting State law requirements  "to the extent that
they have any relationship to water quality."  "Only to the extent that [a State law
requirement] has absolutely no relationship to water quality," the court said,  "would it
not be an 'other appropriate requirement of State law."142  State agencies must act in
accord with State law, of course, and thus the decision to grant  certification carries with
it the obligation to  condition certification to ensure compliance with  such  State
requirements.

      This State court decision struck down a State agency's denial  of certification
because  it was  based on the applicant's failure to certify compliance  with  a county's
comprehensive plan and land use  ordinances.  The court held that such "other
appropriate requirements] of State law" could not be the basis for denying certification.
However, the court held that the agency should determine which of  the provisions of
the land use ordinances had any relation to the maintenance and preservation of water
quality.  Any such provisions, the court  said, could and should be the basis for
conditions placed on a certification.

      Another State court, however, this one in West Virginia,  has upheld the State's
denial of certification on the basis of State law requirements unrelated to the
implementation of  the CWA provisions enumerated in Section 401(a)(l).43  The court
simply issued an order upholding the State's denial, however, and did not write an
opinion on  the subject The questions raised  by these two opinions  are thorny.  If
States may  not deny  certification based on State law requirements other than those
implementing the CWA, yet want to address related requirements of State law, they
must walk a thin line between their State requirements and the limitations of their
certification authority under federal law.

      One way to  avoid these difficulties and to ensure that 401 certification may
properly be used to deny certification where the State has determined that the activity
cannot be conditioned in such a way as to ensure compliance with State water quality
related requirements, is to adopt water quality standards that include all State
provisions related to  water quality preservation.  Congress has given the States great
latitude to adopt water quality standards that take into consideration the  waters' use for

                                         26

-------
such things as "the propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and . .  . other
purposes."44  Because of the broad authority granted by the Congress to the States to
adopt water quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the CWA, and because
compliance with Section 303 is clearly one of the bases on  which a State can deny
certification, the States can avoid the difficulty of the deny/condition  dilemma by
adopting water standards that include all the water quality  related considerations  it
wishes to include in the 401 certification review.

       For example, the State of Washington has included State water right permit flow
requirements in its conditions for certification of a dam project  This is one means of
helping to ensure that hydrological changes do not adversely affect the quality of  a
waterbody.  However, a more direct approach is to include a narrative criterion in the
State's water quality standards that requires maintenance of base flow necessary to
protect the wetland's (or other waterbody's) living  resources. The State of Kentucky has
such a criterion in its water quality standards (see  previous section IV. D(l) on "Using
Narrative Criteria").  Placing the provision directly in the State standards might better
serve the State if a certification  is challenged because the requirement would be an
explicit consideration of 401 certification.
       C    Special Considerations for Review of Section 404 Permits: Nationwide and
             After-the-Fact Permits

             1. Nationwide Permits.

       Pursuant to Section 404(e) of the CWA, the Corps may issue general permits,
 after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing, on a State, regional or
 nationwide basis for any category of activities involving discharges of dredged or fill
 material, where such activities are similar in nature and will cause only minimal adverse
 environmental effects both individually and cumulatively.  These permits may remain in
 effect for 5 years, after which they must be reissued with notice and an opportunity for
 a hearing. If the activities authorized by general permits may result in a discharge, the
 permits are subject to the State water quality certification requirement when they are
 first proposed and when proposed for reissuance. States may either grant certification
 with appropriate conditions or deny certification of these permits.

       Under the Corps' regulations, if a State has denied certification of any  particular
 general permit,  any person proposing to do work pursuant to such a permit must first
 obtain State water quality certification.  If a State has conditioned the grant of
 certification upon some requirement of State review prior to the activity's commencing,
 such conditions] must be satisfied before work can begin.
                                         27

-------
      Some States have reported that for general permits for which they have dem'ed
water quality certification or on which they have imposed some condition of review,..
they are having difficulties ensuring that parties performing activities pursuant to these
permits are applying to the State for water quality certification or otherwise fulfilling
the conditions placed on the certification prior to the commencement of work under
these permits.

      At least one State is grappling with the problem through its 401 certification
implementing regulations. The State of West Virginia denied certification for some
nationwide permits issued by the Corps and conditioned the granting of certification for
others.  One of the conditions that West Virginia has imposed on those certifications
that it granted (which thus apply to all nationwide permits in the State) is compliance
with its 401 certification implementing regulations.  The regulations in turn require that
any person authorized to conduct an activity under a nationwide permit must, prior to
conducting any activity authorized by a Corps general permit, publish a Class I legal
advertisement in a qualified newspaper in the county where the activity is proposed to
take place. The notice must describe the activity, advise the public of the scope of the
conditionally granted certification, the public's right to comment on the  proposed
activity and its right to request a hearing. The applicant must forward a certificate of
publication of this notice to the State agency prior to conducting any such activity.45

       The regulation further provides that any person whose property,  interest in
property  or "other constitutionally protected  interest under [the West Virginia
Constitution] [is] directly affected by the Department's certification"  may request a
hearing within 15 days of the publication of the notice given by the applicant. The
agency will then decide whether to "uphold,  modify or withdraw certification for the
 individual activity."

       West Virginia program officers have described the reasons for this procedure:

       Because of a long-standing concern ..  . that untracked dredge and fill
       activities could prove disastrous on both individual and  cumulative bases, the
       regulations require an authorized permittee [under federal law] to forward
       proof of publication and a copy of the newspaper advertisement. The
       information on the notice is logged into a computer system and a site specific
       inspection sheet is generated. Inspectors then may visit the site to determine
       compliance with permit conditions and to evaluate cumulative impacts.46

       Without such notice and a tracking system of activities performed under these
permits, such as that adopted by West Virginia, it will be difficult for a State to
evaluate whether or not to grant or deny water quality certification for these permits
when they come up for reissuance by the Corps or to condition them in such a way  as
to avoid adverse impacts peculiar to each of these general permits. It is advisable for

                                         28

-------
the States, regardless of whether they have granted or denied certification, to adopt as
part of their 401 certification implementing regulations, provisions addressing these • •
concerns for general permits.

       Another way in which some States are attempting to minimize the potential
environmental impact of nationwide permits  is by stringently conditioning their
certification. Alaska, for instance, placed conditions on nationwide permit 26 regarding
isolated waters and waters above the headwaters. One of the conditions Alaska used
excludes isolated or headwater wetlands of known or suspected high value.  When there
is uncertainty about a particular wetland, the Corps is required to send pre-discharge
notification to designated State officials for a determination.  (See Appendix D for a
full description of conditions on nationwide permit 26).
       2. Section 404 After-the-Fact Permits

       The Corps of Engineers' regulations implementing Section 404 provide for the
acceptance of after-the-fact permit applications for unauthorized discharges except
under certain circumstances.  Several States have expressed concern with after-the-fact
permits, including the belief that once the discharges have taken place, the water
quality certification process is moot  Because of that belief, many States report that
they waive certification for after-the-fact permits. Such an approach frustrates law
enforcement efforts generally and the water quality certification process in particular
because it encourages illegal activity.

       The evaluation of after-the-fact permit applications should be no different than
for normal applications. Because the burden should be on the applicant to show
compliance with water quality standards and other CWA requirements, rather than
waiving certification, States could deny certification if the applicant cannot show from
baseline data prior to its activity that the activity did not violate  water quality standards.
If data exist to determine  compliance with water quality standards, the States' analysis
should be no different merely because  the work has already been partially performed or
completed.  Arkansas denied after-the-fact water quality certification of a wetland fill as
follows:

       [a certain slough] is currently classified as a warmwater fishery ....
       Draining and clearing of fits associated] wetlands will significantly alter the
       existing use by drastically reducing or eliminating the fishery habitat and
       spawning areas.  This physical alteration of the lake will prevent it from being
       "water which is suitable for the propagation of indigenous warmwater species
       offish" which is the definition of a warmwater fishery.  Thus, the . . . project
       f violates] Section 3  (A) of the Arkansas Water Quality Standards, "Existing
       instream water uses  and the level of water quality necessary to protect the

                                          29

-------
      existing uses shall be maintained and protected." The Department
      recommends the area be restored to as near original contours as possible.

      With after-the-fact permits, just as with any other permit application, if the State
denies certification, the Corps is prohibited from granting a permit.  If the applicant
refuses to restore the area and does not have a permit, the applicant is subject to a
potential enforcement action for restoration and substantial penalties for the
unpermitted discharge of pollutants by the EPA, the Corps, a citizen under the citizen
suit provision of the CWA, or by the State, if the activity violates a prohibition of State
law.

      If the State determines that it will get a better environmental result by
conditioning certification, it may choose to take that approach.  The condition might
require  mitigation for the filled area (where restoration may cause more environmental
harm than benefit, for instance) with restoration or creation of a potentially more
valuable wetland area.

      In any event, a State should not waive certification of an after-the-fact permit
application simply because it is after-the-fact
VL    DEVELOPING 401 CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS:
       ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

       A comprehensive set of 401 certification implementing regulations would have
both procedural and substantive provisions which mavimwe the State agency's control
over the process and which make its decisions defensible in court  The very fact of
having 401 certification regulations goes a long way in providing the State agency that
implements 401 certification with credibility in the courts. Currently, no State has "ideal"
401 certification implementing regulations, and many do not have them at all. When
401 certification regulations are carefully considered, they can be very effective not only
in conserving the quality of the State's waters, but in providing the regulated sectors
with some  predictability of State actions, and in  minimizing the State's financial and
human resource requirements as well.

       Everything in this handbook relates  in some way to the development of sound
water quality standards and 401 certification implementing regulations that will enhance
wetland protection. This section addresses some very basic procedural considerations of
401 certification implementing regulations which have not been treated elsewhere.
These  include provisions concerning the contents of an application for certification; the
agency's timeframe for review, and the requirements placed on the applicant in the
certification process.

                                        30

-------
      A.     Review Hmeframe and "Complete" Applications

      Under Section 401(a)(l) a State will be deemed to have waived certification if it
fails to act within "a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after
receipt of such request" Program managers should keep in mind that the federal
permitting or license agency may have regulations of its own which provide a time limit
for the State's certification decision.  For instance, Corps regulations say that a waiver
"will be deemed to occur if the certifying agency fails or refuses to act on a request for
certification within sixty days after receipt... unless the district engineer determines a
shorter or longer period is reasonable ... ."47  FERC rules state that a certifying
agency "is deemed to have waived the certification requirements if ... [it] has not
denied or granted certification by one year after the date the certifying agency received
the request".48  EPA regulations for Section 402 in non-authorized States set a limit of
60 days unless the Regional Administrator finds that unusual circumstances require a
longer time.49

       States should coordinate closely with the appropriate federal agency on timing
issues. For example, Alaska negotiated joint EPA/State procedures for coastal NPDES
permit review.  The agreement takes into account and coordinates EPA, Coastal Zone
Management, and 401 certification time frames.

       It is also advisable  for the States to adopt rules which reasonably protect against
an unintended waiver due, for example, to insufficient information to make a
certification decision or because project plans have changed  enough to warrant a
reevaluation of the impacts on water quality.  Thus, after taking the federal agencies'
regulations into account, the State's 401 certification regulations should link the timing
for review to what is considered receipt of a complete application.

       Wisconsin, for instance, requires the applicant to submit a complete application
for certification before the official agency review time begins.  The State's regulations
define the major components of a complete application, including the existing physical
environment at the site, the size of the area affected, all environmental impact
assessment information provided  to the licensing or permitting agency, and the like.
The rules State that the agency will review the application for completeness within 30
days of its receipt and notify the  applicant of any additional  materials reasonably
necessary for review.  Although the application will be deemed "complete" for purposes
of review time if the agency does not request additional materials within 40 days of
receipt of the application, the agency  reserves the right to request additional
information during the review process.50
                                        31

-------
       In the case of FERC projects, West Virginia has taken additional precautions
with regard to time for review:

       If the project application is altered or modified during the FERC licensing
       process prior to FERC's final decision, the applicant shall inform the
       Department of such changes. The Department may review such alterations or
       modifications  and, if the changes are deemed significant by the Director, the
       Department may require a new application for certification. The Department
       will have ninety (90) days to review such changes or until the end of the year
       review period.. ., whichever is longer, to determine whether to require a
       new application or to alter its original certification decision. If the
       department requires a new application because of a significant application
       modification,  then the Department will have six (6) months to issue its
       certification decision from the date of submission of the application.51
       B.    Requirements for the Applicant

       It is very important, in particular for conserving the agency's resources and
 ensuring that there is sufficient information to determine that water quality standards
 and other provisions of the CWA will not be violated by the activity, to clarify that it is
 the applicant who is responsible for providing or proving particular facts or
 requirements.

       For instance, Section  401(a)(l) requires that a State "establish procedures for
 public notice in the case of all applications for certification.'1 West Virginia  requires
 applicants for FERC licenses to be responsible for this notice.  In the case of Section
 404 permits, West Virginia has a joint notice process with the Corps to issue public
 notices for 404 applications which also notify the public of the State certification
 process.  Thus, there is no need for West Virginia to require the applicant to do so for
 these permits.52

       A second consideration is that States should require the applicant to  demonstrate
 the project's compliance  with applicable federal and State law and regulation.  EPA's
 401 certification  regulations  name the sources of information a State should use.as that
 contained in the application and other information "furnished by the applicant"
 sufficient to allow the agency to make a statement that water quality standards will not
 be violated.53  Of course in addition, the regulations also refer to other information the
 agency may choose  to examine which is not furnished by the applicant.
                                          32

-------
       Ohio, for instance, has written a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate
compliance  into its 401 certification implementing regulations:

       (A) The director shall not issue a Section 401 water quality certification
       unless he determines that the applicant has demonstrated that the discharge
       of dredged or fill material to waters of the state or the creation of any
       obstruction or alteration in waters of the state wul54  (1) Not prevent or
       interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water quality
       standards; (2) Not result in a violation of any applicable provision of the
       following sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [301, 302, 303,
       306 and 307].

       (B) Notwithstanding an applicant's demonstration of the criteria in paragraph
       (A) .. . the director may deny an application for a Section 401 water quality
       certification  if the director concludes mat the discharge of dredged or fill
       material or obstructions or alterations in waters of the state will result in
       adverse long or short term impact on water quality.55
       C     Permit Fees

       A very significant concern for all States who plan to initiate or expand their 401
 certification program is the availability of funding.   Application fee requirements are a
 potential funding source to supplement State program budgets. The State of
 California's Regional Water Quality Control Boards require filing fees for 401
 certification applications unless a Board determines  that certification is not required.
 The fee structure is spelled out in the California Water Code. The money collected
 from the fees goes into the State agency's general fund. The Regional Boards may
 recover some portion of the fees through the budget request process. The State of
 Ohio also has a fee structure for 401 certification applicants. In Ohio, however, fees go
 into the State's general fund, rather than back into the State agency.  Neither State
 collects fees sufficient to support the  401 certification program fully. Despite these
 potential barriers, application fees could provide a much needed funding source which
 States should explore.
       D.     Basis for Certification Decisions

       The regulations should also set out the grounds on which the decision to grant or
 deny certification will be based, the scope of the State's review, and the bases for
 conditioning a certification. If a State has denied water quality certification for a
 general  permit or has  conditioned such a permit on some requirement of State review,
 the State's 401 certification implementing regulations might also outline the obligations

                                          33

-------
of a person proposing to accomplish work under such a permit. The following is a
hypothetical example of regulatory language a State might use to define the grounds for
the State's decision to grant, condition, or deny certification:
       In order to obtain certification of any proposed activity that may result in a
       discharge to waters of the United States, an applicant must demonstrate  that
       the entire activity over its lifetime will not violate or interfere with the
       attainment of any limitations or standards contained in Section 301, 302,  303,
       306, and 307, the federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and any
       provisions of state law or regulation adopted pursuant to, or which are more
       stringent than, those provisions of the Qean Water Act

       The agency may condition certification on any requirements consistent with
       ensuring the applicant's compliance with the provisions listed above, or with
       any other requirements of state law related to the maintenance, preservation,
       or enhancement of water quality.
 This sample regulatory language provides the grounds for the certification decision, sets
 the  scope of review (lifetime effects of the entire activity) and clearly States that the
 applicant must demonstrate compliance.  For purposes of conditioning the certification
 in the event it is granted, the same standards can be applied, with the addition of any
 other requirements of State law that are related to water quality.

       Regulations are not project specific.  They must be generally applicable to all
 projects subject to 401 certification review, while at the same time providing reasonable
 notice to an applicant regarding the general standards employed by the agency in the
 certification process. (A State may choose to adopt license/permit-specific regulations
 for  401 certification, but such regulations will still have to be applicable to all activities
 that may occur pursuant to that license or permit).

       There are other considerations that should be addressed in 401 certification
 implementing regulations, some of which have been mentioned  in other parts of this
 handbook.  These include provisions which require applicants for  federal licenses and
 permits which may result in a discharge to apply for water quality certification;
 provisions which define waters of the State to include wetlands and which define other
 pertinent terms; and provisions addressing general permits.
                                         34

-------
VH.   EXISTING AND EMERGING SOURCES OF DATA TO AID 401
      CERTIFICATION AND STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS

      According to a number of State program managers,  more data on wetland
functions, or "uses," would greatly assist the certification process. Wetland ecosystems
not only perform a wide variety of functions but do so in varying degrees.  Public
agencies and private applicants currently employ a number of assessment methods such
as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique and the Habitat Evaluation Procedure to
determine what functions or uses exist in a particular wetland system.56  In many States,
however, water quality certification reviewers lack the resources to perform even a
simple assessment of a wetland's boundaries, values and functions.  Information about
the location and types of wetland systems,  and of the functions they may perform (such
as flood storage, habitat, pollution attenuation, nutrient uptake, and sediment fixing)
would aid standard writers in developing appropriate uses and criteria for wetlands, and
allow 401 certification officials to conduct a more thorough review.

      Several States already have extensive knowledge of their wetland resources, and
data gathering efforts are also being undertaken by EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and other agencies.37 Although these efforts to inventory and classify wetlands
have not been closely tied to the 401 certification process in the past, these existing
data can be valuable sources of information for 401 certification reviewers.  It is
important to remember, however, that wetland boundaries  for regulatory purposes may
differ from those identified by National Wetland Inventory maps for general inventory
purposes. The EPA, Corps of Engineers,  Fish and Wildlife Service, and Soil
Conservation Service have adopted  a joint manual for  identifying and delineating
wetlands in the United States. The manual will be available  in June, 1989.58

       There are several programs that offer technical support for 401  certification
 decisions.  For example, approximately forty States have worked with the Nature
 Conservancy to establish "natural heritage  programs," which identify the most critical
 species, habitats, plant communities, and other natural features within a State's
 territorial boundaries. Most States  now have a State natural heritage office to
 coordinate this identification program.  Inventory efforts such as the natural heritage
 program could give 401 certification managers some of the information they need to
 limit or prohibit adverse water quality impacts in important wetland areas.  Specifically,
 the inventory process can identify existing  wetland uses in order to maintain them. The
information may also be used in identifying wetlands for Outstanding Resource Waters
designation.59

       The Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a Wetlands Values Data Base which
may be very useful in identifying wetland functions and in  designating wetland uses for
water quality standards.  The data base is on computer and contains an annotated
bibliography of scientific literature on wetland functions and  values.60  Several States

                                         35

-------
have established critical area programs to identify and protect unique and highly
sensitive land and water resources.  These programs can provide data to  the State
water quality certification office and thereby strengthen the scientific basis for 401
certification decision making.61

      Another potential source of information which might identify wetlands
appropriate for designation as Outstanding Resource Waters are the wetland plans
which each State is required to develop to  comply with the 1986 Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act  Beginning in fiscal year 1988, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plans (SCORP) must now contain a Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan
approved by the Department of Interior. Although these plans are primarily focused
on wetlands for acquisition, they are a potential source of data on wetland locations
and functions.  The wetlands identified may also be suitable for special protection under
the Outstanding Resource Waters provisions of the antidegradation policy.

       The Advance Identification program (ADID), conducted by EPA and the
permitting authority, may  also furnish a considerable amount of useful information.
EPA's 404(b)(l) Guidelines contain a procedure for identifying in advance areas that
are generally suitable or unsuitable for the deposit of dredged or fill material.62  In
recent years, EPA has made greater use of this authority.  ADID is often used in
wetland areas that  are experiencing significant development or other conversion
pressures.  Many ADID efforts generate substantial data on the  location  and functions
of wetlands within the study area such as wetland maps, and habitat, water quality, or
hydrological studies.

       Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) are another planning process which
may yield useful information.  SAMPs refer to a process authorized by the 1980
amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act, which  provides grants
to States to develop comprehensive plans for natural resource  protection and
"reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth."63  The SAMP process implicitly
recognizes the State water quality certification process, directing all relevant local, State,
and federal authorities to coordinate permit programs in carrying out the completed
SAMP.  The Corps of Engineers has supported and initiated several of these processes.
In addition, other SAMPs have been completed by several  States.

       Much of these data can be collected, combined, and used in decision making
with the aid of geographic-based computer systems that can store, analyze, and present
data related to wetlands in graphic and written forms.64 A reviewing official can quickly
access and overlay a range of different existing information bases such as flora and
fauna inventories, soil surveys, remote sensing data, watershed and wetland maps,
existing uses and criteria, and project proposal information.
                                         36

-------
      Finally, data is presently emerging on the use of wetlands as treatment areas for
wastewater, stormwater, and non-point discharges.65  Florida, for instance, has adopted
a rule on wastewater releases into wetlands.66  Florida prohibits wastewater discharges
into the following kinds of wetlands: those designated as outstanding waters of the
State; wetlands within potable water supplies; shellfish propagation or harvesting waters;
wetlands in areas of critical State concern; wetlands where herbaceous ground cover
constitutes more than thirty percent of the uppermost stratum (unless seventy-five
percent is cattail); and others.  Wastewater discharges are permitted in certain wetlands
dominated by woody vegetation, certain  hydrologically altered wetlands, and artificially
created wetlands; however, the  State applies special effluent limitations to take account
of a wetland's ability to assimilate nitrogen and phosphorus. It also applies qualitative67
and quantitative68 design criteria.

      The rule establishes four "wetland biological quality* standards. First, the flora
and fauna of the wetland cannot be changed so as to impair the wetland's ability to
function in the propagation and maintenance of fish and wildlife populations or
substantially reduce its effectiveness in wastewater treatment Second, the Shannon-
Weaver diversity index of benthic macroinvertebrates cannot be reduced below fifty
percent of background levels.  Third, fish populations must be monitored and
maintained, and an annual survey of each species must be conducted. Fourth, the
"importance value" of any dominant plant species in the canopy and subcanopy at any
monitoring station cannot be reduced by more than fifty percent, and the average
"importance value" of any dominant plant species cannot be reduced by more than
twenty-five percent69

      These types of efforts, constantly being  adjusted to take account of new
information in a field where knowledge  is rapidly expanding, are fertile sources of
information for wetland standard writers and 401 certification decision makers.
      SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED

       This handbook has only scratched the surface of issues surrounding effective use
 of 401 certification to protect wetlands. The preceding discussion and examples from
 active States have highlighted possible approaches for all States to incorporate into their
 401 certification programs. The handbook shows that there are many things that a
 State can act on right away to improve the effectiveness of 401 certification to protect
 the integrity  of its wetlands.  At the same time, there are improvements to water quality
 standards for wetlands which wfll have to take place within a longer timeframe.
                                        37

-------
            Steps States Can Take Right Away
      All states should begin by explicitly incorporating wetlands into their
      definitions of state waters in both state water quality standards regulations,
      and in state 401 certifications regulations.

      States should develop or modify their regulations and guidelines for 401
      certification and water quality standards  to clarify their programs, codify
      their decision process, and to incorporate special wetlands considerations into
      the more traditional water quality approaches.

      States should make more effective use of their existing narrative water quality
      standards (including the antidegradation policy) to protect wetlands.

      States should initiate or improve upon existing inventories of their wetland
      resources.

      States should designate uses for their wetlands based on estimates of wetland
      functions typically associated with given wetland types.  Such potential uses
      could be verified for individual applications with an assessment tool such as
      the Wetlands Evaluation Technique or Habitat Evaluation Procedure.

      States should tap  into the potential of the outstanding resource waters tier of
      the antidegradation policy for wetlands.  It may not be an appropriate
      designation for all of a state's wetlands, but it can provide excellent
      protection to particularly valuable or ecologically sensitive wetlands from both
      physical-.and chemical degradation.

      States: should incorporate wetlands and 401 certification into their other water
      quality management processes.  Integrating this tool with other mechanisms
      such as coastal  zone management programs, point and nonpoint source
      programs, and water quality management plans will help fill the gaps of each
      individual tool and allow better protection of wetlands systems from the
      whole host of physical, chemical, and biological impacts.
      Time and the courts may be needed to resolve some of the more complicated
and contentious issues surrounding 401 cenification such as which federal permits and
licenses require 401 certification. EPA intends to support States in resolving such
issues.

                                        38

-------
       OWP, in cooperation with the Office of Water Regulations and Standards  •.
(OWRS), will build on this 401 certification handbook by developing guidance in FY
89-90 on water quality standards for wetlands.  The guidance will provide the
framework for States to incorporate wetlands into their water quality standards.  The
guidance will: require States to include wetlands as "waters of the State;" provide
methods to designate wetland uses that recognize differences in wetland types and
functions; address some chemical-specific and narrative  biological criteria for wetlands;
and discuss implementation of State antidegradation policies.
       B:    Laying the Groundwork for Future Decisions

       Many States are successfully applying their existing narrative and, to a lesser
extent, numeric water quality criteria to their wetland resources.  Nevertheless, more
work is needed to test the overall adequacy and applicability of these standards for
wetlands, and to develop additional criteria where needed.

       For example, existing criteria related to pH do not account for the extreme
natural acidity of many peat bogs nor the extreme alkalinity of certain fens. Also, many
existing criteria focus too extensively on the chemical quality of the water column
without adequately protecting the other physical and biological components which are
an integral part of wetland aquatic systems. Some numeric criteria for chemicals may
not be protective enough of species (particularly bird species) which feed, breed, and/or
spend a portion of their life cycle in wetlands.  Hydrological changes can have severe
impacts on wetland quality, but these changes are rarely addressed in traditional water
quality standards.

       Research of interest to State programs is being sponsored  by the Wetlands
Research Program of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).  Research
covers three areas: Cumulative Effects, Water Quality, and Mitigation. Although these
efforts will be developed over several years, interim products will be distributed to the
States.  States  may find these products of use when developing criteria and standards,
when identifying and designating wetlands as outstanding resource waters, and when
making 401 certification decisions.
Cumulative Effects:

      EPA's research on cumulative effects of wetlands takes a regional perspective.
Through a series of regional pilot studies involving landscape analyses, ORD is
correlating water quality conditions at the outlets of major watersheds with the
percentage of wetlands in these watersheds.  The types of wetlands, their position, and

                                         39

-------
non-wetland factors are also being analyzed. The results will allow water quality
managers in these regions to specify the optimal percentage and combination of various
types of wetlands needed to maintain water quality of lakes and rivers.  Such watershed
criteria could be used to guide efforts to create or restore wetlands for the purpose of
intercepting and improving the quality of nonpoint runoff.

      The pilot studies will also determine which wetland features can be used to
predict wetland functions.  Once differences among wetlands can be identified based on
their functions, it will be possible to classify particular wetlands with regard to specific
designated uses.

      The cumulative effects program is using the results of the pilot studies as
technical support for developing a "Synoptic Assessment Method". This method has
already been used to rank watersheds within certain regions, according to the likely
cumulative benefits of their wetlands.  Also, sources of information useful for
designating uses of individual wetlands were described by ORD in EPA's draft guidance
for Advance Identification Appendix D.70  Information on regionally rare or declining
wetland wildlife, which could be used  as one basis for establishing "special aquatic
areas" in selected wetlands, is also available from  the ORD Wetlands Research Team
at the Comllis EPA Lab.
 Water Quality:

       Another ORD study, being implemented through the Duluth Lab, is examining
 impacts to the water quality and biota of 30 wetlands, before and after regional
 development This study wfll be useful, as part of 401 certification, for developing
 performance standards for activities which may affect wetland water quality.

       Several research projects being proposed by the Wetland Research Program
 could produce information very useful to water quality managers. These are described
 in ORD's publication, "Wetlands and Water Quality. A Research and Monitoring
 Implementation Plan for the Years 1989-1994". Many of these proposals are planned,
 but wfll hinge upon  funding decisions in future budget years.  Those which drew the
 most support from a 1988 EPA workshop of scientists and State program administrators
 were as follows:

 o     Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wetland Function. Existing quality criteria for
       surface waters would be reviewed for applicability to wetlands.  Methods for
       biological and chemical monitoring of wetlands would be refined, and a field
       manual produced.
                                         40

-------
      Ecological Status and Trends of the Wetland Resource. A nationwide network
      would be established to monitor the wetland resource. Field surveys would •.
      define the expected range of numerical values within each region for particular
      chemicals and especially, for biological community metrics,  across a gradient of
      sites ranging from nearly-pristine to severely disturbed.

      Waste Assimilative Limits of Wetlands. Observable features which determine
      the long-term  ability of wetlands to retain contaminants and nutrients would be
      tested.  "Safe" loading limits for various substances would be proposed for
      specific wetland types or regions. Similar kinds of information would  also
      become available from a research effort focused specifically on artificial wetlands
      and coordinated by EPA-Cincinnati, in cooperation with the Corvallis  and Duluth
      Labs. That study would recommend engineering design factors essential in
      wetlands constructed by municipalities for tertiary wastewater treatment
Mitigation:

      Information useful to 401 certification wfll also originate from ORD'S mitigation
research.  This research aims to determine if created and restored wetlands replace
functions lost by wetland destruction permitted under Section 404.  The research is
organized to (1) synthesize current knowledge on wetland creation and restoration, (2)
compile 404 permit information on created and restored wetlands, and (3) compare
created and naturally occurring wetlands.  Research results wfll be incorporated into a
"Mitigation Handbook" useful for designing and evaluating mitigation projects.  A
literature synthesis being developed as a Provisional Guidance Document wfll be
available in 1989.  A provisional version of the handbook will be produced in 1990.
This wfll assist States in identifying areas at greatest risk due to 404 permit activities
and thus help target 401 certification and water quality standards activities.
                                        41

-------
                              APPENDIX A

      Provided below are State 401 certifictation contacts and EPA wetlands contacts
who can provide assistance in applying 401 to wetlands.

      EPA has asked the Council of State Governments (CSG) to maintain a database
of State wetland contacts and programs.  In order to help keep the database up to
date, please contact CSG when you have changes in your program or staff contacts, or
if you come across inaccuracies in other State programs. You can access this database
using virtually any computer with a modem. In order to obtain your free username
and password contact:

            The Council of State Governments
            P.O. Box 11910, Iron Works Pike
            Lexington, Kentucky 40578
            phone: (606) 252-2291
FEDERAL 401 CERTIFICATION CONTACTS FOR WETLANDS

EPA Headauarters:
 DianneFish
 Wetlands Strategies Team
 (A-104F)
 Environmental Protection Agency
 401 M Street, SW
 Washington, D.C 20460
 Phone: (202) 382-7071
Jeanne Melanson
Outreach and State Programs Staff
(A-104F)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C  20460
Phone: (202) 475-6745
 EPA Region Contacts:

 EPA Region I
 Doug Thompson, Chief
 Wetlands Protection Section (WPP-
 1900)
 John F. Kennedy Federal Building
 Boston, Massachusetts 02203
 (617)  565-4421
EPA Region U.
Mario del Vicario, Chief
Marine/Wetlands Prot Branch (2WM-
MWP)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-5170
                                      42

-------
EPA Region III
Barbara De Angelo, Chief
Marine & Wetlands Policy Sect. (3ES42)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107
(215) 597-1181

EPA Region IV
Tom Welborn, Acting Chief
Wetlands Section (4WM-MEB)
345 Courtland  Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-2126

EPA Region V
Doug Ehorn, Deputy Chief
Water Quality  Branch (5WQ-TUB8)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois  60604
(312) 886-0139

EPA Region VI
Jerry Saunders, Chief
Technical Assistance Sect (6E-FT)
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas  75202
(214) 655-2260

EPA Region VH
B. Katherine Biggs, Chief
Environmental  Review Branch (ENVR)
726 Minnesota  Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913) 236-2823
EPA Region VIH
Gene Reetz, Chief
Water Quality Requirements Sect.
One Denver Place
Suite 1300
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado  80202
(303) 293-1568

EPA Region DC
Phil  Oshida, Chief
Wetlands Section (W-7)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California  94105
(415) 974-7429

EPA Region X
Bill Rfley, Chief
Water Resources Assessment (WD-138)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 442-1412

CD. Robison, Jr.
Alaska Operations Office, Region X
Federal Building Room E551
701 C Street, Box 19
Anchorage, Alaska 99513

EPA Wetlands Research
Eric  Preston
Environmental Research Lab
Corvallis/ORD
200 S.W. 35 Street
Corvallis, OR  97333
(503) 757-4666

Bill Sanville
Environmental Research
Laboratory/ORD
6201 Congdon Blvd
Duluth,MN 55804
(218) 720-5723
                                      43

-------
State 401 CERTIFICATION CONTACTS
Brad Gane
Field Operation Division
Dept. of Enviromental Management
2204 Perimeter Road
Mobile, Alabama  36615
(205)479-2236

Walter Tatum
Field Operation Division
Dept of Enviromental Management
2204 Perimeter Road
Mobile, Alabama  36615
(205) 968-7576

Doug Redburn
Dept of Enviromental Conservation
3220 Hospital Drive
Juneau, Alaska  99811
(907) 465-2653

Mr. Dick Stokes
Southeast Office
Department of Environmental
Conservation
P.O. Box 2420
9000 Old Glacier Highway
Juneau, Alaska  99803
(907) 789-3151

Mr. Tim Rumfelt
Southcentral Office
Department of Environmental
Conservation
437 E Street, Second Floor
Anchorage, Alaska  99501
(907) 274-2533
Mr. Paul Bateman
Northern Office (Arctic)
Department of Environmental
Conservation
1001 Noble Street, Suite 350
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 452-1714

Ms. Joyce  Beelman
Northern Office (Interior)
Department of Environmental
Conservation
1001 Noble Street, Suite 350
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 452-1714

Steve Drown
Dept of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas  72207
(501) 652-7444

Jack Hodges
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, California 95801-0100
(916) 322-0207

Jon Scherschligt
Water Quality Control Division
4210 E llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 320-8333

Douglas E. Cooper
Wetlands Management Section
Dept of Env. Prot Water Resources
Room 203, State Office Building
165  Capitol Avenue
Hartford,  Connecticut  06106
(203) 566-7280
                                       44

-------
William F. Moyer
Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 King's Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware  19903
(302) 736-4691

Richmond Williams
Dept of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Legal Office
89 King's Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware  19903
(302) 736-4691

Randall L. Armstrong
Division of Environmental Permitting
Dept of Env. Regulation
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, Florida  32399
(904) 488-0130

Mike Creason
Environmental Protection Division
Dept of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street S.E.
Floyd Towers East
Atlanta, Georgia  30334
(404) 656-4887

James K. Dceda
Environmental Protection & Health
Services Division
Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801-9984
(808) 548-6455
John Winters
Water Quality and Standards Branch
Dept. of Env. Management
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
(317) 243-5028

Al Keller
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-0610

Bruce Yurdin
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-0610

Jerry Yoder
Bureau of Water Quality
Division of Environmental Quality
450 West State Street
Boise, Idaho  83720
(208) 334-5860

Ralph Turkic
Department of Natural Resources
900 East Grand Avenue
Des  Moines, Iowa   50319
(515) 281-7025

Lavoy Haage
Department of Natural Resources
900 East Grand Avenue
Henry A. Wallace Office Building
Des  Moines, Iowa   50319
(515) 281-8877
                                       45

-------
Larry Hess
Dept. of Health and Environment
Building 740
Forbes Field
Topeka, Kansas  66620
(913) 862-9360

Paul Beckley
Division of Water
Dept of Natural Resources
Fort Boone Plaza
Frankfort, Kentucky  40601
(502) 564-310, cxt 495

Dale Givens
Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 44091
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
(504) 342-6363

Donald T.  Witherffl
Dept of Env. Protection
Division of Licensing
Augusta, Maine  04333
(207) 289-2111

Mary Jo Games
Division of Standards
Department of the Environment
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore,  Maryland  21201
(301) 225-6293

Jo Ann Watson
Division of Standards
Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore,  Maryland 21201
(301) 225-6293
Ken Chrest
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59620
(406) 444-2406

Bill Gaughan
Div. of Water Pollution
Dept of Env. Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston,  Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5658

Judy Perry
Regulatory Branch Div. of Water
Pollution
Dept of Env. Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston,  Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5655

Les Thomas
Land and Water Management Div.
Dept of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-9244

Robert Seyfarth
Bureau  of Pollution Control
Dept of Natural Resources
Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi  39209
(601) 961-5171

Charles Chisolm
Bureau  of Pollution control
Dept of Natural Resources
Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi  39209
(601) 961-5171
                                       46

-------
Jim Morris
Water Quality Management Section
Dept of Natural Resources
Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi  39209
(601) 961-5151

Louis Flynn
MPLA
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota  55113
(612) 296-7355

Laurie K. Collerot
Water  Supply and Pollution Control
Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire  03301
(603) 271-2358

Fred Elkind
Water  Supply and Pollution Control
Dept of Env. Services
Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire  03301
(603) 271-2358

Ray Carter
Water  Supply and Pollution Control
Hazen Drive
P.O. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire  03301
(603) 271-2358

George Danskin
Div. of Regulatory Affairs
Dept. of Env. Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York  12233
(518) 457-2224
William Clarke
Div. of Regulatory Affairs
Dept. of Env. Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York  12233
(518)  457-2224

U. Gale Hutton
Water Quality Division
Dept of Env. Control
P.O. Box 94877
State  House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska  68509-4877
(402)  471-2186

George Horzepa
Division of Water Resources
Dept of Env. Protection
CN029
Trenton, New Jersey  08625
(609)  633-7021

Barry Chalofsky
Division of Water Resources
Dept of Env. Protection
CN029
Trenton, New Jersey  08625
(609)  633-7021

Robert Piel
Div. of Coastal Resources
Dept of Env. Protection
CN401
Trenton, New Jersey  08625
(609)  633-7021

David Tague
Env. Improvement  Division
P.O. Box 968
Sante Fe, New Mexico  87504-0968
(505) 827-2822
                                       47

-------
Michael T. Sauer
State Dept of Health
1200 Missouri avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota  58505
(701) 224-2354

Paul Wilms
Div. of Env. Management
Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina  27611
(919) 733-7015

Bill Mills
Water Quality Section
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina  27611
(919) 733-5083

Colleen Crook
Div. of  Water Quality and
Ohio EPA
1800 Watermark Drive
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149
(614) 981-7130

Brooks  Kirlin
Water Resource Board
P.O. Box 53585
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  73152
(405) 271-2541

Glen Carter
Dept of Env. Quality
P.O. Box 1760
Portland, Oregon  97207
(503) 229-5358
Louis W. Bercheni
Bureau of Water Quality
Dept. of Env. Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-2666

Peter Slack
Bureau of Water Quality
Dept. of Env. Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-2666

Edward S. Szymanski
Dept of Env. Management
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rhode Island  02908-5767
(401) 277-3961

Carolyn Weymouth
Office of Environmental Coordination
Department of Environmental
Management
83 Park Street
Providence, Rhode Island  02903
(401) 277-3434

Chester E. Salisbury
Division of Water Quality
Dept of Health and Env. Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 758-54%

Larry Bowers
Div. of Water Pollution Control
Dept of Health and Env.
150 Ninth North Avenue
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
(615) 741-7883
                                       48

-------
Robert Sileus
Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas  78711
(512) 463-8202

Dr. Donald Hilden
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 45500
Salt Lake City, Utah  84145
(801) 533-6146

Carl Pagel
Agency of Natural Resources
Dept of Environmental Conservation
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont   05676
(802) 244-6951

Steve Syz
Agency of Natural Resources
Dept of Env. Conservation
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury, Vermont   05676
(802) 244-6951

Jean Gregory
Office of Water Resources Management
Water Control Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia  23230
(804) 367-6985

Mike Carnavale
Water Quality Division
State Dept of Env. Quality
Herschler Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming  82202
(307) 777-7781
Mike Palko
Dept. of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington  98504
(206) 459-6289

John Schmidt
Water Resources Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, West Virginia  25311
(304) 348-2108

Jim Rawson
Wildlife Division
Dept of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 67
EUrins, West Virginia  26241
(304) 636-1767

Scott Hausmann
Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning
Dept of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin  53701
(608) 266-7360
                                       49

-------
                                   APPENDIX B
                             FEDERAL DEFINITIONS

The federal definition of "waters of the United States" is (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)):

(1)   All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible
      to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject
      to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2)   All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3)   All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
      streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
      playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which would
      or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:

      (i)    Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for
             recreational or other purposes; or
      (ii)    From which fish or shellfish could be taken and sold in interstate or
             foreign commerce;
      (iii)   Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in
             interstate commerce;*

(4)   All  impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States
      under this definition;
(5)   Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 1-4.
(6)   The territorial sea;
(7)   Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
      identified in 1-6; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons
      designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined
      in 40 CFR § 423.11(m) which also meet criteria  in this definition) are not waters
      of the United States.

  (*  Note: EPA has clarified that waters of the US. under the commerce connection
      in (3) above also include, for example, waters:
             Which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory
             Bird Treaties or migratory birds which cross State lines;
             Which are or would be used as habitat for endangered species;
             Used to  irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce.)

The federal definition  of "wetlands" (40 CFR § 232Jt(r)). Those areas that  are
inundated  or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in  saturated soil conditions.  Wetlands generally
include  swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

                                         50

-------
                                  APPENDIX C

  SCOPE OF PROJECT REVIEW: PENNSYLVANIA DAM PROPOSAL EXAMPLE

      The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was to be 3,000 feet long and 17
feet high.  The dam was to consist  of 32 bottom hinged flap gates.  The  dam would
have created an impoundment with a surface area of 3,800 acres, a total storage
capacity of 35,000 acre feet, and a  pool elevation of 306.5 feet The backwater would
have extended approximately eight  miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and
approximately three miles upstream on the Conodoguinet Creek.

      The project was to be a run-of-the-river facility, using the head difference
created by the dam to create electricity.  Maximum turbine flow would have been
10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12J) and minimum flow would have been 2,000 cfs.  Under
normal conditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed through the turbines.

      The public notice denying 401 certification for this project stated as follows:

1.    The construction and operation of the project will result in the significant loss of
      wetlands and related aquatic habitat and acreage.  More specifically:

      a.     The destruction of the wetlands will have an adverse impact on the local
             river ecosystem because of the integral role wetlands play in maintaining
             that ecosystem.

      b.     The destruction of the wetlands will cause the loss of beds of emergent
             aquatic vegetation that serve as habitat for juvenile fish. Loss of this
             habitat will adversely affect the relative abundance of juvenile and adult
             fish (especially smallmouth bass).

      c.     The wetlands which will be lost are critical  habitat for, among other
             species, the yellow crowned night heron, black crowned night heron,
             marsh wren and great egret  In addition, the yellow crowned night  heron
             is a proposed State threatened species, and the marsh wren and great
             egret are candidate species of special concern.

      d.     All affected wetlands areas are important and, to the extent that the loss
             of these wetlands can be mitigated, the applicant has failed  to
             demonstrate that the  mitigation proposed is adequate. To the extent that
             adequate mitigation is possible, mitigation must include replacement in the
             river system.
                                        51

-------
      e.    Proposed riprapping of the shoreline could further reduce wetland
            acreage. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an
            adverse water quality and related habitat impact resulting from riprapping.

      f.     Based upon information received by the Department, the applicant has
            underestimated the total wetland acreage affected.

2.     The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will be no adverse water
      quality impacts from increased groundwater levels resulting from the project.
      The ground water model used by the applicant is not acceptable due to
      erroneous assumptions and the lack of a sensitivity analysis. The applicant has
      not provided sufficient information concerning the impact of increased
      groundwater levels on existing sites of subsurface contamination, adequacy of
      subsurface sewage system replacement areas and the impact of potential
      increased surface flooding. Additionally, information was not provided to
      adequately assess the effect of raised groundwater on sewer system laterals,
      effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation measures and potential for increased flows at
      the Harrisburg wastewater plant.

3.    The applicant has failed  to demonstrate that there will not be a dissolved oxygen
      problem as a result of the impoundment Present information indicates the
      existing river system in the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved oxygen
      fluctuation. Sufficient information was not provided to allow the Department to
      conclude that dissolved oxygen standards wfll be met in the pool area.
      Additionally, the applicant failed to adequately address the issue of anticipated
      dissolved oxygen levels below the dam.

4.    The proposed impoundment  wfll create a backwater on the lower three miles of
      the Conodoguinet Creek. Water quality in the Creek is currently adversely
      affected by nutrient problems. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
      there wfll not be water quality degradation as a result of the  impoundment

5.    The applicant has failed  to demonstrate that there wfll not be an adverse water
      quality impact resulting from combined sewer overflows.

6.    The applicant has failed  to demonstrate that there wfll not be an adverse water
      quality impact to the 150 acre area downstream of the proposed dam and
      upstream from the existing Dock Street dam.

7.    The applicant has failed  to demonstrate that the construction and operation of
      the proposed dam will not have an adverse impact on the aquatic resources
      upstream from the proposed impoundment For example, the suitability of the
      impoundment for smalhnouth bass spawning relative to the frequency of turbid

                                        52

-------
      conditions during spawning was not adequately addressed and construction of the
      dam and impoundment will result in a decrease in the diversity and density of
      the macroinvertebrate  community in the impoundment area.

8.     Construction of the dam will have an adverse impact on upstream and
      downstream migration  of migratory fish (especially shad).  Even with the
      construction of fish passageways for upstream and downstream  migration,
      significant declines in the numbers of fish successfully negotiating  the obstruction
      are anticipated.

9.     The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an  adverse water
      quality impact related  to sedimentation within the pool area.
                                        53

-------
                               APPENDIX D

                 EXAMPLES OF CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS

"MARYLAND**

      Maryland certified with  conditions the fill/alteration of 6.66 acres of non-tidal
wetlands as part of the construction of an 18 hole golf course and a residential
subdivision.  Approximately three-fourths of the entire site of 200 acres had been
cleared for cattle grazing and agricultural activities in the past  As a result, a stream on
the east side of the property with no buffer had been severely degraded.  An
unbuffered tractor crossing had also degraded the stream. A palustrine forested
wetland area on the southeast  side of the property received stonnwater runoff from a
highway bordering the property and served as a flood storage and ground water
recharge area.  Filling this area for construction of a fairway would eliminate some 4.5
acres of wetlands.  Additionally, other smaller wetland areas on the property, principally
around an old farm pond that  was to be fashioned into four separate ponds for water
traps, were proposed to be altered or lost as a result of the development

       The Corps did not exercise its discretionary authority to require an individual
permit and thus the project was permitted under  a nationwide permit (26).  The State
decided to grant certification, conditioned on a number of things that it believed would
improve the water quality of the  stream in the long run.

       The filled wetland areas had to be replaced on an acre-for-acre basis on the
property and in particular, the 4.5 acre forested palustrine wetland had to be replaced
onsite with a wetland area serving the same functions regarding stonnwater runoff from
the highway.

       Some of the other conditions placed on the certification were as follows:

       1.    The applicant must obtain and certify compliance with a grading and
            sediment control plan approved by the [name of county] Soil Conservation
            District;

       2.    Stonnwater runoff from impervious  surfaces shall be controlled to prevent
            the washing of debris into the waterway. Stonnwater drainage facilities
            shall be designed, implemented, operated and maintained in accordance
            with the  requirements of the [applicable county authority];
                                        54

-------
3.     The applicant shall ensure that fish species are stocked .in the ponds upon
      completion of the construction phase in accordance with the requirements
      of the [fisheries division of the natural resources department of the  State];

4.     The applicant shall ensure that all mitigation areas are inspected annually
      by a wetlands scientist to ensure that all wetlands  are functioning
      properly,

S.     A vegetated buffer shall be established around the existing stream and
      proposed ponds;

6.    Biological control methods for weed, insects and other undesirable species
      are to be employed whenever possible on the greens, tees, and fairways
      located within or in close proximity to the wetland or waterways;

7.    Fertilizers are to be used on greens, tees, and fairways only. From  the
      second year of operation,  all applications of fertilizers at the golf course
      shall be in the lower range dosage rates [specified].  The use of slow
       release compounds such as sulfur-coated urea is required.  There shall be
       no application of fertilizers within two weeks of verticutting, coring or
       spiking operations.
                                    55

-------
** WEST VIRGINIA **

  THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS APPLY TO ALL NATIONWIDE
                        PERMITS IN WEST VIRGINIA:

1.     Permittee will investigate for water supply intakes or other activities immediately
      downstream which may be affected by suspended solids and turbidity increases
      caused by work in the watercourse. He will give notice to operators of any such
      water supply intakes before beginning work in the watercourse in sufficient time
      to allow preparation for any change in water quality.

2.    When no feasible alternative is available, excavation, dredging or filling in the
      watercourse will be done to the minimum extent practicable.

3.    Spoil materials from the watercourse or onshore operations, including sludge
      deposits, will not be dumped into the water course or deposited in wetlands.

4.    Permittee will employ measures to prevent or control spills from fuels, lubricants,
      or any other materials used in construction from entering the watercourse.

5.    Upon completion of earthwork operations, all fills in the watercourse  or onshore
      and other areas disturbed during construction, will be seeded, riprapped,  or given
      some other type of protection from subsequent soil erosion. If riprap is utilized,
      it is to be of such weight and size that bank stress or slump conditions will not
      be  created due to its placement Fill is to be clean and of such composition that
      it will not adversely effect the biological, chemical or  physical properties of the
      receiving waters.

6.    Runoff from any storage areas or spills  will not be allowed to enter storm sewers
      without acceptable removal of solids,  oils and toxic compounds.  All spills will
      promptly be reported to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources
      office.

7.    Best Management Practices for sediment and erosion control as described in the
      208 Construction Water Quality Management Plan are  to be implemented.

8.    Green concrete will not be permitted to enter the watercourse unless contained
      by tightly sealed forms or cells.  Concrete handling equipment will not discharge
      waste washwater into the watercourse or wetlands without adequate wastewater
      treatment.
                                        56

-------
9.     No instream work is permissible during the fish spawning season April through
      June.

10.   Removal of mature riparian vegetation not directly associated with project
      construction is prohibited.

11.   Instream equipment operation is to be minimized and should be accomplished
      during low flow periods.

12.   Nationwide permits are not applicable for activities on Wild and Scenic Rivers or
      study streams, streams on the Natural Streams Preservation List or the New
      River Gorge  National River.  These streams include New River (confluence with
      Gauley to mouth of Greenbrier); Greenbrier River (mouth to Knapps Creek),
      Birch River (mouth to Cora Brown Barge in Nicholas County), Anthony Creek,
      Cranberry  Run, Bluestone River, Gauley River, and Meadow River.

13.   Each permittee shall follow the notice requirements contained in Section 9 of the
      Department  of Natural Resources  Regulations for State Certification of
      Activities Requiring Federal Licenses and Permits. Chapter 20-1, Series XDC
      (1984).

 14.   Each permittee shall, if he does not understand or is not aware of applicable
      Nationwide Permit conditions, contact the Corps of Engineers prior to
      conducting any activity authorized by a nationwide permit in order to be advised
      of applicable conditions.
                                        57

-------
** ALASKA**

       EXAMPLES OF CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR
                  NATIONWIDE PERMIT 26 FROM ALASKA

      (26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters listed in subparagraph
(i) and (ii) of this paragraph which do not cause the loss or substantial adverse
modification of 10 acres or more of waters of the United States, including wetlands.
For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 1 to 10 acres
of such waters, including wetlands, notification of the District Engineer is required in
accordance with 330.7  of this pan (see Section 2 of this Public Notice).

      (i) Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including
adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters.

      (ii) Other non-tidal waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, that
are not part of the surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of
the United States (i.e., isolated waters).

REGIONAL CONDITION H: Work in a designated anadromous fish stream is  subject
to authorization from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.  (No change from
REGIONAL CONDITION H previously published in SPN 84-7.)

REGIONAL CONDITION J:

a. If, during review of the pre-discharge notification, the Corps of Engineers or the
designated State of Alaska reviewing officials determine that the proposed activity
would occur in any of the following areas, the applicant will be advised that an
individual 404 permit will be required.  Where uncertainty exists, the Corps will send
pre-discharge notification to the designated State officials for a determination.

      1.  National Wildlife Refuges
      2.  National Parks and Preserves
      3.  National Conservation Areas
      4.  National Wild and Scenic Rivers
      5.  National Experimental Areas
      6.  State Critical Habitat AReas
      7.  State Sanctuaries
      8.  State Ranges and Refuges
      9.  State Eagle Preserves
      10. State Ecological Reserves and Experimental Areas
      11. State Recreation Areas

                                       58

-------
      12.  Wetlands contiguous with designated anadromous fish
          streams
      13.  Headwaters and isolated wetlands in designated public
          water supply watersheds of Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg,
          Anchorage, Cordova, Seldovia and Kodiak
      14.  Sitka Area:  Wetlands in the Swan Lake Area Meriting
          Special Attention (AMSA) in the district Coastal
          Management Plan
      15.  Anchorage area: Designated Preservation and
          Conservation Wetlands in the Wetlands Management Plan
      16.  Bethel area:  Designated Significant Wetlands in the
          district Coastal Management Plan not covered under
          General Permit 83-4
      17.  Hydaburg area:  The six AMSA's of the district Coastal
          Management Plan
      18.  Bering Strait area:  All designated conservation AMSA's
          of the district Coastal Management Plan
      19.  Juneau area:   Designated Sensitive Wetlands of the
          district Coastal Management Plan
      20.  NANA:  Designated Special Use Areas and Restricted/
          Sensitive areas in the district Coastal Management
          Plan
      21.  Tanana Basin Area Plan:  type A-l wetlands in the
          Alaska Rivers Cooperative State/Federal Study
      22.  Susitna Area Plan:  type A-l wetlands in the Alaska
          Rivers Cooperative State/Federal Study
      23.  High value headwaters and isolated wetlands identified
          once the ongoing Wetlands Management Plans or Guides
          listed in b-S (below) are completed
      24.  Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor designated type A
          and B wetlands
      25.  Headwaters and isolated waters which include identified
          bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and trumpeter swan nesting
          areas
      26.  ADF&G identified waterfowl use areas of statewide
          significance
      27.  Designated caribou calving areas.

Any individual permit issued in locations covered by district coastal management plans,
State or Federal regional wetlands plans or local wetlands plans (numbers 14 through
23 above)  will be consistent with the plan provisions for the specific wetland type and
may require adding stipulations.
                                        59

-------
Oil and gas activities in the North Slope Borough which involve the discharge of
dredged or fill material into waters including wetlands are not covered by the previous
nationwide permit under 33 CFR 330.4(a) and (b) and are not covered under the
nationwide permit 26.  These activities require individual 404 permits or other general
permits.  These activities were previously excluded by the Corps of Engineers Special
Public Notice 84-3 dated March 9, 1984.

b.  Pre-discharge  notification received by the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material in the following areas will be provided to designated State
agencies which include (1) the appropriate ADEC Regional Environmental Supervisor,
(2) the appropriate ADF&G Regional Habitat Supervisor, (3) the appropriate DGC
regional contact point, and (4) the appropriate DNR regional contact (should DNR
indicate interest in receiving notices).

       1.  Headwater tributaries of designated anadromous fish
          streams and their adjacent contiguous wetlands
      2.  Open water areas of isolated wetlands greater than 10
          acres and lakes greater than 10 acres above the
          headwaters
      3.  North Slope Borough wet and moist tundra areas not
          already covered by APP process
      4.  Wet and moist tundra areas outside the North Slope
          Borough
      5.  High value headwaters and isolated wetlands identified
          in the following ongoing State or Federal wetland
          management guides or plans: Mat-Su, Kenai Borough,
          Valdez, North Star Borough Yukon Delta and Copper
          River Basin
      6.  Headwater or isolated wetlands within local CZM district
          boundaries or the identified coastal zone boundary,
          whichever is geographically smaller (not withstanding
          the  requirements under "a." 14.20 (above))
      7.  Anchorage  Area:  designated Special Study areas in the
          Wetlands Management Plan
      8.  Tanana Basin Area Plan: areas designated A-2, B-l, B-2
          in the Alaska River Cooperative State/Federal Study
      9.  Susitna Area Plan:  areas designated A-2, A-3, A-4 in
          the Alaska  River Cooperative State/Federal Study

The designated officials of the State of Alaska, and the Corps will evaluate the
notifications received for the areas listed "b." above under the provisions set forth in 33
CFR 330.7 (see Section 2 of this Public Notice) which includes an evaluation of the
                                        60

-------
environmental effects using the guidelines set forth in Section 404(b)(l) of the Clean
Water Act  Notices shall be screened against the nationwide conditions under 330.5(b)
(See Section 4 of the Public Notice) using available resource information.  Conditions
330.5(b)(l), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) and (9) will be focused on during the State
review.

The State's review of these areas under "b."  above will encompass the following:

      1.  After receiving pre-discharge notification from the Corps, the State of Alaska
shall comment verbally, and/or if time permits, in writing to the Corps District Engineer
through a single State agency concerning the need for an individual permit review.

      2.  Existing fish and wildlife atlases and field knowledge shall be used to evaluate
notices.  If significant resource values are not identified for the area in question or if
insufficient resource information exists, State agencies will not request an individual
permit unless:

      (a) An on-site field evaluation wOl be conducted, weather
permitting, during the extended review provided under the individual  permit, or,

       (b) Federal resource agencies plan a  similar field evaluation that could provide
identical information to State  resource agencies.

Should  either the State review or the Corps review determine that the nationwide
permit is not applicable, an individual 404 permit wfll be required.

New categories may be added at a later date should either the Corps or the State of
Alaska  recognize a need. These changes will be made available for public review
through a public notice and comment period at the appropriate time.

This REGIONAL CONDITION shall be effective for the period of time that
nationwide permit 26 is in effect unless the  REGIONAL CONDITION is sooner
revoked by the Department of the Army with prior coordination with the State of
Alaska.
                                         61

-------
                                   APPENDIX E
Fodatal Rector / Vol. 45. No. 249 / Wednesday. December  24. 1980 / Rules and Regulations  15385
                                             >To
                                                     WMCB caa
                                                lo 1 309.10(4) to
                            dndetd or BD MMd. B«M of i
                            roaaa4 by tyyt W Mthrtty. uv ItoMd ta Ite
                            I no.*
                            of Ma*
                              He offsets of the diachaife can be
                            mhilmtxsd by the choice of the disposal
                            site. Some of the ways » accomplish
                            this an br
                              (a) Locating and confiniM

                                                     tins of
                                ) Daattnioff the diaehaife to avoid a
                            pattatna:
                              (c) Salaetini a diapoaal atta that haa
                            baaa uad pravioualy for dfedtad
                            •utarlal diadMifa:
                              (oTSalacttaf a diapeaa! site at which
                            the substrata' is ooeapoasd of material
                            similar to that being dttcharttd. such as
                            discharging sand on sand or mod on
                                            62

-------
                                                              uewemoer  *•».
                                                                                   /  Miies  ana  Regulations
  (••I S«lecting I!M disposal lite, the
discharge point, and the method of .
discharge to mmimist the extent of «ny
plume:
  (0 Designing the discharge of dredged
or All material 10 mmimiM or prevent
the creation of (landing bodies of water
in areas of normally fluctuating wafer
levels, and minimize or prevent the
drainage of areas subject to such
fluctuations.

           Dene eoneommg the material
f 230.71
tOM
  The effects of a discharge can be
minimized by treatment of. or
limitation* on the material itself, such
as:
  (a) Disposal of Jredged material in
such 4 manner that physiochemical
conditions are maintained and the
potency and availability of pollutants
  (b) Umiting the solid, liquid, and
gaseous components of material to be
discharged at a particular sitr.
  (c) Adding treatment substances to
the discharge malarial:
  (d) Utilizing chemical flocculants to
enhance the deposition of suspended
particulates to diked dispoaal aims.
   The effects of the dredged or nil
 malarial after discharge may be
 controlled by:
   (a) Selecting discharge methods and
 dispoaal sites where the potential for
 erosion, slumping or leaching of
 materials into the surrounding aquatic
 ecosystem will be reduced. These sitaa
 or methods include, but are not United
 10!
   (1) Using containment levees.
 basins, and cover crops to reduce
   (2) Using lined containment areaa to
 reduce teaching where leaching of
 chemical constituents Iron the
 discharged malarial is expected to be a
   (b) Capping ia-place <
 material with dean oMterial or
  (a) Where environmentally desirable.
distributing the dredged malarial widely
in a thin layer at the disposal site lo
maintain natural substrate contours and
elevation:
  (b) Orienting a dredged or fill material
mound to minimize undesirable
obstruction to the water current  or
circulation pattern, and utilizing natural
bottom contour* to minimize the size of
the mound:
  (c) Using silt screens or other
appropriate methods to confine
suspended paiticulate/turbidity to e
small area where settling or removal can
occur.
  (d) Making use of currents and
circulation patterns lo mix. disperse and
dilute the discharge:
  (e) Minimizing water column turbidity
by using a submerged dilfuser system. A
similar effect can be accomplished by
submerging pipeline dischargee or
otherwise releasing materials near the
bottom:
  (f) Selecting sites or managing
discharges to confine and '•it'MflT* the
release of suspended particulates to give
decreased turbidity levels aad to
maintain light penetration for organisms:
  (g) Setting limitations on the amount
of material to be discharged par unit of
time or volume of receiving water.
 contaminated materiel Brat to be capped
 with the remaining notarial:
   (c| Maintaining azrfemtaming
 discherged metertal pmfubj to prevent
 point aad neapotat sooree* of poUatieK
   |d) Timing the discharge to minimize
 impact for insunce during period* of
 unusual high water flow*, wind. wave.
 and tidal action*.

 1230.79
   The effects of a discharge can be
 minimized by the manner in which it is
 dispersed such as:
                                        * afce_ei «>j

                                          Discharge technology should be
                                        adapted w the needs of each site, b
                                        determining whether the discharge
                                        operation sufftcienUy
                                        invfff*fl IflifMTtt the applicant
                                        should consider
                                          (s| Using appropriate equipment or
                                        machioary> induding protective devices.
                                        aad me use of each equipment or
                                        machinery m activities related to the
                                        discharge of dredged or flO material:
                                          (b| Employing appropriate
           or machinery, incrading
           raining, staffing, and workta
                                           (c) Using
                                                                                 (c| Employing appropriate machinery
                                                                                and methods of transport of the material
                                                                                for discharge.

                                                                                1220.71  Aeoone aneettof etam and
  Minimization of adverse effects on
population* of plants and animals can
be achieved by:
  (a) Avoiding chenges in water current
and circulation patterns which would
interfere with the movement of animals:
  (b| Selecting sites or managing
discharges to prevent or svoid creating
habitat conducive to the development of
undesirable predators or species which
have a competitive edge ecologically
over indigenous plants or animals:
  (c) Avoiding sites having unique
habitat or other value, including  habitat
of threatened or endangered species:
  (d) Using planning and construction
practices to iaatltule habitat
development and restoration to produce
a new or modified environmental state
of higher ecological value by
displacement of some or all of the
existing environmental characteristics.
Habitat development aad restoration
techniques can be used to miaaniz*
advene impacts aad to compensate for
destroyed habitat Use techniques mat
hate been demonstrated to be effective

           B wherever possible. Wbsre
                                        proposed development and restoration
                                        techniques have not yet advanced to the
                                        pilot demonstration stage, initiate their
                                                small scale to allow corrective
                              •dvorae   action if unanticipated adverse impacts
                                          (e| Timing diecharge to avoid
                                        spawning or migration seasons and
                                        other biologically critical time periods:
                                          ) Selecting disposal sites which are
                                                                                not valuable a* natural aquatic areas:
                                                                                   (c) Timing the discharge to avoid the
                                                                                 seasons or periods whan human
                                                                                 recreational activity associated with the
                                                                                 aquatic silo la moot Important
                                                                                   (d) Following discharge procedures
                                                                                 which avoid or minimize the disturbance
                                                                                 of aesthetic features of an aquatic site or
                                                                                 ecosystem.
                                                        63

-------
                Regular /  Vol.  45. No. 249 / Wadneaday. Dccamb«r 24. 1980 / Rulaa and Regulation*  15357
  (t> Selecting iitea thai will not ba
detrimental or incraaaa incompatible
human acliviiy. or raquira tha naad for
frequent dredge or fill malalananca
activity in rcmota fiah and wildlifa
artas:
  (f) Locatine, tha diapoeal tilt ouUida
of the vicinity of a public water supply
intaka.
1230.77 Other I
  (a) In tha case of fill*, controllint
runoff and other diacharfaa from
activiliM to ha conducted on tha fill:
  (b) In tha caaa of dama. daaifnins
water ralaaaaa to accommodate tha
naads of fiah and wildlifa.
  (e) In dradfinfl projects fundad by
Fadarai aftndaa othar than tha Corps of
Enftnaars, maintain daairad watar
quality of tha ratara diachana throu|h
afraanant with tha Fadarai fundint
authority on adanUflcaJly dafanaibk
pollutant concentration lovala tat
addition to any applicable water quality
•tendarda.
  (d)Whaaaai9iiflcantaeolo|ical
rhanta in tha aquatte anvironaant la
pfopoaad ky tha dtechufa of dradfod or
BO material, tha permlttinf authority
abould conaidar tha ocoayatem mat wtO
ba loat aa wall aa f
banafltaofthai
                                                        64

-------
          APPENDIX R
           Policy on the Use of
    Biological Assessments and Criteria in
        the Water Quality Program
                                         K
                                         5
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

           SECOND EDITION

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                U 9 I99f
                                                         OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM                                                WA7CT

SUBJECT:     Transmittal of Final (policy)on Biological
             Assessments and Criteria
FROM:       Tudor T. Davies, Director
            Office of Science and Technology  (WH-551)

TO:         Water Management Division  Directors
            Regions I-X


    Attached is EPA's  "Policy on the Use of Biological
Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program"
(Attachment A).  This  policy is a significant step toward
addressing all pollution problems within a watershed.  It is a
natural outgrowth of our greater understanding of the range of
problems affecting watersheds from toxic chemicals to physical
habitat alteration,  and  reflects the need to consider the whole
picture in developing  watershed pollution control strategies.

    This policy is the product of a broad-based workgroup chaired
by Jim Flafkin and Chris Faulkner of the Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds.   The workgroup was composed of
representatives from seven EPA Headquarters offices, four EPA
Research Laboratories, all 10 EPA Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.  Forest Service,  and the States of New York and
North Carolina (see Attachment B).   This policy also reflects
review comments to the draft policy statement issued in March of
1990.  Comments were received from three EPA Headquarters
offices, three EPA Research Laboratories, five EPA Regions and
two States.  The following sections of this memorandum provide a
brief history of the policy development and additional
information on relevant  guidance.

Background

    The Ecopolicy Workgroup was formed in response to several
converging initiatives in EPA's national water program.  In
September 1987, a major  management study entitled "Surface Water
Monitoring:  A Framework for Change" strongly emphasized the need
to "accelerate development and application of promising
biological monitoring  techniques" in State and EPA monitoring
programs.  Soon thereafter, in December 1907. a National Workshop
on Instream Biological Monitorincj and Criteria reiterated this

-------
."eccninenaati on cut a.so coir.~ea cur ~.~e ..mpor'car.ce cf -"~eqrat~no
che biological criteria ana assessment methods with traditional
chemical/physical methods (see Final rroceedings, EPA-905/9-
89/003).  Finally,  at the June 1988 National Symposium on Water
Quality Assessment,  a workgroup of State and Federal
representatives unanimously recommended the development of a
national bioassessment policy that encouraged the expanded use of
the new biological tools and directed their implementation across
the water quality program.

    Guided by these recommendations, the workgroup held three
workshop*style meetings between July and December 1988.  Two
major questions emerged from the lengthy discussions as issues of
general concern:

    ISSUE 1 -    How hard  should EPA  push  for  formal  adoption of
                 biological  criteria  (biocriteria)  in State
                 water  quality  standards?

    ISSUE 2 -    Despite the many beneficial uses  of
                 biomonitoring  information, how  do we guard
                 against potentially  inappropriate uses  of  such
                 data in the permitting process?

    Issue 1 turns on the means and relative priority of having
biological criteria formally incorporated in State water quality
standards.  Because biological criteria must be related to local
conditions, the development of quantitative national biological
criteria is not ecologically appropriate.   Therefore, the primary
concern is how biological criteria should be promoted and
integrated into State water quality standards.

    Issue*. 2 addresses the question of how to reconcile potential
apparent conflicts in the results obtained from different
assessment methods (i.e., chemical-specific analyses, toxicity
testing, and biosurveys) in a permitting situation.  Should the
relevance of each be judged strictly on a case-by-case basis?
Should each method be applied independently?

    These issues were discussed at the policy workgroup's last
meeting in November 1988, and consensus recommendations were then
presented to the Acting Assistant Administrator of Water on
December 16, 1988.  For Issue 1, it was determined that adapting
biological criteria to State standards has significant
advantages, and adoption of biological criteria  should be
strongly encouraged.  Therefore, the current Agency Operating
Guidance establishes the State adaptation of basic narrative
biological criteria as a program priority.

    With respect to Issue 2, the policy reflects a position of
"independent application."   Independent application means that
any one of the three types of assessment information  (i.e.,
chemistry, toxicity testing  results,  and ecological assessment)
provides conclusive evidence of nonattainment of water quality

-------
 standards regardless of the results from other  types of
 assessment information.  Each type of assessment is sensitive to
 different types of water quality impact.  Although rare, apparent
 conflicts in the results from different approaches can occur.
 These apparent conflicts occur when one assessment approach
 detects a problem to which the other approaches are not
 sensitive.  This policy establishes that a demonstration of water
 quality standards nonattairunent using one assessment method does
 not require confirmation with a second method and that the
 failure of a second method to confirm impact does not negate the
 results of the initial assessment.

 Review of Draft Policy

    The draft was circulated to the Regions and States on
 March 23, 1990.  The comments were mostly supportive and most of
 the suggested changes have been incorporated.  Objections were
 raised by one State that using ecological measures would increase
 the magnitude of the pollution control workload.  We expect that
 this will be one result of this policy but that our mandate under
 the Clean Water Act to ensure physical, chemical, and biological"
 integrity requires that we adopt this policy.  Another State
 objected to the independent application policy.  EPA has
 carefully considered the merits of various approaches to
 integrating data in light of the available data, and we have
 concluded that independent application is the most appropriate
 policy at this time.  Where there are concerns that the results
 from one approach are inaccurate,  there may be opportunities to
 develop more refined information that would provide a more
 accurate conclusion (e.g.,  better monitoring or more
 sophisticated wasteload allocation modelling).

    Additional discussion on this policy occurred at the Water
 Quality Standards for the 21st Century Symposium in December,
 1990.

What Actions Should States  Take

    This policy does not require specific actions on the part of
 the States or the regulated community.   As indicated under the
 Fiscal Year 1991 Agency Operating Guidance,  States are required
 to adopt narrative biocriteria at a minimum during the 1991 to
 1993 triennial review.   More specific program guidance on
developing biological criteria is scheduled to be issued within
 the next few months.  Technical guidance documents on developing
narrative and numerical biological criteria for different types
 of aquatic systems are also under development.

Relevant Guidance

    There are several existing EPA documents which pertain to
biological assessments and  several others that are currently
under development.   Selected references that are likely to be
 important in implementing this policy are listed in Attachment C.

-------
    Please share  this policy statement with your States and work
with them to institute its provisions.  If you have any
questions, please call me at (FTS) 382-5400 or have your staff
contact Geoffrey  Grubbs of the Office of Wetlands,  Oceans and
Watersheds at (FTS)  382-7040 or Bill Diamond of the Office of
Science and Technology at (FTS) 475-7301.

Attachments

cc: OW Office Directors
    Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I-X

-------
                                             Attachment A
Policy  on the Use of Biological  Assessments and Criteria
             in  the Water Quality Program
                        May 1991

-------
Contents

Statement of Policy
Definitions
Background
      Context of Policy
      Rationale for  Conducting Biological Assessments
Conduct of Biological  Surveys
Integration of Methods and  Regulatory  Application
      Site-specific Considerations
      Independent Application
Biological Criteria
Statutory Basis
      Section  303(c)
      Section  304(a)
State/EPA Roles in  Policy Implementation
      State Implementation
      EPA  Guidance  and Technical  Support

-------
Statement of  Policy

      To help restore and maintain  the  biological  integrity of the Nation's
waters,  it is the  policy of the  Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) that
biological surveys shall be fully integrated  with  toxicity and chemical-specific
assessment  methods in State water quality programs.   EPA recognizes  that
biological surveys should be  used  together  with  wholc-cfflucnt and  ambient
toxicity testing, and chemical-specific analyses to assess  attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt
of designated aquatic  life uses  in  State water quality  standards.  EPA also
recognizes that each of these three methods can provide a valid  assessment of
designated  aquatic life use impairment.   Thus, if any one of the three assessment
methods demonstrate that water quality  standards  arc not attained, it  is EPA's
policy that  appropriate action should  be  taken to achieve attainment, including
use of regulatory authority.

      It is  also  EPA's policy that States should designate  aquatic  life  uses  that
appropriately address  biological  integrity  and  adopt biological criteria necessary to
protect  those uses.  Information concerning altainmcnt/nonattainmcnt of standards
should be used to establish  priorities, evaluate the  effectiveness of controls,  and
make regulatory  decisions.

      Close  cooperation among  the States  and  EPA will be needed to carry out
this policy.   EPA will  provide  national guidance and  technical  assistance to the
States; however,  specific assessment methods  and biological criteria  should be
adopted  on  a State-by-State  basis.  EPA, in  its  oversight role,  will  work with  the
States to ensure  that assessment procedures and biological  criteria reflect
important ecological and  geographical differences among the Nation's waters yet
retain national consistency with the Clean  Water Act.

-------
Definitions

Ambient Toxicitv: Is measured by a toxicity test  on a sample collected from a
waterbody.

Aquatic  Community:  An association of interacting populations of aquatic
organisms in a given waterbody or habitat.

Aquatic  Life Use:   Is the water  quality objective assigned to a waterbody to
ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous aquatic
community.

Biological Assessment:  An evaluation  of the  biological  condition of a  waterbody
using biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident  biota  in
surface waters.

Biological Criteria (or Biocritcria):  Numerical  values or  narrative expressions that
describe  the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters
of a given designated aquatic  life use.

BioloEical Integrity:   Functionally defined as the  condition of the aquatic
community inhabiting unimpaired  water bodies of  a  specified  habitat as measured
by community structure and function.

Biological Monitoring:  Use of a  biological  entity as a detector and  its response
as a measure  to  determine environmental conditions.  Toxicity tests and
biosurveys are common biomonitoring  methods.

Biological Survey (or Biosurvcy):   Consists of collecting,  processing, and  analyzing
a representative  portion of the resident aquatic community to  determine  the
community structure and function.

Community  Component:  Any portion of a biological community.  The
community component may  pertain to the taxonomic group (fish, invertebrates,
algae), the taxonomic category (phylum,  order,  family, genus, species),  the feeding
strategy  (herbivore,  omnivore,  carnivore), or organizational level (individual,
population, community association) of  a  biological entity within the aquatic
community.

Habitat  Assessment:   An evaluation of the physical characteristics and condition
of a waterbody  (example parameters include the  variety  and quality of substrate,
hydrological regime, key environmental parameters and surrounding land use.)

Toxicitv  Test:  Is a  procedure to determine the toxicity  of a chemical or an
effluent  using living organisms.   A toxicity test measures the degree  of response
of exposed test organisms to a specific chemical or Affluent.

-------
 Whole-effluent Toxicitv:   Is  the  total toxic  effect of an effluent measured directly
 with  a toxicity test.


 Background

 Policy context

       Monitoring data  arc  applied  toward  water quality  program  needs such  as
 identifying water quality  problems,  assessing their severity,  and setting  planning
 and management priorities for remediation.  Monitoring data should  also be used
 to help make  regulatory decisions, develop  appropriate  controls, and  evaluate  the
 effectiveness of controls once they are implemented.  This  policy focuses on the
 use of a  particular type of monitoring  information that is  derived from ambient
 biosurveys,  and  its  proper integration with  chemical-specific analyses, toxicity
 testing methods, and  biological  criteria  in State  water quality  programs.

       The distinction between biological surveys, assessments and  criteria  is an
 important one.   Biological surveys,  as stated  in  the section  above, consist of the
 collection  and  analysis of the resident aquatic community data and  the
 subsequent  determination  of the aquatic community's structure  and function.  A
 biological assessment  is an evaluation of the biological  condition of a waterbody
 using  data gathered from biological surveys or other direct  measures  of the biota.
 Finally, biological criteria arc the numerical values or narrative expressions  used
 to describe  the expected structure and function  of the  aquatic  community.
Rationale for Conducting Biological Assessments

      To more fully protect aquatic habitats and  provide more  comprehensive
assessments of aquatic life use attainment/nonattainmcnt, EPA expects States to
fully  integrate chemical-specific techniques, toxicity testing, biological surveys and
biological criteria into  their water quality programs.   To date, EPA's  activities
have  focused  on the interim goal of the Clean Water Act (the Act), stated in
Section  101(a)(2):  To achieve; "...wherever attainable, an interim goal of water
quality  which  provides for protection  and  propagation of fish, shellfish,  and
wildlife and provides  for  recreation  in and  on the water...."   However, the
ultimate objective of the  Act, stated in Section 101 (a),  goes  further.  Section
101 (a) states:  The  objective of this  Act is to restore  and  maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity  of the Nation's waters."  Taken together,
chemical, physical, and biological integrity define  the overall ecological integrity  of
an aquatic  ecosystem.   Because biological integrity is a  strong indicator  of overall
ecological integrity, it can serve as  both a meaningful goal  and  a useful measure
of environmental status that relates directly  to the comprehensive objective of the
Act.

-------
       Deviations from,  and threats  to, biological integrity can he  estimated
indirectly or directly.  Traditional measures, such as chemical-specific  analyses
and  toxicity tests, are indirect estimators of biological conditions.  They assess
the suitability of the waters to support a healthy community, but they do not
directly assess the community itself.   Biosurveys  arc  used to  directly evaluate  the
overall structural and/or functional characteristics of the  aquatic community.
Water quality programs should use  both direct and indirect methods to assess
biological conditions and to determine  attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt  of designated
aquatic life uses.

      Adopting an integrated  approach to assessing aquatic life use
attainmcnt/nonattainment represents  the next logical step in the  evolution  of the
water quality program.   Historically, water quality programs  have focused on
evaluating the impacts of specific chemicals discharged from discreet point
sources.   In 1984,  the program  scope was significantly broadened  to include a
combination of  chemical-specific  and whole-effluent toxicity testing methods to
evaluate  and predict  the biological impacts of potentially toxic mixtures in
wastewater  and  surface  waters.   Integration of these two indirect  measures of
biological impact into a unified  assessment approach has been discussed in detail
in national  policy (49 FR  9016)  and  guidance (EPA-440/4-85-032).   This
approach has proven  to be an effective means of assessing and controlling toxic
pollutants and  whole-effluent toxicity originating  from point sources.
Additionally, direct measures of  biological impacts, such  as biosurvcy  and
bioassessment techniques, can  be useful for regulating point sources.   However,
where  pollutants and  pollutant sources are difficult  to characterize or aggregate
impacts  are difficult  to  assess (e.g.,  where  discharges arc multiple, complex,  and
variable; where  point  and  nonpoint  sources arc  both potentially important; where
physical  habitat is  potentially limiting), direct measures  of  ambient biological
conditions are also needed.

       Biosurveys and biological  criteria add this  needed  dimension to assessment
programs because they  focus on  the resident community.   The effects of multiple
stresses and pollution sources  on the  numerous biological components of resident
communities are integrated over  a relatively long period  of time.  The community
thus provides a useful indicator  of  both  aggregate  ecological  impact and  overall
temporal trends in the  condition of an aquatic ecosystem.   Furthermore,
biosurveys can detect aquatic life impacts that other available assessment  methods
may miss.  Biosurveys  detect  impacts  caused  by:  (I) pollutants that are  difficult
to identify  chemically or characterize  lexicologically  (e.g., rare or unusual  toxics
[although biosurveys  cannot themselves identify specific  toxicants causing toxic
impact],  'clean* sediment,  or nutrients); (2) complex or  unanticipated  exposures
(e.g., combined  point  and  non-point source loadings, storm events, spills); and
perhaps  most importantly,  (3) habitat  degradation (e.g., channelization,
sedimentation, historical contamination), which disrupt the  interactive  balance
among community  components.

-------
       Biosurveys and biological criteria  provide  important information  for  a  wide
 variety of water quality  program needs.  This data  could be used to:

       o     Refine use classifications  among different types  of  aquatic ecosystems
             (e.g., rivers, streams, wetlands,  lakes,  estuaries, coastal  and marine
             waters)  and within a given type of use category such as warmwater
             fisheries;

       o     Define and  protect existing aquatic  life  uses and classify Outstanding
             National Resource Waters under State antidcgradation  policies as
             required by the Water  Quality  Standards Regulation (40 CFR
             131.12);

       o     Identify where  site-specific criteria modifications may be needed  to
             effectively protect  a  waterbody;

       o     Improve use-attainability  studies;

       o     Fulfill requirements under Clean Water Act  Sections 303(c), 303(d),
             304(1),  305(b), 314, and 319;

       o     Assess  impacts  of  certain nonpoint  sources and, together with
             chemical-specific and toxicity methods, evaluate  the effectiveness  of
             nonpoint source controls;

       o     Develop management plans and  conduct monitoring in  estuaries  of
             national significance  under Section  320;

      o     Monitor the overall ecological effects  of  regulatory  actions under
             Sections 401, 402,  and  301(h);

      o     Identify acceptable sites for disposal of dredge and fill  material
             under  Section 404  and  determine the  effects of  that disposal;

      o     Conduct assessments mandated  by  other statutes (e.g.,
             CERCLA/RCRA)  that  pertain to the integrity of surface  waters;
             and

      o     Evaluate the effectiveness and document the instrcam biological
             benefits  of pollution  controls.
Conduct of Biological  Surveys

      As  is the case with all  types of water quality  monitoring  programs,
biosurveys should  have clear data quality objectives, use standardized,  validated

-------
laboratory and field methods,  and include appropriate quality assurance and
quality  control practices.   Biosurveys  should be tailored to the particular type of
watcrbody being  assessed (e.g., wetland,  lake, stream, river, estuary, coastal or
marine  water)  and should focus on community  components and attributes that
are both  representative of the larger community and  arc practical to measure.
Biosurveys should be routinely coupled with basic  physicochcmical measurements
and  an objective assessment of habitat quality.   Due to the importance of the
monitoring design and  the intricate relationship  between the biosurvcy and  the
habitat assessment, well-trained and experienced biologists arc essential  to
conducting an  effective biosurvey program.
Integration  of Assessment Methods and  Regulatory Application

Site-specific Considerations

      Although biosurveys  provide direct information  for  assessing  biological
integrity, they  may not  always provide  the most accurate or practical measure  of
water quality  standards  attainment/nonattainmcnt.   For example, biosurveys and
measures of biological integrity do not directly assess  nonaquatic life uses,  such
as agricultural, industrial, or  drinking water  uses, and may not  predict potential
impacts from  pollutants  that  accumulate in sediments or tissues.   These
pollutants may pose a significant long-term threat  to  aquatic organisms  or  to
humans and  wildlife  that consume these organisms, but may only  minimally  alter
the structure and  function  of the ambient community.  Furthermore, biosurveys
can only indicate  the presence of an  impact; they  cannot directly identify the
stress agents  causing  that impact.   Because chemical-specific  and toxicity methods
are designed  to detect specific strcssors,  they  arc particularly useful for diagnosing
the causes  of impact and for developing source controls.   Where a specific
chemical or toxicity is likely  to impact  standards attainment/nonattainmcnt,
assessment methods that measure these  stresses directly arc often needed.

Independent Application

      Because biosurvcy, chemical-specific, and  toxicity  testing methods have
unique  as well as overlapping attributes, sensitivities,  and program  applications,
no single  approach for detecting impact should be considered uniformly superior
to any  other  approach.   EPA recognizes that each  method can  provide valid and
independently sufficient  evidence of aquatic life use impairment, irrespective of
any  evidence, or lack of it, derived from the other two approaches.  The failure
of one  method to confirm  an impact identified by another method  would not
negate the results of the initial assessment.  This policy, therefore, states that
appropriate action  should be taken when any one  of the three types of
assessment determines that  the standard is not attained.  States  arc encouraged
to implement  and integrate all three  approaches into  their water quality  programs
and  apply them  in combination or independently as site-specific  conditions and

-------
 assessment  objectives  dictate.

       In cases where  an assessment result  is suspected to be  inaccurate,  the
 assessment  may be repeated using more intensive and/or accurate methods.
 Examples of more intensive  assessment methods arc dynamic modelling instead of
 steady  state modelling, site specific criteria, dissolved metals analysis, and  a more
 complete biosurvey protocol.


 Biological Criteria

      To better protect the  integrity of aquatic communities, it  is EPA's policy
 that States  should develop and implement biological criteria in their water  quality
 standards.

      Biological criteria are  numerical  measures or  narrative descriptions of
 biological integrity.   Designated aquatic  life  use classifications  can also function
 as narrative biological criteria.  When  formally adopted into State standards,
 biological criteria and  aquatic  life  use  designations  serve as direct, legal end points
 for determining aquatic  life  use attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt.   Per  Section
 I3l.ll(b)(2) of the  Water Quality  Standards  Regulation (40 CFR Part 131),
 biological criteria can supplement existing chemical-specific criteria and  provide an
 alternative to chemical-specific criteria  where  such  criteria  cannot be established.

      Biological criteria  can  be quantitatively developed by identifying  unimpaired
 or least-impacted reference waters  that  operationally represent  best attainable
 conditions.   EPA recommends States use the ccoregion concept  when establishing
 a list of reference waters. Once candidate references  arc  identified,  integrated
 assessments are conducted to substantiate the unimpaired  nature of  the reference
 and  to  characterize the resident community.  Biosurvcys cannot  fully characterize
 the entire aquatic community and  all its attributes.  Therefore,  State standards
 should  contain  biological  criteria that consider various components (e.g., algae,
 invertebrates, fish) and attributes  (measures of  structure and/or  function)  of the
 larger aquatic  community.  In order to  provide maximum  protection of surface
 water quality,  States should  continue to develop water quality standards
 integrating all  three assessment methods.
Statutory Basis

Section 303(c)

      The primary  statutory basis for this policy derives  from Section 303  of the
Clean  Water Act.   Section  303 requires  that  States adopt standards for their
waters and review and  revise these standards as appropriate, or at least once
every three years.   The Water Quality Standards Regulation  (40  CFR  131)

-------
requires  that such  standards consist  of the  designated uses of the waters
involved, criteria based  upon  such uses, and an antidcgradation policy.

       Each State develops its  own use classification system  based on the generic
uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection  and propagation  of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife).   States may also subcategorize types  of uses within the Act's general
use categories.   For example, aquatic  life uses  may  be  subcatcgorizcd  on the
basis  of attainable habitat (e.g.,  cold-  versus warm-water habitat), innate
differences in community  structure and function (e.g., high versus low species
richness  or productivity),  or  fundamental differences in  important community
components (e.g., warm-water  fish communities naturally  dominated  by bass
versus catfish).   Special uses  may also be designated to protect particularly
unique, sensitive or valuable aquatic species, communities, or habitats.

       Each State is required  to  "specify appropriate  water uses to  be achieved
and protected* (40  CFR  131.10).  If an  aquatic  life use is  formally adopted for
a waterbody, that  designation  becomes a formal component of the  water quality
standards.  Furthermore,  nonattainment of  the use,  as  determined with  either
biomonitoring or chemical-specific assessment methods,  legally  constitutes
nonattainment  of the standard.  Therefore, the more refined the use designation,
the more precise the biological criteria  (i.e., the more detailed the description of
desired biological  attributes), and the more  complete  the  chemical-specific criteria
for aquatic life, the  more  objective the assessment of standards
attainment/nonattainment.

Section 304(a)

       Section 304(a) requires EPA to  develop  and  publish criteria and other
scientific  information regarding a number of watcr-quality-rclatcd matters,
including:

       o      Effects of pollutants on  aquatic community components ("Plankton,
            fish,  shellfish, wildlife, plant life...*) and community attributes
            ('diversity, productivity,  and stability...*);

       o      Factors necessary "to restore and  maintain the chemical,  physical,
             biological  integrity of all  navigable waters...", and  "for protection  and
             propagation of shellfish, fish, and  wildlife  for classes and categories
            of receiving waters...";

       o     Appropriate  "methods for establishing and measuring water quality
            criteria  for toxic pollutants on  other bases than pollutant-by-pollutant
            criteria, including biological monitoring  and assessment  methods."
      This  section of the Act has been  historically cited as the basis for

-------
 publishing national guidance on chemical-specific criteria for aquatic  life, but is
 equally applicable to the development and  use of biological monitoring and
 assessment methods and  biological criteria.
State/EPA Roles in  Policy Implementation

State Implementation

      Because there are important  qualitative differences among  aquatic
ecosystems (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries,  coastal and marine waters),
and there is significant geographical variation even among  systems of a given
type, no single set of assessment methods  or  numeric biological criteria is fully
applicable nationwide.  Therefore, States must take the primary  responsibility for
adopting their own standard  biosurvey  methods, integrating them with other
techniques  at the  program  level, and applying them in appropriate combinations
on  a case-by-case  basis.  Similarly, States  should develop their own biological-
criteria  and implement  them  appropriately in  their water quality standards.

EPA Guidance and Technical Support

      EPA  will provide the States  with national guidance  on  performing
technically  sound biosurveys,  and developing and integrating biological criteria
into a comprehensive water quality program.   EPA will  also supply guidance to
the States on how to  apply ecorcgional concepts to reference site selection.   In
addition, EPA Regional Administrators  will ensure that each Region  has the
capability to conduct fully  integrated assessments and to provide technical
assistance to the States.

-------
                                      Workgroup Members
                                                                             At I nrlimi'iil I)
 NAME
 Rick
 Ed
 David W.
 Norn
 Philip
 Wayne
 Steve
 Roland
 Bruce
 Steve
 Harren
 Margarete
 Del
 John
 Bob
 Jin
 Jacques
 Jin
 Peter
 Suzanne
 John
 Pete
 Bill
 Ronald
 Jackie
Nark
Steve
Nelaon A.
Randall
Bill
 LAST
 Albright
 Bender
 Charters
 Crisp
 Crocker
 Davis
 Dressing
 Dubois
 Elliott
 Clonb
 Harper
 Heber
 Hicks
 Houlihan
 Hughes
 Kurtenbach
 Landy
 Larorchak
 Mack
 Marcy
 Maxted
 Nolan
 Painter
 Preston
 Ronney
 Sprenger
Tedder
Thonas
Maite
Wuerthele
OFFICE
USEPA Reg. 10 HMD WD-139
USEPA OWEP/ED (EN-338)
Env. Reap. Tean MS 101
USEPA BSD Reg. 7
USEPA Reg. 6 (6W-QT) MMD
USEPA ESD Reg. 5 (5-SNQA)
USEPA OWRS/AWPD WH-553
USEPA OCC (LE-132W)
USEPA Reg. 6 HMD
USEPA OWEP (EN-336)
USDA Forest Serv. OPPE
USEPA OWEP/PD (EN-336)
USEPA Reg. 4 ESD
USEPA HMD Reg. 7
USEPA ERL-Corvallis
USEPA BSD/Reg. 2
USEPA MMD Reg. 9 W-3-2
USEPA EMSL-Cinn ABBranch
NY State DEC Dlv. of Water
USEPA OWRS/CSD (WH-585)
USEPA OWP (A-104)
USEPA Reg. I ESD
USEPA OPA/ERED PN-221
USEPA Reg. 3  ESD
USEPA OWEP/PD (EN-336)
USEPA Reg. 2 ESD
NC Dept. of Envir. Ngnt.
USEPA ERL-Duluth
USEPA Reg. 3 (3 WN 12)
USEPA Reg. 8 HMD (8WM-SP)
ADDRESS
12OO 6th Avenue
401 M. St. SW
Woodbridge Avenue
25 Funston Road
1445 Ross Avenue
536 S. Clark St.
401 M. St. SW
401 M. St. SW
1445 Ross Avenue
401 M. St. SW
P.O. Box 96090 Rn. 121
401 M. St. SW
College Station Road
726 Minnesota Avenue
2OO SW 35th Street
Bldg. 2O9 Woodbridge Ave
215 Frenont Street
3411 Church Street
50 Wolf Rosd
401 M. St. SW
401 M. St. SW
6O Westview Street
401 M. St. SW
303 Meth. Bldg. llth & Chapl
401 M. St. SW
Woodbridge Avenue
P.O. Box 27687
62O1 Condgon Blvd.
841 Chestnut Blvd.
999 18th Street. «50O
CITY
Seattle. WA   98101
Washington. DC   2O4t><>
Edison. NJ   08837
Kansas City. KS  66101
Dallas. T)'   75202-2731
Chicago. .1,   6O605
Washington. DC   2O46O
Washington. DC   2O460
Dallas. TX   75202
Washington. DC  2O46U
Washington. DC 2009O-6oyo
Washington. DC  2O46O
Athens. GA   30613-7799
Kansas City. KS  661O1
Corvallis. OR   97333
Edison. NJ   O7828
San Francisco. CA  941Ob
Newtown. OH   45244
Albany. NY   12233
Washington. DC   2O46O
Washington. DC  2O46O
Lexington. MA   02173
Washington. DC   2046O
Wheeling. WV 26003
Washington. DC   2O46O
Edison. NJ   08837
Raleigh. NC   27611
Duluth. MN   S58O4
Philadelphia.  PA   19 If)/
Denver. CO   8O2O2

-------
                                   Attachment c

              Relevant Guidance
Chemical-specific evaluations

     Guidance for Deriving National Water Quality
     Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
     and Their Uses (45 FR 79342, November 28, 1990,  as
     amended at 50 FR 30784, July 29, 1985)

     Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (EPA 440/5-86-001,
     May 1, 1987)

Toxic ity testing

     Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
     Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
     Freshwater Organisms, Second Edition  ( EPA/ 6 00-4-
     89-001) , March 1989)

     Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
     Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
     Marine and Estuarine Organisms (EPA/600-4-87/028,
     May 1988)

     Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents
     to Freshwater and Marine Organisms ( EPA/ 60 0-4 -8 5-
     013, March 1985)

Biosurveys and integrated assessments

     Technical Support Manual:  Waterbody Surveys and
     Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
     Analyses:  Volumes I-ZZI (Office of Water
     Regulations and Standards,  November 1983-1984)

     Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
     Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90/001,  March 1991)

     Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Streams and
     Rivers:  Benthic Macro- invertebrates and Fish
     (EPA/444-4-89-001, May 1989)

     Hughes, Robert M. and David P. Larsen.  1988.
     Ecoregions:  An Approach to Surface Water
     Protection.  Journal of the Water Pollution
     Control Federation 60, No.  4:  486-93.

     Omerik, J.M. 1987.  Ecoregions of the Coterminous
     United States.  Annals of the Association of
     American Geographers 77, No. 1: 118-25.

-------
Regionalization as a Tool for Managing
Environmental Resources (EPA/600-3-89-060, July
1989)

EPA Biological Criteria - National Program
Guidance for Surface Haters (EPA/440-5-90-004,
April 1990)
Technical Guidance on the Development of
Biological Criteria

State Development of Biological Criteria (case
studies of State implementation)

Monitoring Program Guidance

Sediment Classification Methods Compendium

Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Manual for
Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface
Waters

Fish Field and Laboratory Manual for Determining
the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters

-------
        APPENDIX S
            Reserved
                                 £
                                 h
                                 E
                                 A

                                 I
                                 c
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

         SECOND EDITION

-------
         APPENDIX T
        Use Attainability Analysis
            Case Studies
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION
                                     \

-------
             CASE STUDIES

Introduction
     The Water Body  Survey and Assessment Guidance for  Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses  provides guidance  on  the  factors  that  may be
examined to determine  if  an aquatic life  protection  use is attainable
in a given stream or  river system.  The  guidance  proposed  that States
perform  physical,  chemical  and  biological   evaluations in  order  to
determine  the  existing  and  potential   uses  of  a water   body.    The
analyses suggested within  this  guidance  represent  the type  of analyses
EPA  believes  are  sufficient  for  States  to  justify  changes  in  uses
designated  in   a water  quality   standard and  to   show  in  Advanced
Treatment Project Justifications that the  uses  are attainable.   States
are  also  encouraged  to use  alternative  analyses  as  long  as  they are
scientifically and technically  supportable.   Furthermore,  the guidance
also  encourages  the  use   of  existing data  to  perform the  physical,
chemical and biological evaluations and whenever possible States should
consider  grouping  water  bodies having  simiTar  physical and  chemical
characteristics to treat  several  water bodies or  segments  as  a single
unit.

     Using  the  framework  provided  by  this  guidance,  studies  were
conducted  to   (1)   test   the  applicability  of  the   guidance,   (2)
familiarize State and Regional personnel  with  the procedures  and (3)
identify situations  where  additional  guidance is  needed.   The  results
of these  case  studies, which are  summarized  in  this  Handbook, pointed
out the following:

(1)  The Water Body  Surveys and Assessment guidance can  be  applied and
    provides  a   good  framework   for   conducting  use  attainability
    analyses;
(2)  The guidance  provides  sufficient  flexibility  to  the  States  in
    conducting such analyses; and,
(3)  The case studies  show that EPA and  States  can cooperatively agree
    to  the data  and  analyses needed  to evaluate  the existing  and
    potential  uses.

     Upon completion of the case studies,  several  States requested that
EPA  provide additional  technical  guidance on the  techniques  mentioned
in the guidance document.   In  order to fulfill  these  requests,  EPA has
developed  a  technical  support  manual    on  conducting  attainability
analyses and is continuing research to develop new cost  effective tools
for  conducting such analyses.   EPA is striving to  develop a partnership
with States to improve  the scientific  and technical  bases  of  the water
quality standards decision-making  process  and will continue to  provide
technical assistance.

     The  summaries   of  the  case  studies  provided   in  this  Handbook
illustrate  the  different  methods  States  used  in  determining  the
existing  and potential  uses.   As  can be  seen, the  specific analyses
used  were  dictated  by  (1) the characteristics  of the site,  (2) the

                                   D-l

-------
States capabilities  and  technical  expertise  using  certain methods  and
(3) the availability of data.  EPA is providing these  summaries  to  show
how  use  attainability  analyses  can  be conducted.    States  will  find
these  case  studies  informative  on  the  technical   aspects   of   use
attainability  analyses  and will  provide  them with  alternate views  on
how such analyses may be conducted.
                                  D-2

-------
                   WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                     Assabet River, Massachusetts
I.   INTRODUCTION
A.   Site Description

     The drainage basin of the Assabet River comprises 175 square miles
located  in  twenty towns  in  East-Central  Massachusetts.    The Assabet
River  begins  as  the  outflow  from  a   small  wildlife  preservation
impoundment in the Town  of Westborough and flows northeast through  the
urban  centers of  Northborough,  Hudson,  Maynard  and  Concord  to   its
confluence with  the  Sudbury  River,  forming the Concord River.  Between
these  urbanized  centers,  the  river  is bordered by  stretches of rural
and  undeveloped  land.   Similarly,  the  vast  majority of  the drainage
basin  is characterized  by  rural  development.    Figure  1  presents  a
schematic diagram of  the drainage basin.

     The Assabet River provides the  opportunity to  study  a  repeating
sequence of water quality degradation  and  recovery.   One industrial  and
six  domestic  wastewater  treatment   plants   (WWTP)  discharge  their
effluents into this  31-mile  long river.   All  of  the treatment plants
presently provide  secondary  or advanced  secondary treatment, although
many of  them  are not performing to their  design specifications.  Most
of  the  treatment  plants  are  scheduled  to be  upgraded  in  the  near
future.

     Interspersed among  the  WWTP  discharges are six  low  dams, all  but
one  of  which were   built  at   least   a  half  century  ago.    All   are
"run-of-the-river" structures  varying in  height from three  to eleven
feet.   The  last  dam  built on  the  river was a  flood control   structure
completed in  1980.

     The headwaters  of the  Assabet  River are formed by  the  discharge
from a wildlife  preservation  impoundment, and  are   relatively  "clean"
except for low dissolved oxygen (DO) and high biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD)  during  winter  and  summer.   Water is discharged from the preserve
through  the foot of  the  dam  that  forms the impoundment, and  therefore,
tends  to be   low in  DO.   DO and  BOD  problems  in the  impoundment  are
attributed to winter  ice  cover and  peak  algal  growth in summer.  After
the  discharge   of   effluents   from   the  Westborough  and   Shrewsbury
municipal  wastewater  treatment  plants,   the  river  enters   its  first
degradation/recovery  cycle.     The   cycle  is   repeated  as   the  river
receives effluent  from the  four  remaining domestic  treatment  plants.
Water  quality problems in the river  are  magnified  when  the  effluents
are  discharged into  the  head ,of an impoundment.   However,  the flow  of
water  over the dams  also serves as a primary means of reaeration in  the
river,  and thus, the dams also become a  major  factor  in  the recovery
segment  of the cycle.  Water  quality  surveys  performed  in 1979 showed
violations  of the  fecal   coliform,  phosphorus,  and  dissolved  oxygen
criteria throughout  the river.
                                  D-3

-------
Figure 1     ASSABET R1VEI DRA1MACE SKSTEM

-------
     At present,  the  entire length of the  Assabet  River is classified
B,  which  is  designated  for  the  protection  and propagation  of fish,
other  aquatic  life  and  wildlife,  and  for   primary  and  secondary
recreation.   Two  different uses  have been designated  for  the  Assabet
R1ver--from  river mile  31.8  to  12.4 the  designated use  is   "aquatic
life" and from river mile 12.4 to the confluence with the Sudbury River
the designated use is a  "warm water fishery".   The difference  in these
designated  uses   is that maintenance  of a  warm water  fishery  has  a
maximum temperature criterion  of  R3 degrees  F,  and a minimum  DO of 5
mg/1.   There are no  temperature  or  DO  criteria   associated  with  the
aquatic life  use.  These  designations  seem  contrary to  the  existing
data, which  document  violations  of both  criteria  in  the lower  reaches
of the river where warm water fishery is  the designated  use.

B.  Problem Definition

     The  Assabet  River  was  managed as  a put  and  take  trout   fishery
prior to the early 1970s when the practice was stopped on advisement of
the MDWPC because of poor water quality  conditions  in the river.  While
the  majority  of  the  water  quality problems  are   attributable  to  the
wastewater treatment plant  discharges, the  naturally  low velocities in
the river, compounded by its  impoundment in several places, led to the
examination  of  both  factors  as  contributors  to the   impairment  of
aquatic life  uses.   This combination of irreversible physical   factors
and wastewater  treatment plant-induced  water quality problems led to
the selection of  the Assabet River  for this water body survey.

C.  Approach to Use Attainability Analysis

     Assessment  of  the  Assabet   River   is   based  on   the  previously
mentioned  site  visits  and  discussions   among  representatives   of  the
Massachusetts Division  of  Water  Pollution  Control  (MDWPC); the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA);  and the  Massachusetts  Fish  and
Wildlife Division.  This assessment is also based in  part upon  findings
reported  in the field  and  laboratory analyses on  the Assabet  River in
early June, 1979, and  again  in  early August,  1979.   These  surveys  are
part of the  on-going  MDWPC monitoring program,  which included   similar
water quality assessments  of  the  Assabet in 1969 and  1974.   The water
quality  monitoring  includes  extensive   information  on  the   chemical
characteristics of the Assabet River.

Analyses Conducted

     A  review of physical,  chemical  and  biological information  was
conducted  to  determine  which  aquatic life  use  designations would be
appropriate.

A.  Physical Factors

     The  low  flow condition  of  the river during the  summer months  may
have  an  impact on  the  ability  of  certain  fish  species  to   survive.
Various percentages  of  average  annual  How   (AAF) have been  used to
describe  stream regimens  for  critical fisheries flow.   As  reported in
                                  D-5

-------
Cortell  (1977),  studies  conducted  by  Tennant  indicate  that  10%, 30%,
and  60%  of AAF  describe the  range of  fisheries flows  from  absolute
minimum  (10°' AAF) to optimum  (60% of  AAF).   The average annual flow  of
the  Assabet River,  as  calculated from 39 years of  record  at the USGS
gauge  at  river  mile 7.7, is  183  cfs.   Flow measurements  taken at the
USGS gauge on four consecutive days in early August, 1979, were 43, 34,
?.7,  and  33 cfs.    These flows  average  about  19 percent  of  the AAF
indicating that  some  impairment  of the  protection  of  fish species may
occur  due  to  low flow in  the river.  The  7-day  10-year  low flow for
this reach of the river  is approximately 18 to 20 cfs.

     The  outstanding  physical features  of  the  Assabet River  are the
dams,  which  have a significant  influence  on  the aquatic  life of the
river.  Most fish are incapable of  migrating upstream  of the  dams, thus
limiting  their   ability  to  find  suitable  (sufficient)  habitats when
critical   water   quality  conditions  occur.    The  low  flow  conditions
downstream of  the dams  during  dry periods  also result  in  high  water
temperatures, further limiting fish survival in  the  river.

B.   Biological Factors

     As  with  data  on  the physical  parameters   for  the Assabet  River,
biological data are sparse.   The  last fish  survey of  the Assabet  River
was  conducted by  the Massachusetts  Fish  and Wildlife Division  in  1952.
Yellow perch, bluegills, pickerel,  sunfish, and  bass were  all  observed.
The  Assabet  River was sampled  by the MDWPC  for macroinvertebrates  at
five locations  in June,  1979,  as  part  of  an  intensive water  quality
survey.

     The data were  reviewed and analyses performed to  determine whether
conditions  preclude  macroinvertebrate  habitats.    The  results were
inconclusive.

C.   Chemical Factors

     Of  all the  chemical constituents measured  in the June and August,
1979,  water  quality surveys,  dissolved  oxygen,  ammonia nitrogen, and
temperature  have  the  greatest   potential  to   limit  the  survival   of
aquatic  life.    Ammonia  toxicity was  investigated  using  the  criteria
outlined in Water Quality  Criteria  1972.  The results  of  this  analysis
indicate that the  concentration  of un-ionized ammonia would  need  to  be
increased  approximately  three times  before  acute  mortality  in the
species  of fish  listed  would occur.   Therefore,  ammonia  is  not   a
problem.

     Temperatures in the lower reaches of the Assabet  frequently  exceed
the  maximum  temperature criteria  (83 degrees  F)  for  maintenance of  a
warm water fishery.   However, temperature readings were taken  in early
and  late afternoon  and  are believed  to  be  surface water  measurements.
They are short-term localized observations  and  should  not  preclude the
maintenance of  a warm water fishery in those  reaches.   Dissolved  oxygen
concentrations  above Maynard  are  unsuitable  for supporting  cold or warm
water  fisheries, but  are sufficient  to support  a  fishery  below this
point.
                                  D-6

-------
     The impoundments may exhibit water  quality  problems  in  the  form  of
high surface temperatures and low bottom DO.  Surface temperatures  have
been found to  be  similar to those in the  remainder  of  the river.  The
only depth sample was at 13 feet in the wildlife  impoundment, where the
temperature was 63 degrees  F, while 83 degrees F  at  the surface.  While
such bottom temperatures are  likely  to  be sufficient to  support  a  cold
water  fishery,  it  is  likely  that  the  DO at the  bottom   of  the
impoundments  will  be  near  zero  due  to  benthic  demands and  lack  of
surface aeration, which would preclude the  survival  of any fish.

Findings

     The data,  observations,  and analyses  as presented  herein   lead  to
the  conclusion that  there  are four  possible   uses for  the Assabet:
aquatic life, warm water fishery, cold water  fishery, and  seasonal  cold
water fishery.  The  seasonal  fishery would  be managed  by stocking the
river during the spring.

     These  uses were  analyzed  under three water  quality  conditions:
existing, existing without  the  wastewater discharges,  and inclusion  of
the  wastewater  effluent   discharges  with  treatment  at   the   levels
stipulated in the 1981 Suasco Basin Water Quality Management Plan.  The
no  discharge  condition is  included  as  a  baseline  that  represents the
quality under "natural" conditions.

A.  Existing Uses

     A  limited  number of  warm water fish species  predominate  in the
Assabet River  under  existing  conditions.   The  species  should  not  be
different from  those  observed  during  the 1952 survey.   The  combination
of  numerous  low-level dams and wastewater  treatment  plants  with low
flow   conditions    in  the   summer   results   in   dissolved    oxygen
concentrations  and  temperatures   which   place   severe  stress   on  the
metabolism of the fish.

     The observed temperatures  are most conducive to support the  growth
of  coarse  fish,   including   pike,   perch,  walleye,   smallmouth  and
largemouth bass, sauger, bluegill and crappie.

     The minimum  observed  DO concentrations  are  unacceptable  for the
protection of any  fish.  Water  Quality  Criteria  establishes the  values
6.8, 5.6,  and  4.2 mg/1  of DO  for high,  moderate,  and  low levels  of
protection of  fish  for rivers with the  temperature  characteristics  of
the  Assabet.    The Draft   National  Criteria for Dissolved  Oxygen  in
Freshwater establishes criteria as 3.0 mg/1  for  survival, 4.0 mg/1 for
moderate production impairment, 5.0 mg/1  for slight  impairment,  and 6.0
for no production  impairment.   The  upper reaches will  not even  support
a warm  water  fishery at  the  survival level,  except in  the uppermost
reach.  On the  other  hand,  the  lower reaches can  support a warm water
fishery under existing conditions.
                                 D-7

-------
B.  Potential Uses

     The  potential  aquatic  life  uses  of  the  Assabet  River  would  be
restricted by temperature  and  low flow, and  by  physical  barriers that
would  exist   even  if  water  quality  (measured  in  terms  of  DO  and
bacteria) is significantly improved.  Despite an overall improvement in
treated effluent quality, the river would be suitable for aquatic life,
as it is currently, and would continue to be too warm to support a cold
water fishery  in  the summertime.   The possibility  of  maintaining  the
cold water species  in  tributaries during the summer was  investigated,
but there  are no  data  on which  to draw  conclusions.    Water quality
observations  in  the only  tributary  indicate temperatures  similar  to
those in  the mainstem.   Therefore,  the  maintenance of  a  cold  water
fishery in the Assabet  is considered unfeasible.

     The attainable uses in  the  river  without discharges  or at planned
levels  of  treatment are  warm water  fishery and  seasonal  cold  water
fishery.  These uses are both  attainable  throughout  the basin, but may
be impaired  in  Reach  1,  as  the  water  naturally entering  Reach  1  from
the wildlife preservation impoundment  is  low  in  DO.   The  seasonal cold
water   fishery   is   attainable   because   the  discharge   limits   are
established to maintain a DO of  5 tng/1 under 7Q10 conditions.  If  the
DO is 5 mg/1  under  summer  low  flow conditions, it will certainly be 6
mg/1 or greater during the colder,  higher flow  spring stocking period,
and a seasonal cold water fishery would be attainable.

     According to the  Fish  and Wildlife Division, the  impoundments  of
the  Assabet   River  have the potential  to be  a  valuable warm  water
fishery.   The reaches  of  the  river  that  have a  non-vegetated  gravel
bottom  also  have  a high  potential  to  support  a significant fishery
because these  habitats  allow  the benthic invertebrates  that  comprise
the food  supply for the fish  to flourish.   It was  further  suggested
that if the  dissolved oxygen concentration  could  be  maintained above 5
mg/1, the river could again  be stocked  as  a  put  and  take trout fishery
in the spring.

Summary and Conclusions

     The  low  flow  conditions   of   the  Assabet  River   have  been
exacerbated  by  the  low  dams  which span  its course.   In  the  summer
months, the flow in the river is   slowed as the river passes through its
impoundments  and  flow  below the  dams is  often  reduced to  a  relative
trickle.   When  flow is  reduced,  temperatures  in  the  shallow river
(easily walkable  in many  places) can  exceed the maximum temperature
criterion  for protection  and  propagation  of  a  warm  water  fishery.
Additionally, the dams limit the mobility of fish.   At present, most of
the  river  reaches  also  undergo  extensive  degradation  due to  the
discharge of  wastewater  treatment plant effluent which is  manifest  in
low dissolved  oxygen  concentrations.   All of these  factors impair the
aquatic life potential  of the Assabet  River.
                                  D-8

-------
     Three  use  levels  corresponding  with  three  alternative  actions
related to the wastewater  discharges  are possible in the Assabet.  The
no  action  alternative  would  result  in   very   low dissolved  oxygen
concentrations in  many  reaches which are  appropriate  only for the use
designation of aquatic  life  and  warm  water fishery.  In this scenario,
fish would only  survive in the  lowest  river  reaches,  and aquatic life
would be limited to sludge worms and  similar invertebrates in the upper
reaches.   The  remaining  two alternatives  are  related  to  upgrading
treatment  plants  in  the  basin.     If the  discharges   are  improved
sufficiently  to  raise  the' instream  DO   to  5  mg/1  throughout,  as
stipulated  1n the 1981  Water  Quality Management  Plan,  it will  be
suitable as a warm water or  seasonal  cold water fishery.   Should the
discharge be  eliminted  altogether, the  same uses would be  attainable.

     The  treatment   plant   discharges  Inhibit  the   protection  and
propagation  of  aquatic  life.    Most   of the   treatment  plants  are
scheduled to  be  upgraded in  the near future, which would relieve the
existing dissolved oxygen  problems.   Even if the  river  is returned to
relatively pristine conditions,  the type of  fish  that  would be able to
propagate  there  would  not  change,  due  to  the  existing  physical
conditions.    However,  the  extent   of   their   distribution,   their
abundance, and the health of  the biota would be likely to  increase.

     The present  use  designations  of the  Assabet River  are sufficient
to characterize the aquatic life use  it  is capable of supporting, while
physical  barriers prevent  the  year-round  attainment   of a  "higher"
aquatic  life   use.    The  potential   aquatic  life  uses   could  include
extension  of  the  warm  water  and  seasonal   cold   water  fishery
classifications to the  entire length of the  river,  should the planned
improvements to the wastewater treatment plants be implemented.
                                 D-9

-------
                      WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                              Blackwater River
                             Franklin, Virginia


I.  INTRODUCTION

A.  Site Description

The area  of  the Blackwater River  which was chosen  for  this study  extends
from Joyner's  Bridge  (Southampton  County, Route 611)  to Cobb's Wharf  near
its confluence with the Nottoway River  (Table 1 and  Figure  1).  In  addition,
data from the USGS gaging  station  near  Burdette (river mile 24.57)  provided
information on some physical  characteristics of the system.


                                 TABLE 1

      Sampling Locations for  Blackwater River Use Attainability  Survey

        Station                                                      River
          No.      	Location	   Mile

           1        Vicinity Joyner's  Bridge, Route  611               20.90
           2        Below Franklin Sewage Treatment  Plant  Discharge    13.77
           3        Vicinity Cobb's  Wharf, Route 687                   2.59
The mean annual  rainfall  is  48 inches, much of which occurs in the  summer
in the  form of  thunderstorms. The  SCS has  concluded  that approximately
41,000 tons  of soil  are  transported to  streams  in the  watershed due to
rainfall  induced  erosion. Seventy  (70) percent  of this  originates  from
croplands, causing  a  potential pollution  problem from pesticides  and  from
fertilizer based nutrients.  In addition, 114,000 pounds of animal waste are
produced  annually,  constituting  the only  other major  source of non-point
pollution.

There are two primary point source discharges on the Blackwater River.  The
Franklin  Sewage Treatment Plant  at  Station 2 discharges  an average  of 1.9
mgd of municipal effluent. The discharge volume  exceeds NPDES permit  levels
due  to   inflow  and  infiltration  problems.  The plant has applied  for  a
federal  grant to upgrade treatment.  The second discharge  is from Union  Camp
Corporation, an  integrated  kraft  mill  that produces bleached  paper  and
bleached  board  products.  The  primary  by-products  are crude tall  oil  and
crude sulfate turpentine. Union  Camp operates at 36.6 mgd but retains  its
treated  waste in lagoons until the winter  months when  it  is discharged. The
                                  D-10

-------
                                                          USGS Gaging
                                                          Station
                                                     Station 1
                                                     Joyners Bridge
                                                     (Rt.  611)
                                                      Station 2
                                                      Franklin
Figure 1.   Map of Study Area
           Southampton Co.,  VA
           Scale 1:5000
                     Virginia
                                                      Station 3
                                                      Cobb's Wharf
                                                      (Rt. 687)
                  North Carolina
                                 D-ll

-------
Union  Camp  discharge point  is downstream  from Station  3  just above  the
North Carolina State line at river mile 0.70.

The topography surrounding the Blackwater River is  essentially flat  and  the
riparian zone is primarily hardwood wetlands.  There is a good  surface  water
supply  from  several  swamps.  At  the USGS  gaging   station  near Burdette,
Virginia, the discharge for calendar year 1980 averaged 430  cfs.

The Blackwater River from Joyner's  Bridge  (Station  1)  to Franklin  is  clas-
sified by the State Water Control Board  (SWCB)  as  a Class III  free  flowing
stream. This classification requires a  minimum dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion of 4.0  mg/1  and a daily average  of 5.0  mg/1. Other applicable  stan-
dards  are maintenance  of pH from  6.0  to 8.5  and a maximum temperature of
32°C.  The  riparian  zone is heavily wooded  wetlands with numerous  channel
obstructions. Near  Franklin the  canopy begins to open  and there is an  in-
creasing presence of lily pads and other macrophytes.  The water is  dark, as
is characteristic of tannic acid  water  found"in swamplands.

Below  Franklin  the  Blackwater River is  dredged and channelized to permit
barge  traffic to  reach Union Camp.  The channel is approximately 40m wide
and from 5m to 8m in depth. This reach of stream is classified  by the SWCB
as a Class  II  estuarine system requiring the  same  dissolved  oxygen and pH
limitation as in Class III but without  a temperature requirement.

B.  Problem Definition

The study area  on  the Blackwater River  includes a Class III  free-flowing
stream and a  Class  II  estuarine  river.  Part of the Class III  section is a
freshwater  cypress   swamp.  The  water   is  turbid,  nutrient  enriched  and
slightly acidic due to tannins.

In response to the EPA  request for  Virginia's  involvement in  the pilot  Use
Attainability studies,  the  State  Water Control Board  chose to  examine  the
Blackwater River in  the vicinity of Franklin,  Virginia.  There were  several
reasons for this choice. First, the major  stress to the system is  low dis-
solved oxygen  (DO)  concentrations which occur  from May through November.
Surveys conducted by SWCB staff,  and officials ^from Union Camp in Franklin,
found  that  during  certain  periods  "natural"  Background concentrations  9f
dissolved oxygen fell  below the water  quality standard of 4.0 mg/1. This
has  raised  questions as  to whether the  current  standard is  appropriate.
Virginia's water quality standards  contain  a  swamp  water designation  which
recognizes that  DO  and  pH  may be  substantially  different  in some  swamp
waters  and  provides for  specific  standards to  be set  on  a  case by case
basis. However, no  site specific  standards  have been  developed  in  Virginia
to date.  One  of the goals of this  project  was  to  gather information  which
could  lead  to  possible  development of  a  site specific  standard  for  the
Blackwater River. Second, the Franklin  STP  has  applied  for  a  federal  grant
to provide for improved BOD removals from its  effluent.
                                 D-12

-------
C.  Approach to Use Attainability

On  20  April, 1982, staff  of  the SWCB met  with  several EPA  officials  and
their consultant. After visiting the study area on the Blackwater River and
reviewing  the  available information, it  was  determined that  further  data
should be  collected, primarily  a description  of  the  aquatic community.  The
SWCB  staff has scheduled  four  quarterly surveys  from June  1982,  through
March 1983,  to  collect  physical, chemical,  and biological  information.  In-
terim results are reported herein to  summarize data  from the first  collec-
tion. Final  conclusions will  not be  drawn until  the  data has been compiled
for all four quarters.
II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

A.  Physical Analysis

Data on  the physical  characteristics of the Blackwater River  were  derived
primarily from existing  information  and  from general  observations.  The en-
tire reach  of the Blackwater River from Joyner's Bridge to Cpbb's Wharf was
traveled by boat  to observe channel and riparian  characteristics.  A  sedi-
ment sample was collected at each station for partical size analysis.

B.  Chemical Analysis

Water samples were  collected at Stations 1-3 for  analysis  of  pH, alkalini-
ty,  solids, hardness,  nutrients,  five-day  BOD,  chemical  oxygen  demand,
total organic carbon,  phenols, pesticides, and heavy metals.  In  addition,
previous data on dissolved  oxygen concentrations  collected  by  the SWCB and
Union Camp  were  used  to examine oxygen  profiles in the  river. The  USGS
Water Resources Data  for Virginia  (1981)  provided some chemical data  for
the Blackwater River near Burdette.

C.  Biological Analysis

Periphyton  sampling for  chlorophyll-a,  biomass, and autotrophic  index  de-
termination was conducted using floating plexiglass samplers anchored  by  a
cement weight. The  samplers were placed  in the  field  in triplicate  and re-
mained in  the  river for 14 days.  They  were  located  in  run  areas in  the
stream.  At the end of this two-week  period, the samplers were  retrieved and
the slides removed for biomass  determinations  and  chlorophyll analysis.

Both a cursory  and a quantitative  survey  of macroinvertebrates  were  con-
ducted at  each  station.  The purpose of the cursory  study was to  rapidly
identify  the general water  quality  of  each station by surveying  the  pres-
ence of  aquatic  insects, molluscs,  crustaceans and worms  and  classifying
them according  to  their pollution   tolerance.  A   record  was   kept  of  all
organisms found and these were classified to the  family level  as dominant,
abundant, common, few or present. The  cursory  survey was  completed with  a
qualitative evaluation of the  density  and diversity of aquatic  organisms.
                                      0-13

-------
General knowledge of the pollution tolerance of various  genera  was  used to
classify the water  quality  at  each station. The  benthic macroinvertebrate
samples were collected with  Hester-Dendy  multiplate  artificial  substrates.
The substrates were  attached to metal fence posts  and  held vertically at
least 15 cm above the stream bottom.  The  substrates  were left  in place for
six weeks to allow for colonization by macroinvertebrate organisms.  In the
laboratory the organisms  were identified to the generic level whenever pos-
sible. Counts were made  of the  number of  taxa  identified and the number of
individuals within each taxon.

Fish populations were surveyed  at each station  by  electrofishing. Each sta-
tion was  shocked  for 1,000  seconds:  800  seconds  at the  shoreline  and 200
seconds at  midstream.  Fish  collected were identified to species and the
total  length of each fish  was  recorded.   In addition,  general  observations
were made about the  health status of  the  fish  by  observing  lesions, hemor-
rhaging, and the presence of external  parasites.

Diversity of  species was  calculated  using the Shannon-Weaver  index.  Addi-
tionally, the  fish  communities were  evaluated  using an   index  proposed by
Karr (1981) which classifies biotic integrity based  on 12 parameters of the
fish community.


III.  FINDINGS

There are few  physical factors which  limit aquatic  life uses.  The  habitat
is  characteristic  of a  hardwood wetland  with  few   alterations.  The  major
alteration  is  dredging and  channelization below  Franklin which eliminates
much  of the  macrophyte  community and  the habitat  it  provides  for  other
organisms. The substrate  at each station  was composed mostly of sand with a
high moisture  content. This  is characteristic  of a  swamp but  is not ideal
habitat for colonization  by periphyton and macroinvertebrates.

DO  concentrations are typically  below the Virginia water quality standards
during the months of May through November. This is true upstream as  well as
downstream from the  Franklin STP and  appears to occur even  without  the im-
pact of BOD  loadings from Franklin. This  phenomenon  may  be typical  of en-
riched  freshwater wetlands.  However,  during the winter  months, DO  concen-
trations may exceed  10 mg/1. Another  survey conducted by SWCB  showed that
there were only small changes in DO concentration  with depth.

Representatives from 17  families of macroinvertebrates were observed during
a cursory investigation.  These  included mayflies,  scuds, midges, operculate
and  non-operculate  snails,  crayfish,  flatworms,  and  a  freshwater  sponge.
The majority of these organisms  were  facultative  at  Stations  1 and  2. How-
ever, there were a few pollution  sensitive  forms  at  Station 1, and  Station
3 was dominated by pollution sensitive varieties.

Twelve  (12)  species  from seven  families  of fish  were observed during the
June  1982  study.  Several  top predators were present including  the  bowfin,
                                      D-14

-------
chain pickerel, largemouth bass and longnose gar. Other fish collected were
the American eel, shiners, pirate  perch, yellow  perch, and  five species of
sunfish. None of the species are especially pollution sensitive. Results of
the fish population survey are presented in Table 2.


                                    TABLE 2

       Results of Fish Population Survey in Blackwater River, 9 June 1982


                       Number     No. of    Diversity        Proportion of
	Station	   Collected   Species       d        Omnivores   Carnivores

1.  Joyner's Bridge       19         7        2.30         .000         .157
2.  Franklin STP          51         6        2.35         .000         .098
3.  Cobb's Wharf          44         6        2.35         .000         .114
Based on the  EPA  304(a)  criteria, low seasonal  00  concentrations measured
in the  river  should  present  a significant stress to  the  biotic community.
Large fish  tend  to be less  resistant  to  low DO yet  large  species  such as
the  largemouth  bass, American eel  and some  sunfishes  were present  in an
apparently healthy condition. The explanation  for this  is unclear.  The low
dissolved oxygen  concentrations  are  near  the  physiological  limit  for many
species. Fish may be able to acclimate to low DO to a limited extent if the
change  in  oxygen  concentration  occurs gradually. The  fact that  fish are
present in a  healthy  condition suggests that there  is a lack of other sig-
nificant stressors in the  system which might  interact  with  low DO  stress.
It is worth noting that  spawning  probably occurs in most species before the
summer months when dissolved oxygen concentration become critically low.

The autotrophic index determinations  show the Joyner's  Bridge  and Franklin
STP stations  as  having  relatively healthy periphyton communities.  In each
case over 80 percent of  the periphytic community was autotrophic in nature.
Based on the  autotrophic index ,  both  of these stations  were in better bio-
logical health  than  the most  downstream  station, Cobb's Wharf.  At Cobb's
Wharf the  autotrophic index  characterized  an autotrophic  community  which
was experiencing a slight decline in biological integrity (74 percent auto-
trophic as compared to greater than 80 percent upstream).

Chemical analyses  conducted  on  water from  the Blackwater  River  did not
reveal  any  alarming  concentration  of toxicants when  compared  to EPA Water
Quality Criteria  Documents, although  the  zinc concentration  at  Station  1
was slightly above the 24-hour average recommended  by EPA.  One sample col-
lected  by the USGS had  a  zinc concentration which was twice  this  number.
The source of this zinc   is unknown. Any impact which  exists  from this pro-
blem  should  be sublethal,  affecting  growth  and reproduction  of primarily
                                      D-15

-------
the  most sensitive  species.  The actual  impact  of  zinc  concentrations at
Joyner's Bridge is unknown.

Analyses of  the periphyton  data as well  as  the  water chemistry data indi-
cate  that the  Blackwater River is nutrient enriched. Some of this nutrient
load  comes from inadequately  protected crop lands and from domestic animal
wastes.  The  Franklin  STP also  contributes to  higher  nutrient concentra-
tions.  Additionally, an  SWCB  report  estimated that between river mile 20.0
and  6.0, 1,600 Ib  per day of non-point source carbonaceous BOD  (ultimate)
are  added  to  the  river. Consequently,  these point  and  non-point sources
appear  to  be  contributing to  both organic  enrichment  and lower dissolved
oxygen  concentrations.


IV.   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The  Blackwater River from river mile  2.59  to 20.90 has been characterized
as a  nutrient  enriched coastal river much of which  is bordered by hardwood
wetlands.  Periphytic, macroinvertebrate, and  fish  communities  are healthy
with  fair to good  abundance and diversity. The major limitation to aquatic
life  appears to  be  low  00  concentrations which  are  enhanced  by point and
non-point sources  of nutrients and BOD. A secondary  limitation may be ele-
vated zinc concentrations at Joyner's  Bridge.

The  primary  difficulty in assessing  the attainability of aquatic life uses
is  locating  a  suitable reference reach to  serve as  an  example  of an unaf-
fected   aquatic  community.  Originally,  Joyner's  Bridge  (Station  1)  was
selected for this  purpose, but few major differences occur between popula-
tions at all three stations. However,  the widespread  non-point pollution in
Southeastern Virginia makes  the location of an undisturbed reference reach
impossible.  The only alternative, then, is to make the best possible judg-
ment  as to  what   organisms  might  reasonably be  expected to  inhabit  the
Blackwater.

In  reference to the  Blackwater River,  it  is probable that  most  fish species
are  present  that  should  reasonably  be expected to  inhabit the river, al-
though  possibly in  lower numbers. (No attempt has  yet  been made to assess
this  with  regard  to  algal and invertebrate communities.) However, based on
the   304(a)  criteria, the  low DO  concentrations  represent  a  significant
stress  of  the  ecosystem and the introduction of additional stressors could
be  destructive. It is also probable that higher oxygen concentrations  dur-
ing  winter months  play a major role in reducing the  impact of  this stress.
Removal of point  and  non-point  source inputs may alleviate some problems.
However, DO  concentrations may  still  remain  low.  The  increased effect of
oxygen  concentrations should  be an  increase in fish  abundance and  increased
 size of individuals. Diversity would  probably be  unaffected. Nevertheless,
 no  attempt has been  made to  estimate the  magnitude of these changes.

 Cairns  (1977)  has  suggested  a  method for  estimating  the potential of a  body
-of  water to  recover  from pollutional stress. Although this analysis  is  only
                                       0-16

-------
semi-quantitative  and  subjective,  it  suggests that  the chances of  rapid
recovery following a disturbance in the Blackwater River are poor.

The absence of  an undisturbed reference reach and  the  difficulty in  quan-
tifying changes  in  dissolved  oxygen, population structure,  and  population
abundance make a definite statement regarding attainability of aquatic life
uses difficult. However, to summarize, several points stand out.  First, the
aquatic communities in the Blackwater River are generally healthy with fair
to good abundance and distribution. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are low
for about  half of  the  year which  causes  a significant stress  to  aquatic
organisms. Oxygen concentrations are higher during the reproductive periods
of many fishes. Because  of  these  stresses  and the physical characteristics
of the river, the system does not have much resiliency or capacity to  with-
stand  additional  stress. Although  a  quantitative statement of  changes  in
the aquatic community with the amelioration of DO stress has not  been  made,
it is  probable  that  additional  stresses would degrade  the present  aquatic
community.

The occurrence  of low dissolved  oxygen  concentrations  throughout much  of
the Blackwater  is, in part,  a  "natural"  phenomenon and could argue  for  a
reduction in the  DO standard. However,  if  this standard were  reduced  on  a
year round basis  it  is  probable that the  aquatic  community would steadily
degrade. This  may result  in  a contravention  of  the  General Standard  of
Virginia State  Law which requires that all waters  support  the propagation
and growth of all aquatic  life which can reasonably be  expected  to inhabit
these waters. Because of the lack of resiliency in the system, a  year  round
standards change could irreversibly alter the aquatic community.
                                      D-17

-------
                      WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                               Cuckels Brook
                      Bridgewater Township, New Jersey


I.  INTRODUCTION

A.  Site Description

Cuckels Brook, a small tributary of the Raritan River,  is  located  entirely
within Bridgewater Township in Somerset County, New Jersey.  It  is  a  peren-
nial stream approximately four miles  long, having  a watershed  area  of  ap-
proximately three square miles. The entire brook is  classified  as FW-2 Non-
trout in current New Jersey Department of  Environmental  Protection  (NJDEP)
Surface Water Quality Standards.

Decades ago,  the downstream  section  of Cuckels Brook  (below  the  Raritan
Valley Line Railroad, Figure  1), was  relocated  into an  artificial  channel.
This channelized section  of  Cuckels Brook consists of  an  upstream  subsec-
tion approximately 2,000 feet in length and a downstream subsection  approx-
imately 6,000  feet in  length, with  the  Somerset-Raritan  Valley  Sewerage
Authority  (SRVSA)  municipal  discharge being  the  point  of demarcation  be-
tween the  two. The  downstream channelized  subsection  (hereinafter  referred
to as "Lower Cuckels Brook")  is  used  primarily  to  convey wastewater  to  the
Raritan River  from SRVSA  and  the  American  Cyanamid Company, which dis-
charges approximately 200 feet downstream  of  SRVSA. At  its confluence with
the Raritan River, flow in Lower Cuckels Brook  is conveyed into Calco Dam,
a dispersion dam which  distributes  the flow  across the  Raritan River.  Ex-
cept  for   railroad  and  pipeline  rights-of-way,  all  the  land   along Lower
Cuckels Brook  is  owned  by the  American  Cyanamid  Company.  Land use  in  the
Cuckels Brook watershed  above the SRVSA discharge  is  primarily  suburban  but
includes major highways.

B.  Problem Definition

Lower Cuckels  Brook receives two  of  the  major discharges  in  the  Raritan
River  Basin.  SRVSA  is  a  municipal  secondary  wastewater  treatment plant
which had  an  average  flow in 1982  of  8.8  mgd (design capacity =  10 mgd).
The American Cyanamid wastewater discharge  is  a  mixture of process water
from organic chemical manufacturing,  cooling  water, storm water, and sani-
tary  wastes.  This  mixed waste  receives  secondary  treatment   followed  by
activated  carbon  treatment.  In 1982  American Cyanamid's average flow  was
7.0 mgd (design capacity 20 mgd). These two discharges totally  dominate  the
character  of Lower Cuckels Brook.

Over 90 percent  of the  flow  in  Cuckels  Brook is wastewater  (except after
heavy  rainfall).  The  mean depth  is  estimated to  be between 1  and  2 feet,
and the channel  bottom  at observed  locations is  covered with  deposits  of
                                      D-18

-------
o


10
                                                        RARITAN VALLEY LIME
                                                   r V«.t»5     ^ . - -
:V»ASTEWATER.:-'
|LAOOOHV;
             CUCKELS  BROOK
                STUDY  AREA
                  WITH OCTOBER 1982
                  SAMPLING LOCATIONS

-------
black sludge, apparently derived from solids in the SRVSA and  Cyanamid  dis-
charges (primarily the SRVSA discharge). In contrast, the  channelized  sub-
section of  Cuckels  Brook above  the SRVSA  discharge  is often only  inches
deep with a bottom of bedrock, rubble, gravel  and silt.

Cuckels Brook  (including  Lower Cuckels Brook)  is  classified  as FW-2  Non-
trout in the NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards. The  FW-2 classification
provides for the following uses:

    1.  Potable water supply  after  such treatment  as shall be  required  by
        law or regulation;

    2.  Maintenance, migration, and propagation of  natural and  established
        biota (not including  trout);

    3.  Primary contact  recreation;

    4.  Industrial and agricultural  water  supply; and

    5.  Any other reasonable  uses.

The  attainment  of these uses  is  currently prevented by the  strength  and
volume of wastewaters  currently discharged to  Cuckels  Brook. The size  of
the stream also limits primary contact recreation and other water uses, and
physical barriers currently  prevent the migration of fish between Cuckels
Brook and the Raritan River.

C.  Approach to Use Attainability

In  response  to  an inquiry from EPA,  Criteria  and Standards  Division,  the
State of  New Jersey offered  to  participate in a  demonstration  Water  Body
Survey and Assessment. The water body survey of Cuckels  Brook  was conducted
by the New Jersey Department  of Environmental  Protection, Bureau  of Systems
Analysis and Wasteload  Allocation;  with assistance from the  EPA Region  II
Edison Laboratory.

The assessment is based primarily on  the  results of a  field  sampling  pro-
gram  designed  and  conducted  jointly by  NJDEP  and  EPA-Edison   in October
1982.  Additional  sources of  information  include  self-monitoring reports
furnished by the dischargers, and earlier  studies conducted by the NJDEP on
Cuckels Brook and the Raritan River. Based  on  this assessment,  NJDEP deve-
loped  a  report entitled  "Lower  Cuckels  Brook Water Body Survey and  Use
Attainability Analysis, 1983."

II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

A.  Chemical Analysis

The major impact of the  SRVSA discharge is  attributed to un-ionized ammonia
and TRC levels, whose concentrations at Station  4, 100  feet below the  dis-
charge point were 0.173  and  1.8 mg/1 respectively,  which  are 3.5 and  600
                                     D-20

-------
times higher than the  State  criteria.  The un-ionized ammonia concentration
of the Cyanamid  effluent  was low, but stream concentrations  at  Stations 6
and 7 were relatively high (though below the State criterion of 0.05 mg/1).

The Cyanamid discharge contained  0.8 mg/1 TRC.  Concentrations at both Sta-
tions 6  and 7 were  0.3  mg/1 TRC, lower than  at  Station 4  but  still  100
times the State criterion of 0.003 mg/1.  The  other  major  impact  of the  Cy-
anamid effluent  was  on instream  filterable  residue levels. Concentrations
at Stations 6 and 7 exceeded 1,100 mg/1,  over three times the State crite-
rion (133 percent of background).

The effluents apparently  buffered the  pH of Lower  Cuckels  Brook which  was
approximately  pH 7  at Stations  4,  6 and  7, and  the  pH of  the  upstream
reference stations was markedly  alkaline. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
decreased in the downstream  direction  despite low BODS concentrations both
in the effluents and instream. This suggests an  appreciable sediment oxygen
demand in Lower Cuckels Brook.  Dissolved  oxygen levels  were greater in  the
two effluents than  in the stream  at Stations  6  and  7.  The dissolved oxygen
concentration at Station  7 of 4.1 mg/1  nearly violated  the State criterion
of 4.0 mg/1; this suggests the  potential  for unsatisfactory dissolved oxy-
gen conditions during the summer.

The results of the water  body  survey  are generally  in  good  agreement with
other available data sources. Recent self-monitoring data for both American
Cyanamid and SRVSA agree  well  with the data  collected  in  this  survey.  In
particular they  show consistently high  TRC concentrations  in  both efflu-
ents. High average  dissolved solids (filterable  residue) concentrations  are
reported for  the Cyanamid effluent. Total  ammonia   levels  as  high as 33.5
mg/1 NH3 (27.6 mg/1 N) were  reported for  the  SRVSA  effluent.  The pH of  the
Cyanamid and SRVSA  effluents is sometimes more alkaline than the water body
survey values  indicating  that  toxic  un-ionized  ammonia  concentrations  may
sometimes be higher than measured during the water body survey.

B.  Biological Analysis

Fish and macroinvertebrate  surveys  were conducted  in the  channelized sub-
section  of Cuckels  Brook above the SRVSA discharge.  Only three fish species
were found: the  banded killifish, the  creek  chub and the  blacknose dace.
One hundred and  eighty-six  (186)  out  of  the  total  194  specimens collected
were banded killifish. KiHi fish  are very hardy and are  common in  both  es-
tuarine  and freshwater  systems.  The  largest fish found,  a  creek chub,  was
146 mm long.

The results of the  macroinvertebrate  survey  are  discussed  in detail in a
separate report (NJDEP , 1982).  Four replicate surber samples were collected
at Stations 1 and 2  above the SRVSA discharge. Diversity indices  indicate
the presence of similar well-balanced  communities  at both stations. Species
diversity and equitability were 3.9 and 0.7  respectively  at Station 1,  and
4.3 and  0.7 respectively at Station 2.  Productivity  at  Stations 1 and 2  was
                                     D-21

-------
low, with mean densities of 59 and  89  individuals  per  square foot, respec-
tively. The majority of species found  at  both  stations  have  organic pollu-
tion tolerance classifications of tolerant  (dominant at  Station  1)  or  fac-
ultative (dominant at Station  2).

Overall, the biological data indicate that the upstream channelized subsec-
tion of Cuckels Brook  supports a  limited  fish  community and  a limited  mac-
roinvertebrate community of generally  tolerant species. The  water quality
data indicates nothing  that would limit the community.  One  possible limi-
ting factor is that, as a  result  of channelization, the substrate consists
of unconsolidated gravel and rubble  on bedrock, which  might  easily be  dis-
turbed by high flow conditions.

Both the chemical data and visual  observations at  various locations suggest
that virtually no  aquatic  life exists along Lower  Cuckels Brook: not  even
algae were seen. The discharges have seriously degraded water quality. Un-
ionized  ammonia  concentrations at  Station  4  were  close  to acute lethal
levels, while concentrations of TRC  were  a'bove acute levels  at  Stations 4,
6 and 7 (EPA, 1976). The sludge deposits which apparently cover most of the
bottom of  lower Cuckels Brook  could exert negative physical  (i.e. smother-
ing) and chemical  (i.e. possible  toxics)  effects  on any benthic organisms.
No biological survey of the  lower brook was made  because  of concern about
potential hazards to sampling  personnel. Supplemental sampling of the sedi-
ments is planned to ascertain   levels of toxics accumulation.

As  part  of their self-monitoring requirements, American Cyanamid performs
weekly 96-hour modified  flow-through bioassays with fathead  minnows using
unchlorinated effluent. Of 63  bioassays conducted  between 1  May, 1981 and
31 August,  1982,  results  from eight  bioassays had 96-hour  LC50  values at
concentrations of effluent  less than 100  percent  (i.e. 26 percent, 58 per-
cent, 77 percent, 83.5  percent, 88  percent, 92 percent, and  95.5 percent).
These results suggest  that  the American Cyanamid  effluent would not be ex-
tremely toxic if it were reasonably diluted by its  receiving  waters. Within
Lower Cuckels  Brook, however, the  effluent  receives  only approximately 50
percent dilution and the  potential  exists for  toxic effects  on any aquatic
 life that may be present. These effects would  be in addition to the toxici-
ty  anticipated from  the TRC concentrations which  result from the chlorina-
tion of the effluent.

 III.  FINDINGS

Practically none of  the currently designated uses are now being achieved in
Lower  Cuckels  Brook. The  principal  current use of Lower Cuckels Brook is
the  conveyance  of treated wastewater  and  upstream runoff  to  the Raritan
River. Judging  from  the indirect evidence  of  chemical  data  and visual ob-
 servations, virtually  no  aquatic  life is  maintained or  propagated  in Lower
Cuckels  Brook.   It  has been  well  documented  that fish avoid  chlorinated
waters  (Cherry  and  Cairns, 1982;  Fava and  Tsai ,  1976).  Any aquatic   life
 that  does  reside in  Lower Cuckels Brook would be sparse and  stressed.  Mig-
 ration of  aquatic  life through Lower Cuckels Brook would probably  only oc-
 cur  during  periods  of  high storm water flow when some  flow  occurs  over the
                                      D-22

-------
un-named dam  (Figure 1) which  is designed to  direct  the flow of  Cuckels
Brook toward Calco Dam. Calco Dam and  its  associated  structures,  including
the un-named  dam,  normally prevent the  migration  of fish between  Cuckels
Brook and the Raritan River.

Lower Cuckels  Brook  currently  does  not support  any  primary  or  secondary
contact recreation. No water is  currently diverted from Lower Cuckels Brook
for potable water  supply,  industrial  or agricultural water  supply,  or any
other purpose.

Because Lower  Cuckels  Brook receives  large  volumes  of wastewater  and be-
cause there  is  practically  no  dilution,  water quality  in  Lower  Cuckels
Brook has been degraded to the  quality  of  wastewater.  Moreover, the bottom
of Lower Cuckels Brook  has been covered at  observed  locations with waste-
water solids. As a result, Lower Cuckels Brook is currently unfit  for aqua-
tic life, recreation,  and  most  other water uses.  The  technology-based ef-
fluent  limits  required by  the Clean  Water  Act are not  adequate to  protect
the currently  designated water  uses  in Lower Cuckels  Brook.  SRVSA  already
provides secondary treatment  (except for  bypassed  flows  in wet  weather)  ,
and American  Cyanamid  already  provides  advanced treatment  with  activated
carbon.  Because  the  Raritan  River provides  far more  dilution than  does
Cuckels Brook, effluent limits which may be  developed  to  protect  the Rari-
tan River would  not  be  adequate to protect the  currently  designated water
uses in Lower  Cuckels  Brook.  The only practical way to restore water qua-
lity in Lower  Cuckels  Brook would be to remove  the wastewater discharges.
However, there are  several  factors that would limit the achievement  of cur-
rently  designated  uses  even if the  wastewater  discharges were completely
separated from natural  flow.

If it were assumed that the wastewater discharges and  sludge  were  absent,
and that the seepage  of contaminated  groundwater from  the American Cyanamid
property was  insignificant  or absent, then the  following  statements could
be made about attainable uses  in Lower Cuckels Brook:

    Aquatic  Life - The  restoration of aquatic life in  Lower  Cuckels Brook
    would be limited  to some extent by the  small size  and lower flow of the
    stream,  by channelization, and by contaminants in  suburban and  highway
    runoff  from the upstream watershed.  Lower Cuckels  Brook could  support a
    limited  macroinvertebrate  community of generally tolerant  species, and
    some small fish  as  were found in the  reference channelized subsection
    above the SRVSA discharge  (Stations 1 and 2). Unless it were altered or
    removed, the Calco  Dam complex would  continue  to  prevent  fish  migra-
    tion.

    Wildlife typical  of narrow stream corridors  could  inhabit the  generally
    narrow  strips of  land  between Lower Cuckels Brook  and nearby  railroad
    tracks  and waste lagoons. Restoration  of  aquatic  life  in Lower  Cuckels
    Brook would  be expected to  have  little  impact on  aquatic  life  in the
    Raritan  River.
                                      D-23

-------
     Recreation - Lower Cuckels Brook would be too shallow for swimming
     or boating, and  its  small fish  could not support  sport  fishing.
     The  industrial  surroundings  of  Lower  Cuckels  Brook,  including
     waste lagoons and  active manufacturing  facilities  and  railroads,
     severely reduces the  potential  for other  recreational  activities
     such as  streamside trails and  picnic areas,  wading, and  nature
     appreciation.    As  Lower  Cuckels  Brook  is  on private  industrial
     property, trespassing along this brook and in the surrounding area
     is discouraged.

     It  would appear  unlikely that  any  of  the  landowners,  or  any
     government  agency,  would  develop  recreational  facilities  along
     lower Cuckels Brook or even remove some of the brush which impairs
     access to most of the Brook.   Recreation along Lower Cuckels Brook
     would be limited, occasional, and informal.

     Other Water Uses  - Although  water quality in  Lower Cuckels  Brook
     would generally meet  FW-2 Nontrout criteria,  the volume of natural
     flow  in  Lower  Cuckels  Brook would   be  insufficient for  potable
     water supply or for industrial  or agricultural water use.

In  general,   Lower  Cuckels  Brook would  become   a  small  channelized
tributary segment flowing  through  a  heavily  industrialized  area, free
of gross pollution and capable of  supporting a modest aquatic community
and very limited recreational use..

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This use-attainability analysis has discussed the present impairment of
the  currently designated  uses of  Lower  Cuckels Brook,  the role  of
wastewater discharges  in  such impairment,   and  the  extent  to  which
currently  designated  water  uses might be  achieved  if  the  wastewater
discharges were  removed.   Further  analysis,  outside the scope  of this
survey, will  be required:   to  document  the costs  of removing SRVSA and
American  Cyanamid  effluent from Lower  Cuckels  Brook,  and  to  evaluate
the impact of the SRVSA and American  Cyanamid discharges on the Raritan
River.   These analyses may  lead to the  development  of site-specific
water  quality  standards   for  Lower  Cuckels Brook  (designated  uses
limited  to  the  conveyance   of  wastewater   and  the  prevention  of
nuisances), or to  the  removal of the  wastewater  discharges  from Lower
Cuckels Brook.  In either case, effluent limits would be established to
protect water quality in the Raritan River.
                                 D-24

-------
                      WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                         Deep Creek And Canal Creek
                       Scotland Neck, North Carolina
I.  INTRODUCTION

A.  Site Description

The Town of Scotland Neck is located in Halifax County in the lower coastal
plain of North Carolina. The Town's wastewater,  made  up  mostly  of domestic
waste with  a small  amount  of textile  waste, is  treated  in an  oxidation
ditch of 0.6 mgd design capacity. The treatment plant  is  located two-tenths
of a mile southwest of Scotland Neck off U.S.  Highway 258,  as  seen in Fig-
ure 1. The effluent  (0.323  mgd average)  is  discharged to Canal  Creek which
is a tributary to Deep Creek.

Canal Creek  is  a channelized  stream  which  passes through  an  agricultural
watershed, but also receives some urban runoff from the western  sections of
Scotland Neck.  It  is  a Class C  stream with  a drainage area of  2.4  square
miles, an average stream flow  of  3.3  cfs ,  and a  7Q10  of 0.0 cfs. The Creek
retains definite banks for  about 900 feet below  the outfall  at  which point
it  splits  into  numerous  shifting channels  and  flows  800 to  1400  feet
through a cypress swamp before reaching Deep  Creek. During  dry  periods the
braided channels of Canal Creek  can be  visually  traced to  Deep  Creek. Dur-
ing wet periods Canal Creek overflows into  the surrounding  wetland and flow
is no longer restricted to the channels.

Deep Creek is a typical tannin colored  Inner  Coastal  Plain  stream that has
a heavily wooded  paludal  flood  plain.  The  main  channel is  not  deeply en-
trenched. In some  sections  streamflow passes through  braided channels, or
may be conveyed through  the wetland by sheetflow. During dry weather flow
periods the  main  channel  is  fairly  distinct  and  the adjacent wetland  is
saturated, but  not  inundated.  During  wet weather  periods the main channel
is  less  distinct,  adjacent  areas  become flooded and   previously  dry areas
become saturated.

B.  Problem Definition

The Town of Scotland Neck is  unable  to  meet its  final NPDES Permit  limits
and is operating with  a Special  Order  by  Consent which specifies interim
limits. The Town is requesting a  201 Step III grant to upgrade  treatment by
increasing  hydraulic capacity to  0.675 mgd  with an  additional clarifier, an
aerobic digester, tertiary  filters, a chlorine contact chamber,  post aera-
tion and additional sludge  drying  beds. The  treated effluent from Scotland
Neck is discharged into Canal  Creek.  The  lower  reaches of Canal  Creek are
part of the swamp  through which Deep Creek  passes.
                                     D-25

-------
           tSCOTLAHO MECKI 1!  •= ;- --_j»r •: v   tl    25'
                          '.-'!'•'  S C*> T L A N D _  NECK

-T'"'--.    ---;tf^cr^
•if\\  i  %   .4- -fe.-X!-.-- :

   <:^-11
 • --   -<. _/*--. •' '
                   "'•"MTi:-:.'W« ""^,-
'*" «* ^
c.n, •"•v^ i
  y •
              Figure 1.  Study Area, Deep Creek

                       and Canal  Creek



                              D-26

-------
 Deep  Creek  carries a "C" classification, but due to naturally  low dissolved
 oxygen  and  other conditions imposed  by the surrounding  swamp,  it  is felt
 that  reclassification  to "C-Swamp"  should  be considered. Deep Creek should
 be  classified C-Swamp  because  its physical characteristics meet the C-Swamp
 classification  of the  North  Carolina  Administrative  Code  for Classifica-
 tions and Water  Quality  Standards. The  Code states: Swamp waters shall mean
 those waters  which  are so designated by the  Environmental  Management Com-
 mission  and which are  topographically located  so as to generally have very
 low velocities  and  certain other characteristics  which are different from
 adjacent  streams draining  steeper  topograpy.  The  C-Swamp classification
 provides  for  a  minimum pH of  4.3 (compared to  a  range of pH 6.0 to pH 8.5
 for C waters),  and allows for  low (unspecified) DO values if caused by nat-
 ural  conditions. DO  concentrations   in  Deep Creek  are usually  below 4.0
 mg/1.

 C.  Approach to  Use Attainability Analysis

    1. Data Available

       1. Self Monitoring Reports from Scotland Neck.
       2. Plant  inspections by the Field Office.
       3. Intensive Water Quality  Survey of Canal Creek  and  Deep Creek at
          Scotland  Neck in  September,  1979.  Study  consisted of  time-of-
          travel  dye work and water quality sampling.

    2. Additional Routine Data Collected

       Water quality survey of Canal  Creek  and  Deep Creek at Scotland Neck
       in June 1982. Water quality data was collected to support a biologi-
       cal  survey of these creeks. The study included grab samples and flow
       measurements.

       Benthic macroinvertebrates were  collected from  sites  on Canal  Creek
       and  Deep Creek.  Qualitative  collection methods were used. A two-
       member team spent one hour per site collecting from as many habitats
       as possible.  It is felt that this collection method is more reliable
       than quantitative collection methods  (kicks,  Surbers , ponars ,  etc.)
       in this  type of habitat. Taxa  are recorded  as rare, common, and
       abundant.

 II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

 A.  Physical Factors

 Sampling sites were chosen to correspond with sites previously sampled in a
water quality survey of Canal and Deep Creeks.  Three stations were selected
on  Canal  Creek.  SN-1   is  located 40  feet above  the  Town of  Scotland  Neck
Wastewater  Treatment Plant  outfall.  This site  serves  as a  reference sta-
tion. The width  at  SN-1 is  7.0 feet  and the  average discharge  (two  flows
were  recorded in the   September 1979  survey  and  one flow in the  June 1982


                                      D-27

-------
survey) is 0.65  cubic  feet per second. Canal Creek  at  SN-1  has  been chan-
nelized and has  a  substrate  composed  of  sand and silt. SN-4  is  located on
Canal Creek 900 feet below the discharge point.  This section of Canal Creek
has  an  average cross-sectional area  of  11.8 feet and  an average  flow of
1.33 cubic feet  per  second.  The  stream in  this  section is also channelized
and  also  has  a substrate composed of  sand  and  silt. There is a  canopy of
large cypress  at  SN-.4  below the plant, while the canopy  above SN-1 is re-
duced to a narrow buffer zone. The potential uses of Deep Creek are limited
by its inaccessability in these areas.

A third station  (SN-5) was  selected on one of the  lower  channels  of Canal
Creek  at  the  confluence  with Deep Creek  3200  feet  upstream of  the  U.S.
Highway 258  bridge. Discharge measurements  could not  be accomplished at
this site  during this  survey because of  the swampy nature of  the stream
with many ill-defined, shallow,  slow  moving  courses. Benthic macroinverte-
brates were collected from this site.

Three  stations were  chosen on Deep Creek.  SN-6 is  approximately  300  feet
upstream of SN-5 on  Canal  Creek  at  its confluence with Deep Creek and is a
reference site. SN-7 is  located at the U.S.  Highway  258 bridge and SN-8 is
located further  downstream at the SR  1100 bridge. SN-7 and  SN-8 are below
Canal Creek. There  are  some  differences  in habitat  variability among these
three  sites.  The substrate at both SN-6  and SN-7 is composed mostly  of a
deep layer of  fine particulate matter. Usable  and  productive benthic  hab-
itats in this area are reduced because of the fine particulate layer. It is
possible that the  source  of this sediment is from frequent  overbank flows
and  from  upstream  sources.  Productive benthic  habitats  include  areas of
macrophyte growth, snags, and submerged tree trunks. Discharge measurements
were not taken at any of these three sites during this survey.

B.  Chemical  Factors

Chemical data from two water quality surveys show that the dissolved oxygen
in Canal Creek is depressed while BOD,., solids and nutrient levels are ele-
vated. The 1982 study indicates,  however,  that  the water  quality is better
than it was during  the  1979  survey. Such  water  quality improvements may be
due  to  the addition of chlorination  equipment  and other  physical  improve-
ments as well as to the efforts of a new plant operator.

Both above and below its confluence with Canal Creek, Deep Creek shows poor
water quality which may be attributed  to natural conditions, but not to any
influence from the waste load carried  by Canal Creek. Canal Creek exhibited
higher DO levels than Deep Creek.

C.  Biological Factors

The  impact of the effluent on the fauna of Canal  Creek  is clear. A 63 per-
cent reduction  in  taxa richness from 35  at  SN-1 to only  13  at  SN-4 indi-
cates severe stress as measured against criteria developed by biologists of
the Water Quality Section. The overwhelming dominance of Chironomus at SN-4
                                      D-28

-------
 is  indicative  of  a  low 00 level and high concentrations of organic matter.
 To  what extent this condition is attributable to the effluent or to natural
 swamp  conditions  is  not clear. No  impact  to the  benthos of Deep Creek was
 discerned which could  be attributed to the effluent.

 III.  FINDINGS

 Deep Creek is currently designated  as  a  class  C warm water fishery but due
 to  naturally low dissolved oxygen concentrations may not be able to satisfy
 the class C dissolved  oxygen  criteria. The DO criterion for class C waters
 stipulates a minimum value  of 4 ppm, yet the DO in Deep Creek, in both the
 1979 and the 1982 studies, was  less than 4 ppm. Thus from the standpoint of
 aquatic life uses, Deep Creek may not be able to support the forms of aqua-
 tic life  which are intended  for protection  under  the  class  C standards.
 Because  of prevailing  natural  conditions,  there  are  no  higher potential
 uses of Deep Creek than now exist; yet because of prevailing natural condi-
 tions  and  in  light of the  results of this  water body  assessment,  the C-
 swamp  use  designation  appears  to  be a more  appropriate designation under
 existing North Carolina Water Quality Standards.

 Canal Creek is degraded  by  the effluent from the Scotland Neck wastewater
 treatment plant.  The BOD    fecal coliform,  solids and  nutrient levels are
 elevated while the DO  concentration is depressed.  The  reach  immediately
 below the outfall is affected by an accumulation of  organic solids, by dis-
 coloration and by odors associated with the wastewater.

 IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 The water body survey  of  Deep Creek and Canal Creek  included  a considera-
 tion of  physical, chemical  and  biological  factors.  The focus  of  interest
 was those  factors responsible  for  water  quality  in Deep  Creek, including
 possible deliterious effects of the  Scotland Neck wastewater  on this water
 body. The  analyses  indicate that  the  effluent does  not appear to  affect
 Deep Creek. Instead, the water  quality of  Deep  Creek  reflects  natural con-
 ditions imposed by seasonal  low flow and  high temperature, and reflects the
 nutrient and organic contribution of the surrounding  farmland  and  wetland.
 It  is  concluded  that  the C-Swamp  designation  more  correctly  reflects  the
 uses of Deep Creek than does the C designation.

 In  contrast to Deep Creek,  Canal  Creek is  clearly affected by  the treated
 effluent.  Further examination would be required to determine the extent of
 recovery that might be expected in Canal Creek if the  plant  were to  meet
current permit requirements  or  if the proposed changes to the  plant  were
 incorporated into the  treatment  process.
                                     D-29

-------
              WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                        Malheur River
                   Malheur County, Oregon
INTRODUCTION
A.  Site Description

    The Malheur River,  in  southeastern Oregon,  flows  eastward to
    the Snake River which separates  Oregon  from Idaho.   Most of
    Malheur County  is under  some  form of  agricultural  production.
    With an average annual  precipitation  of less than  10 inches,
    the delivery of  irrigation water  is essential  to maintain the
    high agricultural productivity of the  area.

    The Malheur River system serves as a major source of water for
    the area's  irrigation  requirements (out of  basin  transfer of
    water  from  Owyhee  Reservoir  augments  the  Malheur  supply).
    Reservoirs,  dams,  and   diversions have   been   built  on  the
    Malheur and its  tributaries to  supply  the  irrigation network.
    The  first   major withdrawal  occurs  at the Namorf  Dam  and
    Diversion,   at  Malheur River  Mile 69.   Figure 1  presents  a
    schematic of the study area.

    Irrigation   water  is  delivered  to  individual  farms  by  a
    complicated system  of  canals  and  laterals.   Additional  water
    is obtained from  drainage  canals  and  groundwater sources.   An
    integral part of  the water distribution  system  is the use and
    reuse of irrigation  return flows  five or  six  times before it
    is finally discharged to the Snake River.

B.  Problem Definition

    The Malheur River above Namorf  Dam  and Diversion  is managed
    primarily as a  trout fishery,  and from Namorf to the mouth as
    a warm-water  fishery.   The upper  portion  of the river system
    is appropriately  classified.   Below Namorf  Dam, however, the
    river is inappropriately classified as supporting a cold-water
    fishery, and  therefore  was selected for review.   This review
    was  conducted   as  part   of  the U.S.  Environmental  Protection
    Agency's  field   test  of the  draft  "Water   Body   Survey  and
    Assessment  Guidance"  for  conducting  a   use  attainability
    analysis.  The  guidance  document  supports  the proposed rule to
    revise  and  consolidate  the existing  regulation governing the
    development,  review,  and approval of  water  quality  standards
    under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.

C.  Approach to Use Attainability Analysis

    Assessment  of the Malheur River is based on  a site  visit which
    included meetings  with   representatives of the  Malheur County
    Citizen's   Water   Resources    Committee,    the    USDA-Soil
    Conservation  Service,  the  Oregon  Department of Environmental
                                0-30

-------
       MIDDLE FORK OF
       MALHEUR RIVER
       WARM SPRINGS
       RESERVOIR

       SOUTH FORK
       MALHEUR RIVER
        BEULAH
        RESERVOIR

• JUNTURA |NORTH?rOR!<
       MALHEUR RIVER
                               -POLE CREEK
              MALHEUR
              RIVER
               HARPER
               SOUTHSIOE
               CANAL

        COTTONWOOO
        CREEK
                LITTLE
                VALLEY
                CANAL
             J-H CANAL
                NEVADA
                CANAL
  OWYHEE
    RIVER
   NAMORF
I—i DIVERSION
                   CLOVER
                   CREEK
VALE-
OREGON
CANAL
                           GELLERMAN-FROMAN
                           CANAL
           SNAKE RIVER
     SIMPLIFIED FLOW SCHEMATIC

MALHEUR RIVER  IRRIGATION SYSTEM
               - FIGURE

                   0-31

-------
         Quality  (ODEQ),  the  Oregon Department  of  Fish  and  Wildlife
         (ODFW),  and the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA):
         and  upon the  findings  reported  in  two studies:

             Final  Report, Two  Year Sampling  Program,  Maiheur  County
             Water  Quality  Management   Plan,MaiheurCountyPlanning
             Office, Vale,  Oregon,  1981.

             Bowers,  Hosford and  Moore,  Stream  Surveys  of  the  Lower
             Owyhee  and  Maiheur Rivers,  A Report to the Maiheur  County
             Hater  Resources Committee^Oregon  Department of  Fish  and
             Wildlife, January,  1979.

         The  first  report, prepared under amendments to Section  208  of
         the  Clean  Water  Act,  contains extensive  information  on  the
         quantity,   quality  and   disposition  of  the   areas'   water
         resources.    The  second  document  gives  the fish  populations
         found  in  the  lower 69 miles of the Malheur River during  June
         and   July,  1978.     Information  in   the   ODFW   report   is
         incorporated   in   the  208   report.     Additional   fisheries
         information supplied  by ODFW was also considered.

         A representative  of   ODEO,  Portland,  and the  Water  Quality
         Standards   Coordinator,  EPA  Region  X,   Seattle,  Washington,
         agreed that  the   data  and  analyses  contained   in  these  two
         reports were  sufficient to re-examine existing  designated uses
         of the Malheur  River.

II   ANALYSES CONDUCTED

     Physical,   chemical,    and   biological   data   were   reviewed   to
     determine:  (1) whether the  attainment of a  salmonid  fishery was
     feasible  in   the  lower   Malheur;   and  (2)  whether  some  other
     designated use  would  be  more  appropriate  to  this  reach.   The
     elements of this  review follow:

     A.   Physical  Factors

         Historically,  salmonid fish  probably used  the   lower  Malheur
         (lower 50 miles) mainly  as  a  migration route,  because  of the
         warm water and poor  habitat.    The first barrier to  upstream
         fish migration was the  Nevada   Dam  near Vale,   constructed  in
         1880.   Construction of the Warm Springs  Dam in  1918, ended the
         anadromous  fish   runs  in  the  Middle   Fork   Malheur.    The
         construction  of  Beulah Dam in   1931,  befell  the  remainder  of
         anadromous fish runs  on the North  Fork  Malheur.   Finally, the
         construction  of Brown!ee Reservoir in 1958  completely blocked
         salmonid  migrants destined for the upper Snake  River System.
                                      0-32

-------
    With the  construction of  the  major  irrigation  reservoirs on
    the  Malheur  River  and   its  tributaries,  the  natural   flow
    characteristics  in  the  lower  river have  changed.   Instead of
    high early  summer  flows,  low  summer and fall  flows and steady
    winter flow,  the  peak flows may occur  in  spring,  if and  when
    the upstream  reservoirs  spill.    Also,  a  high  sustained   flow
    exists  all  summer  as water  is  released  from  the  dams  for
    irrigation.   A  significant  change  limiting fish  production in
    the Malheur River below  Namorf  is the extreme  low flow  that
    occurs when the  reservoirs  store water  during  the  fall  and
    winter for  the next irrigation season.

    Two  other  physical  conditions  affect  the  maintenance  of
    salmonids  in  the  lower  Malheur.    One  is  the  high suspended
    solids load carried  to  the river  by  irrigation  return flows.
    High suspended  solids also  occur  during wet weather when  high
    flows erode the stream  bank and  re-suspend bottom sediments.
    The seasonal  range  of suspended  solids  content  is  pronounced,
    with the  highest  concentrations  occurring  during irrigation
    season and  during  periods of wet weather.   Observed peaks in
    lower reaches  of  the river, measured during  the  two-year 208
    Program,  reached  1300 mg/1,  while  background  levels  rarely
    dropped below  50  mg/1.   A  high  suspended  solids  load  in the
    river adversely affects the ability of  sight-feeding salmonids
    to  forage,  and  may  limit  the  size  of  macroinvertebrate
    populations and  algae production  which are  important  to the
    salmonid  food chain.  A second  factor is high  summer water
    temperature  which  severely stresses   salmonids.    The   high
    temperatures  result  from  the  suspended   particles absorbing
    solar radiation.

B.  Biological Factors

    The  biological  profile   of the   river  is mainly based  on
    fisheries  information,   with  some  macroinvertebrate  samples
    gathered by the Oregon Department  of  Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
    in  1978.    During  the  site  visit,  the   participants  agreed
    additional  information  on  macroinvertebrates and periphyton
    would not  be   needed  because  the  aquatic  insect  numbers  and
    diversity  were  significantly  greater  in  the   intensively
    irrigated reach  of the  river than  for the upper  river where
    agricultural activity is  sparse.

    Although the Malheur River from Namorf to the mouth is managed
    as a warm water fishery,  ODFW has expended  little time and few
    resources on  this  stretch of the  river  because  it is  not  a
    productive  fish  habitat.    Survey  results  in  summer  of   1978
    showed a low  ratio  of game  fish to rough  fish over the lower
    69 miles of the Malheur River.
                                D-33

-------
         In   the   section  between  Namorf  and  the   Gellerman-Froman
         Diversion   Dam   there  was   little   change   in  water   quality
         although  water  temperatures  were elevated.   Only three  game
         fish were   captured   but   non-game   fish   sight-feeders   were
         common.   Low winter  flows  over  a  streambed  having  few  deep
         pools for overwinter survival  appears to  limit fish production
         in  this  reach of river.

         In  the  stretch  from  the  Gellerman-Froman Diversion  to  the
         mouth,   the  river  flows   through   a  region  of   intensive
         cultivation.  The river  carries  a high silt load which  affects
         sight-feeding   fish.      Low  flows   immediately   below   the
         Gellerman-Froman Dam  also limit  fish  production in this  area.

     C.   Chemical  Factors

         A  considerable   amount of  chemical  data  exist on  the  Malheur
         River.   However, since the  existing  and  potential uses  of the
         river  are dictated largely  by physical constraints,  dissolved
         oxygen  was  the  only  chemical   parameter  considered  in  the
         assessment.

         The Dissolved  Oxygen  Standard  established   for  the  Malheur
         River  Basin calls for  a  minimum of  75 percent  of saturation at
         the seasonal  low and 95  percent  of  saturation  in  spawning
         areas  or during spawning,  hatching,  and fry stages of salmonid
         fishes.     One   sample  collected  at  Namorf  fell  below  the
         standard to 73  percent of  saturation  or 8.3 mg/1  in  November,
         197R.   All  other samples were above  this  content, reaching as
         high as  170 percent   of  saturation   during  the summer due to
         algae.   Data collected by the ODEO  from Malheur River near the
         mouth  between   1976  and   1979   showed  the  dissolved  oxygen
         content   ranged  from  78   to  174  percent  saturation.    The
         dissolved  oxygen  content  in  the   lower  Malheur   River  is
         adequate to support  a  warm-water fishery.

Ill  FINDINGS

     A.   Existing Uses

         The lower Malheur River  is  currently designated as  a salmonid
         fishery, but it is managed  as a  warm water fishery.   Due to a
         number of physical constraints on the lower  river,  conditions
         are  generally   unfavorable  for  game  fish,   so   rough   fish
         predominate.  In practice, the lower Malheur River serves  as a
         source  and  a   sink for  irrigation  water.   This  type  of use
         contributes to water  quality  conditions  which are unfavorable
         to salmonids.
                                     D-34

-------
     B.  Potential  Uses

         Salmonid  spawning  and  rearing  areas  generally  require  the
         highest criteria of  all  the  established  beneficial  uses.   It
         would  be  impractical, if  not  impossible  in  some  areas,  to
         improve water  quality to  the  level   required  by  salmonids.
         However,  even  if  this  could  be  accomplished,  high  summer
         temperatures  and   seasonal  low  flows  would  still  prevail.
         While salmonids historically  moved  through the Malheur  River
         to  spawn  in  the   headwater  areas,  year-round  resident  fish
         populations probably  did not  exist  in  some of these  areas  at
         the time.

         The Malheur River  basin can be  divided into  areas,  based upon
         differing  major uses.  Suggested divisions are:   (1) headwater
         areas above the reservoirs; (2)  reservoirs;  (3)  reaches  below
         the reservoirs and above the  intensively  irrigated  areas;  (4)
         intensively irrigated areas;  and (5) the  Snake River.

         In  intensively  irrigated  areas, criteria  should reflect  the
         primary use of the water.   Higher levels  of certain  parameters
         (i.e., suspended solids,  nutrients, temperature,  etc.) should
         be  allowed   in   these  areas   since  intensively   irrigated
         agriculture,  even  under  ideal   conditions,  will  unavoidably
         contribute  higher  levels  of  these  parameters.    Criteria,
         therefore, should  be  based on the conditions  that exist  after
         Best Management Practices  have been  implemented.

IV   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

     Malheur River flows  have been  extensively  altered  through  the
     construction of several dams and  diversion structures designed  to
     store and distribute water for agricultural uses.  These  dams,  as
     well   as others  on the   Snake  River,   to  which  the  Malheur  is
     tributary, block natural  fish  migrations  in  the  river  and,  thus,
     have  permanently  altered  the  river's  fisheries.   In  addition,
     water  quality  below   Namorf  Dam  has  been   affected,   primarily
     through agricultural  practices, in a way which  severely restricts
     the type  of  fish  that can  successfully inhabit  the  water.    One
     important factor which affects fish populations  below Namorf  is
     the  high  suspended   solids   loading  which   effectively   selects
     against  sight-feeding  species.    Other  conditions   which  could
     affect the types and  survival  of  fish species  below Namorf include
     low  flow  during the  fall and  winter  when  reservoirs  are  being
     filled  in  preparation  for the coming  irrigation  season,   as well
     as high suspended solids, and high  temperatures  during  the summer
     irrigation season.

     Realistically, the  Malheur River  could not  be  returned to  its
     natural state unless a large  number of hydraulic  structures were
     removed.  Removal  of these structures  would  result in  the demise
     of  agriculture  in  the  region,   which  is  the  mainstay  of  the
                                     D-35

-------
county's economy.  Furthermore, removal of these  structures  is  out
of  the  question due  to the  legal  water  rights which  have been
established  in  the   region.    These  water  rights  can  only   be
satisfied through  the system of dams,  reservoirs,  and  diversions
which  have  been   constructed  in  the  river  system.    Thus,   the
changes in the Malheur River Basin are  irrevocable.

Physical barriers  to fish migration  coupled  with  the effects  of
high  sediment  loads  and the  hydraulics  of  the system  have  for
years  established  the  uses  of  the  river.    Given  the  existing
conditions  and  uses  of  the  Malheur  River   below  the   Namorf
Diversion,  classification  of  this river  each  should be changed
from  a  salmonid  fishery,   a  use  that  cannot  be  achieved,   to
achievable  uses  which  are  based  on   the  existing  resident fish
populations  and  aquatic life  to  reflect  the  present  and highest
future uses of the river.   Such  a change in designated  beneficial
uses  would  not  further  jeopardize existing  aquatic  life  in  the
river, nor would it  result in  any  degradation  in  water quality.
                                 D-36

-------
                   WATER  BODY  SURVEY AND  ASSESSMENT
                               Pecan  Bayou
                            Brownwood,  Texas
 I.   INTRODUCTION
A.  Site Description

     Segment  1417  of  the Colorado River Basin  (Pecan  Bayou)  originates
below  the  Lake Brownwood  Dam and extends  approximately 57.0 miles  to
the Colorado  River  (Figure  1).   The  Lake  Brownwood  Dam was  completed  in
1933.   Malfunction  of the  dam's  outlet  apparatus led to its  permanent
closure in  1934.   Since that time, discharges  from  the  reservoir occur
only infrequently during periods  of  prolonged  high  runoff conditions  in
the  watershed.   Dam  seepage  provides the  base  flow  to  Pecan  Bayou
(Segment 1417).  The  reservoir  is operated for flood  control  and water
supply.  The  Brown County  WID transports  water from  the reservoir  via
aqueduct  to  Brownwood  for  industrial  distribution,  domestic  treated
water  distribution  to  the  Cities   of  Brownwood   and  Bangs  and the
Brookesmith Water System, and irrigation distribution.  Some  irrigation
water  is diverted from  the  aqueduct  before  reaching  Brownwood.

     Pecan  Bayou meanders  about  nine miles  from  Lake Brownwood  to  the
City of Brownwood.  Two  small dams impound water  within  this  reach,  and
Brown  County  WID operates an  auxilliary pumping station  in  this  area  to
supply their  system during  periods of high demand.

     Two tributaries  normally  provide  inflow  to  Pecan Bayou.    Adams
Branch  enters Pecan  Bayou  in Brownwood.   The base  flow  consists  of
leaks  and   overflow  in  the  Brown  County  WID storage  reservoir and
distribution  system.   Willis  Creek enters  Pecan Bayou below  Brownwood.
The base flow in Willis  Creek  is  usually  provided by  seepage through  a
soil conservation dam.

     The main Brownwood sewage  treatment plant discharges  effluent  to
Willis  Creek  one mile above  its  confluence with Pecan  Bayou.    Sulfur
Draw,  which  carries  brine  from  an  artesian  salt  water  well  and
wastewater from the  Atchison, Topeka and  Santa Fe Railroad Co.,  enters
Willis  Creek  about  1,700   feet  below the  Brownwood  sewage  treatment
plant.  Below the  Willis Creek confluence,  Pecan Bayou meanders  about
42.6 miles  to the  Colorado River,  and  receives no additional   inflow
during  dry  weather  conditions.   Agricultural  water  withdrawals for
irrigation may significantly  reduce  the streamflow  during  the  growing
season.

     The Pecan Bayou  drainage basin  is  composed primarily of range and
croplands.     The  stream banks,   however,  are  densely  vegetated with
trees, shrubs and grasses.   The bayou is typically 10-65 feet wide, 2-3
feet  deep,  and  is  generally  sluggish  in  nature  with soft   organic
sediments.
                                  D-37

-------
V
U)

-------
B.  Problem Definition

     The  designated  water  uses  for  Pecan   Bayou  include  noncontact
recreation, propagation  of  fish and  wildlife,  and domestic  raw water
supply.    Criteria   for  dissolved   oxygen   (minimum  of  5.0  mg/1),
chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids (annual averages not to
exeed 250, 200, and 1000 mg/1,  respectively),  pH  (range of 6.5 to 9.0)
fecal  coliform  (log mean not  to exceed 1000/100 ml),  and temperature
(maximum of 90°F) have been established for the segment.

     Historically,  Pecan  Bayou is  in generally  poor  condition during
summer  periods  of  low  flow,  when   the  Brownwood  STP  contributes  a
sizeable portion of the total stream  flow.  During low  flow conditions,
the stream is in a highly enriched state below the sewage outfall.

     Existing   data   indicate    that    instream   dissolved   oxygen
concentrations  are  frequently  less   than  the criterion,  and   chloride
and total  dissolved solids annual  average concentrations occasionally
exceed  the established  criteria.     The  carbonaceous  and  nitrogenous
oxygen  deficencies   in  Pecan   Bayou.    The" major  cause of   elevated
chlorides  in Pecan  Bayou  is the artesian  brine discharge in to Sulfur
Draw.

     Toxic compounds  (PCB,  DDT,  ODD,  DDE,  Lindane, Heptachlor  epoxide,
Dieldrin,  Endrin, Chlordane,  Pentachlorophenol,  cadmium, lead,  silver,
and mercury) have been observed  in water,  sediment and fish tissues in
Pecan  Bayou  (mainly below the  confluence  with  Willis  Creek).   It has
been  determined  that the  major  source   was  the  Brownwood  STP,  but
attempts   to   specifiy  the   points   of   origin  further   have  been
unsuccessful.  However, recent levels show a declining  trend.

C.  Approach to Use Attainability

     Assessment of Pecan  Bayou  is  based on a site visit  which  included
meetings with representatives of the  State of Texas,  EPA  (Region VI and
Headquarters)  and  Camp  Dresser  & McKee  Inc.,  and  upon   information
contained  in a number of  reports, memos and other related materials.

     It was agreed by those present during the site visit that  the data
and  analyses  contained   in  these  documents  were  sufficient  for  an
examination of the existing designated  uses of Pecan  Bayou.

II.  ANALYSES CONDUCTED

     An extensive amount  of physical, chemical, and biological  data has
been collected on Pecan  Bayou  since  1973.   Most of the  information was
gathered  to  assess  the  impact  of the  Brownwood  STP  on  the  receiving
stream.   In order  to simplify the  presentation  of  these  data, Pecan
Bayou  was  divided into three  zones (Figure 1):   Zone 1 is the  control
area and  extends  from the Lake Brownwood  Dam  (river  mile 57.0) to the
Willis  Creek confluence  (river  mile  42.6); Zone 2 is the impacted area
and extends 9.0 miles  below the Willis  Creek  confluence.

                                 D-38

-------
A.  Physical Evaluation

     With the exception of stream discharge,  the  physical
characteristics of Pecan Bayou are  relatively  homogeneous  by  zone.
Average width of the stream  is about 44-50  feet,  and  average  depth
ranges from 2.1 to 3.25 feet.  The  low  gradient  (2.8  to  3.9 ft/mile)
causes the bayou to be sluggish  (average  velocity of  about 0.1  ft/sec),
reaeration rates to be low (Kg of 0.7 per day  at  20°C),  and pools  to
predominate over riffles (96% to 4*,).   Stream  temperature  averages
about 18°C and ranges from 1-32°C.  The substrate is  composed primarily
of mud (sludge deposits dominate in Zone  2), with small  amounts  of
bedrock, gravel and sand being exposed  in riffle  areas.

     Base flow in Pecan Bayou is provided by  dam  seepage (Zone  1) and
the treated sewage discharge from the City  of  Brownwood  (Zones  2 and
3).  Median flow increases in a downstream  direction  from  2.5 cfs in
Zone 1 to 17.4 cfs in Zone 3.  Significantly  higher mean flows  (118 cfs
in Zone 1 and 125 cfs in Zone 3) are the  result of periodic high
rainfall runoff conditions in the watershed.

B.  Chemical Evaluation

     Existing chemical data  of Pecan Bayou  characterize  the degree of
water quality degradation in Zone 2.  Average  dissolved  oxygen  levels
are about 2.0 mg/1 lower in  the  impact  zone,  and  approximately  50% of
the observations have been less than 5.0  mg/1.  8005,  ammonia,
nitrite, nitrate, and phosphorus levels are much  higher  in the  impact
zone as compared to the control and recovered  zones.   Un-ionized
ammonia levels are also higher in Zone  2, but  most of  the
concentrations were below the reported  chronic levels  allowable  for
warm water fishes.  None of the levels  exceeded the reported  acute
levels allowable for warm water  fishes, and less  than  43 of the  levels
were between the acute and chronic  levels reported.   Total dissolved
solids, chlorides and sulfates were higher  in  Zones 2  and  3,  mainly as
a result of the brine and sewage discharges into  Sulfur  Draw  and Willis
Creek.

     PCB, DDT, DDD, DDE and Lindane in  water,  and PCB, ODD, and  DDE,
Heptachlor epoxide, Dieldrin, Endrin, Chlordane,  and  Pentachlorophenol
in sediment have been detected in Zone  2.   PCB, DDT,  DDD,  and DDE
concentrations in water have exceeded the criteria to  protect
freshwater aquatic life.  The Brownwood STP was the suspected major
source of these pesticides.  Most of the  recent levels,  however, show a
declining trend.  PCB was detected  also in  Zones  1 and 3.

     Heavy metals have not been detected  in the water.   Heavy metals in
the sediment have shown the  highest levels  in  Zone 2  for arsenic (3.7
rog/kg), cadmium (1.1  mg/kg), chromium (17.4 mg/kg), copper (9.5  mg/kg),
lead (25.1  mg/kg), silver (1.5 mg/kg),  zinc (90 mg/kg),  and mercury
(0.18 mg/kg).
                               D-39

-------
C.  Biological Evaluation

     Fish samples collected  from  Zone  1  are representative of a  fairly
healthy population of game fish,  rough fish and forage species.   Zone  2
supported a smaller total  number  of fish which were composed primarily
of rough fish and forage species.   A relatively healthy balance of  game
fish, rough fish and forage species reappeared in the recovered zone.

     Macrophytes were sparse in Zones 1 and 3.  They were most abundant
in  Zone 2  below the  Willis  Creek confluence  and  were  composed of
vascular plants  (pondweed,  coontail,  false loosestrife  and duckweed)
and  filamentous  algae  (Cladophora  and  Hydrodictyon).    Macrophyte
abundance below Willis Creek  is  most  likely due to nutrient enrichment
of the area from the Brownwood STP.

     Zone 1 is  represented by a  fairly  diverse  macrobenthic community
characteristic  of a  clean-water  mesotrophic  stream.     Nutrient   and
organic  enrichment  in  Zone  2  has  a  distinct  adverse  effect  as
clean-water organisms  are  replaced by pollution-tolerant  forms.    Some
clean-water organisms reappeared  in Zone 3 and pollution-tolerant forms
were not as  prevalent;  however,  recovery to  baseline  conditions (Zone
1) was not complete.

     Net phytoplankton  desnities are  lowest  in  Zone 1.   Nutrient  and
organic enrichment  in  Zone 2 promotes a  marked  increase in abundance.
Peak abundance was observed  in  the upper part of  Zone  3.   The decline
below this  area  was  probably caused by  biotic grazing  and/or nutrient
deficiencies.

     Fish  samples  for  pesticides  analyses  have  revealed  detectable
levels  of  PCB, DDE  and  ODD  in  Zone  1.   Fish  collected from  zone  2
contained  markedly  higher  amounts  of   DDE,   ODD, DDT,  Lindane   and
Chlordane than Zones 1 or 3.  PCB in fish tissue was highest in ZOne 3,
and measureable concentrations  of DDE  and ODD have also been observed.
Concentrations  of total  DDT in whole  fish tissues  from Zone  2  have
exceeded the  USFDA  Action  Level  of 5.0 mg/kg  for edible fish tissues.
Species representing the highest  concentrations.

     Computer  modeling  simulation  were  made  to  predict  the dissolved
oxygen profile in the impact zone during the fish spawning season.   The
results indicate that about three miles of Pecan  Bayou in  April and  May
and  about  4  1/2  miles  in June  will  be  unsuitable for propogation,
considering a minimum  requirement  of  4.0  mg/1.   The model  predicts  a
minimum D.O.  of  0.8  mg/1  in  April,  1.2 mg/1  in  May,  and 0  mg/1 in
June.
                                  0-40

-------
D.  Institutional Evaluation

     Two institutional factors exist which constrain the  situation  that
exists in Pecan  Bayou.   These are the  irrigation  water rights  and  the
Brownwood  sewage treatment   plant  discharge  permits.    Although   the
sewage treatment  plant  discharge permits will  expire  and the  problems
created by the effluent  could be eliminated  in  the  future, there  is  a
need for the  flow provided by the discharge  to satisfy the  downstream
water  rights  used for  irrigation.    Currently, there  are eight water
users  on  Pecan  Bayou  downstream of  the Brownwood  STP discharge  with
water rights permits totaling 2,957 aere-feet/year.  Obviously,  the 0.1
cfs base flow which exists in Pecan Bayou upstream of  the  STP discharge
is not sufficient to fulfill  these downstream  demands.   Therefore,  it
appears that the  STP  flow may be required to supplement  the base  flow
in Pecan Bayou to meet the downstream demands for water unless  it could
be arranged  that water  from  Lake Brownwood  could  be  released by  the
Brown Co. WID #1  to meet the  actual downstream  water needs.

     Modeling  studies   show   that   although  there   would  be   some
improvement in water  quality  as  a result of  the sewage treatment plant
going  to  advanced  waste treatment  (AWT),  there  would  still  be  D.O.
violations in  a  portion  of Pecan Bayou  in  Zone 2.   The studies  also
show that there  is minimal additional water quality  improvement  between
secondary and  advanced  waste  treatment,  although  the   costs  associated
with  AWT  were  significantly  higher   than  the  cost  for secondary
treatment.   In this  case,  the secondary treatment alternative  would  be
the recommended course of action.

III.  FINDINGS

A.  Existing Uses

     Pecan Bayou  is currently being used  in the  following  ways:

     0 Domestic Raw Water Supply
     0 Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
     0 Noncontact Recreation
     0 Irrigation
     0 City  of  Brownwood STP discharge  (not  an acceptable  or  approved
       use designation)

Use as a discharge  route for  the City  of Brownwood's   sewage treatment
plant  effluent  has  contributed  to  water quality conditions which  are
unfavorable to the  propagation  of  fish  and  wildlife   in  a portion  of
Pecan Bayou.

B.  Potential Uses

     The Texas Department of  Water Resources  has established  water  uses
which  are  deemed desirable  for  Pecan  Bayou.    These  uses  include:
noncontact recreation,  propagation  of fish and  wildlife, and  domestic
raw water supply.


                                  D-41

-------
     Of these uses, propagation of fish and wildlife  is unattainable  in
a portion  of Pecan Bayou  due to the  effects  of  low dissolved  oxygen
levels  in  the  bayou  primarily  during the  spawning  season.    If the
Brownwood  sewage  treatment  plant  effluent could  be  removed from  Pecan
Bayou, the persistently low dissolved  oxygen conditions which exist and
are  unfavorable   to   fish  spawning  could   be   alleviated  and  the
propagation  of  fish  and wildlife could be  partially restored to  Pecan
Bayou.

     Public  hearings  held  on  the   proposed  expansion  of  the   sewage
treatment  plant indicate  a  reluctance from the public  and the City  to
pay  for  higher  treatment  levels,  since  modeling  studies  show minimal
water quality improvement in Pecan Bayou between  secondary  and advanced
waste treatment.   In  addition, an affordability  analysis  performed  by
the Texas  Department of Water Resources (Construction Grants) indicates
excessive treatment costs per month  would result  at  the AWT  level.

     It appears that the  elimination of  the waste discharge from  Pecan
Bayou is not  presently  a  feasible  alternative, since the Brownwood STP
currently  holds a  discharge permit and the  water  rights issue seems  to
be the overriding  factor.  Therefore,  in the future,  the uses which are
most likely to exist are those which exist at  present.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

     A summary  of  the  findings  from  the  use attainability analysis are
listed below:

     0  The  designated  use   "propagation   of   fish   and  wildlife"   is
       impaired in Zone 2 of Pecan Bayou.

     0 Advanced  Treatment will not  attain  the designated  use  in Zone
       2,  partially  because   of  low  dilution,  naturally  sluggish
       characteristics  (X velocity  0.1  ft/sec)  and  as a  result, low
       assimlitive capacity  of the  bayou  (K?  reaeration  rate  0.7 per
       day at 20°C).

     0  Downstream water  rights    for   agricultural  irrigation  are
       significant.

     0 Dissolved  oxygen levels are  frequently  less  than  the criterion
       of  5.0 mg/1 in Pecan Bayou.

     0 Total DDT  in whole fish from  Zone 2 exceeded the  U.S. Food and
       Drug  Administration's  action  level of  5.0  mg/kg for edible fish
       tissues.

     0  Annual  average  chloride  concentrations   in  Pecan   Bayou are
       occasionally not in compliance  with the  numerical criteria.
                                   D-42

-------
     Dissolved  oxygen  levels  less  than  5.0  rtig/1  (about 50%  of  the
measurements) observed  in  Zone 2 of  Pecan  Bayou  result  from the  organic
and  nutrient   loading   contributed   by  the  Brownwood   STP  and   the
corresponding  low  waste  assimilative  capacity  of  the  bayou.     As
previously  mentioned,  the major  source of toxics  found  in the water,
sediment and fish tissues  was  also determined to be the  Brownwood  STP.
PCB and DDT in  water have exceeded  the criteria to protect freshwater
aquatic life in Zone 2.   Although  the toxics appear to be declining in
the water  and  sediment,  the  levels  of  total  DDT  found  in  whole  fish
exceed the  U. S. Food and  Drug Administration's  action  level  (5.0 mg/k)
for DDT  in  edible  fish tissue.   Investigations  are  underway  by  the
Texas Department  of Water Resources to  further  evaluate the  magnitude
of this potential problem.

     Primarily  as a result of the oxygen  deficiencies and possibly be
cause  of   the  presence  of   toxic   substances,  the  designated   use
"propagation of fish and wildlife"  is  not  currently attained  in Zone  2
of  Pecan   Bayou.    These  problems  could  be  eliminated  only  if   the
Brownwood  STP ceased to discharges  into Pecan  Bayou because  even  with
advanced waste  treatment the  water  quality "of  the receiving  stream is
not likely to  improve   sufficiently to support this  designated   use.
Other treatment  alternatives  such as  land treatment  or  overland  flow
are not  feasible  because of  the  current  discharge   is  necessary  to
satisfy downstream  water  rights  for agricultural   irrigation.   If  the
flow required to  meet  the water  rights could be  augmented  from other
sources, then the sewage treatment  plant discharge could  be eliminated
in the future.

     The annual  average  chloride  level  in  Pecan  Bayou  are occasionally
not in compliance with  the established  criterion.   The  primary source
has been determined  to  be a  privately  owned  salt  water  artesian well.
Since  efforts   to   control  this  discharge  have  proved   futile,   some
consideration should be  given  to changing the  numerical  criterion  for
chlorides  in Pecan Bayou.

     In conclusion,  it  appears that  either the Brownwood  STP  discharge
into Pecan  Bayou  should be eliminated  (if  an  alternative water source
could  be found to satisy the downstream water rights)  or the  numerical
criterion  for dissolved oxygen and the propogation  of fish and wildlife
use designation  should be  changed to reflect attainable conditions.
                                 D-43

-------
                   WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
                              Salt Creek
                           Lincoln, Nebraska
I. INTRODUCTION

A. Site Description

     The Salt Creek drainage basin is located in east central Nebraska.
The mainstem of  Salt  Creek  originates  in southern Lancaster County  and
flows northeast to the Platte  River  (Figure  1).   Ninety percent of  the
1,621 square mile  basin  is  devoted to  agricultural  production with  the
remaining ten  percent primarily urban.  The  basin  is characterized  by
moderately  to  steeply  rolling uplands  and   nearly  level  to  slightly
undulating  alluvial   lands  adjacent  to  major streams,  primarily  Salt
Creek.  Drainage in the  area is usually quite  good  with the exception
of minor problems  sometimes  associated  with  alluvial  lands adjacent  to
the  larger  tributaries.    Soi.ls   of  the basin  are  of  three  general
categories.   Loessial  soils are estimated to make  up approximately  60
percent of  the  basin, glacial   till  soils  20 percent,  and terrace  and
bottomland soils 20 percent.

     Frequent high  intensity rainfalls and increased  runoff from  land
used  for  crop  production  has, in  past years,  contributed  to   flood
damage  in  Lincoln  and smaller  urbanized  areas  downstream.   To  help
alleviate these  problems,  flood control practices  have been installed
in the watershed.   These  practices,  including several impoundments  and
channel modifications  to  the mainstream of  Salt  Creek, were completed
during the late 1960's.  Channel realignment  of the lower  two-thirds  of
Salt Creek has decreased the overall length  of  Salt Creek by nearly  34
percent (from  66.9 to 44.3  miles) and  increased  the  gradient  of  the
stream from 1.7 feet/mile to 2.7 feet/mile.

     Salt Creek  is currently  divided  into three  classified segments:
(upper  reach)  LP-4,  (middle  reach)  LP-3a,   and  (lower  reach)  LP-3b.
(Figure  1).   Segments  LP-4  and  LP-3b  are  designated  as Warmwater
Habitats whereas  segment LP-3a is designated  as  a  Limited Warmwater
Habitat.

B. Problem Definition

     "Warmwater Habitat"  and "Limited  Warmwater Habitat"  are  two  sub-
categories  of  the  Fish and  Wildlife Protection  use  designation in  the
Nebraska Water  Quality Standards.   The  only  distinction between  these
two  use  classes   is that  for   Limited   Warmwater  Habitat  waters,
reproducing populations  of  fish are "...limited  by irretrievable  man-
induced or  natural  background  conditions."    Although  segment   LP-3a
is classified Limited Warmwater Habitat and  segment LP-3b as Warmwater
Habitat,  they  share   similar   physical  characteristics.    Since  the
existing fisheries  of both  segments  were not thoroughly evaluated  when
the standard was  revised,  it is possible that  the  use designation  for
one  or other  segments  is   incorrect.   This study  was  initiated  to
determine (1)  if the  Warmwater Habitat use  is  attainable for segment
LP-3a  and  (2)  what,  if   any,   physical  habitat   or  water  quality
constraints preclude  the attainment of  this use.


                                 0-44

-------
                                                   SCALt
         ~HHHN~fW"fTp;
                         LP-3a
                                                  Fish Sampling Site
                                                  (Maret, 1978}
                                               *  Macro invertebrate-
                                                  Sampling  Site
                                                  (Pesefc, 1974)
Figure 1 .  Monitoring sites from which data were used for Salt Creek
          attainability study.                       - "^ —"r:L-
                            D-4B

-------
C. Approach to Use Attainability Analysis

     The  analytical  approach used  in this  study was  a  comparison  of
physical, chemical and biological parameters between the upper, middle,
and lower Salt Creek segments with emphasis was on identifying limiting
factors  in  the creek.   The  uppermost segment  (LP-4)  was  used  as  the
standard for comparison.

     The  data  base  used   for  this  study  included  United   States
Geological  Survey  (USGS) and   Nebraska   Department   of  Environmental
Control  (NDEC) water quality data outlined in the US EPA STORET system,
two Master of Science theses by Tom Pesek  and Terry Maret,  publications
from  the Nebraska  Game  and Parks  Commission  and  USGS  and personal
observations by NDEC staff.  No new data was collected  in the study.

II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED

     A  review of  physical,  chemical  and  biological   information  was
conducted to  determine which  aquatic life  use  designations  would  be
appropriate.   Physical  characteristics for each  of  the three segments
were evaluated and  then compared to  the  physical  habitat  requirements
of  important  warm water  fish  species.    Characteristics  limiting  the
fishery  population were  identified  and the suitability of  the physical
habitat  for maintaining  a  valued  fishery  was evaluated.  General  water
quality  comparisons  were made between  the upper reach  of  Salt  Creek,
and the  lower  reaches to  establish  water  quality differences.  A water
quality  index developed  by the  NDEC  was  used  in  this  analysis  to
compare  the  relative  quality of water  in the  segments.    In addition,
some critical  chemical  constituents  required to maintain the important
species were reviewed and compared to actual instream  data  to determine
if water quality was stressing or precluding their populations.

     The fish  data  collected by Maret was used to  define  the existing
fishery  population  and  composition  of  Salt  Creek.   This  data  was  in
turn used to determine the quality of the  aquatic biota through the use
of six biotic  integrity  classes  of  fish communities  and the Karr  Index
tentative numerical index for defining class boundaries.

     Macroinvertebrate  data  based  on the  study conducted  by Pesek  was
also evaluated for density and diversity.

III. FINDINGS

     Chemical  data  evaluated using  the Water  Quality Index indicated
good  water  quality  above Lincoln  and degraded  water quality  at  and
below  Lincoln.    Non-point  source  contributions  were  identified as  a
cause  of water quality  degradation  and  have  been  implicated  in  fish
kills  in  the  stream.   Dissolved solids in Salt Creek  were  found  to  be
considerably  higher  than in  other  streams in  the  State.   Natural
background contributions  are the major source  of dissolved solids  load
to  the stream.   Water quality  criteria  violations monitored  in  Salt
Creek  during 1980 and 1981 were  restricted to unionized ammonia and may
                                  D-46

-------
have adversely impacted  the  existing downstream fishery.  Toxics  which
occasionally  approach or  exceed  the  EPA criteria  are  chromium  and
lindane.   Since EPA  criteria for  both parameters  are  based  on  some
highly  sensitive organisms  which are  not  representative of  indigenous
populations  typically found  in  Nebraska, the  actual  impact  of  these
toxics  is believed to be minimal.

     Channelization was found to be  a  limiting  factor in  establishing  a
fishery  in  middle  and  lower  Salt  Creek.   Terry  Maret, in  his  1977
study,  found  that  substrate  changes from silt  and  clay  in  the  upper
non-channelized area  to  primarily  sand in the channelized area  causing
substantial changes in fish communities.   The Habitat Suitability  Index
(HSI) developed  by the Western  Energy and Land  Use  Team of the  U.S.
Fish and Wildlife  Service was used to  evaluate  physical  habitat  impacts
on one  important species  (Channel  Catfish) of  fish in  Salt Creek.   The
results  indicated  that  upper Salt Creek  had  the  best habitat for  the
fish investigated  and middle  Salt  Creek had the  worst.  These  results
support  the  conclusion  that  middle  Salt  Creek  lacks  the physical
habitat  to  sustain a valued  warm  water  fishery.    The Karr  numerical
index used to evaluate the fish data  revealed that  none of the stations
rated   above  fair,   further   indicating  the   fish   community   is
significantly impacted by surrounding  rural and urban land uses.

     Analysis  of  the abundance  and  diversity  of  macroinvertebrates
indicated that  the water  quality  in  Salt Creek  became progressively
more degraded going  downstream.   Stations  in  the  upper reaches  were
relatively  unpolluted  as  characterized  by   the  highest   number  of
taxa,   the  greatest  diversity  and  the  presence  of   "clean-water"
organisms.

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

     Based on the  evaluation  of the  physical,  chemical and  biological
characteristics of  Salt  Creek,  the following  conclusions were drawn  by
the State for the  potential uses of  the various segments:

1) Current  classifications  adequately  define  the  attainable uses  for
   upper and middle Salt Creek.

2) The  Warmwater Habitat  designated use may be unattainable for  lower
   Salt Creek.

3) Channelization  has limited existing instream habitat  for middle  Salt
   Creek.   Instream  habitat  improvement  in  middle  Salt  Creek  could
   increase the  fishery but  would  lessen  the  effectiveness  of  flood
   control measures.  Since flood control  benefits  are  greater than  any
   benefits that could  be  realized  by enhancing  the  fishery, instream
   physical  habitat remained the limiting  factor for  the  fishery.

4) Existing water  quality does not  affect  the limited  Warmwater  Habitat
   classification  of middle Salt Creek.
                                 D-47

-------
5) Uncontrollable background  source impacts on  existing water quality
   and the effects of channelization on habitat may preclude attainment
   of the classified use.

     The recommendations of the  State  drawn from these conclusions  are
as follows:

1) Keep  upper  section classification  of  Warmwater Habitat  and middle
   section classification of Limited Warmwater Habitat.

2) Consider  changing  the lower section to  a Limited  Warmwater Habitat
   because of limited physical habitat and existing water quality.
                                  D-48

-------
                   WATER  BODY  SURVEY  AND  ASSESSMENT
                          South  Fork Crow  River
                          Hutchinson,  Minnesota
 I. INTRODUCTION
   A. Site Description

     The  South Fork  Crow River,  located  in  south-central  Minnesota,
drains  a  watershed  that covers approximately  1250 square miles.   This
river joins  with  the North  Fork  Crow to form  the mainstem Crow  River
which flows  to its  confluence  with the  Mississippi  River  (Figure  1).
Within  the  drainage basin, the predominant  land  uses are  agricultural
production and pasture  land.  The major  soil types in  the  watershed  are
comprised of dark-colored, medium-to-fine textured silty  loams,  most  of
which are medium to well drained  in  character.

     The  physical  characteristics  of the  South  Fork Crow  River  are
typical  of  many  Minnesota streams  flowing  through agricultural  lands.
The  upper  portions  of the river  have been  extensively channelized  and
at Hutchinson  a  forty  foot  wide, 12  foot  high dam  forms a  reservoir
west  of the city.    Downstream  of  the  dam the river freely meanders
through areas  with  light to moderately  wooded  banks  to its  confluence
with the North Fork  River  Crow  River.  The  average stream  gradient  for
this section of  the river is approximately two feet  per  mile  and  the
substrate  varies  from  sand,  gravel  and  rubble in areas  with  steeper
gradients to a silt-sand mixture  in  areas of slower velocities.

     The average annual  precipitation in the watershed is  27.6  inches.
The  runoff  is  greatest  during  the  spring  and  early  summer,  after
snowmelt,  when  the  soils  are  generally  saturated.     Stream   flow
decreases  during  late summer and  fall  and  is  lowest  in  late  winter.
Small tributary streams  in the  watershed often go dry in the fall  and
winter  because they  have little  natural  storage and  receive  little
ground  water contribution.   The seven-day  ten  year low flow  condition
for  the South  Fork  below  the dam  at Hutchinson  is  approximately  0.7
cubic feet per second.

   B.   Problem Definition

     The study on the  South  Fork  Crow River was  conducted in order  to
evaluate  the  existing  fish  community  and to determine  if  the  use
designations  are  appropriate.    At   issue  is  the  2B  fisheries  and
recreational  use classification  at   Hutchinson.    Is  the  water  use
classification appropriate for this  segment?

   C.  Approach to Use Attainability

     The analysis  utilized an extensive  data  base compiled  from  data
collected by the  Minnesota Pollution  Control  Agency   (MPCA),  Minnesota
Department  of  Natural  Resources  (MDNR)  and  United  States Geological
Survey  (USGS).   No  new data was  collected  as  part of  the  study.    The
USGS maintains partial or continuous flow record stations on both  forks
                                 D-49

-------
FIGURE 1.  STATION  LOCATIONS FOR THE SOUTH  FORK
           CROW RIVER USE ATTAINABILITY STUDY
                                                                — Clectrofishing Station

                                                                A USGS Continuous Recording
                                                                  Gouging Station

                                                                A USGS Partial Record Station

                                                               Q MPCA Woter Quality
                                                                  Monitoring Station
                        ^    J               WRIGHT CO
                                    '                    ""

-------
 and  the malnstem Crow River with  a  data base of  physical  and chemical
 parameters  available  on  STORET.   The US6S data was used in the physical
 evaluation  of  the  river.   MPCA has a water quality monitoring data base
 on STORET for  five stations  in the Crow River watershed.  The MPCA data
 plus  analytical  data from a  waste  load  allocation  study  on  the South
 Fork  below  Hutchinson was  used in the chemical evaluation of the river.
 MDNR  fisheries and stream  survey data, a MDNR report on the analysis of
 the  composition  of fish populations in Minnesota rivers,  and personal
 observations  of MDNR personnel  was  used  to  evaluate the  biological
 characteristics  of the  river.

      The  analytical  approach  used  by the  MPCA  sought  to  1)  compare
 instream fish  community health of the  South  Fork to that  of the North
 Fork, the mainstem Crow  River, and other warm water rivers in the State
 and  2)  evaluate  physical  and  chemical  factors affecting  fisheries  and
 recreational  uses.   The  North  Fork  of the  Crow  River  was used  for
 comparison  because of sufficient fisheries data,  similar  land uses  and
 morphologies,  similar  non-point source  impacts   and  the  lack   of  any
 significant point  source dischargers.

 II.   ANALYSES  CONDUCTED

      Physical, chemical  and  biological factors were considered  in  this
 use  attainability  analysis to determine the  biological  health  of  the
 South Fork  and to  define the physical  and chemical factors which may be
 limiting.   A general  assessment of  the habitat potentials  of the South
 Fork  Crow River  was performed  using  a  habitat  evaluation  rating system
 developed  by  the  Wisconsin  Department  of  Natural   Resources.    In
 addition, the  Tennant method for determining  instream  flow requirements
 was also employed  in  this  study.

   Fish  species  diversity, equitability  and  composition  were  used  to
 define the  biological health of the South Fork relative to that of  the
 North Fork, the  mainstem Crow  and other  warmwater  rivers  in Minnesota.
 Water quality  monitoring data  from  stations  above and  below  the point
 source  discharges  at Hutchinson were  used  to  compare beneficial  use
 impairment   values   pertaining   to   the  designated   fisheries   and
 recreational  uses   of the  South  Fork  Crow  River.     A  computer  data
 analysis program developed by  EPA Region  VIII  was  used  to  compute these
 values.

 III.  FINDINGS

     The comparison of  species diversity values for the North Fork  and
mainstem Crow  River  to  the South   Fork  showed  higher  values  for  the
 North Fork  and mainstem Crow.    On the other  hand,  the South Fork  had
 higher  species  equitability values.   The  percent species  composition
compared favorably to Peterson's  (1975) estimates  for median  species
diversity for  a  larger  Minnesota river.  Recruitment from  tributaries,
marshes,  lakes  and  downstream  rivers  has   given  the  South  Fork  a
 relatively  balanced  community  which compares well  to  other  warmwater
 rivers in the State.  The  calculated species  diversity  and  equitability
 indices coupled with the analysis  of species  composition  indicated that
the South Fork of  the Crow River does support a warmwater  fishery with
evidence of some degree of environmental  stress.


                                  D-51

-------
The MPCA  employed  the Wisconsin habitat  rating  system and the  Tennant
method  designated   to  quantify   minimum  instream   fisheries   flow
requirements to  identify  any physical limiting  factors.   Based on  the
Wisconsin  habitat   evaluation  assessment,  habitat  rating  score   were
fair.   The  limiting factors identified  via this  assessment  were:   1)
lack  of  diverse streambed  habitat  suitable  for  reproduction,   food
production and cover  and  2) instream water fluctuations  (low flow  may
be a major controlling factor).

     The  State  utilized  EPA Region  VIII's data  analysis  program  to
express stream  water quality  as a  function of  beneficial   use.    The
closest downstream station  to  Hutchinson   had  the  highest warmwater
aquatic  life  use   impairment   values.     Warmwater   aquatic life  use
impairment values declined further downstream indicating that the  point
source  dischargers were  major  contributors to  this  use  impairment.
However,  primary contact  recreational use  impairment  Values were  high
throughout  the  stream.     This  led  the  State  to   believe that  the
impairment  of  primary  contact  recreational  use  is  attributable  to
non-point sources.

IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

     The  State concluded from the  study  that:  1) the  South  Fork of the
Crow River  has  a definite fisheries  value  although  the use  impairment
values  indicate  some  stress   at   Hutchinson   on  an  already   limited
resource  and 2)  although  the   South  Fork  of  the   Crow  River  has  a
dominant  rough  fish  population,   game  and  sport   fish  present  are
important   component   species   of   this   rivers'   overall   community
structure.

     From these  conclusions the State recommended that the   South  Fork
of the  Crow  River  retain  its present 2B fisheries and  recreational  use
classification.    Furthermore,   efforts   should  continue  to mitigate
controllable factors  that  contribute to  impairment of  use.   The effort
should  entail a  reduction  of marsh tilling  and  drainage, acceptance and
implementation of  agricultural   BMP's and  an  upgrade  of  point source
dischargers  in Hutchinson.
                                    D-52

-------
                        WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT

                               South Platte River
                                Denver,  Colorado


I.  INTRODUCTION

A.  Site Description

Segment 14  of  the South Platte River originates north  of  the  Chatfield Lake at
Bowles  Avenue  in  Arapahoe  County and  extends  approximately  16  miles, through
metro Denver, in a northerly direction to the Burlington ditch  diversion near the
Denver County-Adams County line.   A map  of the study area  is presented  in Figure
1.  Chatfield  Lake was  originally  constructed for  the purposes of Flood control
and recreation.   The reservoir is  owned  by  the  U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers and
is essentially operated such that outflow equals inflow, up to  a maximum of 5,000
cfs.  In addition, water is released to  satisfy  irrigation demands as authorized
by the State Engineers Office.   There is also an informal  agreement between the
State  Engineers   Office  and  the  Platte  River   Greenway  Foundation  for  timing
releases of water to increase flows during periods  of high  recreational  use.  The
Greenway Foundation has played an  important role in the significant improvement
of water quality in the South Platte River.

There are  several obstructions  throughout  Segment  14  including  low  head dams,
kayak chutes (at  Confluence  Park and 13th  Avenue),  docking  platforms,  and weir
diversion structures which alter the flow in the South  Platte  River.   There are
four  major  weir  diversion  structures   in   this  area  which  divert  flows  for
irrigation; one is located adjacent to the Columbine Country Club, a second near
Union Avenue, a third upstream from Oxford Avenue,  and a fourth at the Burlington
Ditch near Franklin Street.

Significant  dewatering  of  the  South Platte River  can occur  due to  instream
diversions for irrigation and water  supply  and  pumping  from the numerous ground
water dwells along the  river.

Eight tributaries normally provide  inflow to the South  Platte  River  in Segment
14.  These  include  Rig  Dry  Creek,  Little Dry Creek,  Bear  Creek,  Harvard Gulch,
Sanderson Gulch,  Weir Gulch,  Lakewood Gulch,  and Cherry  Creek.

There are  several municipal  and  industrial  facilities which  discharge  either
directly to or into  tributaries  of the  South Platte River in this reach.   The
major active discharges into  the segment are the Littleton-Engl ewood  wastewater
treatment plant  (WWTP), the  Glendale WWTP, the  City  Ice Company, two  Public
Service company power plants  (Zuni  and Arapahoe), and Gates Rubber.

The South Platte River drainage basin in this area (approximately 120,000 acres)
is  composed  primarily  of   extensively   developed   urban  area  (residential,
industrial,  commercial, services,  roads), parks and  recreational  areas,  gravel
mining  areas,  and  rural  areas  south  of  the  urban  centers   for  farming  and
grazing.


                                      D-53

-------
                                                    LEGEND
                                                  Municipal Oocnoqi
                                                •  Inddtriol 0«enargt
               Figure  1
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER CTUDY AREA MAP
                 n-Fi4

-------
In the study area,  the South Platte River is typically 50-150 feet wide and 1-16
feet deep (typically 1-2 feet)  and  has  an average channel bed slope of 12.67 feet
per mile,  with alternating  riffle and  pool   reaches.   The  channel  banks  are
composed essentially of sandy-gravelly materials that  erode  easily  when exposed
to high-flow conditions.  The stream banks are generally sparsely vegetated with
trees, shrubs, and  grasses (or  paving in  the urban centers.)

B.  Problem Definition

The following  use  classifications  have  been  designated for  Segment 14  of  the
South Platte River:

     0  Recreation  - Class 2 -  secondary  contact
     0  Aquatic Life - Class 1  -  warm water aquatic  life
     0  Agriculture
     0  Domestic Water Supply

Following a review  of the water quality studies and  data available for Segment 14
of the South Platte River, several  observations and  trends  in the data have been
noted, including:

     0   Fecal  coliform values  exceeded  the recommended  limits  for  recreational
        uses in the lower portion of Segment 14.

     0   Un-ionized  ammonia  levels  exceeded  the water  quality criterion  for  the
        protection  of aquatic life  in the lower portion of the segment.

     0   Levels of  total  recoverable  metals  (lead,  zinc,  cadmium,  total  iron,
        total manganese,  and total  copper)  have been  measured  which exceed  the
        water quality criteria  for  the  protection of aquatic life.

Although the exact  points of origin have  not been specified, it  is generally felt
that the source of  the ammonia  is municipal point sources, and the sources of the
metals are industrial point sources.

In addition, the cities  of Littleton and Englewood  have challenged  the  Class I
warm water aquatic  life use on  the  basis  that  the flow  and habitat are unsuitable
to  warrant  the  Class   I  designation,   and   they   have  also  challenged  the
apporopriateness of the 0.06 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia criteria on the  basis of new
toxicity data.  The  Colorado Water Quality  Control  Commission  in November, 1982
approved the  Class  I aquatic life classification and the 0.06 mg/1 un-ionized
ammonia criteria.

C.  Approach to Use Attainability

Assessment of Segment 14 of the South Platte River was  based on  a site visit (May
3-4,  1982)  which    included  meetings   with   representatives  of  the  Colorado
Department of Health, EPA (Region VIII  and Headquarters) and Camp Dresser & McKee
Inc., and upon information contained in a number of reports, hearing transcripts
and the other  related materials.    Most of the physical,  chemical  and biological
data was obtained from the USGS,  EPA (STORET),  DRURP, and from


                                       D-55

-------
studies.    It  was  agreed  that  there  was  sufficient  chemical,  physical  and
biological  data to proceed with the assessment, even though physical  data on the
aquatic habitat was limited.

II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED

A.  Physical Factors

Streamflow in the South PIatte River (Segment 14) is affected by several factors
including releases  from  Chatfield  Dam,  diversions  for  irrigation  and domestic
water supply, irrigation return flows, wastewater discharges, tributary inflows,
pumping from ground water wells in  the  river  basin,  evaporation from once-through
cooling  at  the  two  power plants  in   Segment   14,  and  natural  surface  water
evaporation.   Since some  of  these factors  (particularly  ground  water pumping,
evaporation and  irrigation diversions)  are  variable,  flow in the  South Platte
River  is  used  extensively  for irrigation  and  during  the  irrigation  season
diversions  and  return  flows  may  cause  major  changes  in   streamflow  within
relatively  short   reaches.    During  the  summer,  low-water  conditions  prevail
because of increased evaporation,  lack  of rainfall,  and the various  uses made of
the  river  water   (e.g.   irrigation  diversions).    Municipal,  industrial,  and
storm-water discharges also  contributes to  the  streamflow in the  South Platte
River.

Natural pools in the South Platte River  are scarce and  the  shifting nature of the
channel bed results in temporary pools,  a  feature which has  a  tendency  to greatly
limit the capacity for bottom food  production.  There are approximately 3-4 pools
per  river  mile with  the majority  being  backwater  pools  upstream  of diversion
structures,  bridge  crossings,  low  head  dams,  docking  platforms,  drop-off
structures  usually downstream  of  wastewater  treatment  plant outfalls,  kayak
chutes,  and  debris.   The  hydraulic effect of  each  obstruction is  generally to
cause  a  backwater condition  immediately  upstream  from  the structure, scouring
immediately downstream, and sandbar development  below  that.   These  pools act as
settling basins for silt and debris which no longer get flushed  during the high
springs flows once Chatfield Lake was  completed.

In  the  plains,   channels  of  the  South  Platte River  and   lower   reaches  of
tributaries  cut  through  deep alluvial   gravel  and   soil   deposits.    Sparse
vegetation  does  not  hold  the soils,  so  stream bank  erosion and  channel  bed
degredation is common during periods of  high  flow, particularly during  the spring
snowmelt season.   The high intensity -  low duration  rainstorms which occur during
the summer (May, June, and July) also  temporarily muddy the streams.

An  evaluation  of  the  physical   streambed  characteristics  of   Segment  14  to
determine the potential of the Segment  to maintain and  attract warm water aquatic
life  was  conducted by Keeton  Fisheries  Consultants,  Inc.    The  study concluded
that  the sediment loads  in this reach  of the  South  Platte  River  could  pose a
severe problem to the aquatic life  forms present, however,  further study needs to
be  conducted  to  substantiate this  conclusion.    Furthermore,  some gravel mining
operations  have  recently  been discontinued  thus the  sediment problem may have
been  reduced.

The  temperature  in the  South  Platte River  is  primarily a  function  of releases
from  the bottom of Chatfield Lake,  the degree of warming that takes place in the
shallow  mainstream  and isolated pools,  and the  warming that  occurs through the
mixing of power plant cooling water with the  South Platte River.

                                        D-5b

-------
B.  Chemical  Factors

Water quality conditions in the South Platte River are substantially affected by
municipal and industrial wastewater discharges,  irrigation  return flows and other
agricultural  activities,  and non-point  sources of  pollution  (primarily during
rainfall-runoff events).   Irrigation and  water supply diversions  also  exert a
major  influence  on  water  quality by  reducing the  stream  flow,   and  thereby
reducing the dilution assimilative capacity of the  river.

     0  Dissolved oxygen levels were above the  5.0 mg/1  criteria acceptable for
        the maintenance of aquatic life.

     0   Average  concentrations of  un-ionized  ammonia exceeded  the State water
        quality  criteria  of  0.06  mg/1   NH3-N  only  in  the  lower portion  of
        Segment 14 (north of Speer Blvd.)

     0  Average total lead concentrations exceeded the water quality criteria of
        25 ug/1  in  Big Dry  Creek,  Cherry  Creek,  and the South  Platte River
        north of Cherry Creek, ranging  from 30-72 ug/1.

     0  Average total zinc concentrations  exceeded  the criteria of 11 ug/1 at all
        the DRURP sampling stations,  ranging from 19-179 ug/1.

     0  Average total cadmium concentrations exceeded  the  criteria  of  1 ug/1 in
        Beer Creek, Cherry Creek  and several sites  in the South Platte, ranging
        from 2.2-3.6 ug/1.

     0  Average total iron concentrations exceeded the criteria of  1,000 ug/1 in
        Cherry Creek  and several   locations  on  the South  Platte River, ranging
        from 1129-9820 ug/1.

     0   Average soluble  manganese concentrations exceeded the criteria  of 50
        ug/1  in'the South Platte  River north of (and including)  19th Street and
        in Cherry Creek, ranging from 51-166 ug/1.

     0  Average total copper concentrations equalled or exceeded the criteria of
        25 ug/1 at  all  but two of the DRURP sampling  sites,  ranging from 25-83
        ug/1.

C.  Biological  Factors

Several electrofishing studies have been  conducted on  the  South  Platte River in
recent years.  Most of the sampling took  place  in  the fall  with the exception of
the study in the spring (1979).   The data was reviewed by Colorado  Department of
Health  personnel  and it  was generally  agreed  that  the  overall health  of the
existing warm water fishery is restricted by temperature extremes (very cold and
shallow during the winter and low flow and high temperatures during the summer),
                                      p-57

-------
the  lack  of sufficient  physical  habitat  (i.e.  structures for  cover including
rocks and dams, and deep pools) and the potentially stressful conditions created
by the wastewater discharges (i.e.  silt  and organic  and  inorganic enrichment).

Following a review of  the  physical,  chemical, and  biological  data available on
the  South  Platte  River,  it was concluded  that  a fair  warm  water  fishery could
exist  with  only  modest  habitat  improvements  and  maintenance  of  the existing
ambient water  quality  and  strict  regulation prevent  overfishing.   With large
habitat and water quality  improvements, brown trout could potentially become a
part of the fishery in  Segment  14  of the South Platte River.

III. FINDINGS

A. Existing Uses

Segment 14  of  the South Platte River  is  currently being  used  in  the following
ways:

     0  Irrigation Diversions and  Return Flows
     0  Municipal  and Industrial Water  Supply
     0  Ground Water Recharge
     0  Once-through Cooling
     0  Municipal, Industrial,  and  Stormwater  Discharges
     0  Recreation
     0  Warm Water Fishery

The  irrigation diversions,  water supply, ground water recharge, and cooling uses
have  primarily affected  the  flow in  the South  Platte  River,   resulting  in
significant  dewatering  at  times.     Irrigation   return   flows  and   wastewater
dishcharges, on  the other  hand,  exert  their effects  on  the ambient  and storm
water quality in the River.  These previous uses ultimately affect, the existing
warm  water fishery  and  how  the public   perceives  the  river  for   recreation
purposes.

R.   Potential  Uses

With the exception of a potential  for  increased  recreation  and the  improvement of
a limited warm water fishery, it  is anticipated  that the existing uses  are  likely
to exist in the future.  The increased  recreational use will  result from  future
Platte River Greenway  Foundation  projects.   The  improvement of a limited warm
water fishery  may come  about in the future  as the result of habitat improvements
(pools,  cover)  control of  toxic  materials  (un-ionized ammonia,  heavy  metals,
cynanide), and the  prevention  of  extensive sedimentation.   However, the success
of the fishery would rely on strict fishery regulations  to  prevent  overfishing.
                                         D-58

-------
IV.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A summary of the findings  from the use  attainability  analysis are listed below:

     0   There  is  evidence  to indicate  that a warm water  aquatic  life community
        does exist and the  potential  for an improved  fishery  could be attained
        with slight habitat  modifications (i.e.  cover,  pool).
     o
        Elevated un-ionized ammonia  levels  were  exhibited in the lower portion of
        Segment 14, although this  cannot  be attributed to the Littleton-Englewood
        WWTP discharge upstream.   However,  at the present time there is no basis
        for a change  in  the existing  un-ionized ammonia criterion, particularly
        if  EPA's  methodology  for  determining  site  specific  criteria  becomes
        widely accepted.

     0   Increased  turbidity  exists  in  the  South  Platte River  during a  good
        portion of  the fish spawning  season,  which represents a  potential  for
        problems associated with fish  spawning.

     0   Increased  sedimentation  and siltation  in  the  South Platte  River  could
        pose  a  potential  threat  to  the  aquatic   life  present;   however,  this
        condition might be reduced if  Chatfield  Lake could be operated to provide
        periodic flushing of the river.

     0   Elevated levels  of heavy  metals  were observed  in  water  and  sediment
        samples, which could potentially  affect  the  existing aquatic life.

     0  Insufficient data existed to  determine  the  possible  effects of chlorine
        and cyanide on the aquatic life present.
     o
         Fecal  coliform  levels were extremely  high  in  the lower portion  of the
        South Platte River and Cherry Creek during periods of  both  low and high
        flow.  The source in the South Platte  River  is  apparently  Cherry Creek,
        but the origin in Cherry  Creek  is  unknown at this time.

On the  basis of  the preceding  conclusions  and recommendations, the  warmwater
fishery  use  classification and  the  un-ionized ammonia  criterion   (0.06  mg/1)
recommended for Segment  14 of the  South  Platte  should remain  unchanged  until
there is further evidence to support making those changes.
                                        D-59

-------
          APPENDIX U
          List of EPA Regional
    Water Quality Standards Coordinators
                                       H

                                       c
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
            WATER  QUALITY  STANDARDS
                         COORDINATORS
Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 1
Water Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3533

Wayne Jackson, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 2
Water Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY  10278
212-264-5685

Evelyn MacKnight, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 3
Water Division
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA  19107
215-597-4491

Fritz Wagener,  WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 4
Water Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3555x6633

David Pfeifer, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 5
Water Division
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
312-353-9024

Cheryl Overstreet, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 6
Water Division
1445 Ross Avenue
First Interstate Bank Tower
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-6643
Larry Shepard, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 7
Water Complainance  Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS  66101
913-551-7441

Bill Wuertherle, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 8
Water Division
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
303-293-1586

Phil Woods, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 9
Water Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco,  CA 94105
415-744-1997

Marcia Lagerloef, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 10
Water Division (WS-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-0176

   -or-

Sally Brough, WQS Coordinator
EPA Region 10
Water Division (WS-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1754
(8/15/94)

-------
         APPENDIX V
     Water Quality Standards Program
        Document Request Forms
                                     I
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
                                                                                                       REV 02/07/9
                                      WATER  RESOURCE  CENTER
                                                 202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:
           STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
REQUESTOR PROFILE
NAME
POSITION/TITLE
ORGANIZATION
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
	 Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
Date request made
Date submitted to EPA
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
 DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (I) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
                                              TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
 1.  Water Quality Standards Regulation,  Part II, Environmental  Protection Agency, Federal Register,
     November 8, 1983
     Regulations that govern the development, review, revision and approval of water quality standards
     under Section 303 of the Clean  Water Act.
 2.  Water Quality Standards Handbook, Second Edition, September 1993
     Contains guidance issued to date in support of the Water Quality Standards Regulation.
         Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of
         Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, EPA 822/F-93-009, October 1993
         This memorandum  transmits Office  of Water policy and guidance on the interpretation and
         implementation of aquatic life metals criteria.  It covers aquatic life criteria, total maximum daily
         loads permits,  effluent monitoring, compliance and ambient monitoring.
 3.  Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century,  1989
     Summary of the proceedings from the first National Conference on water quality standards held in
     Dallas, Texas, March 1-3, 1989.
 4.  Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century,  1991
     Summary of the proceedings from the second National Conference on water quality standards held in
     Arlington,  Virginia, December  10-12, 1990.
 5.  Compilation of Water Quality Standards for Marine Waters, November 1982
     Consists of marine water quality standards required by Section  304(a)(6) of the Clean Water Act.  The
     document identifies marine water quality standards, the specific pollutants associated with such water
     quality standards and the particular waters to which such water quality standards apply.  The
     compilation should not in any way be construed as Agency opinion as to whether the waters listed are
     marine waters within the meaning of Section 301(h)  of the Clean Water Act or whether discharges to
     such waters are qualified for a Section 301(h) modification.

-------
REV 02/07/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
TITLE
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, November 1983
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
regulation (48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). The guidance assists States in answering three key
questions:
a. What are the aquatic protection uses currently being achieved in the waterbody?
b. What are the potential uses that can be attained based on the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of the waterbody?
c. What are the causes of any impairment of the uses?
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Ani^yses, Volume II: Estuarine Systems
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
regulation (48 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). This document addresses the unique characteristics of
estuarine svstems and supplements the Technical Support Manual: Waterbodv Summary and
Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (EPA. November 1983).
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses, Volume III: Lake Systems, November 1984
Contains technical guidance to assist States in implementing the revised water quality standards
regulation (48 FR 51400 November 8, 1983). The document addresses the unique characteristics of
lake systems and supplements two additional guidance documents: Technical Support Manual:
Waterbodv Survey and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses EPA, (November 1983)
and Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses, Vol II: Estuarine Systems.
Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters, EPA 600/1-80-031, August 1983
This report presents health effects quality criteria for marine recreational waters and a
recommendation for a specific criterion. The criteria were among those developed using data collected
from an extensive in-house extramural microbiological research program conducted by the U.S. EPA
over the years 1972-1979.
Health Effects Criteria for Fresh Recreational Waters, EPA 660/1-84-004, August 1984
This report presents health effects criteria for fresh recreational waters and a criterion for the quality
of the bathing water based upon swimming - associated gastrointestinal illness. The criterion was
developed from data obtained during a multi-year freshwater epidemiological-microbiological research
program conducted at bathing beaches near Erie, Pennsylvania and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Three bacterial
indications of fecal pollution were used to measure the water quality: E. Coli, enter ococci and fecal
coliforms.
Introduction to Water Quality Standards, EPA 440/5-88-089, September 1988
A primer on the water quality standards program written in question and answer format. The
publication provides general information about various elements of the water quality standards
program.
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986 EPA 440/5-84-002
This document contains bacteriological water quality criteria. The recommended criteria are based on
an estimate of bacterial indicator counts and gastro-intestinal illness rates.
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REUQESTED








-------
                                                                                                           REV 02/07/94
           STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER  QUALITY STANDARDS BRANCH
                                               TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
 13. Test Methods for Escherichia Coil and Enterococci; In Water by the Membrane Filter Procedure,
    EPA 600/4-85/076, 1985
    Contains methods used to measure the bacteriological densities ofE. coli and enterococci  in ambient
    waters.  A direct relationship between the density of enterococci  and E.  coli in water and the
    occurrence of swimming - associated gastroenteritis has been established through epidemiological
    studies of marine and fresh water bathing beaches.  These studies have led to the development of
    criteria which can be used to establish recreational water standards based on recognized health
    effects-water  quality relationships.
 14. Twenty-Six Water Quality Standards  Criteria Summaries, September 1988
    These documents contain twenty-six summaries  of State/Federal criteria.  Twenty-six summaries have
    been compiled which contain information extracted from State water quality standards.   Titles of the
    twenty-six documents are:  Acidity-Alkalinity,  Antidegradation, Arsenic, Bacteria, Cadmium, Chromium,
    Copper, Cyanide, Definitions, Designated  Uses, Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Solids, General
    Provisions, Intermittent Streams, Iron, Lead, Mercury, Mixing Zones, Nitrogen-Ammonia/Nitrate/Nitrite,
    Organics,  Other Elements,  Pesticides, Phosphorus, Temperature,  Turbidity,  and Zinc.
15. Fifty-Seven State Water Quality Standards Summaries, September 1988
    Contains fifty-seven individual summaries of State water quality standards.  Included in each summary
    is the name of a contact person, use classifications of water bodies,  mixing zones, antidegradation
    policies and other pertinent information.
16. State Water Quality Standards Summaries, September  1988 (Composite document)
    This document contains composite  summaries of State water quality standards.   The document contains
    information about use classifications, antidegradation policies and other information applicable to a
    States' water quality standards.
17. Transmittal of Final "Guidance for State Implementation of Water Quality Standards for CWA
    Section 303(c)(2)(B)", December  12, 1988
    Guidance on State adoption of criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  The guidance is designed to help
    States comply with the 1987 Amendments to the Clean  Water Act which requires States to control
    toxics in water quality standards.
18. Chronological Summary of Federal Water Quality Standards Promulgation Actions, January
    1993
    This document contains the date, type of action and Federal Register citation for State water quality
    standards promulgated by EPA.  The publication also contains information on Federally promulgated
    water quality standards which have been withdrawn and replaced with State  approved standards.
19. Status Report:  State Compliance with CWA Section  303(c)(2)(b)  as of February 4, 1990
    Contains information on State efforts to comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B)  of the Clean Water Act which
    requires adoption of water quality standards for priority pollutants.  The report identifies  the States
    that are compliant as of February  4, 1990, summarizes the status of State actions to adopt priority
    pollutants and briefly outlines EPA's plan to federally promulgate standards for noncompliant States.
20. Water Quality Standards  for Wetlands:  National Guidance, July 1990
    Provides guidance for meeting the priority established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance to
    develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-1993 triennium.  By the end ofFY
    1993, States are required as a minimum to include wetlands  in the definition of "State waters,"
    establish beneficial uses for wetlands,  adopt existing narrative and numeric  criteria for  wetlands, adopt
    narrative biological criteria for wetlands and apply antidegradation policies to wetlands.

-------
                                                                                                     REV 02/07/94
          STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/WATER QUALITY  STANDARDS BRANCH
21. Reference Guide for Water Quality Standards for Indian Tribes, January  1990
    Booklet provides an overview of the water quality standards program.  Publication is designed
    primarily for Indian Tribes that wish to qualify as States for the water quality standards program.
    booklet contains program requirements and a list of reference sources.
The
22. Developing Criteria to Protect Our Nation's Waters, EPA, September  1990 (Pamphlet)
    Pamphlet which briefly describes the water quality standards program and its relationship to water
    quality criteria, sediment criteria and biological criteria.
23.  Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, EPA 823-R-92-009, December 1992
    Summary of the proceedings from the Third National Conference on Water Quality Standards held in
    Las Vegas, Nevada, August 31-September 3,  1992
24.  Biological Criteria:  National Program  Guidance for Surface Waters, EPA-440/5-90-004, April
    1990
    This document provides guidance for development and implementation  of narrative biological criteria.
25.  Amendments  to the Water Quality Standards Regulation  that Pertain to Standards on Indian
    Reservations - Final Rule. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, December 12,
    1991
    This final rule amends the water quality standards regulation by adding: 1) procedures by which an
    Indian Tribe may qualify for treatment as a State for purposes of the water quality standards and 401
    certification programs and 2)  a mechanism  to resolve unreasonable consequences  that may arise when
    an Indian Tribe and a State adopt different  water quality standards on a common  body of water.
26. Guidance on Water Quality Standards  and 401 Certification Programs Administered by Indian
    Tribes, December 31, 1991
    This guidance provides procedures for determining Tribal eligibility and supplements the final rule
    "Amendments to the Water Quality Standards Regulation that Pertain to Standards on Indian
    Reservations".
27. Water Quality Standards; Establishment  of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants;
    State's  Compliance - Final Rule, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, December
    22, 1992
    This regulation promulgates for 14 States, the chemical specific, numeric criteria for priority toxic
    pollutants necessary to bring all States into compliance with the requirements of Section 303(c)(2)(B)
    of the Clean  Water Act.  Staates determined by EPA to fully comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B)
    requirements  are not affected by this rule.
28. Interim  Guidance on Determinations and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals, EPA 823-B-94-
    001, February 1994
    This guidance contains specific information on procedures for developing water-effect ratios.
                           AFTER COMPLETING THE  CLEARINGHOUSE
                           REQUEST FORM,  PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
                           ADD  A STAMP, AND MAIL.

-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460

-------
                                                                                                      REV 02/15/9
                                      WATER RESOURCE CENTER
                                                202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:
              STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
REQUESTOR PROFILE
NAME
POSITION/TITLE
ORGANIZATION
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
	 Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
Date request made
Date submitted to EPA
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
 DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (I) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
                              WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
                                             TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
 1.  Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions:  The TMDL Process, EPA 440/4-91-001,  April 1991
     This document defines and clarifies the requirements under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.  Its
     purpose is to help State water quality program managers understand the application of total maximum
     daily loads (TMDLs) through an integrated, basin-wide approach to controlling point and nonpoint
     source pollution.  The document describes  the steps that are  involved in identifying and prioritizing
     impaired waters and developing and implementing TMDLs for waters  listed under Section 303(d).
     Contact: Don Brady (202) 260-5368
 2.  Technical  Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and
     Rivers - Chapter 1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen, EPA 440/4-84-020, September
     1983
     This chapter presents the underlying technical basis for performing  WLA  and analysis of BOD/DO
     impacts.  Mathematical models to calculate  water quality impacts are discussed, along with data needs
     and data quality.
     Contact:  Bryan Goodwin  (202) 260-1308
 3.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and
     Rivers - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication  Impacts, EPA 440/4-84-021, November 1983
     This chapter emphasizes the effect of photosynthetic activity stimulated by nutrient discharges  on the
     DO of a stream or river.  It is principally directed at calculating DO concentrations using simplified
     estimating techniques.
     Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
 4.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book II Streams and
     Rivers - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances, EPA 440/4-84-022, June 1984
     This chapter describes mathematical models for predicting toxicant concentrations  in rivers.  It covers
     a range of complexities, from dilution  calculations  to complex, multi-dimensional, time-varying
     computer models.  The guidance includes discussion of background information and assumptions for
     specifying values.
     Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
                                                                                                      REV 02/15/94
             STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
                              WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
                                             TITLE
                                                                                                      CHECK
                                                                                                    DOCUMENT
                                                                                                    REQUESTED
5.   Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Simplified Analytical
    Method for Determining  NPDES Effluent Limitations for POTWs Discharging  into Low-Flow
    Streams
    This document describes methods primarily intended for "desk top" WLA investigations or screening
    studies  that use available data for stream/low,  effluent flow, and water quality.  It is intended for
    circumstances where resources for analysis and data acquisition are  relatively limited.
    Contact:  King Boynton (202) 260-7013
6.   Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV Lakes and
    Impoundments - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts, EPA 440/4-84-019, August 1983
    This chapter discusses lake eutrophication processes and some factors that influence the performance
    of WLA analysis and the interpretation of results.  Three classes of models are discussed, along with
    the application of models and interpretation of resulting calculations.  Finally,  the document provides
    guidance on monitoring programs and simple statistical procedures.
    Contact:  Bryan  Goodwin (202) 260-1308
7.   Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book IV Lakes, Reservoirs
    and Impoundments  - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances Impact, EPA 440/4-87-002, December 1986
    This chapter reviews the basic principles of chemical water quality modeling frameworks.  The
    guidance includes discussion of assumptions and limitations of such modeling frameworks, as well as
    the type of information required for model application.  Different levels of model complexity are
    illustrated in step-by-step examples.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
8.   Technical  Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book VI Design Conditions
    - Chapter  1 Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling, EPA 440/4-87-004, September 1986
    Many state water quality standards (WQS) specify specific design flows.  Where such design flows are
    not specified in WQS, this document provides a method to assist in establishing a maximum design flow
   for the final chronic value (FCV) of any pollutant.
    Contact:   Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
9.  Final Technical Guidance on Supplementary  Stream Design Conditions for Steady State
    Modeling, December 1988
    WQS for many pollutants are written as a function of ambient environmental conditions, such as
    temperature, pH or hardness.  This document provides guidance on selecting values for these
    parameters when performing steady-state WLAs.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
10. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations - Book VII: Permit
    Averaging, EPA 440/4-84-023, July 1984
    This document provides an innovative approach to determining which types of permit limits (daily
    maximum, weekly, or monthly averages) should be specified for the steady-state model output,  based on
    the frequency of acute  criteria violations.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
11. Water Quality Assessment:  A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in
    Surface and Ground Water - Part I - EPA 600/6-85-022a, September 1985
    This document provides a range of analyses to be used for water quality assessment.  Chapters include
    consideration  of aquatic fate of toxic organic substances,  waste loading calculations, rivers and
    streams, impoundments, estuaries, and groundwater.
    Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308

-------
                                                                                                      REV 02/15/94
             STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
                             WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
                                             TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
12.  Water Quality Assessment:  A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in
    Surface and Ground Water  - Part II - EPA 600/6-85-022b, September  1985
    This document provides a range of analyses to be used for water quality assessment.  Chapters  include
    consideration of aquatic fate of toxic organic substances, waste loading calculations, rivers and
    streams, impoundments, estuaries,  and ground water.
    Contact:  Bryan  Goodwin (202) 260-1308
13.  Handbook - Stream Sampling for Waste Load Allocation Applications, EPA 625/6-86/013,
    September  1986
    This handbook provides guidance in designing stream surveys  to support modeling applications for
    waste load allocations.  It describes  the data collection process for model support, and it shows how
    models can  be used to help design stream surveys.  In general, the handbook is intended to educate
   field personnel on the relationship between sampling and modeling requirements.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
14.  EPA's Review and Approval Procedure for State Submitted TMDLs/WLAs, March 1986
    The step-by-step procedure  outlined in this guidance addresses the administrative (i.e., non-technical)
    aspects of developing  TMDLs/WLAs and submitting them to EPA for review and approval.  It includes
    questions and answers to focus on key issues, pertinent sections ofWQM regulations and the CWA,
    and examples  of correspondence.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
15.  Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs, EPA 440/4-85-031,
    October 1985
    This guidance is for use by States and EPA Regions in developing annual section 106 and 205(1) work
    programs.  The first part of the document  outlines the objectives of the water monitoring program to
    conduct assessments and make necessary control decisions.  The second part describes the process of
    identifying and calculating total maximum daily loads and waste load allocations for point and
    nonpoint sources of pollution.
    Contact:  King Boynton (202) 260-7013
16.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book III Estuaries - Part 1 -
    Estuaries and Waste Load Allocation Models, EPA 823-R-92-002, May 1990
    This document provides technical information and policy guidance for preparing estuarine  WLA.  It
    summarizes  the important water quality problems, estuarine characteristics,  and the simulation models
    available for addressing these problems.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
17.  Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations Book III Estuaries - Part 2
    Application of Estuarine  Waste Load Allocation Models, EPA 823-R-92-003,  May 1990
    This document provides a guide to monitoring and model calibration and testing, and a case study
    tutorial on simulation of WLA problems in simplified estuarine systems.
    Contact:  Bryan Goodwin (202)  260-1308

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
TITLE
18. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations-Book III: Estuaries - Part 3 -
Use of Mixing Zone Models in Estuarine Wasteload Allocations, EPA 823-R-92-004
This technical guidance manual describes the initial mixing wastewater in estuarine and coastal
environments and mixing zone requirements. The important physical processess that govern the
hydrodynamic mixing of aqueous discharges are described, followed by application of available EPA
supported mixing zone models to four case study situations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
19. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations - Book III - Estuaries - Part 4
- Critical Review of Coastal Embayment and Estuarine Wasteload Allocation Modeling, EPA 823-
R-92-005, August 1992
This document summarizes several historical case studies of model use in one freshwater coastal
embayment and a number of estuarine discharge situations.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
20. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA 505/2-90-001,
March, 1991
This document discusses assessment approaches, water quality standards, derivation of ambient
criteria, effluent characterization, human health hazard assessment, exposure assessment, permit
requirements, and compliance monitoring. An example is used to illustrate the recommended
procedures.
Contact: King Boynton (202) 260-7013
21. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling (Second
Edition), U.S. EPA 600/3-85/040, June 1985
This manual serves as a reference on modeling formulations, constants and rates commonly used in
surface water quality simulations. This manual also provides a range of coefficient values that can be
used to perform sensitivity analyses.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
22. Dynamic Toxics Waste Load Allocation Model (DYNTOX), User's Manual, September 13, 1985
A user's manual which explains how to use the DYNTOX model. It is designed for use in wasteload
allocation of toxic substances.
Contact: Bryan Goodwin (202) 260-1308
23. Windows Front-End to SWMM (Storm Water Management Model), EPA 823-C-94-001, February
1994
A user interface (front-end) to the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) and supporting
documentation is avaiable on diskette. Operating in the Microsoft Windows Environment, this interface
simplifies data entry and model set-up.
Contact: Jerry LaVeck (202) 260-7771
24. Windows Front-End to SWRRBWQ (Simulator for Water Resources in Rural Basins-Water
Quality), EPA 823-C-94-002, February 1994
A user interface (front-end) to the Simulator for Water Resource in Rural Basins-Water Quality model
and supporting documentation is available on diskette. Operating in the Microsoft Windows
environment, this interface simplifies data entry and model set-up.
Contact: Jerry LaVeck (202) 260-7771
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED








-------
REV 02/15/9
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SECTION
TITLE
25. De Minimis Discharges Study: Report to Congress, U.S. EPA 440/4-91-002, November 1991
This report to Congress addresses the requirements of Section 516 by identifying potential de minimis
discharges and recommends effective and appropriate methods of regulating those discharges.
Contact: Rich Healy (202) 260-7812
26. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume I, U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 a, September
1992
This report contains results of a screening study of chemical residues in fish taken from polluted
waters.
Contact: Richard Healy (202) 260-7812
27. National Study of Chemical Residues in Fish. Volume II. U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 b, September
1992
This report contains results of a screening study of chemical residues in fish taken from polluted
waters.
Contact: Richard Healy (202) 260-7812


CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED




AFTER COMPLETING THE CLEARINGHOUSE
REQUEST FORM, PLEASE FOLD, STAPLE,
ADD A STAMP, AND MAIL.

-------
U.S. EPA
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460

-------
                                                                                                   REV 02/15/9'
                                     WATER RESOURCE  CENTER
                                               202-260-7786
COMPLETE REQUESTOR PROFILE BELOW:
      STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/RISK  ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT  BRANCH
REQUESTOR PROPILE
NAME
POSITION/TITLE
ORGANIZATION
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
	 Check here if requestor wants to be
placed on SASD's mailing list
Date request made
Date submitted to EPA
DATE REQUEST RECEIVED
 DUE TO RESOURCE LIMITATIONS, ONLY ONE (I) COPY OF EACH DOCUMENT CAN BE PROVIDED TO A REQUESTOR.
                           SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION SECTION
                                            TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
     Sediment Classification Methods Compendium, U.S. EPA, EPA 823-R-92-006, September 1992
     This compendium is an "encyclopedia" of methods that are used to assess chemically contaminated
     sediments.  It contains a description  of each method, associated advantages and limitations and
     existing applications.
     Contact:  Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
 2.  Managing Contaminated Sediments:  EPA Decision-Making Processes, Sediment Oversight
     Technical Committee, U.S. EPA Report - 506/6-90/002, December, 1990
     This document identifies EPA's current decision-making process (across relevant statutes and
     programs) for assessing and managing contaminated sediments.  Management activities relating to
     contaminated sediments are divided into the following six categories: finding contaminated sediments,
     assessment of contaminated sediments, prevention and source controls, remediation, treatment of
     removed sediments, and disposal of removed sediments.
     Contact:  Mike Kravitz (202) 260-7049
 3.  Contaminated Sediments: Relevant Statutes and EPA Program Activities, Sediment Oversight
     Technical Committee, U.S. EPA Report - 506/6-90/003, December, 1990
     This document provides information on program office activities relating to contaminated sediment
     issues, and the specific statutes under which these activities fall.  A table containing major laws or
     agreements relevant to sediment quality issues is included.
     Contact:  Mike Kravitz (202) 260-7049

-------
REV 02/15/94
STANDARDS & APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION/RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH
SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION SECTION
TITLE
4.
Contaminated Sediments News, U.S. EPA 823-N92-001
This newsletter, issued periodically, contains information about contaminated sediment issues. Back
issues of the newsletter are available.
• Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 1, August 1989
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 2, April 1990
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 3, April 1991
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 4, February 1992
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 5, April 1992
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 6, August 1992
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 7, December 1992
• Contaminated Sediments News, Number 8, May 1993
• Contaminated Sediment News, Number 9, August 1993
• Contaminated Sediment News, Number 10, December 1993
5.
6.
7.
8.
Proceedings of the EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Forum, U.S. EPA, Report 823-R-
92-007, September 1992
This report summarizes the proceedings of three EPA sponsored forums designed to obtain input on
EPA 's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
Selecting Remediation Techniques for Contaminated Sediment, U.S. EPA 823-B93-001, June 1993
This planning guide assists federal-State remedial managers, local agencies, private cleanup
companies and supporting contractors in remedial decision-making process at contaminated sediment
sites.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
Questions and Answers About Contaminated Sediments, U.S. EPA 823-F-93-009, May 1993
This general pamphlet highlights what sediments are, how they are contaminated and what can be
done.
Contact: Beverly Baker (202) 260-7037
Tiered Testing Issues for Freshwater and Marine Sediments, U.S. EPA 823-R93-001, February
1993, Proceedings of A Workshop Held in Washington, DC, September 16-18, 1992.
This report summarizes the proceedings of the workshop sponsored by the Office of Water and Office
of Research and Development. The workshop was held to provide an opportunity for experts in
sediment toxicology and EPA to discuss the development of standard freshwater and marine sediment
bioassay procedures.
Contact: Thomas Armitage (202) 260-5388
CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
















-------
                                                                                                      REV 02/15/94
     STANDARDS & APPLIED  SCIENCE DIVISION/RISK  ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT BRANCH
                              FISH CONTAMINATION  SECTION
                                             TITLE
  CHECK
DOCUMENT
REQUESTED
9.   Special Interest Group (SIG) Forum for Fish Consumption, User's Manual, V.I.O.,  U.S. EPA
    822/8-91/001, February 1992
    This user's manual describes various features of the Special Interest Group (SIG) Forum for fish
    consumption  advisotries, bans and risk management.  The manual explains how to access the SIG and
    use its data bases, messags, bulletins and other computer files.
    Contact:  Jeff Bigler (202) 260-1305
10.  Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish, A Review and Analysis of Survey Methods, U.S.
    EPA-822/R-92-001, February 1992.
    This document contains a critical analysis of methods used to determine fish consumption rates of
    recreational and subsistence fisherment, groups that have the greates potential for exposure to
    contaminants in fish tissues.
    Contact:  Jeff Bigler (202) 260-1305
11.  Proceedings  of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Technical Workshop "PCBs
    in Fish Tissue", U.S. EPA/823-R-93-003, September 1993
    This documents summarizes the proceedings  of the EPA sponsored workshop held on May 10-11, 1993
    in Washington, DC.
    Contact:  Rick Hoffman (202) 260-0642
12.  Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Risk Advisories, Volume 1: Fish
    Sampling and Analysis, EPA 823-R-93-002, August  1993
    This document provides detailed technical guidance on methods for sampling and analyzing chemical
    contaminants  in fish and shellfish tissues.  It addresses monitoring strategies, selection offish species
    and chemical  analytes, field and laboratory procedures and data analyses.
    Contact: Jeff Bigler (202) 260-1305
13.  National Fish Tissue Data Repository User Manual, Version 1.0, EPA 823-B-903-003, November
    1993
    The U.S. EPA has developed the National Fish Tissue Data Repository  (NFTDR) for collection and
    storage offish and shellfish contaminants  data.  The data repository is part of a large EPA data base
    system called the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES).  This manual explains how to access
    information from the ODES database.
    Contact: Rick Hoffman  (202) 260-0642
14.  National Fish Tissue Data Repository: Data Entry Guide, Version 1.0, EPA 823-B-93-006,
    November 1993
    The U.S. EPA has developed the National Fish Tissue Data Repository  (NFTDR) for collection and
    storage offish and shellfish contaminants  data. The data repository is part of a larger EPA data base
    system known as the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES).  This manual assists State and Federal
    Agencies in submitting data to the NFTDR.
    Contact: Rick  Hoffman (202) 260-0642

-------
U.S. EPA
STANDARDS AND APPLIED SCIENCE DIVISION
(4305)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460

-------
                                     READER  RESPONSE CARD


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

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

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

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

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

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

 6.  What is your affiliation? Check one:

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

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

10.         Your Name:	

               Address:
Please fold and either staple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the back and mail it to us. Thanks for your assistance.


    THIS RESPONSE  CARD FOR EPA DOCUMENT NUMBER:  EPA-823-B-94-005

-------
         APPENDIX W
        Update Request Form for
     Water Quality Standards Handbook         >
            Second Edition                ^
                                      I
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK

          SECOND EDITION

-------
                                      READER RESPONSE CARD


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

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

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

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

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

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

 6.  What is your affiliation?  Check one:

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

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

10.         Your1 Name:	

                Address:                            	.
Please fold and either staple or tape this form so that the address is visible on the back and mail it to us. Thanks for your assistance.


     THIS RESPONSE CARD FOR EPA DOCUMENT NUMBER: EPA-823-B-94-005

-------
         APPENDIX X
         Summary of Updates             jj
                                   H

                                   h
                                   g
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK




         SECOND EDITION

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                      AUG  I 9
                                                                        OFFICE OF
                                                                         WATER
    Dear Colleague:
   The following material contains the 1994 update to the document Water Quality Standards
Handbook - Second Edition. Policy and technical changes to the Handbook are included for
Chapters 3 and 4.  Changes in Chapters 2, 3 and 7 also correct typographical and editorial errors.
The Preface, Glossary, Introduction, and References  Sections have been modified to reflect changes
elsewhere in the Handbook.

   Additions to Chapter 3 include:

•  Section 3.6 incorporates EPA's policy on aquatic life metals criteria as modified by the Office of
   Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life
   Metals Criteria (USEPA, 1993f). This policy was signed as the 1993 printing of the Handbook
   went to press and we promised you revisions to reflect it (p. iv).

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

Conforming changes have also been made to other  Sections of Chapter 3.

   Section 4.6 has been added to Chapter 4 and includes guidance on the interpretation of the
EPA's antidegradation policy as it relates to nonpoint sources as presented in the guidance
memorandum Interpretation of Federal Antidegradation Regulatory Requirement (USEPA, 1994a).

   Several Appendices have also been added or modified.  New Appendix J provides additional
material on EPA's policy on aquatic life criteria for metals.  New Appendix L adds the Interim
Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals.  Appendices U and V update
the list of EPA Regional water quality standards coordinators and  Standards and Applied Science
Division  document request forms,  respectively.  Appendix X has been added  as a repository for this
and future update instruction sheets so that a record of updates is maintained in the Handbook.

   Please follow the instructions on the reverse.                              ^-—-
                                                        David K. Sabock, Chief
                                                        Water Quality Standards Branch
                                                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
         WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
                 SECOND EDITION - UPDATE #1
                            AUGUST 1994
                           FILING INSTRUCTIONS

Follow the  instructions below carefully.

*  With the addition of the new Appendices, the Handbook will require two 3-ring
   binders.  Place the Handbook through page REF-6  in a 1" binder and the Appendices
   in a 3"  binder before making the changes below.

*  Proceed  row by row down the chart following the  instructions in both the  "REMOVE"
   and "INSERT" columns for each row.

*  Remove the obsolete pages listed in the "REMOVE" column from the Handbook.

*  Insert the pages in the "INSERT" column in the appropriate places in the
   Handbook.  These are the new or replacement pages contained in this package.
SECTION
REMOVE
INSERT
HANDBOOK
Cover
Title Page
Preface
Glossary
Introduction
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 7
References
Handbook cover
Title Page
pp. iii through viii
pp. GLOSS -3 through GLOSS -8
pp. INT- 7 and INT- 8
Chapter Table of Contents
pp. 2-5 and 2-6
Chapter Table of Contents
pp. 3-1 through 3-48
Chapter Table of Contents
pp. 4-7 through 4-13
Chapter Table of Contents
pp. 7-7 through 7-13
pp. REF-1 through REF-9
New Handbook cover
Title Page
pp. iii through viii
pp. GLOSS -3 through GLOSS -8
pp. INT- 7 and INT- 8
Chapter Table of Contents
pp. 2-5 and 2-6
Chapter Table of Contents
pp. 3-1 through 3-45
Chapter Table of Contents
pp. 4-7 through 4-14
Chapter Table of Contents
pp. 7-7 through 7-13
pp. REF-1 through REF-9
APPENDICES
Cover
Appendix J
Appendix L
Appendix U
Appendix V
Appendix W
Appendix X
none
Title Page (reserved)
Title Page (reserved)
WQS Coordinator list
all pages
Update Request Form
none
Document cover for Appendices
Title Page and new Appendix J
Title Page and new Appendix L
WQS Coordinator list
new Document Request Forms
new Update Request Form
Title Page and this page of instructions |.
If you have any trouble with missing pages or have other questions about this update
to the Water Quality Standards Handbook, please call Bob Shippen at 202-260-1329.

-------