United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA 905/R-92/001
March 1992
          Environmental Sciences Division, Region 5 and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation	
c/EPA   Environmental  Indicators
          For Surface Water Quality
          Programs                _..  _  ,
              *                       Pilot Study

-------
 t
\l
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1.      INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a study on how water quality data currently being
collected by the States in EPA's Region 5 (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, and Ohio)  support water quality planning and management and the development
of environmental indicators.  Environmental indicators, in the context of this report, refer
to a variety of measures of the quality of water resources (Table E-l). This study was
undertaken as the beginning of the third phase of a project designed to develop a series of
environmental indicators for the nation's surface waters.

In the first phase of this project, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff developed a
candidate list of environmental indicators that can be used to identify trends and emerging
threats, evaluate programs, target resources, and communicate results to  the public and
legislators.  Staff then conducted a workshop involving Federal and State water quality
professionals to review, revise and narrow down the candidate indicator list.   In the
project's second phase, personnel from EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) evaluated the feasibility of collecting data and reporting on the six
indicators identified as highest priority at the workshop — designated use support, shellfish
harvest area classifications, trophic  status of lakes, toxicants in fish and shellfish,
biological community measures, and pollutant loading from point sources.  The results of
this study are presented in Feasibility Report on Environmental Indicators for Surface
Water Programs (U.S. EPA, 1990c).

EPA and State personnel are now working to develop specific recommendations to
facilitate the development and reporting  of environmental indicators, looking specifically  at
potential improvements  for assessing designated use attainment.  Information on the ability
of various waterbodies to meet their designated uses is reported to EPA every two years  in
the State 305(b) reports.

The 305(b) reports include information on a variety of designated uses including the ability
of specific waterbodies to support aquatic fish and wildlife populations and to  support
recreational, agricultural, industrial and  navigational uses.  Inconsistencies  among States  in
how water quality information is collected, analyzed, and reported and inconsistencies in
sampling activities within individual States limits the utility of designated use information
to support national or regional environmental indicators or even to assess trends within
individual States. These problems notwithstanding,  one of the conclusions  reached in the
1990 feasibility study and supported by the Office of Water (OW) was that the 305(b)
reports are the best vehicle for reporting on existing and proposed environmental
indicators.
                                         E-l

-------
                             Table E-1.  Continuum of Environmental Measures
w
tb
     Activity Measures
^vvxxxxxxxxxxxvxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxvxxxxxxvxxvxxxxxvxvxv
                                                                    Environmental Indicators
           Actions by
          States/EPA
               I
            examples:
            revise SIP,
           issue permit,
            issue grant
                                                  •Quantified
                                                   Pollution
                                                  Prevention
                                                   Measures
                                                          Indirect Indicators
                                                                                                          Direct Indicators
                                                       1
                        Actions by
                         Sources
                            i
                                           5  v
1
f
Emmission/
Discharge
Quantities



Ambient
Concentrations
     I
 examples:
install control
 equipment,
  change
 feedstock
                       vvvxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxvxV»*
                                                1
                                                T
                                          Risk Estimates
                                            Based on
                                           Emissions
                                              Data
Risk Estimates
  Based on
Ambient Data
Uptake/
Body Burden
i
1
T
lisk Estimates
Based on
Body Burden
Data






\
Health
Effects

Ecological
Effects


                                                                           .XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>»kXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVXXXXVC>
                                                       -preferred data-
      Theme 1: Managing Environmental Results. Data to the right are closer
      to the "adverse ultimate imacts of pollution" that the States and EPA are
      charged with preventing or mitigating. All else being equal, data further to the
      right are better indicators of environmental result than data further to the left.
                                                             Theme 2:  Emphasizing Pollution Prevention. Pollution prevention should
                                                             result in the same kinds of environmental improvements as all Agency
                                                             programs, so all these indicator types may be used to reflect pollution
                                                             prevention successes. However, to prove the results are due to pollution
                                                             prevention, data would needed on the box marked with an asterisk.

-------
To help ensure more accuracy and consistency in the reports, OW established a National
305(b) Consistency Workgroup to develop more specific guidance to the States in
assembling their reports. The effort described in this report— to assess the current status
of water quality assessment programs in the Region 5 States and the ability of this data to
support water quality planning and management objectives and the development of regional
and national environmental indicators -complements the activities of the 305(b)
Workgroup.  In addition, the work of the project team supports a number of other ongoing
efforts including EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and
the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program by
describing their relationship to State programs. The development of data needed for
environmental indicators cannot proceed independently from identification of data
requirements for effective water resource management.  The two  share several goals and
objectives including water resource evaluation, problem identification and  characterization,
management strategy development, implementation and evaluation, and communication of
results to the general public and legislators.

The Region 5  Project

The project team, consisting of EPA Headquarters, Region 5, and contractor personnel
conducted interviews with State monitoring personnel (in-person and by telephone) and
reviewed documents and data management systems from Federal,  Regional, and State
agencies to identify and describe, for each Region 5  State, the following:

       Methods for estimating total waters (see Chapter 2)

       Assessment of designated use support (see Chapter 3)

       Surface water monitoring programs (see Chapter 4) and

       Assessment-related data management systems  (see Chapter 5).

Each chapter of this report, the major findings of which are summarized below, contains a
general description of the issue, specific  information  from each of the Region 5 states, and
recommendations for potential improvements to assist in water quality planning and
management and in the development of environmental indicators.  The final chapter
(chapter 6) discusses  the Region 5 study  in the broader context of water resource policy.
                                       j -

CHAPTER 2.      METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL  WATERS

Accurate and consistent quantification of surface water resources is essential to improving
designated use support  as an environmental indicator. The total water estimate acts  as the
denominator for calculating the percentage of waters  known to be supporting designated

                                        E-3

-------
uses.  Without this information the relative proportions of designated use support
categories (i.e.,  "fully supporting",  "fully supporting but threatened", "partially
supporting", and "not supporting") cannot be consistently determined nor can meaningful
comparisons be made spatially or temporally.

At the present time, estimates of total waters are not comparable among States because
each State employs its own method of measurement. Lacking a national database of
accurate hydrologic features, each State selects its own criteria for including waterbodies in
these  estimates.  In addition, varying  definitions of surface water resource categories (e.g.,
how are rivers and streams, lakes and wetlands identified and described?) among States are
another source of inconsistent resource quantification.

As  seen in Table E-2,  there is a lot of variability among state total water estimates. Most
Region  5 states use mechanical methods for estimating their waters, while Minnesota uses
digitized data. In 1991, the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup recommended that the best
estimates can be obtained using EPA's Reach File Version  3  (RF3), a computer  system
based on the USGS Digital Line Graph (DLG) database that provides the first national
database with sufficient detail to calculate reliable total State water values.

Recommendations

  •    RF3 is the best available national database for calculating State total waters and is
      detailed enough for most State applications.  However, States should be given the
      flexibility  and tools to modify their RF3 databases to add further detail, and to
      allow States that have digitized their waters to a greater level of detail than RF3 to
      report their own total waters.  Minnesota is an example of such a State.

  •    The 305(b) Consistency  Workgroup should review the results of the effort by
      Region 5 States to summarize use support separately for perennial,  intermittent and
      border streams and ditches/canals (including  miles of waters being monitored and
      assessed in each category).  The Workgroup should then consider options for
      improving national reporting on miles supporting aquatic life.

  •    EPA should resolve the issue of a lower size cutoff  for lakes included  in State total
      waters.  Not all RF3 impoundments are waters of the  State—e.g., wastewater
      lagoons or borrow pits have  filled with water as a result of highway construction.
CHAPTER 3.       ASSESSMENT OF DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT

As noted earlier, States set specific standards and designate uses for their own waterbodies.
They also have the independence to decide which types of measures (e.g., chemical
concentrations, toxicants in fish and shellfish or biocommunity data) will be used to

                                         E-4

-------
          Table E-2.  Estimates of Total Stream and River Mileages for Region 5 States
State Estimates
State
Illinois
Indiana
Method
Mechanical
Unknown (probably
Mileage Reported by
the State
26,310 (mainly
perennial streams)
90,000 (includes
DLG/RF3 Mileages3
Perennialb Intermittent
33,009 44,462
21,095 8,409
Ditches/
Canals
2,341
6,169
Total
79,812
35,673
Michigan
mechanical with
extrapolation)

Unknown (probably
mechanical; 1940
estimates)
Minnesota   Digitized from 1:24,000
             and 1:62,500 maps

Ohio        Mechanical (1960
             estimates)

Wisconsin   Mechanical using
             1:24,000 topo maps
                                   70,000 mi of ditches)
36,350
                      91,944 (includes
                      ditches)

                      25,165 (named or
                      included  in WQS)C

                      43,600 (mainly
                      perennial)
30,221       22,793
                           31,108       33,761
                           29,113       29,602
                           30,359       25,735
3,080       56,094
                           7,726       72,595
                           2,818       61,532
                             797       56,890
DLG=Digital Line Graph
RF3=Reach Rle Version 3
WQS=Water Quality Standards


a Source: U.S. EPA. 1991. (Total Waters Document)
b Includes the DLG categories "perennial streams" and "wide rivers"
c Ohio also reports a total of 43,917 miles of named or unnamed streams (including an estimate for ditches); however, 29,113 miles is used
in the 305(b) for total waters.

-------
support designated use assessments.  States use a wide variety of approaches for assessing
designated use support, ranging from integrated bio-survey based approaches to best
professional judgement and citizen questionnaires.  These inconsistencies in approaches
among States make it difficult to accurately report indicator information at a regional or
national level.  Often in reviewing State 305(b) reports, the decision process used to make
use support determinations is unclear.  One of the objectives of this study was to clearly
document the approaches used in the Region 5 States to promote more accurate, consistent
and reproducible assessments.

This section describes the approaches of each Region 5 State in assessing designated use
support, with a special focus on aquatic life support.  Aquatic life support is a particularly
useful environmental indicator because it measures the overall integrity of surface waters.
Figures E-l  and E-2 show the specific  measures used by each Region 5 State to assess
aquatic life support for rivers and streams and lakes, respectively.

Recommendations

  •    Aquatic  life support should be the direct environmental indicator for surface waters
       and be primarily based upon assessments of the fish, benthos, and habitat.  This
       assessment  should also include all other available information such as chemical
       concentrations in water and sediments,  physical measurements,  and lexicological
       endpoints.   This recommendation is consistent with those recommendations and
       conclusions made at the July 1991 EPA conference in Baltimore, Maryland --
       Environmental Indicators:  Policies, Programs and Success Stories.

  •    EPA and the States should use the specific measures selected for aquatic life use
       attainment to meet EPA's requirements to develop biological criteria. Particular
       emphasis should be placed on wider use of fish and benthic macroinvertebrate
       communities and habitat for use attainment assessment.

  •    Greater  consistency in the  methods and approaches for determining use attainment is
       necessary to use environmental  indicators in State, Regional and National 305(b)
       programs.

  •    EPA and the States should cooperatively develop the environmental indicators
       (measures)  which will directly support the assessment of aquatic life support for
       both  resource types (rivers/streams and lakes).
CHAPTER 4.      SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS

As noted earlier, States currently collect, assess, and report on a great deal of information
relating to surface water quality.  Historically, these data collection efforts have tended to

                                         E-6

-------
           Figure E-1. Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses
                         for Rivers and Streams by State
Indicators
Water chemistry
Sediment
chemistry
Fish community
Macroinvertebrate
Community
Fish tissue
contamination
Habitat evaluations
Fish kills
Effluent chemistry
& toxicity
Illinois
•
0
•
•
o
•
o
o
Indiana
•
O
0
o
•
o
o
o
Michigan
•
0
•
•
•
•
o
o
Minnesota
•

O
o
•
0
o
0
Ohio
•
0
•
0
•
•
0
o
Wisconsin
•
O
•
o
•
•
o
0
w
             - Primary data type for assessments
          Q - Secondary data type used to support assessments

-------
              Figure E-2. Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses
                                   for Lakes by State
m
oo
Indicators
Trophic status
Water chemistry
Sediment
chemistry
Amount of aquatic
macrophytes
Amount of
sediments
Fish kills
Fish tissue
contamination
Effluent chemistry
& toxicity
Illinois
•
O
o
•
•



Indiana
•
O

o

o
o
o
Michigan
•
O




o

Minnesota

O




•

Ohio
•
O

o
o

o
o
Wisconsin
•
O

o


o

                 - Primary data type for assessments
             O  - Secondary data type used to support assessments

-------
focus on individual sources of pollution,  especially municipal sewage treatment plants and
industrial facilities.  This  'technology-based'  approach emphasized the establishment of
specific effluent limits for certain pollutants.

While this approach has been successful in addressing pollutants from specific sources,
EPA and the States recognize the need to place more emphasis on nonpoint sources of
pollution and to address watersheds with a more integrated, rather than a point source
driven, perspective.  Consistent with this more holistic view of water quality management
is the need to use biological monitoring data to complement the chemical data collection
that predominates in most State programs.  One of the goals of this project was to evaluate
the type  (e.g., fixed station chemical, biological community) and  extent (e.g., number of
stations,  number of intensive surveys) of water quality monitoring being done by Region 5
States.

Table E-3 summarizes State monitoring programs for rivers, streams, and lakes in Illinois.
Chapter 4 contains similar tables for each of the Region 5 States.

Recommendations

  •    The States must receive adequate resources and training to support the collection
       and use of more direct, comprehensive measures for determining use support (e.g.,
       fish, benthos  and habitat assessments).  These direct measures, along with indirect
       measures related to sources and causes of impairment, should become integrated
       into EPA's planning and management activities.

  •    Integrated monitoring  of watersheds, that includes the collection of biological,
       chemical and physical data, should be fully coordinated with management activities
       (e.g., permitting, enforcement actions,  and best management practices) to provide
       valuable feedback information on the results of management and protection
       programs

  •    States should clearly document assessment approaches for all designated uses,
       monitoring program structure, data uses, and  database management methods in their
       biennial  State 305(b) reports to minimize ambiguities in each State's decision
       process and monitoring program.
CHAPTER 5.       ASSESSMENT-RELATED DATA MANAGEMENT

For a 305(b) assessment, each State compiles and analyzes data from diverse sources
including national and State databases and data systems. Figure E-3 shows the State and
national data systems/databases used by the various States for 305(b) assessments.  Easy
access to multiple data sources is essential for integrated (chemical/biological/habitat)

                                         E-9

-------
                                 Table E-3.  Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program
Rivers/Streams
1. Ambient Water
Quality Monitoring
Network (AWQMN)
2. CORE
Subnetwork of
AWQMN
3. Pesticide
Subnetwork of
AWQMN
4. Industrial
Solvents
Sub-network of
AWQMN
5. intensive River
Basin Surveys
Type/
Frequency

F;
6-week
freq.
F;
see
program
description
for
frequency
F;
6-week
freq. April-
July; 12-
week freq.
August-
March
F;
6-week
frequency
!;
each basin
studied
every 10-
15 years
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples

208
stations
38 stream
stations
from
AWQMN
plus 3
Lake
Michigan
stations
30
stations
from
AWQMN
31
stations
from
AWQMN
No. of
stations
varies; 4
basins
surveyed
in FY'90
Program
Description

• Chemical network ~ parameters are pH,
T, conductivity, flow, D.O., TSS. VSS,
NH3-N, NO3+N02-N. total P. diss. P.
COD, fecal colHorm, turbidity, and 21
metals
• 7 parameters are used to calculate a WQ
index for assessments
• Mainly chemical network
• Includes 3 Lake Michigan Stations
monitored by City of Chicago
• Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs
• Frequency: twice yearly for water column
organics; biennially for fish contamin;
triennially for sediment and
macroinvertebrates
•Chemical network
• Parameters are 15 herbicides and
organophosphate insecticides, PCBs, and
organochlorine pesticides
• Chemical network
• 19 organic chemicals (e.g., chloroform,
trichloroethylene, benzene)
-Multimedia sampling - water column
chemistry, habitat, macroinvertebrate and
fish populations, sediment and fish tissue
contaminants, and sediment type.
• Example: In the Kaskaskia Basin Survey
(1981-82), over 140 sites were sampled
Network Design

• Network was revised in 1977 to:
establish baselines and trends in
representative land use areas
generally outside immediate impact
zones of PSs (except in major
population centers); identify
problems; and trigger intensive
surveys.
• Although sampling frequency has
declined and some stations have
been dropped, many have been
monitored for over 15 years.
• Established as required by EPA
under the National Water Quality
Surveillance System; no longer
required but IEPA still maintains.
• Purpose was to measure baseline
WQ trends nationwide
• 26 stations predominantly
agricultural, 4 nonagricultural
watersheds
•Begun in 1985
• Begun in 1988
•Stations located in urban areas
except for 1 control site.
» Sites selected to characterize
stream resources of the basin and
to provide data for permit
development
Data
Uses

2-1
1-1
1-2
2-1
1-2
2-1
2-1
2-1
3-2
1-2
2-2
Data
Analysis

A.B.F
G.E
A.B.F
A.B.F
A.B.F
A,B
A,B
A.B
B
B
B
I
I—>
o
       See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
       F - Fixed Station
       I - Intensive Survey
       NA - not applicable

-------
                   Table E-3.  Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
6. Fish Contaminant
Program
7. Facility-related
Stream Survey
Program
8. Special Surveys
Lakes
9. Ambient Lake
Monitoring Program
(ALMP)
(includes Clean
Lakes Program,
Trend Lakes, and
Diagnostic
Evaluation Lakes)
Type/
Frequency
F stream
stations
annually;
Flake
stations
biennially;
1 stations
vary
1
1


#of
Stations/
#of
Samples
73 stream
stations
(F); 20
lake
stations
(F);
approx.
36 1
stations
Approx.
94 stream
stations
in 88-89
in 12
basins
Varies

20-40
lakes per
year; 1 to
3 sites
per lake
Program
Description
• Composited fish fillet samples at all
stations; whole fish samples at 41 stations.
• Pesticide/PCB analyses (20 parameters)
on all samples
• GC/MS wide scan on < 25 whole fish
samples
• Hg, dioxine as needed
• Results compared to FDA Action Levels
• Evaluates WQ impacts from point sources
• Macroinvertebrates, chemistry, flow,
habitat data collected upstream and
downstream
• Includes enforcement cases, Pesticides
Study, Livestock Waste Monitoring

• Three types of lakes monitored
- Clean Lakes Program Phase I and II (2
times per month May-Sept.; monthly or
bimonthly Oct.-Apr.)
- Trend lakes (6 times Apr.-Oct.)
- Diagnostic evaluation lakes (5 times
spring through fall)
• Parameters -- DO, T, TSS, nutrients,
chlorophyll, other field tests (in addition,
CLP lakes - phytoplankton, benthos, fish,
vegetation, sediment chemistry)
Network Design
• Fixed sites widely distributed
throughout state on major streams
(Mississippi, Wabash, Kankakee,
Illinois, Fox rivers, e.g.)
• Includes sites with past
contamination problems
• Both main streams and tributaries
sampled during basin surveys
•Sites selected based on location of
discharges, closely linked to NPDES
issuance and compliance
•Varies according to type of survey

• CLP lakes selected by CLP
process
• Trend lakes are formed CLP lakes,
lakes representative of various
types of WQ; lakes where various
pollution controls implemented
• Diagnostic lakes selected from list
of lakes needing controls or
effectiveness monitoring
Data
Uses
2-1
2-2
3-3
2-1
2-2
3-2
3-3
2-2
3-3

3-3
2-1
2-2
3-2
Data
Analysis
B
B
B
A.B
A.B.F.G

B
B,F
B
B
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
W
•—•
NJ
                          Table E-3.  Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
10. Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program
11. Lake Michigan
Network
Type/
Frequency
F;
twice per
month
May-Oct.
F
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples
176 lakes
in 1989;
3 or more
sites per
lake
85
stations
Program
Description
• Citizen monitoring program involving
225 volunteers
• Secchi disk and field observations at all
lakes
• Nutrients and TSS at 30-50 lakes
•
• Conducted by City of Chicago
• Reported separately from 305(b)
Network Design
• Lakes selected according to citizen
interest, within areas served by
three regional planning commissions
Sites selected where public
recreation occurs and in vicinity of
Chicago water supply intakes
Data
Uses
4-1
2-1
3-3
2
Data
Analysis
NA
B,F
B,F
A
       See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
       F - Fixed Station
       I - Intensive Survey
       NA - not applicable

-------
                 Figure E-3.  State Use of 305(b)-related Data Systems
Data System
STORET
BIOS
State Biological
Systems
RF3/WQAS
EPA WBS
State 305(b)
System
Illinois
•
•
•
O

•
Indiana
•

•
O*
O

Michigan
•


O
O
•
Minnesota
•
O*
•
O*
O*
•
Ohio
•

•
O*
•

Wisconsin
•

0

O
•
w
            • - Current user
            Q - Interested or beginning to use
            •Sfc - Expressed concern or assistance needed

-------
assessments.  Data sources include computerized databases as well as paper files (e.g., fish
kill records, intensive survey reports, drinking water files, compliance inspection reports).
The advantages of using computerized data sources for 305(b) assessments include the
following:

  •    Only a computerized database can be used to screen the thousands of water quality
      data points collected each year.

  •    Data systems make it easier to track assessment results from one 305(b) cycle to the
      next.

  •    Different types of information for the same waterbodies can be compared through
      the use of consistent geographic locators.

Recommendations

  •    Indiana and Michigan could benefit from using the EPA Waterbody System (WBS)
      and should proceed with its implementation. These States do not have comparable
      systems, and WBS should meet most or all of their assessment tracking
      requirements.  Illinois and Minnesota already have fully implemented State systems
      with some capabilities not offered by WBS.

  •    Hardware should no longer limit access to the mapping and graphical capabilities of
      EPA's national water data systems. For only about $2000, a PC can be upgraded
      to simulate a graphics terminal on the EPA/NCC mainframe.

  •    States requested additional training, user-friendly documentation, and user support
      for their national water data systems.  Onsite training or EPA-subsidized travel to
      training sites was  suggested because of State travel restrictions.  The Waterbody
      System's package  of support—a Users Group that makes suggestions for system
      improvements, a newsletter, telephone user support, and the User's Guide--was
      cited as a good example.

  •    EPA should prepare a report or brochure,  with  examples,  on the potential
      applications of the combined RF3/WBS/WQAS  systems to State water quality
      planning and management.  The report should also discuss State obligations  for
      system implementation.
                                        E-14

-------
CHAPTER 6.       OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING AND USING
                    ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Water resource policy is undergoing important changes at the Federal, State and local
levels that reflect a fundamental shift in the approach to environmental protection and
management.  The conventional approach, characterized by fragmented, reactive policies
derived from a myriad of statutes and regulations that respond to public perception of
environmental risks, is gradually being replaced by an integrated, anticipatory risked-based
approach that relies more heavily on scientific information and pollution prevention.
While this new approach offers  more effective environmental protection,  it also poses new
information needs for water resource planners and managers.  The capacity of monitoring
and assessment programs to support existing and new information needs will determine, to
a large extent, how effectively water resource policies can be implemented at the Federal,
State and local levels.

This chapter discusses the Region 5 study in the broader context of water resource policy
by describing potential opportunities for developing and using environmental indicators for
water resource evaluation, problem identification and characterization, management
strategy development, implementation and evaluation, and communication of results to the
public and legislators.  Chapter 6 provides specific discussion and recommendations related
to these four primary planning and management objectives.

Four overall recommendations from Chapter 6 are listed below:

  1.   EPA and States should develop a tiered classification scheme for environmental
      indicators that relates characteristics of indicators (e.g., spatial and temporal
      coverage, scientific defensibility, and relationships  to environmental impact) with
      planning and management objectives. For example, some indicators, such as
      designated use support, are best suited for overall water resource evaluation.
      Others, such as water column chemistry, sediment chemistry, and tissue
      contamination provide more detailed information related to cause-effect
      mechanisms.

  2.   EPA and States should develop a long-term plan for integrating environmental
      indicators across water resources, including surface water, ground water and
      ecological resources. Once environmental indicators are developed for specific
      water resource categories  (e.g.,  rivers and streams, wetlands), the plan should
      address how resource-specific and  generic indicators can be developed and
      implemented, taking into account factors such as technical feasibility, costs and
      presentation value.
                                        E-15

-------
3.   EPA, other Federal agencies, interstate organizations and States should take
     advantage of shared and complementary interests related to water resource planning
     and management.  States, in particular, must have the basic capabilities for
     assessment activities such as site-specific studies (e.g., assimilative capacity/TMDL
     development), assessment of program success over wide geographic areas, and
     development  of protective standards such as biocriteria and other  geographically
     stratified criteria.  These groups should continue and improve upon their working
     relationships  to ensure that monitoring and assessment programs support planning
     and management objectives, both collectively and independently.  Pilot projects
     could be excellent mechanisms for improving State capabilities  and  fostering the
     much needed coordination.

4.   EPA should conduct studies in other EPA Regions that are similar or identical to
     the Region 5 project.
                                        E-16

-------
                               CONTENTS

                                                                     Page
     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                         E-l

     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                           i

     FIGURES                                                        iv

     TABLES                                                         vi

     ACRONYMS                                                     vii

     GLOSSARY                                                      ix

     ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                          xiii

1.   INTRODUCTION                                                1-1

     1.1   Project Overview                                            1-3

     1.2   The 305(b) Process and Environmental Indicators                  1-4

     1.3   Water Quality Planning and Management                        1-5

     1.4   Related Studies and Initiatives                                  1-6


2.   METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL WATERS

     2.1   Overview                                                   2-1

     2.2   Methods for Quantifying Surface Water Resources                 2-3
          2.2.1  Mechanical Methods                                    2-3
          2.2.2 Digital Methods                                       2-4
          2.2.3  USGS Digital Line Graphic Database                      2-4
          2.2.4 The Reach File                                        2-5

     2.3   State Methods, Estimates,  and Future Plans                       2-5
          2.3.1  Illinois                                               2-5
          2.3.2 Indiana                                               2-8
          2.3.3  Michigan                                             2-9
          2.3.4 Minnesota                                            2-9
          2.3.5  Ohio                                                 2-10
          2.3.6 Wisconsin                                            2-11

-------
     2.4    Findings and Recommendations                                   2-11
           2.4.1  Rivers and Streams                                       2-11
           2.4.2  Lakes                                                   2-12
           2.4.3  Wetlands                                                2-12
           2.4.4  Recommendations                                        2-13
3.   ASSESSMENT OF DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT
     3.1    Overview                                                      3-1

     3.2    State Assessment Approaches for Aquatic Life Use Support          3-3
           3.2.1  Illinois                                                  3-6
           3.2.2  Indiana                                                  3-10
           3.2.3  Michigan                                                3-12
           3.2.4  Minnesota                                               3-15
           3.2.5  Ohio                                                    3-17
           3.2.6  Wisconsin                                               3-20

     3.3    Findings and Recommendations                                  3-24
                 Recommendations                                        3-26
4.   SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS

     4.1   Overview                                                      4-1

     4.2   State Surface Water Monitoring Programs                         4-1

     4.3   Capacity of Surface Water Monitoring Programs to Support
           Planning and Management                                       4-17

     4.4   Trend Assessment                                              4-19
           4.4.1 Illinois                                                  4-21
           4.4.2 Indiana                                                 4-24
           4.4.3 Michigan                                                4-24
           4.4.4 Minnesota                                               4-25
           4.4.5 Ohio                                                    4-25
           4.4.6 Wisconsin                                               4-26

     4.5   Findings and Recommendations                                  4-26
                 Recommendations                                        4-28
                                       11

-------
                                                                       page
5.   ASSESSMENT-RELATED DATA MANAGEMENT

     5.1    Overview                                                    5-1

     5.2    Findings - Assessment-Related Data Systems in Region 5           5-1
           5.2.1  Hydrographic Data                                      5-3
           5.2.2  Assessment Results                                      5-5
           5.2.3  Other Findings                                          5-7

     5.3    Recommendations                                             5-9
6.   OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING AND USING ENVIRONMENTAL
     INDICATORS

     6.1    Overview                                                    6-1

     6.2    Water Resource Evaluation                                     6-2
           6.2.1  Water Resource Status                                   6-2
           6.2.2  Water Resource Trends                                  6-3

     6.3    Problem Identification and Characterization                       6-4
           6.3.1  Problem Identification                                   6-4
           6.3.2  Problem Characterization                                 6-5

     6.4    Management Strategy Development, Implementation and Evaluation  6-6

     6.5    Communication of Results to the Public and Legislators             6-7
           6.5.1  State Biennial 305(b)  Reports                              6-8
           6.5.2  Citizen Monitoring Activities                              6-9
7.   REFERENCES                                                    7-1
                                     111

-------
                                     FIGURES
                                                                             Page
1-1.   Continuum of Environmental Measures                                   1-2

1-2.   Information Provided by an  "Ideal" Indicator for Water
       Resources Planning and Management                                     1-8

1-3.   Surface Water Quality Management is an Increasingly Complex
       and Information-Intensive Task modified from Surface  Water
       Monitoring:  A Framework for Change (U.S. EPA, 1987)                  1-10

1-4.   Proposed Spatial Resolution  of EMAP's Inland Surface Water
       Program, Based on Aggregated Omernik Ecoregions from Surface
       Waters Monitoring and Research Strategy - Fiscal Year 1991
       (U.S. EPA, 1991)                                                      1-14

1-5.   General Approach for Identifying Indicators from Surface
       Waters Monitoring and Research Strategy - Fiscal Year 1991               1-15

1-6.   Indicator Approach for EMAP - Surface Waters Showing Candidate
       Indicators and Top-Down Approach to Problem Identification and
       Diagnosis of Probable Cause from Surface Waters Monitoring and
       Research Strategy - Fiscal Year 1991 (U.S. EPA,  1991)                    1-15

1-7.   Location of Proposed Study  Units for the National Water-Quality
       Assessment Program (from Leahy,  P.P., et al., 1990)                      1-17

1-8.   Schedule of First Cycle  of Study-Unit Investigations, by Dominant
       Activity, for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program,
       Fiscal Years 1991-2002  (from Leahy, P.P., et al., 1990)                    1-18

2-1.   Percentage of River Miles Supporting Designated Uses -
       Region 5 States                                                         2-2

3-1.   Aquatic Life Use Designations by State                                   3-2

3-2.   Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses for Rivers
       and Streams by State                                                    3-4

3-3.   Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses for Lakes by State           3-5
                                         IV

-------
                               FIGURES (continued)
                                                                             Page
3-4.   Aquatic Life Use Support Assessment Flow Chart for Fish, Habitat
      and Water Quality Data - II)                                             3-7

3-5.   Prioritization of Data Use in the Biological Stream Classification
      Process -  Illinois  from Biological Stream Characterization (BSC), 1989      3-9

3-6.   Criteria for  Determining Use Attainment for Ohio's Rivers/Streams          3-19

3-7.   Use Attainment/Clean Water Act Goal Assessment Process for Ohio Lakes   3-21

3-8.   Designated Use Support Assessment for Wisconsin Lakes                   3-25

3-9.   Hierarchy of Ambient Biological Assessment Types Using Indigenous
      Communities - Ohio                                                    3-27

4-1.   Illinois Fixed Station Network and Great Lakes Areas of Concern           4-23

5-1.   State Use of 305(b)-related Data Systems                                  5-2

5-2.   Example of Hydrologic Traces in EPA Reach File Version 3 (RF3)
      Map of USGS Topographic  Quadrangle near Raleigh, North Carolina        5-5

-------
                                     TABLES

                                                                            Page
1-1    Water Quality Planning and Management Objectives:  Examples of
      Program Activities and Supporting Data                                  1-7

1-2    Challenges, Obstacles, and Recommendation Areas Presented in
      Surface Water Monitoring:  A Framework for Change (U.S. EPA, 1987)     1-11

1-3    The Ten Recommendations from Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and
      Strategies for Environmental Protection (U.S. EPA, 1990d)                 1-13

2-1    Estimates of Total Stream and River Miles for Region 5 States              2-6

2-2    Methods Used by Region 5  States to Determine Total Lake Acreage and
      Reported Values                                                       2-7

2-3    Wetland Totals  for Region 5 States from Dahl, 1990                       2-7

3-1    Fish Contaminant Concentration from  Each Use Category (from State
      1990 305(b) Reports) - Minnesota                                        3-17

4-1    Data Uses and Data Analysis Methods Shown in Tables 4-2 - 4-7            4-3

4-2    Illinois Surface  Water Monitoring Programs                              4-4

4-3    Indiana Surface Water Monitoring Programs                              4-7

4-4    Michigan Surface Water Monitoring Programs                            4-8

4-5    Minnesota Surface  Water Monitoring Programs                            4-10

4-6    Ohio Surface Water Monitoring Programs                                4-12

4-7    Wisconsin Surface  Water Monitoring Programs                            4-15

4-8    Fixed Station Chemical Monitoring Programs by State                     4-22

5-1    State Use of WBS and RF3                                              5-7
                                        VI

-------
                                  ACRONYMS

AWQMN    Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network

BIOS       National biological information management system (subset of STORET)
BPJ         Best professional judgment

DLG       Digital line graph
DO         Dissolved oxygen

EMAP      Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA        Environmental Protection Agency
ERFB       Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch, OPPE

FDA       Food and Drug Administration
FINS       Fish information system (Ohio)
FORTRAN  FORmula TRANslation, a computer programming language
FY         Fiscal year

GIS         Geographic information system
GLEAS     Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section, MDNR

IBI         Index of biotic integrity
ICI         Invertebrate community index
IDEM       Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IEPA       Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Iwb         Index of well-being

LCI         Lake condition index (Ohio)

MBI        Macroinvertebrate biotic index
MDDM     Mapping and graphical display manager
MDNR      Michigan Department of Natural Resources
MIDGES    Microinvertebrate data generation and evaluation system (Ohio)
MIRIS       Michigan resource information system
MPCA      Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

NASQAN    National stream quality accounting network  (USGS)
NAWQA    National water quality assessment program (USGS)
NCC       National computer center
NOAA      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES     National pollutant discharge elimination system
NWI        National wetlands inventory
                                       Vll

-------
OEPA       Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
OPPE       Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, EPA Headquarters
ORD        Office of Research and Development, EPA Headquarters
OW         Office of Water, EPA Headquarters
OWOW     Office of Wetlands,  Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water

PIBI        Potential index of biotic integrity

RF3         Reach file version 3

SAB        Science Advisory Board
STORET    STORage and RETrieval System

TSI         Trophic status index

USGS       U.S. Geological Survey
UTM       Universal transverse mercator (coordinate system)

WBS        Waterbody system
WDNR     Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WQAS      Water quality analysis software
WQI        Water quality index
WQSS       Water Quality Surveillance and Standards Branch (Indiana DEM)
                                       Vlll

-------
                                    GLOSSARY

Ambient Monitoring:  All forms of monitoring conducted beyond the immediate influence
of a discharge pipe, including sampling of sediments and living resources.

Antidegradation Policies:  Policies which are part of each State's water quality standards.
These policies are designed to protect water quality and provide a method of assessing
activities that may impact the integrity of the waterbody.

Aquatic Community:  An association of interacting populations of aquatic organisms in a
given waterbody or habitat.

Assessed Waters:  Waterbodies for which the State is able to make use support decisions
based on actual information. Such waters are not limited to waters that have been directly
monitored ~ it is appropriate in many cases to make judgments based on other information.

Benthic Fauna (or Benthos):  Organisms attached to or resting on the bottom, or living in
the bottom sediments of a waterbody.

Biological Assessment: An evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody using
biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters.

Biological Criteria (or Biocriteria): Numerical values or narrative expressions that
describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a
given designated aquatic life use.

Biological Integrity:  Functionally defined as the condition of the aquatic community
inhabiting unimpaired waterbodies of a specified habitat as measured by community
structure and function.

Biological Monitoring:  The use of a biological entity as a detector and its response as a
measure to determine environmental conditions.   Toxicity tests  and  biological surveys are
common biomonitoring methods.

Biological Survey  (or Biosurvey):  Consists of collecting, processing and analyzing
representative portions of a resident aquatic community to determine the community
structure and function.

BIOS:  The component of EPA's STORET system (see STORET definition) which
contains biological field survey data on aquatic communities.

Community Component:  Any portion of a biological community. The community
component may pertain to the taxomonic group (fish, invertebrates, algae), the taxonomic
                                         IX

-------
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.

Designated Uses: Uses specified in water quality standards for each waterbody or
segment whether or not they are being attained.

Ecoregions or Regions of Ecological Similarity:  A relatively homogeneous area defined
by similarity of climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegetation,  hydrology, or other
ecologically relevant variable. Regions of ecological similarity help  define the potential for
designated use classifications of specific waterbodies.

Environmental Indicators: Direct or indirect measures of environmental quality  that can
be used to assess status and trends in the environment's ability to support human and
ecological health (for EPA's purposes).

Evaluated Waters:  Waterbodies for  which the use support decision is based on
information other than current site-specific ambient data, such as data on land use, location
of sources, predictive modeling using estimated input variables, and  surveys of fish and
game biologists.

Fixed Station Monitoring:  The repeated long-term sampling or measurement of
parameters at representative points for the purpose of determining environmental quality
characteristics and trends.

Geographic Information System:  A computerized system for combining, displaying, and
analyzing geographic data.  A GIS produces maps for environmental planning and
management by integrating physical and biological information (soils, vegetation,
hydrology, living resources, etc.) and cultural information  (population, political
boundaries, roads, bank and shoreline development, etc.).

Impact: A change in  the chemical, physical or biological  quality or condition of a
waterbody caused by external sources.

Impairment: A detrimental effect on the biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an
impact that prevents attainment of the designated use.

Intensive Survey:  The sampling or measurement of parameters  at representative  points
for a relatively short period of time within a limited geographic  area to determine
environmental quality conditions, causes, effects, or cause-and-effect relationships of such
conditions.

-------
Major Contribution to Impairment: A cause/source makes a major contribution to
impairment if it is the only one responsible for less than full support, or if it predominates
over others.

Minor Contribution to Impairment: A cause/source has minor contribution to
impairment if it is one of multiple causes/sources responsible for less than full support and
others predominate.

Moderate Contribution to Impairment:  A cause/source makes a moderate contribution
to impairment if it is one of multiple causes/sources responsible  for less than full support
and none predominate.

Monitored for Toxicants: If ambient monitoring information is collected that is capable
of indicating the presence  of toxic substances.  This measure includes waters so monitored
but for which no toxicants were found.

Monitored Waters:  Waterbodies for which the use support decision is principally based
on current site-specific ambient data believed to accurately portray water quality
conditions.

NASQAN: The National  Stream Quality Accounting Network, operated by the U.S.
Geological  Survey, encompassing more than 300 monitoring stations around the country at
which many water-quality characteristics are measured at regular intervals.

Nonpoint Source Pollution:  A contributory factor to water pollution that cannot be traced
to a specific spot; e.g., pollution resulting from water runoff from urban areas,
construction sites, agricultural and silvicultural operations.

NPDES: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, a permit program under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act that imposes discharge limitations on point sources,
basing them on a control technology's effluent limitation capabilities or on local water
quality standards.

Point Source Pollution:  Pollution discharged through a pipe or some other discrete
source from municipal water treatment plants, factories, confined animal feedlots, or
combined sewers.

Population:  An aggregate of interbreeding individuals  of a biological species within a
specified location.

River Reach: A river or  stream segment of a specific length.  Most reaches extend
between the points of confluence with other streams.
                                          XI

-------
STORET: EPA's computerized water quality database that includes physical, chemical,
and biological data measured in waterbodies throughout the United States.  This system
contains physical-chemical data on over 680,000 sampling sites with over 170 million
observations, including groundwater, fish tissue, and sediment chemistry.

Threatened Waters: Waters that fully  support their designated uses but that may not fully
support uses in the future (unless pollution control action is taken) because of anticipated
sources or adverse pollution trends.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL):  The total allowable pollutant load to a receiving
water such that any additional loading will produce a violation of water quality standards.

Toxicity Test:  A procedure to determine the toxicity of a chemical or an effluent using
living organisms. A toxicity test measures the degree of effect on exposed test organisms
of a specific chemical or effluent.

Water Quality Criteria:  Criteria which are comprised of numeric  and narrative criteria.
Numeric criteria are scientifically derived ambient concentrations  developed by EPA or
States for various pollutants of concern to protect human health and aquatic life.  Narrative
criteria are statements that describe the desired water quality goal.

Water Quality-Limited Segment:  A stretch or area of surface waters where technology-
based controls are not sufficient to prevent violations of water quality  standards.  In such
cases, new permit limitations are based on ambient water quality considerations.

Water Quality Standard: A law or regulation that consists of the beneficial designated
use or uses of a waterbody, the numeric and narrative water quality criteria that are
necessary to protect the use or uses of that particular waterbody, and an antidegradation
statement.

Water Resource Assessment:  Determines the condition of a waterbody  using biological
surveys, chemical-specific analyses of pollutants in waterbodies, toxicity  tests, and physical
habitat assessment methods.

Watershed:  The land area that drains into a stream, river, lake,  estuary, or  coastal zone.
                                          Xll

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Joseph Abe of OPPE's Strategic Planning and Management Division/Environmental
Results and Forecasting Branch and Wayne Davis of Region 5's Environmental Sciences
Division/Monitoring and Quality Assurance Branch served as co-managers of the pilot
study and were principal authors and editors of this document.  Other co-authors  providing
technical support under EPA contract 68-W9-0080 were consultants Thomas Flanigan and
Andy Schwarz of Clayton Environmental Consultants and Michael McCarthy of Research
Triangle Institute.

Other significant contributors and reviewers in the Region 5 States include Chris  Yoder,
Roger Thoma, and Ed Rankin of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Joel Cross of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Bridges, Dennis Clark and John Winters
of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Greg Goudy, Jack Wuycheck
and Ralph Vednalz of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Sylvia McCollor
and Louise Hotka of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Joe Ball, Lee
Liebenstein,  Carol Tiegs and Susan Graham of the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.  Donna Williams and John Miller of Region 5 provided valuable assistance
with conducting the State interviews. We greatly appreciate the detailed reviews  from
Chuck Kanetsky (Region 3), Jim Harrison (Region 4), Mary Belefski and Alice Mayio
(EPA Office of Water) and Tim Stuart (EPA Center for Environmental  Statistics, OPPE).
Special thanks is also given to Kim Devonald, Chief,  OPPE's Environmental Results and
Forecasting Branch, Elizabeth  Jester, (Chief) and her staff, OW's Monitoring Branch and
Valerie Jones, Chief,  Region 5's Monitoring and Quality Assurance Branch for their
management oversight and contributions.
                                        Xlll

-------
                                1.  INTRODUCTION
This report marks the beginning of the third phase of a three-phase Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) project to develop a series of environmental indicators for
surface waters.  Environmental indicators, in the context of this report,  refer to a variety
of measures of water resource quality for evaluating the environment's ability to support
human and ecological health.  These indicators can be used by  EPA, State officials, and
the public for a number of purposes including:  identifying trends  over time and space,
evaluating program effectiveness, targeting resources to the greatest environmental risks,
identifying emerging problems, achieving the greatest environmental improvements, and
communicating results to the public and legislators (Figure 1-1).

In the first phase of this project, EPA staff developed a preliminary list of measures that
could be used as indicators for freshwater, estuarine, and coastal  environmental quality.
The Agency then conducted a  workshop of Federal and State personnel  to review, the list
and add or delete candidates as necessary.  Workshop participants were asked to discuss
suitable goals for the use of surface water indicators and  appropriate criteria to help
evaluate the indicators and to identify a set of measures for more detailed evaluation and
review.  Background material  for the workshop and a summary of the workshop
conclusions are provided in three documents:  Resource Document for the Workshop on
Environmental  Indicators for the Surface Water Program (U.S. EPA, 1989a), Workshop on
Environmental  Indicators for the Surface Water Program (U.S. EPA, 1989c), and Results:
Workshop on Environmental Indicators for the Surface Water Program (U.S. EPA, 1989b).

In the project's second phase,  EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NO A A), and contractor personnel assessed the feasibility of reporting on the following
indicators identified at the workshop: designated use support, attainment of Clean Water
Act (CWA) goals, shellfish harvest area classifications, trophic  status of lakes, toxic
contamination in fish and shellfish, biological community measures, and pollutant loadings
from point sources.  These indicators were selected as most meaningful or practical for one
or more of the  following purposes: status and trend reporting, overall water program
evaluation, and evaluation of the effectiveness of individual program components (e.g.,
point source regulation or toxic chemical controls).   Evaluation criteria included:  data
availability, data consistency/comparability,  spatial and temporal representativeness,
relationship to ultimate impact, scientific defensibility, sensitivity  to change, relationship to
risk, data collection and analytical costs,  relationship to existing programs, and
presentation value.  The results of that review are presented in  Feasibility Report on
Environmental  Indicators for Surface Water Programs (U.S. EPA, 1990c).

Now in the third phase of the project, EPA and State personnel are developing options and
recommendations for implementing a selected  set of identified indicators at the national,
regional, State, and watershed levels. These efforts are reflected by the Environmental

                                          1-1

-------
                        Figure 1-1.  Continuum of Environmental Measures
f
i
L
Activity Measures
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvxxvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvxxxv
Actions by
States/EPA
Actions by
Sources
1 1
1 1
1 1
examples: examples:
revise SIP, install control
issue permit, equipment,
issue grant change
feedstock
vvvvvvvvvvvxxxxxxvvxvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv<>
1 f
i !
i 1
H-
^ ^
4 \
* §
1!
5 5
li
1 1
* ^v\
WVWWNXVWWWVWVW
'Quantified
Pollution
Prevention
Measures
1
1
f
Emmission/
Discharge
Quantities
Environmental Indicators
kVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVXVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVXVVVVVVVXXVVVVXXVVVVVVVVVXVVVVVV
Indirect Indicators Direct

Ambient
Concentrations
i i
1 1
T T
Risk Estimates
Based on
Emissions
Data
Risk Estimates
Based on
Ambient Data

/-
Uptake/
Body Burden
i
i ^- E
T ^
Risk Estimates
Based on V 	
Body Burden
Data
VVVVVVVVVVS^XSVSXVV^XVVSXVXVVXVNX^
1
[Indicators §
1
^
Health |
Effects |
S
\
cological ^
Effects ^
i%
J \
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv^
Theme 1 : Managing Environmental Results. Data to the right are closer Theme 2: Emphasizing Pollution Prevention. Pollution prevention should
to the "aoVerse ultimate imacts of pollution" that the States and EPA are
charged with preventing or mitigating. All else being equal, data further to the
right are better indicators of environmental result than data further to the left.
result in the same kinds of environmental improvements as all Agency
programs, so all these indicator types may be used to reflect pollution
prevention successes. However, to prove the results are due to pollution
prevention, data would needed on the box marked with an asterisk.

-------
Indicators Workshop held in Baltimore during July 1991, the formation of an
Environmental Indicators Committee sponsored by OW, and an Environmental Indicators
Task Group formed under the Interagency Task Force for Monitoring Water Quality.  At
present, EPA assembles and reports on the quality of the Nation's water resources through
the State and Tribal Section 305(b) reports, using as the primary indicator designated use
attainment (see discussion in Section 1.2) for aquatic life and human health concerns in
each major category of waters (rivers and streams, lakes, estuaries, and some coastal
waters).  One of the conclusions reached in the Feasibility Report on Environmental
Indicators for Surface Water Programs (U.S. EPA, 1990c)  and supported by the Office of
Water (OW) is that the National Water Quality Inventory, and the State and Tribal Section
305(b) reports from which water information is extracted and summarized, are the best
vehicles for reporting on existing and proposed environmental indicators.  Unfortunately,
detailed information on how 305(b) assessments are conducted is not generally available
outside the States.
1.1  Project Overview

To mark the beginning of the third phase of the indicators project, Region 5 and the Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) initiated a joint pilot study in November 1990
to document how individual States conduct their 305(b) assessments and use environmental
indicators.   The project team, consisting of EPA Headquarters, Regional, State and
contractor personnel, identified and described for each Region 5 State: (1) methods for
estimating total waters,  (2) approaches for assessing designated use, (3) current surface
water monitoring programs (especially those supporting status and trends), and (4) data
management.  These issues are addressed in Chapters 2 through 5 of the report.  Each
chapter consists of a general description of the issue and specific information from each of
the six States.  Chapter 6 discusses the Region 5 study in the broader context of water
resource policy.

The  first step in preparing this report was to develop assessment questionnaires and
monitoring network profiles, and to fill out these forms to the extent possible using readily
available information (e.g., State 305(b) reports, EPA reports, data system documentation).
Then OPPE and Region 5 staff and contractor personnel met with officials in each State to
complete the assessment questionnaires and monitoring profiles.  Follow-up communication
was  conducted as needed to fill data and information gaps or clarify important issues.

Among the issues evaluated by the study were the following:

   1.   How do Region 5 States estimate the extent of surface water resources within or on
       their boundaries and how will this change in the future? (see Chapter 2)
                                         1-3

-------
  2.  What is each State's decision process for determining designated use support? (see
      Chapter 3)

  3.  What environmental indicators do States use to assess designated use support? (see
      Chapter 3)

  4.  What monitoring programs do or could support the 305(b) process and water quality
      planning and management? (see Chapters 4 and 6)

  5.  What State monitoring programs provide status and trends information and how
      were the programs designed? (see Chapter 4)

  6.  How does each State manage surface water monitoring data? (see Chapter 5)

  7.  To what extent does or could EPA's computerized Waterbody System (WBS),  or
      State WBS-compatible systems, support water quality planning and management?
      (see Chapters 5 and  6)
1.2 The 305(b) Process and Environmental Indicators

States collect, assess, and report information on a variety of designated uses for their
surface waters including the ability of the water resource to support aquatic fish and
wildlife populations and communities (i.e., assemblages) and to suppDrt recreational,
agricultural, industrial, and navigational uses.  Each State designates beneficial uses for
individual waterbodies and  establishes numeric and/or narrative water quality criteria
against which the ability of the waterbody to support their designated uses is evaluated.
Section  305(b) of the CWA requires the States to report on the degree to which assessed
waters are fully supporting,  fully supporting but threatened, partially supporting, or not
supporting their designated uses.  The States are also required to use the information in
their 305(b) reports for water quality planning and management. Specifically, the States
must base their continuing planning process on water quality management plans and
problems identified in the latest 305(b)  report (40  CFR 130.6).  Furthermore, many States
use their 305(b) report to satisfy the Section 205(j) annual reporting requirement by
certifying that the most recently  submitted 305(b)  report is current (40 CFR 130.8(d)).
States use a variety of measures, including ambient chemical concentrations,  estimates of
pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources, toxicants in fish and shellfish, biological
community measures, trophic status of  lakes, and  habitat structure, in  making their use
support designations and evaluating causes of nonsupport.  The 305(1)) reports include
information on the type  of data used to make assessments (actual monitoring data or more
subjective evaluations), the sources and/or causes  of water quality impairment, and the
percentage of total waters that are actually assessed.  The 305(b) reports should be
                                          1-4

-------
produced using an integrated set of reliable environmental indicators and a consistent
monitoring effort.  (Further discussion of 305(b) assessments is given in Section 3.1.)

One of the strengths of the use support framework is the independence it gives individual
States to set specific standards and designate uses for their own waterbodies.  This
independence can cause difficulties, however, when the State-specific information is used
to support development of regional or national environmental indicators. Inconsistencies in
the decision-making  framework used by each State to assess designated use attainment and
major inconsistencies in the amounts of ambient waters monitored or evaluated, from  State
to State and in given States over time,  produce information that can not be used to
determine trends in National water quality or to compare water quality among individual
States.  Furthermore, there are considerable misunderstandings and disagreements about
the objectives of the 305(b) process,  for example:

  1.    Does the current 305(b) process provide information on the quality of the water
       resources, and progress to restore and protect those resources, that Congress
       intended? (The intent of Congress was made clear in the 1972  Clean Water Act.)

  2.    Is there general agreement on the  definitions of the terms "status" and "trends"?

  3.    Is the 305(b)  process meant to address State-specific issues in selected geographic
       areas only,  or is it also meant to provide broad-based, statistically-representative
       information on the status and  trends of the Nation's water resources?

  4.    Is 305(b) information intended for State and National assessment of ambient
       conditions,  or is it intended simply to track progress of pollution control efforts in
       targeted areas?

The Office of Policy, Planning, and  Evaluation (OPPE) and OW managers and staff have
committed to identifying,  clarifying,  and resolving these issues of inconsistency and
uncertainty through a variety of mechanisms.  OW established a National 305(b)
Consistency Workgroup to develop more specific and consistent national guidance  for the
States to use in developing their 1992 and subsequent  305(b)  reports.   Project staff from
OPPE and Region 5 have participated directly in the revision of the 1992 305(b)
Guidelines. In addition, OW and OPPE  have and will continue to sponsor meetings and
workshops with Regional and State personnel to help clarify monitoring objectives and
develop strategies for using information gathered through the 305(b) process as
environmental indicators.
1.3  Water Quality Planning and Management

This section discusses the Region 5 pilot study in the broader context of water quality
planning and management.
                                          1-5

-------
The four primary objectives of water quality planning and management are

  1.  Water Resource Evaluation;

  2.  Problem Identification and Characterization;

  3.  Management Strategy Development, Implementation, and Evaluation; and

  4.  Communication of Results to the Public and Legislators.

These four goals, which are described in more detail in Table 1-1, parallel the
goals/objectives for environmental indicators  noted earlier.

This pilot study focused on how water-related environmental data collected by Region 5
States, especially data supporting the 305(b) reporting requirements, currently support
Water Resource Evaluations and Problem Identification and Characterization.  In addition,
the results of this study provide some information on use of the information to  support
management objectives  3 and 4.

Comprehensive water resource planning and management depends on the spatial and
temporal analysis of a number of key variables including:  the physical dimensions of the
resource (e.g., river and stream miles, lake acres, wetland acres, and shore miles);
quantitative hydrologic parameters; the biological, chemical and physical integrity of the
resource; stressors affecting resource integrity (e.g., agricultural and urban runoff); and the
uses and functions provided by the resource to humans and natural systems.  Designated
use support, with some significant improvements, could become the principal conveyer of
this information to water resource managers, legislators and the general public  (Figure 1-
2).  This  study, to a large  extent, identifies what general changes are necessary to make
designated use support a more useful, over-arching indicator to support water quality
planning and management  (see Chapter 6).  In particular, this study describes how aquatic
life use support, and a suite of related environmental indicators (e.g., biological
community measures, ambient chemical concentrations, toxicants in fish) do or could
support the management objectives shown in Table 1-1.


1.4  Related Studies and  Initiatives

The findings and recommendations in this report are intended to be useful to OW and the
States in planning the development and use of water-related environmental indicators.  To
the extent possible, this report identifies and describes activities within and outside EPA
that may  affect the  305(b)  process and implementation of water-related environmental
indicators.  Understanding the relationship between this study and related activities may
help ensure better use of available data, highlight important opportunities  for improved
coordination, and enhance the usefulness of future data collection and analysis  efforts.  A
few important studies and  programs especially relevant to this study are discussed below.

                                          1-6

-------
Table  1-1,    Water Quality Planning and Management Objectives:  Examples of
                Program Activities and Supporting Data

  1.     Water Resource Evaluation

        Status: Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics of Resource
                Hydrologic data and chemical data for water, sediment, and biota
                Characterizing the physical extent of water resources
                Biological community measures and habitat assessment
                Development of reference site values

        Trends:  Spatial and Temporal Changes in Status
                Site or waterbody-specific temporal changes in water  chemistry (State followup monitoring)
                Basin-wide intensive surveys
                EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
                USGS's National Stream Quality Monitoring Network

  2.     Problem Identification and Characterization

        Problem Identification
                Impairment of biological assemblages (community)
                Exceedance of water quality standards
                Citizen complaints/ Discovery of fish kills
                Source monitoring
                Land-use surveys/ Habitat alteration

        Cause-Effect Characterization
                Wasteload  allocation/ Integrated total maximum daily load development
                Intensive survey
                Facility inspections and toxicity testing

  3.     Management Strategy Development, Implementation, and Evaluation

        Management Strategy Development
                Developing water-quality-based controls
                Setting priorities and targeting resources
                Tactical and strategic planning
                Watershed-specific water quality management plans

        Management Strategy Implementation/Evaluation
                Setting water quality standards
                Permitting  and enforcement actions
                Installing best management practices for nonpoint source pollution
                State monitoring to evaluate effectiveness of point and nonpoint controls

4.      Communication of Results to Public and Legislators
                EPA's National Water Quality Inventory and Summary Report (biennial)
                USGS's National Water Summary (annual)
                NOAA's Shellfish Register (5-year)
                State 305(b) reports to Congress (biennial) and other public information reports
                Public involvement through volunteer/citizen monitoring

Sources:  (1) Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change (U.S. EPA. 1987): (2) pre-1991 versions of the National
305(b) Guidelines;  (3) Feasibility Report on Environmental Indicators for Surface Water Programs (U.S. EPA. 1990c) and
(4) knowledge and  experience of individuals involved with the Region 5 study.
                                                 1-7

-------
             Figure 1-2. Information Provided By an "Ideal" Indicator
                 for Water Resource Planning and Management
                                                        EXAMPLES:

                                                       Aquatic Life Support

                                                       Recreation
Resource Uses
 and Functions
                                                       Public Water Supply

                                                       Agriculture
00
    Designated Use
    Support
   Resource
   Integrity
                                   Stresses
                                   Affecting
                                   Resource
Physical Data

Biological Data

Chemical Data


Agriculture

Water/Wastewater Mgmt

Manufacturing

Energy

Transportation

-------
Surface Water Monitoring:  A Framework for Change (U.S. EPA, 1987), prepared jointly
by OW and OPPE, identified major changes to EPA's surface water monitoring program
that would  be required to support current and future information needs of water quality
managers and planners.  As suggested by Figure 1-3, information needs will increase
significantly as EPA and the States move toward integrated environmental management
strategies.  In many ways, the Region 5 pilot study is a followup of this  study, building on
many of its findings and recommendations.   Table 1-2 presents the  major challenges,
obstacles, and recommendations presented in the 1987 report.

Several products or results from Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change
(U.S. EPA, 1987) are directly or  indirectly  evaluated in the Region 5 pilot study.  A
fundamental finding of the 1987 study was that the OW lacked a clear strategy for ensuring
that State surface water  monitoring fulfilled basic information needs ~ both  at the time of
the study and for the future. The lack of clearly defined management objectives and State
inconsistencies identified by the 1987 report prompted OW to initiate several actions,
including the preparation of profiles of State monitoring and assessment activities,  to get a
sense of what data States collected and for what purposes.  Unfortunately, OW was unable
to complete the work on the State monitoring profiles, in part because there was concern
over the data collection burden placed on States.  It is anticipated that the information
collected in the Region 5 study may help, to a limited extent,  in continuing  this effort by
documenting what data States collect and how the data are used to support planning and
management.

Surface Water Monitoring:  A Framework for Change (U.S. EPA, 1987) is  one of several
documents  that have encouraged the use of biological assessments of surface water
resources at the State level.  This Region 5  pilot study examines the extent to which
biological indicators, along with physical and chemical indicators, are used to assess
aquatic life support, generally considered the most useful measure of the overall integrity
of surface water resources (see Chapter 3 for State assessment approaches for aquatic life
support and Chapter 4 for summary information  on monitoring programs).

The Framework for Change report also highlighted the  importance of sound data
management to support better water quality  planning and management.  Several EPA
systems, including  the WBS, Reach File 3,  and  STORET were influenced by the 1987
report.  Chapter 5 of this Region  5 pilot study examines the extent to which these  systems
are used and how they might be improved to enhance decision-making and planning  at the
State, Regional,  and National levels.

In September 1990, the  EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) issued a report entitled
Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection (U.S. EPA,
1990d) that recommended fundamental changes to the Agency's approach to environmental
planning and management (Table  1-3).
                                         1-9

-------
       Figure 1-3.  Surface Water Quality Management Is an
  Increasingly Complex and Information-Intensive Task Modified
    from Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change (U.S EPA, 1987)
What
            Eariv 1970s
                      1976-84
  Chemical Data
 Indicative of Water
    Quality:
• BOD and DO
• Suspended and
 Disolved solids
• Bacteria
• Nutrients
• Temperature
•pH
                               Priority Pollutants
Effluent Guideline
   Chemicals
                                Pretreatment
                                 Chemicals
                     1985-90
 Toxics Control
    Strategy:
Water Quality-
 Based Permits
Non-point Source
 Assessments
                                                    Additional
                                                   Pretreatment
                                                    Chemicals:
                                                 Domestic Sewage

                                                 RCRA/TSCA/
                                                  FIFRA
                  Bevond 1990
   Multimedia
Risk Management:

Air
Grpundwater
Drinking water
Soil
Where
            Surface, Marine,
             and Estuarine
            Water Columns
             Municipal and
            Industrial Sources
                      Sediments
                   Benthic Organisms
                      Fish Tissue
                   Sampling Matrices
                     Remain the
                       Same
                      Ecoystem
                    Analysis Begins
                                        Ecosystem
                                        Analysis
                                        Matures
  .xxxvxxvvvxvxxxvxvxxvvxxxxxvxvvx^
 How
    Chemical
    Analysis:

 Ambient Fixed
  Stations
 Effluents
                                  Improved
                               Chemical Analysis
   Biological
   Monitoring

    Intensive
    Surveys

 Special Studies:
 Toxicology
 Bioaccu mutation
 Acid Deposition
 Fisheries Survey
     Further
 Improvements in
Chemical Analysis
' New Analytical
 Tests
• Lower Detection
 Levels
• Ecosystem
 Surveys


 Rapid Assessment
    Methods:
• Toxicity Testing
  Integration of
  Environmental
    Data from
 Multiple Sources
                                                                     Use of Existing
                                                                    Monitoring Data in
                                                                    Program Planning
                                                                    and Priority Setting
                                           1-10

-------
Table 1-2.    Challenges, Obstacles and Recommendations Presented in Surface Water
             Monitoring:  A Framework for Change (U.S. EPA, 1987)

Challenges
  1.   Develop and Use Biological Testing Methods to Control Toxic Water Pollutants

  2.   Increase Use of Biological Monitoring to Characterize Aquatic Systems and Identify
      Problems and Trends

  3.   Demonstrate That Pollutant Control Investments are Achieving Desired Results

  4.   Identify and Characterize Toxic, Conventional, and Anthropogenic Pollutants from
      Nonpoint Sources

  5.   Expand Efforts to Identify and Control Pollution Problems in  Near-Coastal and
      Ocean Waters

Obstacles
  1.   Inadequate Methods and Resources for Characterization, Problem Identification, and
      Trend Assessment in Inland, Near-Coastal, and Marine Waters

  2.   Inability to Assess the Effectiveness of Point Source Control and Nonpoint Source
      Management Actions in Terms of Environmental Results

  3.   Insufficient Use of Existing Water-Related Data to Guide, Complement, or Avoid
      New Monitoring

Recommendations
  1.   Issue Guidance on Efficacious Approaches to Characterization, Problem
      Identification, and Trend Assessment

  2.   Accelerate the Development and Application of Promising Biological Monitoring
      Techniques
                                      »

  3.   Analyze the Feasibility of Requiring NPDES Permittees to Conduct Ambient
      Follow-up Monitoring Studies

  4.   Continue and Expand Efforts to Improve Information on National Progress in Water
      Pollution Control

  5.   Improve EPA andState Knowledge About Sources and Uses of Existing Water-
      Related Data

  6.   Establish Central Coordination of EPA Activities to Integrate  Water-Related Data
                                        1-11

-------
Since its beginning, EPA has operated in a reactive mode, driven by a myriad of statutes
and regulations reflecting public perception of environmental risks.  The SAB report,
recommends an integrated, anticipatory, risked-based approach that may allow EPA to deal
more effectively with existing and emerging environmental problems. Although this new
approach offers more effective environmental protection, it also poses new information
needs for water resource planners and managers.  Some important opportunities,
challenges, and obstacles related to these new information needs are discussed in Chapter 6
of this Region 5 pilot study.

In response to the need for better status and trends information on the Nation's  ecological
resources, the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) initiated the
Environmental Monitoring  and Assessment Program (EMAP) (U.S. EPA, 1991). EMAP is
designed to address the following objectives at a national or  regional scale:

   •    Estimate current status, extent, changes, and trends in indicators of the condition of
       the Nation's ecological resources;

   •    Monitor indicators of pollutant exposure and habitat condition, and seek associations
       between human-induced  stresses and ecological conditions that identify possible
       causes  of adverse effects; and

   •    Publish annual statistical summaries and periodic interpretive reports on  status and
       trends to the EPA Administrator and the public.

Seven ecological resource groups makeup EMAP: agroecosystems, arid lands, forests,
Great Lakes, near coastal systems, inland  surface waters, and wetlands. Figure 1-4
presents the proposed spatial resolution of EMAP's  inland surface water program, based
on aggregated Omernik ecoregions.  Greater spatial resolution may be provided through
cooperative efforts with States and other federal agencies. EMAP networks  are being
designed statistically to allow extrapolation from individual stations to entire ecosystems.
EMAP  encompasses six primary activities:

  1.    Strategic evaluation, testing, and development of indicators of ecological condition,
       pollutant exposure and habitat condition, and protocols for collecting  data on these
       indicators  (see Figures 1-5 and 1-6);

  2.    Design and evaluation of a comprehensive and versatile integrated monitoring
       framework;

  3.    Nationwide characterization of the  extent and location of ecological resources;

  4.    Demonstration studies and implementation of integrated sampling designs;
                                         1-12

-------
Table 1-3.   The Ten Recommendations (From Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and
            Strategies for Environmental Protection (U.S. EPA, 1990d).
  1.  EPA should target its environmental protection efforts on the basis of
      opportunities for the greatest risk reduction.
  2.  EPA should attach as much unportance to reducing ecological risk as it does to
      reducing human health risk.
  3.  EPA should improve the data and analytical methodologies that support the
      assessment, comparison, and reduction of different environmental risks.
  4.  EPA should reflect risk-based priorities in this strategic planning processes.


  5.  EPA should reflect risk-based priorities in its budget process.
  6.  EPA - and the Nation as a whole - should make greater use of all the tools
      available to reduce risk.
  7.  EPA should emphasize pollution prevention as the preferred option for
      reducing risk.
  8.   EPA should increase its efforts to integrate environmental considerations into
      broader aspects of public policy in as fundamental a manner as are economic
      concerns.
  9.   EPA should work to improve public understanding of environmental risks and
      train a professional workforce to help reduce them.
 10.  EPA should develop unproved analytical methods to value natural resources
      and to account for long-term environmental effects hi it economic analyses.
                                      1-13

-------
Figure 1-4.  Proposed  Spatial  Resolution of EMAP's Inland  Surface Water
               Program, Based on Aggregated Omernik Ecoregions
  From Surface Waters Monitoring and Research Strategy - Fiscal Year 1991 (U.S. EPA, 1991)
               I. NORTHERN PREDOMINANTLY GLACIATED REGION
                  A. Non-ojriculturol Sictioi
                  B. Mill* UiH Uu Siction
                  C. Agriciltirol Siction
               II. CENTRAL AND  EASTERN PREDOMINANTLY FORESTED HILLS AND MOUNTAINS REGION
               III. SOUTH CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN HUMID. MIXED LAND USE REGION
               IV. SUBHUMID AGRICULTURAL PLAINS REGION
                  A. Northern Siction
                  B. Southirn Siction
               V. IESTERN URIC REGION
                  A. Semi-arid Siclion
                  B. Arid Section
VI. IESTERN FORESTED MOUNTAINS REGION ••
VII. UNIOUE ALLUVIAL AND COASTAL PLAINS REGIONS
   A. Centra! Colilornio Volley  D. Niiiiiiippi Alluvial Plain
   B. Illlamilti Volley        E. Florida Coastal Plaii
   C. Intirn Gull Cooit      F. Kiddle Atlantic Coaitol Pliin
    Thi Arabic numerical icorioion diiignationi on the mop
    are the tame 01 on tin putliihti national map (19).

-------
    Figure 1-5.  General Approach for Identifying Indicators
    From Surface Water Monitoring and Research Strategy-Fiscal Year 1991
                                (U.S. EPA, 1991)
                Biotic
                Indicators
                of Condition
          Biological
          Communities
          (processes and
          interactions altered
          due to exposure to
          modified chemical,
          physical, and biological
          habitats)
                                   Endpoints -
                                   of Concern
                                     Drive Policy
               Chemical Habitat
               Physical Habitat
               Biological Habitat
               (alteration of these
               habitats due to stresses)
                                          Policy
                                          Directed
                                          Toward
                                          Impacting
                                        Anthropogenic
                                        Stresses
                                                           Context of these
                                                           decisions may
                                                           be resource  class
                                                           specific or
                                                           regionally specific
   Figure 1-6.  Indicator Approach for EMAP-Surface Waters
Showing Candidate Indicators and the Top-Down Approach to
    Problem Identification and Diagnosis of Probable Cause
    From Surface Water Monitoring and Research Strategy-Fiscal Year 1991
                                 (U.S. EPA, 1991)
       ENDPOINTS
            IMPACTS
                        RESULTS
        Trophic State

        Fishability

        Biotic Integrity
ORGANISMS
Fish

Macro-
invertebrate*

Phytoplankton/
Penphyton

Sedimentary
Diatoms

Samiaquatlc
Vertebrates
Eutrophication

Acidification

Contamination

Habitat alteration
Physical Habitat
Index

Water Quality
Nutrient Loadings Landuse/Landcover
Contaminant
Loadings
                                       Toxicity Bloassays  Water quality
                                                   degradation

                                                   Physical habitat
                                                   deterioration
                                                   Decrease or
                                                   extirpation of
                                                   native species
Atmospheric deposition/
emissions

Chemical application
estimates

Flow/stage records

Stocking and harvesting
records
                                                    Direction of impact

                                                    Direction of diagnosis
                                      1-15

-------
                2.  METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL WATERS
2.1 Overview
The historical and institutional separation of water quantity and water quality,  which
contradicts our understanding of how water resources exist and are used, has hampered the
Nation's ability to manage and protect its water resources.  While quantitative data (e.g.,
stream length and flow, lake area, depth and volume, and wetland acreage) are important
individually for planning and management purposes,  these data are inextricably linked to
water quality assessments in that they help convey the extent or magnitude of water quality
problems (see Section 6.3.2 - Problem Characterization).  This study  examined how
Region 5 States estimate river and stream miles, lake acreage and wetland acreage in the
jcontext of designated use support assessments reported in State 305(b) reports.

Accurate and consistent quantification of surface water resources  is essential to improving
designated use support as an environmental indicator.  A total water estimate is the
denominator for calculating the percentage of waters known to be supporting designated
uses.  Without and accurate and consistent estimate of total waters, the relative proportions
of designated use support categories (i.e., fully supporting, partially supporting, and not
supporting)  cannot be consistently determined nor can meaningful comparisons be made
spatially (among States or nationally) and temporally (from one reporting cycle to another).
Figure 2-1 illustrates how misleading these statistics can be if States do not have accurate
and consistent total waters estimates. Such statistics  are questionable  and can not be used
to compare State efforts, or even to evaluate progress within a State.  It is  also important
to note that comparing waterbodies by overall  designated use is misleading because
different waterbodies are designated for  different uses (e.g., aquatic life support vs.
industrial use). Because different criteria are often established for different uses, it is more
meaningful  to compare waterbodies by the same designated use (see Chapters 3 and 4).

Total water estimates also reveal the percentage of a State's waters being assessed and the
extent of the use  of monitoring  data versus evaluative information.  Reliable estimates of
total waters give legislators,  water quality planners, and the public a basis for evaluating
the success  of pollution control efforts and the need for additional controls  (see Table 1-1,
Objective 3).  For example,  to take action on a finding that 60 percent of the waters of a
State are impaired by agricultural  sources, policy makers need to know that the basis for the
percentage is sound and  defensible.

Estimates of total waters currently are not comparable among States because each State
employs its own methods of measurement.  Lacking  a national database of accurate
hydrologic features, each State  selects its own  criteria for including waterbodies in these
estimates.
                                          2-1

-------
      Figure 2-1. Percentage of River Miles Supporting Designated Uses in
                                1990 - Region 5 States
to
                                                        Assessed
     River Miles

Not Supporting
Partially Supporting
Fully Supporting —
                                                                                    Unassessed
                                                                             c--.,,„,•,. -man onc/K\ ,„«„,*„

-------
Varying definitions  of surface water resource categories (e.g., rivers and streams, lakes
and wetlands) among  States are another source of inconsistent resource quantification.
Even if accurate and consistent quantification methods are employed, designated use
support categories will not be comparable if inconsistent definitions of resources categories
are used.  For example, if one State includes intermittent streams with their inventory of
total rivers and streams and another State with similar hydrologic conditions does not,
comparisons between  the two States would be misleading.

In FY91, a workgroup of representatives from several States, EPA Regions,  and EPA
Headquarters recommended priority for developing of a consistent methodology for
estimating total State waters.  This 305(b) Consistency Workgroup  determined that the best
currently available estimates can be obtained using EPA Reach File Version 3. RF3 is a
computer data system based on the USGS 1:100,000 scale Digital Line Graph (DLG)
database, and provides the first national database of hydrologic traces with the detail
needed to calculate reliable total  State water values.  This use of RF3 data is described in
Section 2.2.  Section 5.2.1  provides a more general description of RF3.
2.2 Methods for Quantifying Surface Water Resources

2.2.1 Mechanical Methods

States historically have relied on mechanical methods for estimating total waters.  For
rivers and streams, these methods involve physical measurement of map traces using map
wheels, dividers, or rulers.  A map wheel is a simple, hand-held device with a wheel at the
bottom and a meter that displays cumulative distance.  The operator rolls the wheel along
the stream trace, and the resulting distance is converted to stream length according to the
scale of the map. Dividers are instruments  with two sharp points that are set apart at a
specified chord length.  The operator then  "walks" the dividers along the stream trace and
counts the number of chords.  The chord length is typically set using the map's scale, e.g.,
to 0.1 mile;  the shorter the chord length, the more precise the measurement.

Mechanical measurements can be quite accurate when performed on 1:24,000 scale USGS
topographic  maps and subjected to  good quality control.  The State of North Carolina, for
example, measured all classified streams using triplicate map wheel readings; readings
were repeated until satisfactory agreement was achieved.  The process was extremely time
consuming but results have been well accepted.

For lakes and wetlands,  a planimeter is often used to measure size.  A planimeter is a
hand-held, mechanical or electronic device with two arms.   To measure the area of a lake,
the end of one arm is fixed on a point while the operator traces  the shoreline with the other
arm.  As the moving arm closes the shoreline trace, the planimeter displays a measurement
of the area enclosed by the trace. This area is then converted to the surface area of the

                                         2-3

-------
lake.  Another approach is to overlay a map with a scaled, transparent grid; the number of
grid units (dots or boxes)  covering the waterbody of interest is then used to calculate size.

Mechanical methods for measuring Great Lakes shoreline mileage, wetlands and lake
acreage are straightforward.  However, the possibility of overlapping acreage may warrant
further study.

2.2.2 Digital Methods

For over a decade it has been possible to convert stream traces into computerized data
files.  Using an electronic pen or mouse, an operator typically follows the streams on a
hydrologic or topographic map; a program converts map coordinates at regular time or
distance intervals along the trace to digital location data.  A computer program sums the
distances between each point to obtain stream length.  This approach has been used with
geographic information systems (GISs).

Automated optical scanning methods are also available.  A scanner may pass over an entire
map's surface, interpreting it as a matrix of grid cells or pixels.  Appropriate grid cells are
interpreted as stream traces.

Digital methods can also be used to calculate wetland size. The  most detailed data are
being made available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI).  NWI maps show wetland boundaries at uniform scale under the
Service's wetland classification scheme.  The maps  can be digitized and wetland areas
calculated using a GIS or  other platform.

2.2.3 USGS Digital Line Graph Database

In a major national effort, USGS created the DLG database of all hydrologic features
found on its 1:100,000 scale map series.  This is the most detailed scale available
nationally in digital form and includes an estimated 75 to 90 percent of the hydrologic
features  on the 1:24,000  scale topographic map series.  Most of the traces were actually
digitized off the 1:24,000  scale maps,  so the accuracy of locational data is extremely high.
The DLG database distinguishes intermittent streams and ditches from perennial streams
and rivers according to their visual appearance on the USGS maps rather than any strict
hydrologic criteria.

The DLG database was designed to draw detailed maps rather than to integrate information
or perform calculations (i.e., the traces are not networked). It has not been widely used
by States for estimating total waters.  DLG data are not suitable  for estimating lake,
wetland, and pond sizes without  considerable processing.
                                          2-4

-------
2.2.4 EPA Reach File

EPA Reach File Version 3 (RF3) is based on the DLG database and is housed on the EPA
National Computing Center (NCC) mainframe computer. RF3 contains additional
connectivity data linking DLG hydrologic traces into a true waterbody network.  RF3
contains over 3 million reaches or stream segments.  The system is designed for routing
and modeling applications and serves as the primary integrator among the EPA national
water databases. Other systems such as STORET, the Waterbody System, and the Permit
Compliance System can be linked  with each other by a common geographic locator,  the
Reach Number.

State-by-State estimates of total river and stream mileages using DLG have recently been
completed by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the EPA Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division (U.S. EPA, 1991).  RF3 also makes it possible to calculate lake  and
pond acreage from the DLG database; this  work is underway.  RF3  is expected to provide
resolution to a minimum lake size of approximately 1 acre. RF3 estimates for total lake
acreage by State are to be completed  in the first quarter of FY92. Either the raw DLG
traces or networked RF3 data files can be readily imported into GIS systems and used in
the GIS environment.
2.3  State Methods, Estimates, and Future Plans

Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 summarize the methods used, data sources, and the results of
State total waters estimates for rivers and streams, lakes, and wetlands in Region 5.  For
rivers and streams, Table 2-1 provides DLG/RF3 estimates and values reported in the 1990
305(b) report to allow comparison.  These results are explained in the following sections,
along with the State-specific implications of using the RF3 estimates for total waters.

2.3.1 Illinois

In the 1990 305(b) report, Illinois used a value of 14,080 miles for total river and stream
size.  Since then, the 1989 Inventory of Illinois Surface  Water Resources has been
completed by the Department of Conservation.  The Illinois EPA plans  to use the new
estimate, 26,310 miles, in the next 305(b) report unless  it is superseded by RF3  estimates.
The  State estimate is based on mechanical measurements using 1:24,000 scale topographic
maps and input from local resource managers.  Total lake acreage of 305,847 includes
over 85,000 ponds or small lakes under 6 acres in size and 2,940 lakes greater than 6
acres in size.

The  DLG/RF3 estimate of 33,009 miles for perennial streams and rivers is in reasonable
agreement with the new Illinois State estimate of 26,310. However, the DLG/RF3
estimate of 44,462 miles for intermittent streams and 2,341 for ditches/canals result in a

                                         2-5

-------
                    Table 2-1.  Estimates of Total Stream and River Mileages for Region 5 States
to
State Estimates DLG/RF3 Mileages3
State Method

Illinois Mechanical

Indiana Unknown (probably
mechanical with
extrapolation)
Michigan Unknown (probably
mechanical; 1940
estimates)
Minnesota Digitized from 1 :24,000
and 1 :62,500 maps
Ohio Mechanical (1960
estimates)
Wisconsin Mechanical using
1 :24,000 topo maps
DLG=Digital Line Graph
RF3=Reach Rle Version 3
WQS=Water Quality Standards
Mileage Reported by Perennialb Intermittent Ditches/
the State Canals
26,310 (mainly 33,009 44,462 2,341
perennial streams)
90,000 (includes 21,095 8,409 6,169
70,000 mi of ditches)

36,350 30,221 22,793 3,080


91,944 (includes 31,108 33,761 7,726
ditches)
25, 165 (named or 29,113 29,602 2,818
included in WQS)C
43,600 (mainly 30,359 25,735 797
perennial)



Total

79,812

35,673


56,094


72,595

61,532

56,890




         a Source: U.S. EPA, 1991.  (Total Waters Document)
         b Includes the DLG categories "perennial streams" and "wide rivers"
         c Ohio also reports a total of 43,917 miles of named or unnamed streams (including an estimate for ditches); however, 29,113 miles is used
         in the 305(b) for total waters.

-------
  Table 2-2.  Methods Used by Region 5 States to Determine Total
                 Lake Acreage and  Reported Values
            Method and Size of Lakes Included
State
  Acreage      Acreage
Reported by  Reported by
   State         RF3&
Illinois     Mechanical; includes over 80,000
          lakes <6 acres in size

Indiana    Mechanical

Michigan  Mechanical:  Michigan State University
          report circa late  1960s; includes all
          lakes/ponds >0.1 acres in size

Minnesota Mechanical:  MN Department of Natural
          Resources Inventory of Minnesota
          Lakes; from planimetered aerial photos;
          includes all lakes >10 acres

Ohio      Mechanical; includes all 50,000 lakes
          in Ohio; includes 66,000 acres of  lakes
          <5 acres in size

Wisconsin Mechanical; planimeter
     305,847
     200,000
     957,288
283,967
     105,540      142,871

     840,960      963,194



   3,411,200    3,208,326
188,461
951,105
            Table 2-3.  Wetland Totals for Region 5 States
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin

a EPA, 1991
b Dahl, 1990
1990 Fish and Wildlife
Service Estimatesb
1,254,000
750,633
5,583,400
8,700,000
482,800
5,331,392


Source
IL Dept. of Conservation
NWI
NWI
University of Minnesota, 1981
NWI and OH Dept. of Natural





Resources
Wl Dept. of Natural Resources


                                   2-7

-------
grand total three times the State estimate.  If the same number of stream miles were
assessed in 1992 as in the 1990 305(b) assessment, the percent of total stream miles
assessed would be only about 16 percent using the DLG/RF3  estimate versus about 50
percent using the 26,310 figure.  However, Illinois staff recognize the higher level of
accuracy of the DLG/RF3 mileages and will probably have no problem  in using them for
305(b) purposes.  In fact, the DLG/RF3 estimates may be seen as more desirable because
all Illinois waterways are classified in the State water quality standards,  not just perennial
streams.

The use of DLG/RF3 for total lake acreage may not  cause significant problems for Illinois
because State estimates already include many small lakes.  However, the State does not
intend to assess the thousands of ponds, borrow pits, and small lakes under 6 acres in size.
State staff raised the issue of whether a lower size cutoff would be appropriate for
computing total waters.  Illinois, for example, has thousands of borrow pits left over from
interstate highway construction that have filled with water.

Two estimates of total wetlands were obtained.  The 1990 305(b) report states that less
than 1,750,000 acres remain, and Dahl (1990) reports 1,254,000 acres (Table 2-3).

2.3.2 Indiana

Indiana estimates its total perennial streams and rivers at 10,000 miles and its total
waterways (including intermittent streams and ditches) at 90,000 miles.  The State
estimates were generated some years ago and no references or detailed methods were
provided for this  project.  Presumably the estimates are based on mechanical measurements
with some extrapolation from part of the State to the entire State.  The DLG/RF3  estimate
of 21,095 miles for perennial streams and rivers is more than twice  the State estimate.   In
contrast, the DLG/RF3 estimate for intermittent streams is about the same as the State
estimate of 10,000 miles.

The greatest difference between State and DLG/RF3 estimates is in  miles of ditches and
canals. This is significant because Indiana's water quality standards protect many
drainageways as small as roadside ditches.  Most of the State's estimated 70,000 miles  of
ditches are too small to be found on  1:24,000 scale topographic maps and hence are not
included in DLG/RF3 estimates.  DLG/RF3 estimates almost certainly represent more
accurate totals for perennial and intermittent streams. Despite the differences in mileage
estimates, Indiana staff have indicated that the use of DLG/RF3 mileages for 305(b)
reporting will probably be acceptable to them.  They recognize that  the 90,000-mile figure
may not be suitable for use support purposes, because (by their estimates) only about
10,000 miles of perennial streams and 10,000 miles  of intermittent streams are capable of
supporting designated uses.  The 90,000 mile figure is important in  other ways, because it
enables the State to issue permits protective of very small waterways.
                                          2-8

-------
Indiana reports publicly owned inland lakes totalling 105,540 acres.  The basis for this
acreage was not provided for the study.  Wetlands are estimated at 100,000 acres in the
1990 305(b) report.  This is a crude estimate and not based on detailed mapping.  The
current NWI estimate is 750,633 acres.

2.3.3 Michigan

Michigan's estimate of 36,350 miles of total streams and rivers is believed to date back to
the 1940s (Brown  1944, Sommers 1977).  It does not appear that this number accurately
represents all classified waters of the State.  DLG/RF3 estimates were 30,221 miles of
perennial streams, 22,793 miles of intermittent streams, and 3,080 miles of ditches/canals.

Michigan will probably find RF3 estimates acceptable in principle.  A potential problem
for them is that RF3 totals for ditches might include some channelized streams that are
protected by water quality standards, whereas most ditches are not protected.  Another
State-specific issue is that Michigan distinguishes between "intermittent" and "ephemeral"
streams; ephemeral streams contain water only during runoff events, and intermittent
streams contain water at other times as well.  Intermittent streams are protected by
standards; ephemeral streams are not.   DLG/RF3 estimates are based on cartographic
traces and cannot distinguish between the two types of streams.

Michigan's estimate of 840,960 acres of lakes includes ponds as small as 0.1 acre. Staff
are concerned over the selection criteria for the lower cutoff in lake size to be used in RF3
estimates of total waters.  The State has not determined if an RF3 lower cutoff value of 1
acre would be acceptable to Michigan;  such a lower limit would capture all but the
smallest ponds.

Michigan is completing a wetland inventory, which resides on the Michigan Resource
Information System (MIRIS), a CIS. Total size is estimated at 3,200,000 acres but may
change as MIRIS results come in.  NWI estimates Michigan's wetlands at 5,583,400 acres.

2.3.4 Minnesota

Minnesota's total stream miles estimate of 91,944 comes from the digitized center traces of
most streams, rivers, and ditches shown on 1:24,000 and 1:62,500 scale topographic maps.
All data are referenced to the universal transverse mercator (UTM) zone 15-coordinate
system.  Separate estimates for perennial and intermittent streams are not available.  The
91,944 miles includes an estimated 20,022 miles  of ditches and canals.

Minnesota's total stream mile estimate serves as a good test of the DLG/RF3 estimates
because both were derived by digitizing stream traces from topographic maps.
Minnesota's estimate would be expected to be higher because of the map scales used;
DLG/RF3 relied on 1:100,000 scale maps, which are believed to contain 75-90 percent of

                                         2-9

-------
the hydrologic features on the 1:24,000 scale maps.  Indeed, the DLG/RF3 estimate of
72,595 miles represents 79 percent of Minnesota's estimate.

Minnesota will make a case for using its own total streams and rivers estimate since it
contains more detail than the DLG/RF3 estimate.  DLG/RF3 has the advantage of
distinguishing among the different waterbody types (perennial stream, intermittent stream,
wide river, ditch/canal), but this is not significant to  Minnesota because the State wants all
potential receiving waters included in total waters estimates.

Minnesota reports 3,411,200 acres of lakes greater than 10 acres in size.  Lake estimates
were obtained using planimeters on aerial photographs and were checked against USGS
topographic  maps. The State's reaction to RF3 total lake acreage will likely depend on the
RF3  selection criteria and results.

Minnesota's wetlands were estimated by Department of Natural Resources staff at roughly
5,000,000 acres.  A  1981 University of Minnesota study reported a total of 8,700,000
acres (Dahl, 1990).

2.3.5 Ohio

For total streams and rivers, the Ohio EPA uses an estimate of 25,165 miles. This was
obtained by  measuring  waterbodies large enough to be named on USGS 1:24,000 scale
topographic  maps and/or designated in State water quality  standards. These waters have
been assigned aquatic life use designations.  This measurement agrees well with the
DLG/RF3 value of 29,113 miles for perennial streams and rivers.

Although not used for 305(b) purposes, there is also  a 1960 State estimate of 43,917 miles,
based on measurements of all named streams and estimates for unnamed streams and
ditches. Many of these waters are not capable of supporting permanent aquatic
communities.  This estimate can be compared with the DLG/RF3 total of 61,532 miles for
all categories of streams, rivers, and ditches/canals.

Ohio EPA plans to update their list of waters by adding any missing perennial stream
segments from RF3.  Although they believe they have covered the universe of streams and
rivers in their total waters estimates, they are willing to use DLG/RF3 values for the sake
of national consistency, especially considering that these estimates agree reasonably well
with their current universe of waters.

The total wetland acreage of Ohio is being quantified by the Remote Sensing Program of
the Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service using
LANDSAT  data.  The inventory is scheduled for completion in 1991. Unpublished NWI
data  suggest a total acreage of 5,583,400 (Table 2-3).
                                        2-10

-------
2.3.6 Wisconsin

Wisconsin determined total stream and river miles mechanically using 1:24,000
topographic  maps.  Only perennial streams were measured, in an attempt to capture all
streams with aquatic populations. The State's estimate is 43,600  miles, compared with the
DLG/RF3 perennial streams total of 30,359 miles (70 percent of  the State estimate).
DLG/RF3 also calculates 25,735 miles of intermittent streams and 797 miles of
ditches/canals  for a total of 56,890 miles.

The State estimate may be more detailed for perennial streams. If EPA selects perennial
waters as the basis for 305(b) total waters, Wisconsin may seek to use its own estimate for
total waters.  Wisconsin measured 957,288 acres of lakes  using planimeters.  Wisconsin's
wetlands are estimated at 5,331,392  acres from a 1985 Department of Natural Resources
inventory using aerial photographs.
2.4  Findings and Recommendations

2.4.1 Rivers and Streams

A wide  range of approaches and sources were used by the Region 5 States to estimate total
waters.  In the case of rivers and streams, approaches range from digitization of stream
traces from detailed topographic maps (Minnesota) to limited mechanical measurements
with extrapolation (Indiana).   Illinois and Wisconsin restrict their measurements largely to
perennial streams, while Indiana and Minnesota include intermittent streams and ditches in
their estimates. Ohio includes only streams that are named or included in State water
quality standards.

Two categories of inconsistency in total waters estimates have been identified among  the
Region 5 States—inconsistency due to differences in measurement technique or level of
detail and inconsistency due to State policy or regulation.  The first category of
inconsistency is remedied  by using the best available national database of stream and lake
sizes, RF3. An example of the second type of inconsistency is discrepancy in the inclusion
of intermittent streams and ditches in State water quality standards and total waters.

An  issues for States is that the use of RF3 total waters will significantly reduce the
percentage of total waters assessed.  That is, the "unassessed" portions in Figure 2-1  will
typically become  larger.  This may give a negative impression about a State's monitoring
program, even though the State may be  assessing a relatively high percentage of waters
that are capable of supporting aquatic life.

To  help resolve this issue, the Region 5 States have set a goal of reporting use support
separately for each of the  following categories: perennial streams, intermittent streams,

                                         2-11

-------
canals/ditches, and border streams. For each category, total assessed mileage will be
reported, as well as mileage supporting each designated use. This expanded level of
reporting in the  1992  305(b) reports will provide information at the Regional level on what
types of waters are monitored and assessed.  A knowledge of what types of waters are
being monitored, coupled with studies  showing aquatic life values for intermittent streams,
may help guide the interpretation of "percent of waters assessed" in the future 305(b)
reports.

A recommendation is made in Section  2.4.4 that the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup look
into this issue based on the results of the analysis by Region 5 States.  This review may
find, for example, that aquatic life support could be more viable as an indicator if States
would give two  separate totals:  waters with potential to support aquatic life, and total
waters. In such a case, the aquatic life waters might consist of perennial streams  and
selected intermittent streams, ditches and canals.

2.4.2  Lakes

The issues associated with lakes are less clear-cut because the RF3 estimates by State are
not yet available.  RF3  is expected to include more lake acreage than most States have had
the resources to  measure by hand.  As such,  RF3 totals will be an improvement for Region
5 States other than Michigan and Minnesota, where highly detailed measurements have
been made.  The primary question seems to be how to set the minimum lake or pond size
to be included in  the RF3 total waters estimates.  State-specific concerns remain to be
defined. Illinois staff expressed concern over including thousands of small borrow pits
from highway construction that have filled up with water.  However, Illinois does include
some ponds under 6 acres in its total lake acreage.  Ohio includes lakes/ponds under 5
acres in its estimate, while Michigan includes ponds under 0.1 acre, and Minnesota drew
the line at 10 acres.  RF3 includes ponds down to the 1-acre size range. No matter which
lower size cutoff is selected for RF3, it will probably not suit all States. RF3 estimates for
total lake acreage by State are to be completed in the first quarter of FY92.

2.4.3  Wetlands

Accurate and consistent totals for wetlands are probably years away for many States.
Wetland boundaries are subject to considerable interpretation. Ultimately,  the most
consistent and complete source of wetland totals will be the NWI. However, States should
be allowed to adjust the NWI totals based on detailed ground truthing or other defensible
considerations.

Prior to completion of the NWI,  the current best estimates are probably found in a recent
Report to Congress entitled Wetland Issues in the United States, 1780's to 1980's (Dahl,
1990).  The State-by-State totals in this report represent the Service's best efforts  to
reconcile conflicting datasets, and include NWI  estimates and States estimates where

                                         2-12

-------
appropriate.  These wetland totals are recommended for national use until better estimates
are available (see Table 2-3).

2.4.4 Recommendations

  •   RF3 is the best available national database for calculating State total waters and is
      detailed enough for most State applications.  However, States should be given the
      flexibility and tools to modify their RF3 databases to add further detail, and to
      allow States that have digitized their waters to a greater level of detail than RF3 to
      report their own total waters.  Minnesota is an example of such a State.

  •   The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup should review the results of the effort by
      Region 5 States to summarize use support separately for perennial, intermittent and
      border streams and ditches/canals (including miles of waters being monitored and
      assessed in each category).  The Workgroup should then consider options for
      improving national reporting on miles supporting aquatic life.

  •   EPA should resolve the issue of a lower size cutoff for lakes included  in State total
      waters.  Not all RF3 impoundments are waters of the State—e.g., wastewater
      lagoons or borrow pits have filled with water as a result of highway construction.
                                         2-13

-------
                3. ASSESSMENT OF DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT
3.1    Overview

At present, EPA reports on the Nation's surface water quality by compiling and
summarizing the biennial State reports called for under Section 305(b) of the CWA (U.S.
EPA 1991).  As part of these reports, States assess and report on a variety of designated
beneficial uses for the waterbodies.  Under each State's water quality standards program,
the State designates beneficial uses for waterbodies (e.g., recreation, aquatic life
protection) and establishes numeric and narrative water quality criteria standards the State
determines are needed to protect each use (U.S. EPA, 1983). The extent to which the
assessed waters meet or fail the established criteria determines whether or not, and to what
degree, the designated use is considered to be met. States also report on whether the  use
support decision is based on actual monitoring data or more subjective evaluations.

Surface waters may be designated for one or more uses including,  but not limited to:
domestic water supply, aquatic fish and wildlife support,  recreation,  agriculture, industrial
use, navigation,  and nondegradation  waters.  However, the most consistent designated use
which  is reported by the States is the "aquatic life" use.   Some States have tiered aquatic
life uses based upon habitat quality to more accurately determine their expectations for
community-based measures and numeric water quality standards (Figure 3-1).

States  determine whether the designated uses are supported by compiling and interpreting
data on a variety of physical, chemical, and biological measures.  Chemical and physical
measures, corresponding to properties for which water quality criteria have been adopted
in State standards, are the most common measures used to evaluate use support; however,
biological measures are becoming more common and  necessary.

In reporting on designated use support,  States set water quality goals and measure  progress
in meeting them. States report on the degree to which assessed waters are: fully
supporting, fully supporting but threatened, partially supporting,  or not supporting their
designated uses. In addition, information provided on the causes and sources of pollution
allows managers to identify emerging and existing  problems so that they can target their
resources more effectively.  Information reported is used by the States in identifying
problems, monitoring compliance actions, setting control priorities, and educating the
public.

The 305(b) reporting mechanism provides OW with a State-driven  information system that
already serves as a source of indicator data and can be improved upon for future use. If
desired by OW, and agreed upon by the States, changes in the reporting system could
allow for more uniform collection of information needed to develop selected environmental
indicators. One of the major problems  facing various Offices at EPA in developing

                                          3-1

-------
Figure 3-1. Aquatic Life Use Designations by State
Aquatic Uses
General
Exceptional
Warmwater
Warmwater
Coldwater
Modified
Warmwater
Limited
Resource Water
Indigenous
Illinois
•





•
Indiana
•






Michigan


•
*



Minnesota
•


•



Ohio

•
•
•
•
•

Wisconsin
•

•
•

•


-------
indicator programs is finding ways to compile and analyze the information available from
various sources.  OW, through the biennial 305(b) reports and the computerized WBS,
already has such a system in place (Chapter 5 for discussion of WBS).

The current value of the 305(b) reports as a source of environmental indicator data is
severely limited, due to the large inconsistencies among States in how water quality data
are generated, analyzed, and reported.  States assess different subsets of their waters
annually through site-specific and intensive surveys while the Fixed  Station Networks
provide the only link from one year to the next. In some instances, States even change
their accounting of total waters from one cycle to the next (see Chapter 2).   One problem
in using this information for national reporting purposes stems from the considerable
discretion that States have under the law in developing their own water quality standards.
State water quality standards are comprised of a designated beneficial use of the
waterbody,  narrative or numeric criteria established to ensure protection of that use, and an
anti-degradation statement.  As a result of these differences among States and in the type
of information they provide to EPA in their 305(b) reports, making comparisons between
States or trying  to assess national  status and trends is essentially impossible and useless.
The inconsistencies in sampling design and decision-making from year to year make it
difficult to assess trends even within individual States.  However,  with the additional
attention that EPA and the States are placing on the  305(b) process (e.g., the National
305(b) Consistency Workgroup) these issues should  be minimized in  the future.

This chapter describes the approaches of each Region 5 State in assessing aquatic life
support, an important subset of the aggregate indicator for surface waters -  designated use
support (see Figure 1-2).  Aquatic life support is a particularly useful environmental
indicator because it is the most direct measure of the overall integrity of surface waters.
The types of biological, chemical, and physical indicators used in State assessments of
rivers, streams,  and lakes and the manner in which they are used are discussed in this
chapter, and issues  of spatial sampling design are discussed in Chapter 4.
3.2 State Assessment Approaches for Aquatic Life Use Support

Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show the environmental indicators used by each Region 5 State to
assess aquatic life support for rivers and streams, and for lakes, respectively.  These tables
also convey whether each indicator has a primary, secondary or supporting role in the
assessments. In general, best professional judgment (BPJ) is widely used in the assessment
process,  highlighting the importance of documenting each State's decision process to help
promote  more accurate, consistent, and reproducible assessments. Brief descriptions of the
approaches used by Region 5 States for assessing designated use  secondary support for
rivers and streams, and lakes are provided in the following sections.
                                          3-3

-------
           Figure 3-2.  Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses
                         for Rivers and Streams by State
Indicators
Water chemistry
Sediment
chemistry
Fish community
Macroinvertebrate
Community
Fish tissue
contamination
Habitat evaluations
Fish kills
Effluent chemistry
& toxicity
Illinois
•
o
•
•
o
•
o
0
Indiana
•
0
o
0
•
o
o
0
Michigan
•
O
•
•
•
•
o
0
Minnesota
•

O
o
•
o
0
o
Ohio
•
O
•
•
•
•
o
o
Wisconsin
• •
O
•
o
•
•
o
0
U)
              - Primary data type for assessments
           Q  - Secondary data type used to support assessments

-------
           Figure 3-3.  Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses
                                for Lakes by State
Indicators
Trophic status
Water chemistry
Sediment
chemistry
Amount of aquatic
macroDhytes
Amount of
sediments
Fish kills
Fish tissue
contamination
Effluent chemistry
& toxiclty
Illinois
•
o
o
•
•



Indiana
•
0

o

0
o
o
Michigan
•
O




o

Minnesota

0




•

Ohio
•
0

0
o

o
0
Wisconsin
•
O

o


o

U)
             - Primary data type for assessments
          Q - Secondary data type used to support assessments

-------
3.2.1 Illinois

Approach for Rivers and Streams

Assessments are performed by Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) staff in
the Planning Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control.  Indicators used in
assessments include fish community data, habitat evaluation data, macroinvertebrate data,
water chemistry, sediment chemistry, and fish tissue contamination (Illinois EPA 1985,
1987, 1989).  Data sources include STORET (See Appendices), State biological data files,
and Intensive Basin Survey Reports.  Most of the work is done by Regional Office Staff,
including analysis of biological data. Headquarters staff of the Section provide instruction
and guidance and interpret physical/chemical water quality data.  Headquarters staff also
combine Regional input to the State Waterbody  System.

The use support decision algorithm is complex but well documented in the State's 305(b)
report.  Predominant data types used are:

   •   Fish community measures—through use of an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI);

   •   Habitat observations and measurements-through a Potential Index of Biotic
      Integrity (PIBI); and

   •   Physical/chemical water chemistry—through use of the Region 10 Water Quality
      Index, or WQI.

As shown in Figure 3-4, the Illinois approach gives greater weight to the measured IBI and
habitat (PIBI) than to water chemistry (WQI).  However, water chemistry data are always
used where available, even though they can be overridden by fish community data.  The
following text explains Figure 3-4.  If fish or habitat data are not available, the WQI is
relied upon heavily.  If all three types of data are available, the following approach is
applied:

Step 1 Determine if IBI alone indicates nonsupport (IBI very low).  If YES, waterbody is
      not  supporting uses.

Step 2 If IBI alone does not indicate nonsupport, determine if measured fish community
      integrity exceeds that predicted by habitat only  (i.e., if IBI exceeds PIBI). If yes,
      then look at chemistry; if WQI is greater than 50 then stream is achieving
      partial/minor support;  if WQI is less than 50, stream fully supports uses.

Step 3 If fishery potential based on habitat alone moderately exceeds actual IBI,  perform
      another WQI test to determine partial/minor, partial/moderate,  or full support. If
      potential fish community integrity (based on PIBI) greatly exceeds measured fish

                                          3-6

-------
       Figure 3-4. Aquatic Life Use Support Assessment
  Flow Chart for Fish, Habitat, and Water Quality Data - Illinois
1
Yes
i
>
Is
IBI < 23
k
No
Yes

Fish/Habitat
Assessment
Data Available

No

Is
WQI < 30
No

Yes
i
r
( Full
(
                                                      ( Partial/ A
                                                      \^ Minor J
       ( Partial/ A
       ^Moderate J
                               3-7

-------
       community integrity (IBI), this is taken as evidence that water quality could be
       better, and increasingly higher WQIs are required for each level of support.

       If IBI indicates a level of support of partial or full, then the WQI generally is used
       to distinguish between full or partial support.  Only in extreme cases where habitat
       potential (PIBI) greatly exceeds measured fish community integrity  (IBI) can water
       chemistry  signal nonsupport.

Step 4 If macroinvertebrate data are available, determine if they are  sufficient to override
       any of the above approaches. A rating system relates Macroinvertebrate Biotic
       Index (MBI) to level of use support.

Step 5 Determine if sediment data indicate elevated levels; if so, adjust use support
       appropriately.  Likewise determine if fish tissue shows elevated levels of
       organochlorine compounds.  If such compounds are routinely detected below levels
       of concern, the stream is partially supporting uses; if consistently exceeding Food
       and Drug  Administration Action Levels, the stream is not supporting uses.

Step 6 Determine if water column chemistry shows elevated levels of pesticides and
       priority pollutants and adjust use  support according to best professional judgment.
       Note: The IEPA approach does not employ toxicity testing results and effluent
       chemistry.

Illinois EPA developed a Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) program to assist in the
management and  protection of their natural resources by adapting the multi-metric Index of
Biotic Integrity for use in Illinois and developing a stream habitat assessment procedure for
predicting biotic potential (IEPA, 1989).  Figure 3-5 illustrates how  streams are classified
within Illinois  for aquatic life protection; however, it is not clear how these classifications
are used in water quality standards programs or how biological criteria would be
implemented.  These  classifications have yet to be linked directly with the  State's
designated uses.

Although Illinois  EPA attempts to integrate benthic macroinvertebrate community  measures
into their assessments, this effort is hampered by the reliance of a single metric - the
macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI).  The BSC manual states that the MBI, or
macroinvertebrate narrative criteria are used only:

  •   When fisheries information is unavailable;

  •   On stream segments five miles in length, or longer; and,

  •   Only in the application of Class D or E Ratings.
                                          3-8

-------
Figure 3-5.  Prioritization of Data Use in the Biological
       Stream Characterization Process - Illinois
       From Biological Stream Characterization (BSC), 1989
                        START:
                      ASSESS AVAILABLE
                        BIOTIC DATA
                         ARE
                        FISHERY
                         DATA
                       AVAILABLE?
                          CAN
                        IBI/AIBI BE
                       CALCULATED?
                          CAN
                       BSC FISHERY
                        NARRATIVE
                         E USED?
          DO
        MACRO DATA
         EXIST?
           FOR
      STREAM SEGMENT
         >5 MLES?
YES  (FOR CLASSES
     D OR E ONLY)
       NO BSC RATING
       INTERNAL IEPA USE

U—
fw.
•z.
LJ
2
o
1 1 1
00

^
<
Ld
cr
F—
CO

U.
(r\
\j i
CO
<
0
A
UNIQUE
AQUAT RES

B
HIGHLY
VALUED


C
MODERATE


D
LIMITED

E
RESTRICTED
RESOURCE
            3-9
                                                FINAL BSC
                                                  RATING

-------
In these cases, only the MBI itself is generally used to make decisions on use attainment,
but the State has acknowledged the need to expand the use of other benthic metrics such as
those used in EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (EPA  1989) and/or other State
programs.

Approach for Lakes

Assessments of lakes are performed by IEPA staff in the Planning Section of the Division
of Water Pollution Control.  Assistance in data collection and identification of causes and
sources is provided by Areawide Planning Commissions (especially for Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program lakes), the Illinois Department of Conservation District Fishery
Managers and Regional Administrators (based on  1977  fisheries questionnaires and
updates), and the Illinois  State Water Survey (lakes monitored under the Lake WQ
Assessment grant).  Data used in lake assessments include: measurements of Secchi
transparency, total P,  and chlorophyll a; other water column measurements with State
standards; field observations of impairment of aquatic life and other uses; observations
about potential for impairment due to urban or agricultural runoff; and other professional
judgment.  Data sources include: the 1984 Section 314  Lake Classifications report, data
from lEPA's Ambient Lake Monitoring Program, data  from Illinois' Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program,  and data collected under Lake Water Quality Assessment grants.

For Illinois, a  "fully  supporting" lake fully supports  all designated uses; a "partially
supporting" lake has at least one use slightly to moderately impaired in a substantial
portion of the lake (e.g., fishing impaired by excessive weeds); and a "not  supporting"
lake has at least one severely impaired use (e.g., widespread sedimentation blocks boating
access).

Each lake is rated for severity of impairment according to  statewide criteria.  Illinois' Lake
Use Impairment Index combines ratings for (1) the Carlson Trophic State Index (Carlson
1977), used by many  States; (2)  semi-quantitative ratings of the amount of sediment; and
(3) semi-quantitative ratings  of the amount of aquatic macrophytes. In addition, water
column and sediment  chemistry, biological data, field observations, and professional
judgment  are factored into the use support determination according to a relatively complex,
but well-documented assessment algorithm.  See Table  77 and Appendix J-4 of the 305(b)
for details.

3.2.2  Indiana

Approach for Rivers and Streams

Assessments are performed by the Indiana Department  of Environmental Management
(IDEM), Office of Water Management, Water Quality  Surveillance and Standards Branch
(WQSS).  Indiana's 305(b) assessment process is in a state of flux as a result of two

                                         3-10

-------
developments: the expansion of the biological monitoring program to include basin
surveys and the implementation of the EPA WBS for tracking assessment results.  In the
past, the WQSS has requested input from Biological Monitoring and  Survey and Inspection
staff by providing STORET retrievals and the assessment pages from the last 305(b) report
for their review.  Presumably, a similar procedure will be followed for the 1992 report,
except that assessment results will be entered into the WBS instead of typed onto the
assessment tables.

Decision algorithms are documented in less detail in the Indiana 305(b) reports than in
those of most other Region 5 States.  Indicators used in assessments  include water column
and sediment chemistry, fish tissue contaminant data, discharge monitoring reports, fish
kill reports, fish community  data,  and macroinvertebrate data. Data  sources include
STORET, Compliance  Sampling Inspection, Department of Health fish consumption
advisories, and State biological data files.  Indiana relies heavily on the approach for
analyzing water chemistry data described in the 1990 305(b) guidance (U.S. EPA, 1990).
The STORET retrievals generated for this purpose are the basis for most assessment
determinations. In addition to the above data types, fish kill information is provided by the
Emergency Response Section of the Office of Water Management.

The next most widely used data type is fish tissue contamination data (Indiana's monitoring
program emphasizes tissue monitoring to a large extent compared with other Region 5
programs). If the Indiana Department of Health has issued a fish consumption advisory, a
waterbody is  considered partially supporting; if a fish consumption ban has been issued, a
waterbody is  considered not  supporting.

In the past, biomonitoring has, for the most part, been limited to the CORE fixed-station
network, using in place samplers for macroinvertebrates  and doing fish taxonomic work in
conjunction with tissue contaminant sampling.  IDEM is  now broadening its biomonitoring
to include the use of rapid bioassessment protocols  for fish, macroinvertebrates, and
habitat. In 1990, Indiana sampled the Central Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion in a cooperative
project with Region 5,  and in the  summer of 1991, the project continued with sampling the
Huron Erie Lake Plain and the Northern Indiana-Southern Michigan  Tills  Plain Ecoregions
for biocriteria.

After the above data are accumulated and draft assessment tables completed by  Biological
Monitoring and Survey and Inspection staff, several WQSS managers meet to review the
assessment results for each waterbody. At this  time, results of the STORET analysis and
recommendations of other staff may be overruled by supplemental information or BPJ.

Approach for Lakes

Use support determinations are made by WQSS staff.  Only six lakes are  specifically
mentioned as not supporting or partially supporting designated uses.  These determinations

                                         3-11

-------
are BPJ calls based on a review of available information (IDEM Lake Eutrophication Index
values, fish consumption advisories, fish kills, effluent data, and field observations of
nuisance algae or lack of aquatic life).  All remaining lakes in Indiana are considered
threatened because of potential human impacts. Data used in assessments include:
measurements of Secchi transparency, total P, soluble P,  organic N, nitrate, ammonia,
DO, percent light transmission at 3 feet, chlorophyll a, total plankton per liter,
observations about potential for impairment due to urban  or agricultural runoff, and other
professional judgment.

Trophic status assessments are also performed by WQSS  staff.  Data sources include:
1988-89 Section 314 Clean Lakes monitoring (110 lakes)  and the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources Lake Enhancement Program.  Indiana  has established four trophic
classes based on the IDEM Lake Eutrophication Index. This index is the sum  of "eutrophy
points" assigned for various measurements of the following parameters: Secchi
transparency, total phosphorus,  soluble phosphorus, organic nitrogen, nitrate, ammonia,
dissolved oxygen, percent light transmission at 3 feet, chlorophyll a, total plankton per
liter, and plankton counts  from a 5-foot depth  including the beginning of the thermocline.
The four trophic classes are

  1.  Highest quality lakes, uses not impaired by eutrophication;

  2.  Moderately productive lakes; uses seldom impaired;

  3.  Most productive, eutrophic, or hypereutrophic, swimming, boating, and fishing uses
      sometimes impaired;

  4.  Remnant  and oxbow lakes in an advanced state of senescence; some uses impaired
      by size, depth, or accessibility.

According to the above descriptions,  there should be a correlation between trophic class
and designated use support. Therefore, the 11 lakes falling within the trophic classes III
and IV presumably are not fully supporting designated uses, even though the 305(b) does
not explicitly state this.

3.2.3.  Michigan

Approach for Rivers and Streams

Michigan's 305(b) reports require input and coordination  from many State agencies.
Indicators used in assessments include: fish community, habitat evaluation data,
macroinvertebrate community data, water chemistry, fish tissue contamination, and effluent
chemistry and toxicity.  Data sources include:  STORET,  Department of Public Health Fish
Consumption Advisory, List Michigan  Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)

                                         3-12

-------
biological surveys reports, effluent toxicity test reports, discharge monitoring reports and
compliance survey reports, Great Lakes Area of Concern Remedial Action Plans, Michigan
Waterbody System, and International Joint Commission reports.

The reports themselves are prepared by staff of the Great Lakes and Environmental
Assessment Section (GLEAS) in the Surface Water Quality Division, Michigan Department
of Natural Resources.  Stream assessments are done within GLEAS  with input from the
Fisheries Division; lake assessments involve the Land and Water Management Division.
The Department of Health also provides information on fish consumption advisories and
other public health problems.

The procedure for stream assessments has evolved from the approach used to construct
304(1) lists in 1988.  This procedure is not documented and is based largely on the BPJ of
field staff and GLEAS managers. There  is no clear prioritizing of data types, although
recent biological data are considered the best data for aquatic life use assessments.  A
printout of the Michigan Waterbody System for each waterbody is sent to the appropriate
district biologist within GLEAS (biologists are assigned to specific districts, although all
biological staff work based in Lansing).  These printouts are grouped into three categories-
-waterbodies with past WQS violations, waterbodies without a history of violations, and
questionable waterbodies.

District biologists then update the WBS printouts based on new information, including
ambient chemical and biosurvey  data,  effluent data, and other types  of information listed
above. In updating the printouts, biologists meet with the water quality staff (engineers,
environmental scientists, and fisheries biologists) in each district for input and review.
Regarding STORET data, Michigan does  not have a standardized method for analyzing
water chemistry data such as the approach recommended in the prior 305(b) guidelines.
Likewise, Michigan's quantitative fish, macroinvertebrate, and habitat measures are not
directly related to designated use support.

Michigan reports streams as either fully supporting or not supporting designated uses.
Michigan WBS contains almost entirely impaired waters (mainly 304(1) long-list waters).
There is no data system for information on streams that fully support uses.  District
biologists and other staff start with organized information only for known impaired waters
and add waterbodies to the WBS as impaired waters are identified.

In 1990, Michigan DNR adopted GLEAS Procedure No.  15 entitled "Qualitative  Biological
and Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers" using fish, benthos, and
habitat multi-metric assessments.  This procedure will greatly facilitate implementation of a
biological criteria program  and assist with the determination of designated use attainment
for individual waterbodies. However, it is not yet clear how the State will precisely use
the information generated in this new program.
                                         3-13

-------
Approach for Lakes

Lake assessments are done by GLEAS and Land and Water Management Division who do
most of the Clean Lakes monitoring in the State.  Lakes are either fully supporting,
threatened, or not supporting.  Data used in assessments include measurements of Secchi
transparency, total P, and chlorophyll 
-------
3.2.4  Minnesota

Approach for Rivers and Streams

Minnesota, the "Land of 10,000 Lakes," actually contains 12,034 lakes covering 3,411,200
acres.  It is not surprising, therefore, to find that much of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's (MFCA) surface water monitoring efforts are directed toward lake resources.
For the 1990 305(b) reporting cycle, MPCA monitored 2,234,800 (65.6%) of their lake
acres and monitored only 4,684  (5.1 %) of their 91,944 total stream miles.  Part of this
discrepancy is explained by the fact that one or two stations are used to assess an entire
lake while  one stream station covers only a single reach.  As shown in Figures  3-2 and 3-
3, Minnesota relies heavily on monitored rather than evaluated data in making designated
use assessments.  For future reports, however, MPCA would like to expand their use of
evaluated data to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the State's water resources.

Of Minnesota's 91,944 stream miles, almost all (91,144 miles) are classified for fish and
wildlife support and recreational uses. These uses are analogous to "Fishable Use" and
"Swimmable  Use."  As detailed on p. 7 of the 1990 report, fishable use determinations are
based on "ambient standards for dissolved oxygen, pH (low and high), un-ionized
ammonia, total chromium and total copper, or on a fish consumption advisory." Fish
consumption  advisories are based on fish tissue contamination data.  MPCA considers
water chemistry data less than 10 years old and fish tissue data less than 5 years old to be
monitored. Older data are considered to be evaluated. The majority of fishable use
determinations are based on ambient chemical measures; about 10% are based on  fish
tissue data. Principal indicators in assessments are water chemistry and fish tissue
contamination.  Data sources include Minnesota's Fixed Station Ambient Network and
Minnesota's Fish Tissue Analysis Program.

Aquatic life use determinations are made as follows:

Step 1  If > 25 percent of values violate water quality  standards or if there is a fish
       consumption advisory  in place then the waterbody is not supporting.

Step 2 If > 10 percent but  < 25 percent of values violate water quality standards then the
       waterbody is partially  supporting.

Step 3  If < 10 percent of values violate water quality  standards then the waterbody is fully
       supporting.

In the future, MPCA plans to use biological community data in their use assessment
decision process.  They are currently developing an Index of Biotic Integrity for the
Minnesota River watershed using fish community and habitat data.  They plan to compare
site-specific biological data with reference site data to determine use support.

                                         3-15

-------
Approach for Lakes

The "fishable" status of lakes is determined by fish tissue contamination data, and the
"swimmable" use status is determined by aesthetics and Carlson's Trophic State Index
(TSI) derived by the work of Heiskary and Wilson (1988).  For aquatic life use support,
assessments for lakes are based almost entirely on fish tissue contamination data (see Table
3-1).  Data sources for decisionmaking include the Citizen's Lake Monitoring Program, the
Lake Assessment Program, the Fish Tissue Analysis Program, and the Ecoregion
Reference Lake Program.  The relationships among TSI, use support status and trophic
status are:
TSI
<40
40-50
51-59
60-65
>65
Use Support Status
Fully supporting
Fully supporting
Fully supporting, but
threatened
Partially supporting
Not supporting
Trophic Status
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Impaired/Threatened
No
No
Threatened
Impaired
Impaired
Further discussion of Minnesota's use support assessments are documented on pages 17-29
of the State's 1990 305(b) report, and in Heiskary and Wilson (1988).

Table 3-1.   Fish Contaminant Concentration for Each Use Category (from State
             1990 305(b) Report) - Minnesota.
Contaminant
TCDD (ng/kg) PCB (ug/g) Hg (ug/g)
Fully supporting
(unrestricted
consumption)
Partially supporting
(moderate consumption)
Not supporting
(no consumption
advised)
not detectable
(<0.60)
detectable
(>0.6)

not detectable
(<0.05)
detectable
(>0.05)

0.0-0.15
0.16-2.80
>2.81
                                        3-16

-------
3.2.5. Ohio

Approach for Rivers and Streams

From 1974 to the present, Ohio EPA (OEPA) surface water assessments and standards
have evolved from a singular focus on water quality to a broader focus on the water
resource as a whole. To achieve this goal, OEPA moved from assessments based solely
on water chemistry data to integrated evaluations consisting of chemical, physical, and
biological assessments (Ohio EPA 1989a, 1989b, 1990b). OEPA believes this integrated
approach is essential to accurate water quality management.  OEPA has found that "simple
ambient water chemistry monitoring missed nearly 50% of the waterbodies that were
identified as impaired using a biosurvey-based integrated approach (Rankin and Yoder,
1990)."  Chemical data are limited in assessing nonchemical and non-toxic impacts to
waterbodies.  Indicators used in assessments include fish community data,
macroinvertebrate community data, habitat evaluation data, water chemistry, sediment
chemistry, effluent chemistry and toxicity, and fish tissue contamination (Rankin 1989).
Data sources include: integrated biosurvey-based assessments and fixed-station monitoring.

OEPA personnel believe that by lumping together diverse impacts into one measure,  the
305(b) process places too much emphasis on "overall" use support.   "Calculation of overall
use support tends to  muddle efforts to estimate very different problems in waterbodies.
There should be a delineation between human health risks and aquatic life impacts.  This
would bring use support  assessment up to the same relative level at which EPA is
regulating (Yoder, 1991)."  Ohio's 1990 305(b) report focuses primarily on attainment of
aquatic life uses.

In assessing aquatic life uses, OEPA relies primarily on three biological indices (IBI,
Invertebrate Community Index [ICI], and index  of well being [Iwb]) that are calibrated to
regional reference sites (Ohio EPA 1990). For the 1990 report, OEPA monitored 4,169
(16.6 percent) of their 25,165 total stream miles.  Because of the limitations of chemical
data in assessing nonchemical impacts, OEPA considers assessments based solely on fixed-
station chemical data alone to be evaluated.  For the 1990 report, OEPA evaluated 3,273
(13.0 percent) of their total stream miles. If biological data were available, the following
approach was used for making aquatic life use support decisions (see Figure 3-6):

Step 1  ICI (macroinvertebrates), IBI (fish), and  Iwb (fish) are calculated.  If all three
       indices meet ecoregion criteria then the waterbody is in full attainment of its aquatic
       life use.

Step 2 If at least one of the indices does not meet ecoregion criteria and none of the
       indices suggest severe toxic impact then the waterbody is in partial attainment of its
       aquatic life use.
                                         3-17

-------
Step 3 If none of the indices meet ecoregion criteria or one of the indices suggests severe
       toxic impact then the waterbody is in nonattainment of its aquatic life use.

If biological data were not available, the  following approach was used for making aquatic
life use support decisions based on chemical data:

Step 1 If chronic (average) chemical criteria are not exceeded by the 10th percentile of
       instream values and the mean is less then the criteria then the waterbody is in full
       attainment of its aquatic life uses.

Step 2 If the chronic chemical criteria are exceeded by the 10th percentile of instream
       values and the mean is less than the criteria or chronic  chemical criteria are not
       exceeded by the 10th percentile of instream values and  the mean is greater than the
       criteria then the waterbody is in partial attainment of its aquatic life use.

Step 3 If the chronic chemical criteria are exceeded by the 25th percentile of instream
       values and the mean is less than the criteria or chronic  chemical criteria are
       exceeded by the 10th percentile of instream values and  the mean is greater than the
       criteria then the waterbody is in nonattainment of its aquatic life use.

Approach for Lakes

In sharp contrast to their stream monitoring program, Ohio's lake programs suffer from a
lack of comprehensive monitored data. OEPA recognizes the need for a long-term
integrated monitoring  program for lakes similar to their  stream program.  For the 1990
report, OEPA assessed 91,607 (78.1 percent) of their 117,361  total lake acres  (i.e.,
publicly owned lakes greater than 5 acres in size). The  majority of these assessments,
however, are based on evaluated data (i.e., BPJ or monitored data greater than 10 years
old).

Ohio lakes were assessed using the Ohio  Lake Condition Index (LCI), a multimetric index
consisting of the 13 parameters listed under the following categories of lake condition:

  •    Biological conditions: IBI (not yet developed), nuisance growth of macrophytes,
       fecal coliform bacteria, chlorophyll a, fish tissue contamination;

  •    Chemical conditions: nonpriority pollutants, priority organics (toxics), priority
       metals (toxics), total phosphorus, acid mine drainage;

  •    Physical conditions: volume loss due to sedimentation, Secchi depth; and

  •    Public perception of lake condition:  aesthetics.
                                         3-18

-------
                           Figure 3-6.  Criteria for Determining Use Attainment
                                              for Ohio's Rivers/Streams
                          OH's 3 biological
                              Indices
VO
                                                                                      ndlces meat
                                                                                     ECOREGION
                                                                                      criteria and
                                                                                     none suggest
                                                                                     severe toxic
                                                                                        Impact
                                                            Non-
                                                         a ttalnmen
  ECOREGION
    criteria
            Are
         biological
            data
         available?
                                    Partial
                                    ttalnmen
  Full
ttalnmen
                                                                                       Chronic
                                                                                    chemical crlte
                                                                                    exceeded by 10th
                                                                                  percentlle of Instream
                                                                                values and the mean Is less
                                                                                than the criteria OR chronic
                                                                              chemical criteria Is not exceeded
                                                                                 by the 10th percentlle of
                                                                                    Instream values
                                                                                    and the mean Is
                                                                                      greater than
                                                                                      the criteria
    Chronic
  hemlcal crit
 not exceeded by
thelOthpercentlli
 and the mean Is
      thant
    criteria
                                                               Non-
                                                            attainment
       Source: 1990 Ohio Water Resource Inventory
                                                           SeeOH30S(b)
                                                            Table 2-3 for
                                                             additional
                                                            Information
                                                             regarding
                                                          chemical criteria

-------
All Ohio publicly owned lake acres are designated for public water supply use and the
aquatic life use-exceptional warmwater habitat.  For each designated use, a subset of the
LCI parameters is considered.  To assess aquatic life use  support,  nonpriority pollutants,
priority organics, priority metals, total phosphorus, EBI, and acid mine drainage are
considered.  To mate an assessment based on LCI, more  than 50 percent of the
appropriate LCI parameters must have been assessed using monitored and/or evaluated
data.

If sufficient data are available to make an assessment using the LCI, the following
approach is used (Figure 3-7):

Step 1 If one or more LCI parameters indicate impaired status or more than 50 percent of
       the parameters indicate threatened status then the lake is in nonattainment of its
       aquatic life use.

Step 2 If one or more LCI parameters indicate threatened status or the lake is
       hypereutrophic (TSI > 66) then the lake is in partial attainment of its aquatic life
       use.

Step 3 If all LCI parameters indicate full use support and one or more parameters indicate
       threatened status based on evaluated data or if the  lake is eutrophic (TSI=48-66)
       then it is fully  supporting, but threatened.

Step 4 If all LCI parameters indicate full use support then the lake is fully supporting its
       aquatic life use.

3.2.6 Wisconsin

Approach for Rivers and Streams

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is the agency responsible for
performing use support assessments.  Indicators used in assessments include water
chemistry, fish tissue  contamination, macroinvertebrate community,  fish community data,
and sediment chemistry.  Data sources include the Fixed Station Monitoring Network, the
Biological Sampling Program, the Sediment Sampling Program, and the Fish Tissue
Monitoring Program.  In the 1990 report WDNR personnel monitored 2,771 (6.4 percent)
of their 43,600 total stream miles. In addition, they evaluated 10,824 (24.8 percent) of
their total stream miles. Monitored data greater than 5 years old were considered to be
evaluated unless  best professional judgment strongly indicated that no change had taken
place.

WDNR personnel collect a variety of water quality data but have no formal decision
pattern for making use support assessments.  Best professional judgment plays a major role

                                        3-20

-------
Figure 3-7.  Use Attainment/Clean Water Act Goal
          Assessment Process for Ohio Lakes
     From  Ohio Water Resource Inventory, Volume III, 1990
  fciean Water Act
      Flshabi* and
       Swlmmabl*
         Lake*
         U»e  Analyst*

Public Water 1
Supply (PWS) |
Aquatic Lit* I
Use (EWH) 1
                                                     Is Thar*
                                                  Monitored  Data?
                           I* Thar* Sufficient Data
                                to Make an
                               A*a***m*nt?
                            Us* "50%" Rul* (S«*
                                  T*xt)
              -W No
                    1 or mor* LCI parameters
                    indcat* impaired status
                   bas*d on monitored data OR
                     more than 50% of LCI
                     parameters indicate
                   threatened status based on
                       monitored data
                    1 or mor* LCI parameters
                    indicate threatened status
                   bas*d on monitored data OR
                     2 or mor* parameters
                   indicate a threatened status
                    based on evaluated data
  1 or mor* LCI
parameters indicate
impaired status OR
  more than 50%
indicate threatened
     status
  1 or mor* of LCI
parameters indicate •
 threatened status
    OR lake is
  hypereutrophic
w
1 (and only 1 ) LCI
parameter indicates
threatened status based
on evaluated data AND all
other parameters indicate
full use

All LCI parameters
indicate full use status
AND 1 or more parameters
indicate threatened status
based on evaluated data
OR lake is eutrophc
S^\ 1
r
                     100% of LCI parameters
                    indcat* full us* based on
                    monitored or evaluated data
 All LCI parameters
Indicate full use status
 Impaired
  Use
  Non-
Attainment
    Use
   Attained
                                    3-21

-------
in making use support decisions, because WDNR is confident that their field personnel are
experts on the condition of their waterbodies.  Listed below are the types of available data
and how they are used for 305(b) assessments.  No data priority type is implied.

   •   Water chemistry:  Ambient data are compared to State water quality standards.  Use
      attainment might be restricted when standards are exceeded, however, attainment is
      not restricted based solely on chemical data.

   •   Fish tissue contamination:  WDNR, in cooperation with the State Division of
      Health, compares the edible portion of the fish to FDA Action Levels to issue
      fish consumption advisories. If a fish consumption advisory is in place for one
      species or specific size ranges among more  than one species then the waterbody is
      partially supporting.  If consumption advisories are in place for most game species
      and size ranges then the waterbody is not supporting.

   •   Macroinvertebrate: WDNR personnel use a modified version of Hilsenhoff s biotic
      Index for assessing water quality (Hilsenhoff 1977,  1982).  If the community is
      impacted, then data are factored into the use assessment. Macroinvertebrate data
      alone would not change a use assessment.

   •   Fish community:  Collection procedures for fish communities are standardized
      statewide, but assessment methodologies vary among districts.  Some districts use
      quantitative methods (e.g., IBI) while others rely on qualitative assessments (e.g.,
      BPJ) for making use support decisions.

   •   Sediment contamination:  Assessments based on sediment contamination are
      subjective.  There are no formal standards for sediments, but  uses can be restricted
      as a result of high levels of sediment contamination if BPJ  recommends such a
      restriction.

Approach for Lakes

According to the 1990 305(b) report (p. 87), "in terms of providing recreational
opportunities for its citizens,  Wisconsin's lakes are the State's most vital water resource
component.  The historic focus, however, of federal and state clean water programs...has
been the control of pollutants to rivers and streams.  As a result, lake protection and
rehabilitation has been a low priority."  To remedy this situation,  Wisconsin DNR
personnel have encouraged public involvement through the Self-Help Volunteer Monitoring
program and initiated an EPA-funded Lake Water Quality Assessment project in 1989.

All of Wisconsin's 957,288  lake acres are designated for fishing,  swimming, and
recreation uses.  For the 1990 report, DNR monitored 62,870 (6.6 percent) and evaluated
76,460  (8.0 percent) of their total lake acres.  Data sources included the long-term Trend

                                         3-22

-------
Monitoring Program, the Self-help Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, the Fish Tissue
Monitoring Program, and the  1983 Landsat Trophic Status Survey.  Types of data used in
lake assessments include measurements of trophic status (Secchi depth, chlorophyll a,
phosphorus), fish tissue contamination data, aquatic macrophytes, algal biomass, and
dissolved oxygen (DO).  Landsat trophic information (water clarity and chlorophyll a) is
available for all Wisconsin lakes and reservoirs greater than 20 acres with a maximum
depth of at least 8 feet  Lakes with only Landsat data available were considered to be
evaluated.  If actual lake sampling data were available than the lake was considered to be
monitored.  For the 1990 assessments, lakes fully supporting their uses  but sensitive to
acidification, phosphorus input, or mercury contamination of sport fish were considered to
be threatened.

The following approach is used for making use support decisions  (see Figure 3-8):

Step 1 Use available trophic data to calculate Carlson's Trophic Status Index (TSI).  If TSI
       indicates the lake is hypereutrophic (TSI=71-100) then the lake is not supporting.

Step 2 If DO is not sufficient to support fish or if there is a severe fish  consumption
       advisory in place then the lake is not supporting.

Step 3 If TSI indicates that the lake is eutrophic (TSI=51-70) then it is  partially
       supporting.

Step 4 If DO somewhat supports  fish,  if there is a limited fish advisory  in place, or if there
       is a severe algal or plant problem then the lake is partially supporting.

Step 5 If the lake is oligotrophic (TSI=0-40) or mesotrophic (TSI=41-50) and the
       conditions stated in the previous steps do not exist, then the lake is fully supporting.
3.3  Findings and Recommendations

The Region 5 States support the use of direct environmental indicators for surface water
programs and specifically aquatic life use attainment as a direct indicator. The States all
utilize a  suite of direct environmental indicators to measure aquatic life use attainment to
allow the best determinations regarding the status of a waterbody.  The preference is to
utilize the use attainment status as the overall direct indicator because it integrates the
available data and allows for natural (or extreme man-made) differences in the expectations
of water resource quality for a given area or region.

The States rely predominantly upon biological community and habitat assessments and
water chemistry for aquatic life use attainment decisions in rivers and streams and focus on
Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI) for inland lakes supported by  water chemistry and fish

                                         3-23

-------
      Figure 3-8. Designated Use Support Assessment for
                         Wisconsin Lakes
  Ollgotrophlc
      or
  Mesotrophlc
DO to support fish?
  Fish advisory?
Severe algai or
plant problem?


                           DO to support fish?
                         \  Fish advisory?
     FULL
      USE
    SUPPORT
PARTIAL
  USE
SUPPORT
  NON-
SUPPORT
  See page 41 of 1990 305(b) for details
  No data type priority is implied
                                   3-24

-------
tissue data.  However, the varied level of complexity and heavy reliance upon specific data
types (e.g. water chemistry) for decision-making prevent the needed consistency and
accuracy to portray Regional conditions, or even conditions within a given State from year
to year.

Biological assessment programs within the States are rapidly evolving from simple single
index approaches into multi-metric indices and multi-assemblage approaches including
numerical habitat assessments. However, some States are having difficulty implementing
some of these changes and therefore do not use their biological data consistently to make
aquatic life use support decisions.  Some of the barriers to full implementation include
technical and resource limitations such as:

  •    The perceived lack of commitment by EPA Headquarter's Office of Water to
       support and promote the implementation of biological criteria in State and Regional
       programs, and

  •    The uncertainty within the States regarding their overall support of EPA's three
       basic biological criteria policy decisions: (1) the requirement to focus on adoption
       of narrative biological criteria in FY93 and numerical biological criteria in FY96,
       and (2) the policy of strict independent application which the States feel is
       contradictory  to an integrated assessment program, and (3) the disallowance of
       instream biological community assessments as one method for site-specific criteria
       development.

  •    Reliance upon a single biotic index to represent the macroinvertebrate community,

  •    Shortage of staff in the field and laboratory to collect, identify, and interpret the
       data,

  •    Lack of enough qualified staff to make taxonomic identifications  resulting in heavy
       reliance upon contractors and extended time-frames for report completion,

The  States need an incentive to make the investment, and continue implementation,  in
more rigorous bioassessment approaches as part of the integrated assessment framework.
Otherwise, States may choose the simplest and cheapest methods  for biological assessment
(even citizen monitoring) with less regard for accuracy and discriminatory power.  Being
able to discriminate among the confidence levels in assessment data is directly in support
of EPA's policy on "risk-based" assessment approaches. Ohio EPA developed Figure 3-9
to illustrate this concept, as well as how it relates to EPA's desire for ensuring that quality
bioassessments and utilized to develop biological criteria.
                                         3-25

-------
To further the use of biological assessments and criteria for aquatic life use support
decisions and the wider use of environmental indicators in the water programs, the project
team developed the following list of generic and specific  recommendations shown below.

Recommendations

These recommendations should be implemented by working directly with the States and
Regions to issue guidance which directly meets State and EPA needs.  Guidance should be
in the form of State-EPA technical training and workshops  (e.g. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols, 305(b) workshops, etc.), improved annual State  guidance under Section 106,
greater Regional involvement in State Water Quality Management Plan development, and
continued improvement towards consistent and accurate national guidelines on Section
305(b) reporting, biological assessment and  criteria, and the myriad of other guidelines to
support the nonpoint source and clean lakes programs.

  •   Aquatic life use support should  be the direct environmental indicator for surface
      waters and be primarily based upon assessments of the fish, benthos, and habitat.
      This assessment should also include all other available information such as chemical
      concentrations in water and sediments, physical measurements, and toxicological
      endpoints. This recommendation supports those recommendations and conclusions
      made at the July 1991  conference in  Baltimore, Maryland — Environmental
      Indicators: Policies, Programs and Success Stories.

  •   Greater consistency in the methods and approaches for determining use attainment is
      necessary to use environmental  indicators in State and Regional 305(b) programs.

  •   EPA and the States should  cooperatively develop the environmental indicators
      (measures) which will directly support the assessment of designated use attainment
      for aquatic life for both resource types (rivers/streams and lakes).

  •   EPA and the States should  use the environmental indicators and measures selected
      for aquatic life use attainment to meet EPA's requirements to adopt biological
      criteria. Particular emphasis  should be placed on  wider use of fish and benthic
      macroinvertebrate communities  and habitat for use attainment assessment.

  •   Biological criteria development  for rivers and streams should utilize the following
      multiple assemblage and multiple metric approach, at a minimum:

         1.   Fish community (assemblage) assessments using the Index of Biotic Integrity
             (IBI) modified for that State or region, and any other tools demonstrated to
             be successful such as the modified or original Index of Well-Being.  Each
             Region 5 State uses the IBI, although the extent of development and
             consistency varies widely among States.

                                         3-26

-------
       Figure 3-9.   Hierarchy of Ambient  Biological Assessment
                Types Using  Indigenous Communities - Ohio1

BIOASSESSMENT SKILL „
TYPE REQUIRED2
1. Stream Walk Non-biologist
(Visual observ-
ations)
2. Volunteer Norrtidogist,
Monitoring Technician
3. Professional Biologist w/
Opinion (EPA experience
RBP Protocol IV)
4. EPA RBP Biologist w/
Protocols 1 & II training
5. Narrative Evalu- Aquatic Btoto-
of Biosurvey Biologist w/
Results training & ex-
perience
6. Single Dimension (same)
Indices - Biosurvey
Results
7. EPARBPProto- (same)
cob 111 &V (Multi-
metric Indices,
- Local Reference
Site)
8. Multi-metric (same)
Indices, Regional
Reference Sites
ORGANISM TECHNICAL. ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL DISCRIMINATORY POLICY .
GROUPS3 COMPONENTS COMPLEXITY5 ACCURACY6 TOWER'7 RESTRICTIONS
None
Inverte-
brates
None
Inverte-
brates
Fish&/or
Inverte-
brates
(same)
(same)
(same)
Handbook Simple
Handbook, Low
Simple equip.
Historical Low
records
Tech. Manual, Low
Simple equip.
Sid. Methods, Moderate
Detailed taxon-
omy, Specialized
equipment
(same) Moderate
Tech. Manual, High
Detailed taxon-
omy, Specialized
equipment
Same plus High
Baseline caf-
bration of Multi-
metric Indces
Low Low ME
Low to Low
Moderate
? Low
Low to Low
Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate Moderate
to High to High
<
iny





p
High High Few
1  Applies to evaluation of aquatic Ofe use attainment only - does not apply to bioaccumulation concerns, wildlife uses, human health, or reaeaton uses.
2 Level of training and experience needed toaccurately implement and use bioassessment type.
3 Organism groups that are directly used and/or sampled as part of the bioassessment type.
4 Handbooks, technical manuals, and data requirements for each bioassessment type.
5 Refers to ecological dimensions inherent in the basic dataroutinely generated by and used with each bioassessment type.
6 Refers to the ability of the ecological end-points or indicators to differentiatealong a scale of environmental conditions.
7 The relative power of the data derived from each assessment type to discriminate between different and increasingly subtle impacts.
8 Refers to the relationship of bioassessments to chemical-specifi. (oncological, physical, and other assessments and criteria that are intended to
assessaquatic life use attainment/non-attainment
     Source:  Ohio EPA
                                                     3-27

-------
       2.   Benthic macroinvertebrate community (assemblage) assessments should be
           based upon a multi-metric approach similar to that of EPA's Rapid
           Bioassessment Protocols.  Ohio and other States have already developed
           State-specific multiple metric indices.

       3.   Habitat assessments must be made based upon a numerical ranking which
           each Region 5 State already uses.  Habitat assessments must be used not only
           to assess reasonable expectations for community (assemblage) performance,
           but also to monitor habitat quality to prevent, recover,  and mitigate habitat
           degradation.

•   Designated use attainment methods for lakes  should be evaluated for the States to
    determine whether trophic status  is the most significant indicator to track for aquatic
    life support  or whether additional lake indicators could be used.  This  issue should
    be addressed through interstate meetings within Region 5 and  by the National
    305(b) Consistency Workgroup.

•   Interstate (and interregional) selection of references sites where major  faunal regions
    and ecoregions are in common should be initiated to encourage greater consistency
    and cooperation among EPA and the States in the development of numeric
    biocriteria.  A prime example would be the northern Ohio River Basin covering
    Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and  part of Pennsylvania.  EPA and States should ensure
    adequate resources are available to support this kind of activity.  EMAP, in
    particular, should have a key role in this area.

•   Database management and specific information should be maintained on all
    waterbodies assessed,  not just those that are in non-attainment  status.

•   Re-evaluate EPA's decisions to mandate adoption of narrative biological criteria and
    focus efforts on increasing State's capabilities to develop numeric biocriteria.

•   Re-evaluate EPA's policy of independent application of effluent toxicity,  water
    chemistry, biological community, and habitat assessments in making designated use
    support decisions. This policy does not allow consideration of site-specific
    evaluations  of the technical  rigor of sample collection  methods, quality assurance,
    reliability in the data,  interpretation tools, and overall level of confidence in the
    data.

•   The policy restrictions required by EPA should be inversely related to the
    "strength" of a State's bioassessment approach.
                                       3-28

-------
                 4. SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS
4.1 Overview

Since the early 1970s, much of the State and EPA surface water monitoring and related
assessment activities (e.g., effluent chemical and toxicity testing) have supported a
technology-based regulatory system designed to control releases from large, obvious point
sources (especially municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities).
Unfortunately, the ability of State and EPA monitoring and assessment programs to support
the primary water quality planning and management objectives shown in Table 1-1 has
been limited because of this historical focus on point source monitoring.  For example,
water resources impaired by nonpoint sources or habitat alteration may not be identified
and characterized adequately with a point-source-dominated monitoring and assessment
program.  Furthermore, Federal and  State efforts to collect data more supportive of
management objectives (e.g., broad-based status and trends) have often been stymied due
to resource constraints, inadequate coordination, or the low priority given  to monitoring  in
support of permitting, enforcement, and other administrative activities.

Environmental indicators, as shown in Figure 1-1, are intended to complement
administrative measures by  conveying direct or indirect information on environmental
conditions resulting from, or independent of, management and protection actions.
Comprehensive, properly designed monitoring and assessment programs should convey
administrative measures, environmental indicators, and other data (e.g., population and
land use trends) necessary to support  water resource evaluation; problem identification and
characterization; management strategy development, implementation, and evaluation;  and
communication of results to the public and legislators.
4.2  State Surface Water Monitoring Programs

EPA has produced a number of guidance documents to direct State program
implementation of the Clean Water Act.  As national program emphasis changes, however,
previous guidance documents have either become obsolete or have been ignored. In 1974,
EPA produced a guidance entitled "Model State Water Monitoring Program" (U.S. EPA,
1974).   This guidance was prepared by a National Water Monitoring Panel and covered the
following elements: Planning and Management; Ambient Water Quality Monitoring (e.g.,
fixed station networks, intensive surveys, and groundwater monitoring); Biological
Monitoring (i.e., biological surveys  and tissue analysis); Compliance Monitoring; and
Quality  Assurance.  The 1974 guidance advocated an integrated assessment program and
even defined fixed station monitoring as using chemical, physical and biological measures.
Shortly  after the 1974 guidance, EPA established a Standing Workgroup on Water
Monitoring which issued guidance for a "Basic Water Monitoring Program" in 1977 and

                                         4-1

-------
was updated in 1978 (U.S. EPA,  1977,  1978).  This guidance emphasized the utility of
intensive surveys as the "primary vehicle in determining whether water quality conditions
are improving or getting worse" and "interpretation of intensive survey data should be the
basis for the Section 305(b) Report."  The guidance also stated that the ambient fixed
stations "will be operated by the State with the data to be aggregated nationally and will be
used primarily to determine national trends in water use areas ... problem areas ... [etc.]."
In fact, the basic (or core) program was designed to "redirect ambient and effluent
monitoring at the State level from a fixed-station, single discharge approach to an intensive
survey approach."

The next group of guidance documents appeared in 1984 and 1985 lead by the "Monitoring
Strategy - Office of Water" (U.S. EPA, 1984a),  "Planning and Managing Cooperative
Monitoring Projects" (U.S. EPA, 1984b), and finally the "Guidance for State Water
Monitoring and Wasteload Allocation Programs" (U.S. EPA, 1985).  The 1985 guidance
decidedly lead the  States down the path to a predominant point source orientation with
specific guidance on monitoring for compliance and enforcement and development of
TMDLs and WLAs. This guidance divorced  biological surveys from fixed station
monitoring and encouraged the use of fixed station networks to increase the amount of
assessed water for 305(b) reporting.

In 1990, EPA issued draft monitoring program guidance (U.S.  EPA,  1990b) that
emphasized intensive surveys, biological community assessments,  and integrated
assessment approaches in general (with no detected mention of fixed station monitoring).
It is clear that as national emphasis and priorities change (with  each revision of the Clean
Water  Act), EPA anticipates that States should change their fundamental programs.  This
section illustrates how the monitoring efforts of State programs have become diversified
and how difficult it is to assess  the collected data.  It is important to note that the most
successful monitoring approaches (integrated assessments, biocriteria  development, and
habitat assessments) were initiated in the States.  Not surprisingly, Region 5  States
interviewed in the  course of this study highly  recommend that EPA focus future monitoring
program guidance  to complement and support existing programs, rather than to change
them.

Tables 4-2 through 4-7 summarize Region 5 State monitoring programs for rivers, streams,
and lakes. Each table entry provides  a general program description, comments on network
design, type and frequency of sampling, number of stations or  samples, types of
environmental indicators collected, uses of data,  and data analysis methods.  Table 4-1 lists
the data uses and data analysis methods used in the various  State programs.   In addition,
Table 4-1 shows the relationship between the  State's data uses and the four water quality
planning and managing  objectives listed in Table 1-1.
                                         4-2

-------
                 Table 4-1.  Data Uses and Data Analysis Methods
                              Shown in Tables 4-2 - 4-7
Data Uses
1.  Water Resource Evaluation
      Identifying temporal or spatial trends                                          1-1
      Developing water quality baseline or reference levels                           1-2
2.  Problem Identification and Characterization
      Assessing use support and screening for existing/emerging problems             2-1
      Investigating suspected water resource problems                               2-2
3.  Management Strategy  Development, Implementation, and Evaluation
      Improving water quality goals and standards                                   3-1
      Developing water-quality-based controls                                       3-2
      Monitoring the effectiveness  of point or nonpoint source controls                3-3
      Setting priorities                                                             3-4
4.  Communication of Results to Public and Legislators
      Developing public support through information transferal                        4-1

Data Analysis Methods
      Comparison of ambient data to State water quality standards                   A
      Comparison of ambient data to "decision criteria" not incorporated into State     B
      standards  (e.g., lake trophic status, IBI)
      Comparison of ambient data to ecoregional or site-specific criteria               C
      Use of parametric statistical tests (e.g.,  regression, Student's t-test)             D
      Use of nonparametric tests (e.g., Kendall's tau)                                E
      Use of water quality indices                                                  F
      Plots or tables of concentrations, loadings, or indices vs. time                   G
      Other (State-specific data analysis method)                                    H
                                           4-3

-------
                           Table 4-2.  Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program
Rivers/Streams
1. Ambient Water
Quality Monitoring
Network (AWQMN)
2. CORE
Subnetwork of
AWQMN
3. Pesticide
Subnetwork of
AWQMN
4. Industrial
Solvents
Sub-network of
AWQMN
5. Intensive River
Basin Surveys
Type/
Frequency

F;
6-week
freq.
F;
S63
program
description
for
frequency
F;
6-week
freq. April-
July; 12-
week freq.
August-
March
F;
6-week
frequency
I;
each basin
studied
every 10-
15 years
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples

208
stations
38 stream
stations
from
AWQMN
plus 3
Lake
Michigan
stations
30
stations
from
AWQMN
31
stations
from
AWQMN
No. of
stations
varies; 4
basins
surveyed
in FY'90
Program
Description

• Chemical network ~ parameters are pH,
T, conductivity, flow, D.O.. TSS. VSS,
NH3-N, NO3+N02-N. total P. diss. P.
COD, fecal coliform, turbidity, and 21
metals
* 7 parameters are used to calculate a WQ
index for assessments
• Mainly chemical network
• Includes 3 Lake Michigan Stations
monitored by City of Chicago
• Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs
• Frequency: twice yearly for water column
organics; biennially for fish contamin;
triennially for sediment and
macroinvertebrates
•Chemical network
• Parameters are 15 herbicides and
organophosphate insecticides, PCBs, and
organochlorine pesticides
• Chemical network
• 19 organic chemicals (e.g., chloroform,
trichloroethylene. benzene)
•Multimedia sampling - water column
chemistry, habitat, macroin vertebrate and
fish populations, sediment and fish tissue
contaminants, and sediment type.
• Example: In the Kaskaskia Basin Survey
(1981-82), over 140 sites were sampled
Network Design

• Network was revised in 1 977 to:
establish baselines and trends in
representative land use areas
generally outside immediate impact
zones of PSs (except in major
population centers); identify
problems; and trigger intensive
surveys.
• Although sampling frequency has
declined and some stations have
been dropped, many have been
monitored for over 15 years.
• Established as required by EPA
under the National Water Quality
Surveillance System; no longer
required but IEPA still maintains.
• Purpose was to measure baseline
WQ trends nationwide
• 26 stations predominantly
agricultural, 4 nonagricultural
watersheds
•Begun in 1985
• Begun in 1988
•Stations located in urban areas
except for 1 control site.
• Sites selected to characterize
stream resources of the basin and
to provide data for permit
development
Data
Uses

2-1
1-1
1-2
2-1
1-2
2-1
2-1
2-1
3-2
1-2
2-2
Data
Analysis

A.B.F
G,E
A.B.F
A.B.F
A,B,F
A,B
A,B
A,B
B
B
B
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
                   Table 4-2.  Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
6. Fish Contaminant
Program
7. Facility-related
Stream Survey
Program
8. Special Surveys
Lakes
9. Ambient Lake
Monitoring Program
(ALMP)
(includes Clean
Lakes Program,
Trend Lakes, and
Diagnostic
Evaluation Lakes)
Type/
Frequency
F stream
stations
annually;
Flake
stations
biennially;
1 stations
vary
1
1

1
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples
73 stream
stations
(F); 20
lake
stations
(F);
approx.
36 1
stations
Approx.
94 stream
stations
in 88-89
in 12
basins
Varies

20 -40
lakes per
year; 1 to
3 sites
per lake
Program
Description
• Composited fish fillet samples at all
stations; whole fish samples at 41 stations.
• Pesticide/PCB analyses (20 parameters)
on all samples
• GC/MS wide scan on < 25 whole fish
samples
• Hg, dioxine as needed
• Results compared to FDA Action Levels
• Evaluates WQ impacts from point sources
• Macroinvertebrates, chemistry, flow,
habitat data collected upstream and
downstream
• Includes enforcement cases, Pesticides
Study, Livestock Waste Monitoring

• Three types of lakes monitored
- Clean Lakes Program Phase 1 and II (2
times per month May-Sept.; monthly or
bimonthly Oct.-Apr.)
- Trend lakes (6 times Apr.-Oct.)
- Diagnostic evaluation lakes (5 times
spring through fall)
• Parameters -- DO, T, TSS, nutrients,
chlorophyll, other field tests (in addition,
CLP lakes ~ phytoplankton, benthos, fish,
vegetation, sediment chemistry)
Network Design
• Fixed sites widely distributed
throughout state on major streams
(Mississippi, Wabash, Kankakee,
Illinois, Fox rivers, e.g.)
• Includes sites with past
contamination problems
• Both main streams and tributaries
sampled during basin surveys
•Sites selected based on location of
discharges, closely linked to NPDES
issuance and compliance
•Varies according to type of survey

• CLP lakes selected by CLP
process
• Trend lakes are formed CLP lakes,
lakes representative of various
types of WQ; lakes where various
pollution controls implemented
• Diagnostic lakes selected from list
of lakes needing controls or
effectiveness monitoring
Data
Uses
2-1
2-2
3-3
2-1
2-2
3-2
3-3
2-2
3-3

3-3
2-1
2-2
3-2
Data
Analysis
B
B
B
A,B
A.B.F.G

B
B.F
B
B
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
                    Table 4-2.  Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
10. Volunteer Lake
Monitoring Program
11. Lake Michigan
Network
Type/
Frequency
F;
twice per
month
May-Oct.
F
# of
Stations/
#of
Samples
176 lakes
in 1989;
3 or more
sites per
lake
85
stations
Program
Description
• Citizen monitoring program involving
225 volunteers
• Secchi disk and field observations at all
lakes
• Nutrients and TSS at 30-50 lakes
•
• Conducted by City of Chicago
• Reported separately from 305(b)
Network Design
• Lakes selected according to citizen
interest, within areas served by
three regional planning commissions
Sites selected where public
recreation occurs and in vicinity of
Chicago water supply intakes
Data
Uses
4-1
2-1
3-3
2
Data
Analysis
NA
B.F
B,F
A
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
Table 4-3.  Indiana Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program
Rivers/Streams
1. Fixed Station WQ
Monitoring Network
2. Fish and
Sediment Toxics
Monitoring Program
3. Biological
Monitoring Program
Lakes
4. Clean Lakes
Programs
Type/
Frequency

F;
monthly or
quarterly
F
(biennially)
and
I
F and
I

I
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples

106
stations
23 CORE
(F)
22 F sites
biennially;
no. of
1 sites not
yet
decided

-100
lakes in
last 2-3
years, by
IDEM;
more by
IDNR
Program
Description

• Monthly sampling at 91 sites
• Quarterly at 15 sites
• 37 sites sampled quarterly for toxics
• 41 sites sampled for phytoplankton
• Parameters are adjusted for individual
sites frequently based on BPJ
• CORE is a subset of Fixed Station
Network
• 32 streams, 28 inland lakes, and Lake
Michigan sampled in 1 988-89
• Fish, macroinvertebrates, other aquatic
biota, sediment PCBs; chlorinated pest.,
metals, organics
• Small, but developing program
• IDEM samples macroinvertebrates; EPA
Region 5 assisting with fish
• EPA Rapid Bbassessment Protocols
used
• Rotating basin surveys begun in 1991

• IDEM coordinates the EPA CLP
monitoring (contracted to Indiana Univ.)
•IDEM plans 7 year sampling cycle
- IDNR operates state-funded Lake
Enhancement Program
Network Design

• Network redesigned based on BPJ
in 1986; in part site selection based
on review of WQ trends and
exceedances in 1 979-1 985
• Stream sites generally selected in
known areas of contamination (e.g.,
having advisories)
• Lake sites selected to screen for
problem areas or to fulfill EPA CLP
requirements
• Fixed sites will be analyzed for
trends
• Sites selected to validate toxicity
test and effluent chemistry data, or
to evaluate hazardous waste sites,
or to fulfill CLP

• IDEM program based largely on
CLP priorities
•IDNR selects lakes independent of
CLP based on known or suspected
problems
Data
Uses

2-1
2-2
3-2
2
3
2-1
1-2
3-2

2-1
3-4
Data
Analysis

A
A
H
B
B.G
B.F
B,F
B.F

A,B
A,B
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
                                  Table 4-4.  Michigan Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program



Rivers/Streams
1. Fixed Station
Monitoring Program
















2. Fish
Contaminant
Program






S.Biosurveys






Type/
Frequency



F and I;
monthly
















Fandl








I






#of
Stations/
#of
Samples

53
stations
sampled
every
year; 2
50
stations
rotated










56
stations
in 1988;
990 fish
collected




79 sites
in 1989





Program
Description



• 8 CORE subnetwork has 20 permanent
sites, 17 on Great Lakes tributaries and 3
on inland rivers
• Urban subnetwork has 10 stations
upstream and 1 0 downstream of major
urban areas
• Detroit River subnetwork has 13 stations
• Fixed subnetworks (above) generally
sampled monthly for 24-35 conventional
pollutants and inorganic chemicals, annually
for 15 more inorganics
• Basin-Year Monitoring subnetwork -
approx. 75 rivers/streams per year on 5-
year rotating cycle. Major Great Lakes
tributaries, major inland streams; minor
G.L. tributaries, minor inland streams.
First 2 categories sampled monthly during
the year.
• Fish tissue analyzed for organochlorine
pesticides, heavy metals, and industrial
chemicals
• Majority of sites on inland lakes
• 3-5 rivers per year tested for biological
uptake by caged channel catfish (28-day
test) at mouths of Great Lakes tributaries.


• Fish and macroinvertebrates
communities; aquatic plant distribution and
abundance. Quantitative or qualitative.
Michigan rapid bioassessment protocols
used.
• Two types: problem evaluation surveys
and basin surveys
Network Design




• Most fixed stations date back to
the 1970s; network was much
larger
• Current network selected to
monitor loads of most major
tributaries to Great Lakes.
• Stations at mouths of major
tributaries are presumed to reflect
WQ of their basins.









- Comprehensive program begun in
1986 to determine status of fish in
Great Lakes, their major tributaries,
inland lakes and streams
• Sites having consumption
advisories are included among fixed
stations
• Some sites selected for general
problem ID.
• Basin survey sites are selected to
support permit issuance and
document basin WQ
• Problem evaluation survey sites
selected in response to
known/suspected problems outside
the rotating basin cycle
Data
Uses



3-3

2-1

3-4













2-1

3-3

2-2

1-1


3-2

2-1

2-1

3-1
Data
Analysis



A.B

A

A,B













B

B

B

B,G


B,F

B,F

B.F

B.F
00
         See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
         F - Fixed Station
         I - Intensive Survey
         NA - not applicable

-------
                  Table 4-4.  Michigan Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
Lakes
4. Ambient Lake
Program
5. Volunteer Lake
(Self-help) Program
Type/
Frequency

F
F
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples

50-60
lakes per
year
160-175
lakes
Program
Description

• Sampled during spring overturn and
summer stratification
• Secchi depth, phosphorus, chlorophyll a,
field parameters
• Secchi depth only
• Mainly conducted by lake property
owners
Network Design

• 8 Lakes selected to update
previous classification efforts
• Viewed as a limited program
•MDNR proposing to monitor each
publically owned lake every 15-20
years
• Designed to monitor long-term
changes in WQ
Data
Uses

2-1
3-4
2-1
Data
Analysis

B
B
A
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
Table 4-5. Minnesota Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program
Rivers/Streams
1 .Routine Water
Quality Monitoring
Program
2.Fish Tissue
Analysis
S.Biological
Community
Monitoring (under
development)
4.Use Attainability/
Wasteload
Allocation Studies
S.CIean Water
Partnership
Program
G.Residual Chlorine
Detection Surveys
(under
development)
Lakes
/.Lake Assessment
Program
Type/
Frequency

F
Monthly;
9 months/
year
I
I
I
I
I

I
# of
Stations/
#of
Samples

70-75
stations
including
19 CORE
stations

45 sites
in 1990
10 sites
in 1991


10 sites/
season

8-10 lakes
2 sites/
lake
Program
Description

•Parameters include nutrients, bacteria,
BOD, and general chemistry components.
•Intensive surveys are also conducted at
3 new sites last year only
•Between 1970 and 1989, fish from 80
river locations and over 200 lakes were
sampled
•Fish fillets are analyzed for PCBs, TCDD,
and mercury contamination
•Fish community and habitat characteristics
are assessed for IB I
•Surveys conducted for 3 days two times
in the same season
•Water chemistry and flow measurements
taken
•At some sites, fish surveys are conducted
•Projects are of 2-5 year duration and
typically include a diagnostic study and an
implementation plan
•4 visits/site (series of sampling stations at
a discharge facility)
•Parameters: flow, temperature, residual
chlorine, turbidity, and color

•Studies are conducted for 1 summer, but
Secchi disk component continues as part
of CLMP
•Information collected includes:
physical/chemical data, lake morphometric
data, trophic status data, summary of land
use
Network Design

•Geographic representation
•3-year rotation - to focus on a
particular area of the state (3 areas:
South, Northwest, Northeast)
•Designed for several purposes:
trend, analysis, source id, and to id
waterbodies where fish
consumption could pose a human
health, wildlife, or aquatic life risk.
•MPCA is developing IBI for
Minnesota River
•First a reference site is selected,.
then other sites within watershed
are surveyed
•Assess impacts of a discharger on
a receiving stream
•Proposals by units of government
and citizens groups are ranked and
selected according to program
criteria
•Based on permit expiration date or
for facility planning where chlorine
information is useful

•Lakes where there is a strong local
interest in managing/characterizing
the lake
Data
Uses

2-1
2-1
3-2
2-2
3-1
2-1
3-3
2-1
2-2
3-2
3-3
2-2
3-2

2-1
4-1
Data
Analysis

A
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
H
H
A

C
NA
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
Table 4-5. Minnesota Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
S.Citizen Lake
Monitoring Program
(CLMP)
9.Fish Tissue
Analysis
tO.Ecoregion
Reference Lakes
Program
11. Acid Rain
Monitoring
Type/
Frequency
F
Weekly
I
F
for 2-3
years
2-3 times/
year
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples
over 500
lakes
1 site/
lake


12 lakes
Program
Description
•Secchi depth is monitored weekly from
June through September
•Participants also make ratings of
recreational suitability and physical
condition
•Between 1970 and 1989, 267 lakes
representing 1 ,689,090 acres were
sampled
•Fish fillets are analyzed for PCBs, TCDD.
and mercury
•Minimally impacted lakes are sampled for 2
or 3 summers to develop comprehensive
baseline data of phosphorus
concentrations by ecoregion
•Several hundred lakes were assessed at
the initiation of program and currently
about a dozen are assessed annually
•Sampled for pH and more constituents
commonly assessed
Network Design
•Lakes are selected by citizens who
express interest in the program
•Heavily fished lakes where fish
consumption could pose a health
risk
•Minimally impacted lakes from each
ecoregion in the State
•Acid-sensitive lakes or lakes already
exhibiting acid problems (i.e., lakes
with low alkalinity and/or low color)
Data
Uses
1-1
2-1
4-1
3-2
2-1
2-2
1-2
3-1
1-1
2-1
Data
Analysis
E
B
NA
A
B
B
C
A
G
C
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
                                   Table 4-6.  Ohio Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program



Rivers/Streams
1. Integrated
Biosurvey-Based
Assessments














2.Fixed Station
Monitoring








Type/
Frequency



I
















F









#of
Stations/
#of
Samples

150-250
sites
annually














50-55
monthly








Program
Description



•Integrated assessments consist of
combinations of fish community,
macroinvertebrate community, physical
habitat, ambient water chemistry, sediment
chemistry, bioassay testing, and fish tissue
samplings
•For segments with biosurvey, physical
habitat, and chemical data the biota is the
principal arbiter of aquatic life use
•3 biologic indices (IBI, ICI, Iwb) are
compared to regional reference site criteria
for use attainment decisions
•Assessments cover 600-1000 stream
miles per year
•OH EPA feels integrated assessments are
necessary for accurate water resource
management
•Chemical data are collected at NAWQMN
stations and State stations on 1 1 major
rivers as well as on 12 large tributaries of
Lake Erie
•Data are combined with biological survey
results to assess use attainment. In the
absence of bio-data, aquatic life
assessments based only on fixed station
chemical data are considered as evaluated
level data.
Network Design




•Sampling coverage concentrates
on: 1) streams and rivers with major
permits due for reissuance, 2)
streams with documented or
suspected problems
•OH EPA uses 5-year basin
approach to coordinate data
collection activities and permit
reissuance








•Sites are located on major rivers,
Lake Erie tributaries and at
NAWQMN stations







Data
Uses



2-1

1-1

2-2,3-2,
3-3

3-4,1-2









1-1

2-1







Data
Analysis



C

A

B


E,G









G

A







Si
        See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
        F - Fixed Station
        i - intensive Survey
        NA - not applicable

-------
                           Table 4-6.  Ohio Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
S.Reg ional
Reference Sites
4.Fish Tissue
Monitoring
S.Sediment
Sampling
6-General Technical
Assistance
7-Cooperative
Monitoring Network
Type/
Frequency
l& F
1
1
1
F
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples
360 sites/
sampled
at rate of
10% per
year
25-50
sites/yr
(50-100
samples)
>100
sites/year
.120-40
sites/year
15
sites/year
Program
Description
•Regional reference sites reflect "least
impacted" background conditions within an
ecoregion.
•Biological data collected from these sites
over a 7 year period (1982-1989) are used
to calibrate the multi-metric indices (IB),
ICI), set biological criteria, and determine
signature species/taxa for each ecoregion
and site type.
•Approximately 10% of these sites are
sampled annually in conjunction with
monitoring performed for the 5-year basin
approach.
•Annually 50-100 samples are analyzed for
PCB/pesticides, BNAs, other organic
compounds, and occasionally mercury.
•Generally, there is a mix between fillets
and whole-body composites
•Bottom sediments are usually collected in
surveys via the Syr Basin Approach
•Analysis for heavy metals in all samples
•Organic scans for 50% of samples.
•Biological, chemical, and/or physical
monitoring performed in response to
requests for assistance with specific
programs including: 404/401 dredge and
fill, State Revolving Loan Program,
complaints, spills, anti-degradation issues,
petitioned ditch projects, etc.
•Sites sampled by cooperating entities on
the Scioto River.
•Chemical/physical data are collected
weekly
Network Design
•Non-random selection based on
narrative criteria and the cultural
characteristics of the watershed.
•Stream and river size variability are
accounted for.
•Sampling is accomplished for fish,
macroinvertebrates, and water
column chemistry at all sites
•Sediment samples are collected
from approximately 100 reference
sites
•Most samples are collected from
waters being surveyed via the 5 yr
basin approach.
•Some additional samples may be
sampled as part of the Inter-agency
Task Force on Fish Contaminants
•Most samples are collected from
waters being surveyed via the 5 yr
basin approach.
•Some additional samples are
collected in response to complaints
and CERCLA site investigations.
•Similar to design of subbasin
surveys except at a smaller scale in
most instances.
•Longitudinal design ("upstream/
downstream").
Data
Uses
3-1,
1-1,
1-2
3-1,2-1,
1-1,2-2,
3-2,
3-3,
3-4,
4-1
3-1,
2-1,
2-2,
3-3
2-1,
2-2,
3-4
1-1,
3-3
Data
Analysis
A,C
A,B
B,C
A,B,C
A,C
t—'
u>
       See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
       F - Fixed Station
       I - Intensive Survey
       NA - not applicable

-------
                    Table 4-6.  Ohio Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
Lakes
S.Lake Water Quality
Assessments
Type/
Frequency


# of
Stations/
#of
Samples

25 lakes
between
1988 and
1990
reports
Program
Description

•OH EPA has developed a Lake Condition
Index (LCI) for assessing lakes
• LCI consists of 14 parameters:
Bioloaical Conditions: IBI. nuisance growth
of macrophytes, fecal coliform bacteria,
Chlorophyll a, fish tissue contamination
Chemical Conditions: Nonpriority
pollutants, priority organics, priority
metals, sediment contamination, total
phosphorus, acid mine drainage
Physical Conditions: Volume loss due to
sedimentation, Secchi depth
Public Perception: Aesthetics
•For 1990 report, all assessments were
based on evaluated data due to a lack of
monitored level data
Network Design

•All significant public lakes (i.e., 417
lakes >5 acres and freely open to
the public for recreation)
•Recently has included citizen
monitoring efforts (e.g., secchi
dept, etc.)
Data
Uses

2-1
1-1
2-1
Data
Analysis

B
10
B
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
                               Table 4-7.  Wisconsin Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program
Rivers/Streams
1. Fixed Station
Network
2. Fish Tissue
Monitoring (toxics)
3. Basin
Assessment/
Nonpoint Source
Program
4.Sedimenl
Sampling (toxics)
Lakes
S.Long-term Trend
Monitoring Program
Type/
Frequency

F
Monthy;
some
quarterly
1-80%
F-20%
1
1

F
5 times
annually
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples

62
stations
1,500
samples
6 basins
(of 26)
220
samples

50 lakes
Program
Description

•Parameters include: pH, temperature,
conductivity, residue, total phosphorus,
dissolved phosphorus, ammonia, Kjeldahl
nitrogen, chloride, chlorophyll a and fecal
coliform. Great lakes tributaries also
analyzed for calcium, sodium, sulfate, and
dissolved silica.
•An average of 1,500 samples (streams
and lakes) are analyzed annually from
streams, lakes and Great Lakes for PCBs,
mercury, chlorinated pesticides, other
metals and priority pollutants.
•About 500-600 macro-invertebrate
samples are analyzed annually using a
modified Hilsenhoff's Biotic Index.
•Fish communities are collected at selected
sites and analyzed using a variety of
techniques.
•Habitat data are collected at fish sites,
NPS sites, and for all use classifications
•Water chemistry data are collected along
with biology and habitat.
•About 220 samples scheduled to be
analyzed for metals, pesticides, PCBs,
priority pollutants, and dioxin/furans.

•This program is the backbone of Wl's lake
program
•1 chemical site per lake; several biological
sites per lake
•Parameters: nutrients, Secchi depth,
chlorophyll a, bacteria, macroinvertebrates,
macrophyte, plankton, fish surveys
Network Design

•Historically, most stations were
located to assess point sources.
•At present, they have no ambient
reference stations.
•Intensive surveys are designed to
survey sites where fish may
accumulate contaminants at levels
posing a human health risk.
•Fixed stations will be monitored on
a rotating basis according to the
"basin planning" schedule.
•Targeting NPS problems
•Reference sites
•Assessing existing conditions
•Evaluating Pt/NPS management
•Ambient lake monitoring
•Use classifications
•In past, sites chosen in conjunction
with dredging activities
• In future, driven by basin planning
strategies

•Public access
• >25 acres
• Sufficient depth to stratify during
summer
• Availability of survey map
Data
Uses

2-1
1-1
4-1
2-1
3-3
2-1
2-2
3-3
3-1,2-1,
1-1,2-2,
3-2,3-4,
4-1,1-2

2-1,
1-1,
3-2
Data
Analysis

A
D
NA
A
A
F
F
F
B,C,G

A
£
t/I
       See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
       F - Fixed Station
       I - Intensive Survey
       NA - not applicable

-------
                 Table 4-7.  Wisconsin Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
6.Self-Help
Volunteer
Lake Monitoring
Program
7.Fish Tissue
Monitoring
Type/
Frequency
F
Bimonthly
between
May and
September
1
#of
Stations/
#of
Samples
310
lakes
1,500
samples
Program
Description
•Secchi depth is monitored by volunteers
at one site per lake
•Program was expanded in 1990 to include
measurements of phosphorus, chlorophyll,
DO, temp., pH, lake level and precipitation
on 34 lakes
•See Stream program #2
Network Design
•Lakes are selected by citizens who
express interest in the program.
There is no design to the network,
the lakes are scattered throughout
the State.
•In past lakes were chosen based on
low levels of alkalinity and a
sustainable walleye population
•In the future, lakes will be chosen
based on the basin planning
schedule
Data
Uses
2-1
1-1
4-1
2-1
3-3
Data
Analysis
B
NA
A
See Table 4-1 for Data uses and Data analysis methods
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable

-------
4.3   Capacity of Surface Water Monitoring Programs to Support Planning and
      Management

The "effectiveness" of monitoring and assessment programs should largely be measured by
the degree to which scientifically defensible data support the basic information needs of
water resource planners  and managers. In describing the capacity of Region 5 surface
water monitoring programs to support planning and management objectives, it is useful to
define relevant topics  and describe supporting data and relationships that affect the overall
effectiveness of monitoring programs.

Monitoring surface water resources to assess status and trends provides baseline
information  to support other planning and management objectives:  problem identification
and characterization; management strategy development, implementation, and evaluation;
and communication of results to the public and legislators.  The term "status" encompasses
many water resource characteristics including biological community health, physical
habitat, toxicologic measures, and water and sediment chemistry.  Historically, the  States
and EPA have reported the status of surface water resources by describing the attainment
or nonattainment of designated uses for waterbodies (see Chapters 1 and 3 for more
detailed descriptions).

The principal method  used by most States to determine use attainment or nonattainment has
been to compare ambient chemical concentrations from water column samples with
chemical criteria.  Because the criteria for individual chemical parameters are derived from
toxicologic responses  of fish and macroinvertebrates in laboratory studies, it is assumed
that the ambient chemical criteria, when properly applied, accurately reflect healthy aquatic
conditions in a waterbody.  Although water column chemistry provides information on the
causes or sources of problems and  the effectiveness of point source controls, it does not
convey direct, comprehensive information on the overall status or integrity of a water
resource.  Recent studies suggest that integrated assessments, including biological,
chemical and physical data, convey a much more accurate and  complete picture of water
resource status than an approach based solely on chemical criteria (Karr et al., 1986; Ohio
EPA, 1990; Rankin, and Yoder 1990).

Acknowledging the limitations of approaches based solely on chemical criteria, EPA and
the States arc rigorously pursuing the development and implementation of biological
criteria (or biocriteria) to provide effective tools  for more accurately assessing the status  or
integrity of surface waters. Biological Criteria:  National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters (U.S. EPA, 1990a) defines biological criteria as:

     ' numerical values  or narrative expressions that describe the  reference
      biological integrity  of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a  given
      designated aquatic life use.'
                                         4-17

-------
The national biocriteria guidance also highlights the important role biocriteria could have
in supporting water quality planning and management objectives:

    '  When implemented, biological criteria will expand and improve water quality
       standards programs, help identify impairment of beneficial uses, and help set
       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'.

The national policy on the Use of Biological Assessment and Criteria in the Water Quality
programs issued in June of 1991 reiterates many of the uses of biological criteria in
protecting and managing our water  resources described in the national biocriteria program
guidance.  The policy states that "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...."  The policy further addresses State programs
as follows: "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."  The policy discusses the important distinctions among the terms biological
surveys, assessments, and criteria.  Although all six  Region 5 States  conduct biological
surveys, only a portion of the States fully utilize the biological survey data in their
assessments of aquatic life use attainment (see Figures 3-1 and 3-2).

The biological criteria, which  the program guidance  and policy previously defined,  should
"consider various components (e.g., algae, invertebrates, fish)... of the larger aquatic
community."  All of the Region 5 States use at least fish and benthic macroinvertebrates in
their biological survey programs to  satisfy this policy recommendation, but the actual
development of the biological  criteria is not as complete. Only Ohio has developed and
implemented numerical biological criteria in their water quality standards, although Indiana
and Michigan are in the process of  developing numerical biological criteria and will begin
to incorporate the biological assessment data in their 1992 305(b) reports.  The extent to
which all of the Region 5 States adopt numerical  biocriteria in their standards  depends
upon  strong support and guidance at the national  level.  At this time, a national policy on
numerical biological criteria is under development.  However, all of the Region 5 States
have recognized the importance of developing the capabilities for performing biological
surveys and assessments consistent  with the national policy and program guidance.  Region
5 States will continue to actively expand the use of biological surveys for better assessment
and the eventual use of numerical biocriteria.

Problems with a surface water resource are often identified when observed or measured
"status" indicators have values significantly different from reference  values for those
indicators.  As described in the national biocriteria guidance, biological assessments and

                                         4-18

-------
criteria have some distinct advantages over chemical assessments/criteria in assessing status
and identifying problems.  Biological assessments and criteria allow direct comparison of
aquatic community measures with reference conditions within a watershed, ecoregion or
flow regime.   Chemical assessments and criteria, on the other hand, provide indirect data,
that are more susceptible to  temporal and spatial variability in the field (e.g.,
concentrations are dependent on flow conditions) and problems with extrapolating data
from controlled laboratory lexicological studies to field conditions.  Rankin and Yoder
(1990) provide convincing evidence that integrated,  biosurvey-based assessments using
biological, chemical, and physical data often identify problems that are either missed or
underestimated using only ambient chemical assessments.

Once a surface water problem is discovered, chemical, physical data and whole effluent
toxicity complement biological data by helping to define and/or characterize the causes  or
sources of impairment and measure the effectiveness of point and nonpoint control
activities. Tissue contamination data from fish and  macroinvertebrates,  for example,
provide important information for assessing human health and ecological risks from
impaired waters.  Measurement of water column chemistry helps, in protecting waterbodies
for drinking water and swimming/recreational use.  Water column chemistry can also
provide information on threats to aquatic as well as  threats to human uses.  In summary,
when biological, chemical, and physical data are collected and interpreted  collectively,  a
more accurate, comprehensive picture of water resource status is conveyed.
4.4  Trend Assessment

Trends, as defined in this report,  are the temporal and spatial changes in status or the
measures used to estimate status (e.g., biological community health, physical habitat,
toxicologic measures, water and sediment chemistry, and tissue contamination data).  In
many cases, changes in measures or indicators of status are often compared to reference
levels such as biological and chemical criteria to identify potential human health and
ecological effects. Trends are assessed to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions
over specific time periods or geographic  areas.  Trends  are often interpreted as statistically
detectable changes over time of a series of measurements based upon parametric statistical
techniques.  This perception that all trend analysis must be statistically based has resulted
in limited trend assessments of data within Region 5.

Although the concept of determining the  status of a  water resource, or the components of
that resource, is the foundation of EPA and State monitoring programs, the issues of scale
and representativeness of the monitoring  location have been raised.  State programs have
been addressing water resource status on a very local scale—i.e., waterbody segments—and
sometimes extrapolating that information to an entire waterbody  or even watershed.  This
smaller scale meets the local/State's needs to  respond to known water resource problems
and issues.  However, recent questions on the national scale such as "Have the quality of

                                         4-19

-------
our water resources improved since the establishment of the Clean Water Act? " have
highlighted the difficulties in aggregating these segment-scale assessments,  to provide a
larger-scale (e.g., national) perspective.  These issues have been critically discussed by
GAO (1981,  1986).

The problem with not being able to assemble a set of reliable national statistics is not
because of the site-specific scale of State monitoring efforts.  Rather, the problem can also
be attributed  to the wide variation in the depth, strengths, and weaknesses of the specific
assessment tools and initial monitoring design of each State program. If each State had
comparable methods and strength of their overall approaches, than  computing national
statistics would take care of itself.  Thus what is needed is for EPA to assure  the
development  of these assessments approaches by assuring that the monitoring
"infrastructure" is adequate to do the job.

In 1988, the  Science Advisory Board of EPA recommended implementing a program to
monitor the status and trends not only of water resources but of the ecosystem.  This
recommendation initiated the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
which will provide "statistically unbiased estimates of status, trends, and associations with
quantifiable confidence limits over regional and  national scales for periods  of years to
decades."  However, "Regional or national trends are expected to be discernible within 10-
15 years. EMAP will provide little information about the conditions at any particular site
for a period of 40-60 years" (U.S. EPA, 1990).

Contrasted with the scale of monitoring programs at the State level and the national level
through EMAP are the watershed assessments at the Regional and national scales for the
U.S. Geological Survey's NAWQA Program. The NAWQA Program, is designed to
provide a nationally consistent description of current water quality conditions including
statistical descriptions of water quality  conditions and their changes with time, for a large
part of the Nation's water resources  (Hirsh et al., 1988).  Although a significant portion of
NAWQA data should be directly usable for  State needs, neither EMAP nor NAWQA
provides the  consistent problem identification or specific pollution  control monitoring
efforts that the State programs require.  It is very clear that EMAP,  NAWQA, and State
monitoring efforts have different objectives that are based largely on spatial and temporal
scales.  Besides the fact that States sample many more sites  than EMAP or NAWQA, there
are other differences. While EMAP and NAWQA have temporal integrity, they currently
lack the  spatial detail to discern environmental problems at the scale necessary to operate
an effective water resource management program. Environmental problems and natural
resources are not randomly distributed.  Furthermore, EMAP selects all sites
probabilistically for the assessment of national and regional trends—both spatial and
temporal.  State networks, on the other hand,  are generally designed with multiple goals in
mind:  assessing designated use  support of problem waters,  setting priorities for cleanup,
supporting standards development, and  developing reference sites, to name a few.
                                         4-20

-------
We found that the States were taking vastly different approaches to evaluating the
effectiveness of their management programs over time.  While Illinois and Wisconsin have
conducted a limited number of statistically based trend assessments using consistently
collected chemical water quality data from their fixed-station networks, Ohio has begun to
focus on assessing the water resource status at distinct intervals of several years.  Although
Ohio's approach is not considered to be a statistically based trend analysis, it provides the
information needed to meet the State's objective of determining the effectiveness of their
environmental management programs.  Because the bulk of historical trend data in Region
5 States is predominate chemically based, the descriptions in the following sections
highlight the use of their fixed-station chemical monitoring networks (Table 4-8).

4.4.1  Illinois

One of the primary objectives of lEPA's Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
(AWQMN) is to characterize trends  in the water quality of rivers and streams.  Trend
analyses are conducted for the 208 AWQMN stations using a Water Quality  Index
developed by  U.S. EPA Region 10 and analyzing trends in specific parameters using
Seasonal-Kendall tests, which include flow adjustments.  Figure 4-1 shows the spatial
distribution of AWQMN stations.

The WQI consists of the following parameters:  water temperature, DO, pH,  total
phosphorus, turbidity,  specific conductance and unionized ammonia.  Trends  were assessed
in the 1990 Illinois Water Quality Report (305(b) report) by comparing WQI averages
compiled for the periods  1979-1984 and 1985-1989  at each AWQMN station.  Based on
these comparisons, the State classified  124 stations (60.2 percent) improving,  81 stations
(39.3 percent) declining in conditions,  and 0.5 percent (1) station with no  change in the
WQI.

IEPA selected the Illinois  River Basin to conduct Seasonal-Kendall trend tests on flow-
adjusted and nonadjusted concentrations of more than 13 parameters.  This study was
conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey.  Water quality for a period of
12 years was assessed and showed consistent improvements in total ammonia throughout
the basin and a consistent decline or  no change  in total sodium.   Total suspended solids
and ammonia-nitrogen showed improvements but the majority of the results showed no
change. IEPA also identified and developed a Pesticide  Subnetwork of the AWQMN
consisting of 30 stations.  A comparison of data collected from October 1985 to October
1988 showed no discernible trend in  annual herbicide concentrations, but,  as expected,
seasonal relationships were pronounced.

IEPA has expressed a strong interest in conducting flow-adjusted Seasonal-Kendall trend
testing  for all  208 AWQMN stations  for the majority of parameters. Resource  constraints
prevent the IEPA from analyzing more than one or two basins for each 305(b) cycle.
In the 1990 305(b) report, lakes with three or more years of calculated trophic status index

                                         4-21

-------
N)
NJ
     Table 4-8.  Fixed-Station Chemical Monitoring Programs by State
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Number of
Fixed Stations
208
106
60
70-75
50-55*
62
Period of
Frequency Record (years)
Every 6 weeks
Monthly or quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Some monthly; quarterly
-15
~5
-10
-15
-15
-15
   * Ohio has a network of 360 reference sites which are sampled
   at a rate of 10% per year. There are aiso 20-30 additional fixed
   station sites operated by cooperating entities and other agencies.

-------
           Figure 4-1.  Illinois Fixed Station  Network and
                      Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Crial Lnkti
H
k. Ml eh loon
 Wouktgori Harbor
14 Grand Calumtt Rivtr.
  Indiana Harbor Canal
Data Sourcai

STORE! Stations: "Illinois Wattr Quality
            Rtporl 1988-1989"
AOC Locations:  "Th« Grtat Lakes",
           USEPA and Environment Canada
Major Rivtri:  1:500,000 NOAA Mops

                                             4-23

-------
(TSI) were analyzed for trends using a linear regression, nonstatistical approach. Two
hundred waterbodies were evaluated, with 41 percent showing fluctuating conditions and
34.5 percent showing declining conditions.  The 18.5 percent of lakes showing
improvements in water quality was attributed to in-lake restoration techniques or intensive
watershed management projects. The remaining 6 percent of lakes indicated stable water
quality conditions.

4.4.2 Indiana

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management operates a fixed-station  chemical
monitoring network at 106  sites along rivers and streams throughout the State. In 1985,
the State conducted a review of this network, which included examining water quality
trends between 1979 and 1985.  Although this approach was described in their 1990 305(b)
report, we have no documentation of any trend analysis, results, or assessment of those
results.

The State compared the trophic status  of 101 lakes between the mid-1970s and 1988-89.
The changes reported in trophic condition included 21 lakes improving enough to upgrade
their classification, 24 lakes declining  to a lower classification, and 5(3 lakes remaining in
their existing classification.

4.4.3 Michigan

MDNR has  operated a somewhat inconsistent fixed-station network ranging  from almost
600 stations in 1973  to only 58 in 1989.  In  1989, MDNR operated stations for three
programs: Great Lakes Tributary Monitoring (16 stations), Urban Area Monitoring (22
stations), and Detroit Rivers Monitoring (about 20 stations).  The State refocused their
program  in  1990 to the following programs:

  • Core River Monitoring,
  • Urban Area Monitoring,
  • Detroit  River Monitoring,
  • Basin-Year Monitoring, and
  • Special  Monitoring.

These five monitoring programs implemented in 1990 comprise almost 100  stations.
Twenty core stations will be monitored monthly with the remaining stations rotated by
basin to meet permit reissuance needs. The  MDNR is currently preparing a 15-year trend
report on the Detroit River data. However,  there are no significant plans to conduct
comprehensive trend analysis on all sample sites due to resource constraints.
                                         4-24

-------
4.4.4  Minnesota

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently assessed the effectiveness of their
fixed-station monitoring network for chemical trend analysis of rivers and streams.  Their
1991 review established criteria for station selection, which resulted in 90 of their 269
stations being  selected for trend analysis.  The State used 21 years of data (1970-1990) to
examine their  water chemistry trends in each of their seven ecoregions. The parameters
examined were:  DO, un-ionized ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, and total suspended solids.  The
measure used  for trend significance was the nonparametric  correlation coefficient--
Kendall's tau-b.

The most significant changes within  their seven ecoregions that occurred during the 21-
year period were decreases in total suspended solids (Northern Lakes  and Forests
ecoregion) and un-ionized ammonia (Northern Wetland and Northern  Lakes and Forests
ecoregions) and increases in nitrate-nitrite (Driftless Area ecoregion) and total suspended
solids (Red River Valley ecoregion).

MPCA conducts lake trend assessments based on  Secchi disk transparency data collected
from their Citizen Lake Monitoring Program. In their 1990 305(b) report, the State
calculated Kendall tau correlation coefficients for  101  lakes with close to an average of 10
years of data.   Six lakes  showed a significant decrease in transparency, all from the North
Central Hardwood Forest ecoregion.  Fourteen lakes showed significant increases in
transparency in three ecoregions (mostly Central Hardwood Forests and Northern Lakes
and Forests).  The remaining lakes exhibited  no significant trend in transparency.  The
State plans to  conduct more rigorous trend analyses with other water quality indicators and
to determine if land use changes have taken place to influence these results or  further
actions are warranted.

4.4.5 Ohio

Ohio initiated  a trend assessment program 13 years ago to assess changes in the water
resource quality over  specified periods of time. For example, Ohio EPA submitted to the
Regional Clearinghouse their first trend assessment report,  which compared their biological
and water quality study results for 1982 and 1990 in the Stillwater River Basin. This
report identified trends in chemical water quality,  pollutant loadings, biological community
assessments, and use attainment status in the  basin.  To a large degree, Ohio's integrated
assessment approach demonstrates State implementation of EPA's recent biocriteria policy
and guidance.   The improvement in water quality  due to specific pollution control
measures was  documented, and remaining problems in the basin were identified.
Recommendations in that report included changing some use classifications because of
channelization and habitat modifications that occurred, per  State law.  Seven areas for
additional monitoring  and follow-up were also included. This report is the first of several
the State is producing on trend assessments for each river basin they monitor.  Ohio's

                                         4-25

-------
trend assessment program is unique because they do not rely solely upon their fixed-station
chemical monitoring network for their trends. They utilize the bulk of the water resource
information collected to actually compare the status of a resource at different time
intervals, which achieves a similar management  objective as statistical time-series trend
analysis. It is important to note that annual sampling is not necessary when using
biological data because of its ability to integrate  influences over a long-term period.

The  State also has a subset of 50 fixed stations where macroinvertebrate community
assessments are  conducted.  Some of this information was compiled in the 1988 305(b)
report.  At this time, the State has not conducted trend analyses on their lake quality data.
Ohio EPA  is currently inventorying all water quality sampling locations across the State
sampled by government and private entities.  This will likely yield greater than 100 sites
with a long-term data base.  Also, Ohio  EPA considers the network of 305 plus reference
sites as part of the fixed-station network.

4.4.6  Wisconsin

Wisconsin  operates a fixed-station monitoring network of about 62  stations. The only
known trend analysis was conducted in 1990 on  nine stations on the Upper Wisconsin
River.   Monthly and quarterly data for 1984 through 1989 at each station were analyzed
for trend direction, magnitude, and statistical significance using the Seasonal-Kendall Test.
The  strength of the trend significance was substantially weakened for some parameters
going from monthly to quarterly data. The State is evaluating their fixed-station network
and will conduct trend analyses on all of their sites for their evaluation.

For lakes,  Wisconsin's Long Term Trend Lake  Monitoring Program is designed to assess
gradual changes in lake water quality. DNR staff have collected physical, chemical,  and
biological data on 50 lakes and their watersheds since 1986.  With 4 years of data, DNR is
beginning to analyze preliminary trends  in lake water quality.  Six years of data will  be
analyzed and included  in the 1992 report.  The State also sees great potential in using
remote sensing to  follow water quality trends in lakes associated with changes in land
use/land cover in watersheds.
4.5  Findings and Recommendations

Region 5 States use a variety of tools to assess the status of their surface water resources.
All six of the Region 5 States use integrated assessments (i.e., ambient chemical
monitoring, biological surveys, toxicity testing,  habitat assessments, and tissue
contamination surveys) to some degree, but the  frequency, spatial coverage, and the types
of surface water resources assessed using this approach vary significantly.  Furthermore,
even when information from integrated assessments is available, the States may not be able
to fully use it to support planning and management.   For example, integrated assessments

                                          4-26

-------
and permitting activities are sometimes not fully coordinated to provide useful information
on program effectiveness.  In other cases, States have insufficient resources to collect and
interpret the wide array of data associated with integrated assessments.

Only Illinois has documented  efforts to select broadly representative monitoring sites (in
their Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network), although the design process was not
strictly probabilistic.  Classical statisticians would argue that only probabilistic network
design can select sites that are spatially representative of the State's waters.  OPPE is
sponsoring a separate project to explore issues of representativeness in State monitoring
programs, including at least one Region 5 State as  a case study.

Generally, across Region 5, integrated assessments are performed on individual
watersheds, with most of the data collection targeted for rivers  and streams.  The
frequency of integrated watershed surveys is variable (e.g., Ohio: 5-year interval,  Illinois:
10-15 year intervals).  The watersheds assessed are generally selected because there have
been known or suspected problems or the resources are particularly highly valued  (e.g.,
scenic rivers).

In some instances (e.g.,  Ohio's and Michigan's 5-year basin surveys), the assessments are
clearly coordinated with management actions (e.g., permit reissuance) to  provide valuable
feedback to planners and managers.  It  should also be noted that Illinois'  Facility Related
Stream Survey Program uses biosurveys conducted at least  one year in advance of permit
renewal to support planning and management activities.

Interest in adopting or expanding integrated assessment programs is high  among Region 5
States. However, the lack of sufficient human and financial resources and tools for
assessing, analyzing, and managing data are often cited as the principal barriers to
implementing  or expanding programs.  At least two States,  Ohio and Illinois, have or are
developing integrated approaches for lakes.  None of the Region 5 States have sufficient
capabilities to perform integrated, or even limited,  assessments of wetlands.

In summary, the capacity of Region 5 surface water monitoring programs to provide
comprehensive and accurate status information could be improved significantly by

  •   Increasing the frequency and spatial coverage of integrated assessments;

  •   Developing and implementing integrated approaches  for  lakes and wetlands (an
      important component is information and technology transfer among Region  5
      States); and

  •   Encouraging greater consistency among Region 5 States  concerning the collection,
      analysis,  and management of data associated with integrated assessments.
                                         4-27

-------
Recommendations

  •    The States must receive adequate resources and training dedicated for water
       monitoring and assessment programs to support the collection and use of more
       direct, comprehensive measures for determining use support (e.g., fish, benthos and
       habitat assessments). These direct measures, along with indirect measures related to
       sources and causes of impairment,  should become integrated into EPA's planning
       and management activities.

  •    Integrated monitoring of watersheds, that includes the collection of biological,
       chemical and physical data, should be fully coordinated with management activities
       (e.g., permitting, enforcement actions, and best management practices)  to provide
       valuable feedback information on the results of management and protection
       programs

  •    States should clearly document assessment approaches for all designated uses,
       monitoring program structure, data uses, and database management methods  in their
       biennial State 305(b) reports to minimize ambiguities in each State's decision
       process and monitoring program.

  •    States should maintain an inventory all existing monitoring networks and utilize
       other agency and private organization monitoring provided it meets quality
       assurance and control standards.

  •    EPA should more fully utilize and integrate the information in State documentation
       produced at EPA's request (examples include monitoring strategies, annual program
       plans, 305(b) reports, and water quality management plans).

  •    EPA should solicit State recommendations on improving the Grant Guidance for
       State monitoring and assessment programs which are sent annually to assist the
       States in preparing their program plans.  This issue should also  be addressed on a
       national scale by the Regional Water Monitoring  Coordinators Workgroup.

  •    EPA and States should conduct integrated, rotational monitoring of watersheds
       (preferably, at 5-year intervals or less) to provide more accurate, comprehensive
       status information and better spatial and temporal coverage.  EPA should support
       the States in conducting trend assessments of their historical monitoring networks;
       10 to 15 years of data are often available .

  •    Results of trend analysis should be evaluated to determine causes and sources of
       trends (improvement or decline) and compare those trends with  the expectations for
       resource  quality.
                                         4-28

-------
States may not need to use a statistically based time-series trend analysis to evaluate
environmental results over a period of time.  Depending on the data, status
assessments at specific time intervals  may provide substantial information on
tracking environmental progress.
                                   4-29

-------
                5. ASSESSMENT-RELATED DATA MANAGEMENT
5.1 Overview

For a 305(b) assessment, it is required that each State compile and analyze data from
diverse sources in several government agencies. Easy access to multiple data sources is
essential for integrated (chemical/biological/habitat) assessments, as well as the ability to
manipulate and integrate those data sources (U.S. EPA, 1991).

Data sources include computerized databases (see Section 5.2) as well as paper files (e.g.,
fish kill records, intensive survey reports, drinking water files, and compliance inspection
reports).  The advantages of using computerized data sources for 305(b) assessments
include the following:

  •   Computerized sources are more likely to be used—State 305(b) writers do not have
      the time to go through paper  files;

  •   Only a computerized database can be used to  screen the thousands of water quality
      data points collected each year;

  •   Data systems make it easier to track assessment results from one 305(b) cycle to the
      next;

  •   Turnover in State 305(b) staff necessitates having standardized procedures and user-
      friendly  data access; and

  •   Different types of information for the same waterbodies can be compared through
      the use of consistent geographic locators.
5.2 Findings—Assessment-Related Data Systems in Region 5

The Region 5 States use several national and State databases/data systems for 305(b)
assessments, as shown in Figure 5-1.  These are discussed in the following subsections by
type of data.

Ambient Physical/Chemical Data
The Region 5 States use STORET extensively for storing and analyzing water column data,
and is also used by some States for managing data on toxics in fish tissue and sediments.
STORET has been available to the States since the 1970s, and allows users to access over
150 million water samples from 800,000 sites nationwide.  The system provides data ana-
lysis capabilities including canned statistical summaries as well as maps and plots of data.

                                         5-1

-------
               Figure 5-1. State Use of 305(b)-related Data Systems
Data System
STORET
BIOS
State Biological
Systems
RF3/WQAS
EPAWBS
State 305(b)
System
Illinois
•
•
•
o

•
Indiana
•

•
O*
o

Michigan
•


0
o
•
Minnesota
•
O*
*
0*
O*
•
Ohio
•

*
O*
•

Wisconsin
•

e

o
•
K)
          0 - Current user
          Q - Interested or beginning to use
          % - Expressed concern or assistance needed

-------
Ambient Biological and Habitat Data
As noted in Chapter 4, several Region 5 States have prominent monitoring programs for
fish and macroinvertebrate communities and habitat. Other biological data (e.g.,
macrophytes, phytoplankton) are also collected.

Illinois and Minnesota are using BIOS to manage their biological data, and Wisconsin has
expressed some interest in the system. BIOS is a subset of the STORET system and is
EPA's national biological information management  system.  BIOS manages data on the
distribution,  abundance,  and physical condition of aquatic organisms, as well as
descriptions of their habitats. For example, Illinois has included current data and historical
data back to 1982 for both biological and habitat data.  Users can relate BIOS data with
STORET water chemistry data. BIOS also contains a taxonomic database and can be used
to store data on tissue contamination.

The States using BIOS reported some concerns with the system, including lack of a clear
message from EPA supporting their use of the system and difficulty in using BIOS for
tissue concentration data. Five States use in-house  programs to manage their ambient
biological data:

  •     Illinois uses a dBASE program to manipulate data prior to upload to BIOS.

  •     Michigan does  have  a computerized data management system for the biosurvey
       data.   Results are published in hard-copy reports.

  •     Minnesota does not have all of their ambient biological data on one integrated
       computerized system.  Minnesota stores some biological data in BIOS, some in
       STORET, some in SAS files on the NCC mainframe and some in PC files.

  •     Ohio has  developed the Fish Information System (FINS) (over  3600  sites) for fish
       and the Macroinvertebrate Data Generation and Evaluation System (MIDGES) (over
       1400 sites) for  macroinvertebrates.  Recently, these have been  merged into a new
       system called Ohio ECO that also handles  habitat data,  chemical  data, and  the WBS
       files.

  •     Wisconsin maintains a dBASE macroinvertebrate data management containing over
       3000 samples.

5.2.1  Hydrographic Data

The EPA Reach File is the  only hydrographic database identified as having  the potential
for  widespread use in Region 5.  The Reach File is a national  system  containing
geographic information on streams, lakes, and estuaries. It provides standardized
geographic locators that can be used throughout a State's databases.  Thus it serves as the

                                         5-3

-------
integrator of information on monitoring sites, point and nonpoint source discharges, water
intakes, and political and waterbody boundaries.  Because all streams and lakes in the
system are networked hydrologically, the Reach File can be used for routing and modeling.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the system can also provide estimates of total State waters for
streams and lakes.

The smallest unit of record in the system is the reach, which is typically a short stretch of
stream or shoreline.  Reach File Version 3 improves upon earlier versions by including all
hydrologic features on the USGS 1:100,000 scale map series. Most traces were actually
digitized from the 1:24,000 scale maps, so the resolution is extremely  high.  Figure 5-2
shows the hydrologic traces in RF3 for one USGS 1:24,000  scale topographic  map near
Raleigh, North Carolina.

RF3 contains over 3 million reaches nationwide, including reach names and geographic
locators.  Any point on a stream or shoreline can be defined using a reach number.  RF3
production work has recently been completed for Region 5, and Michigan  has  begun to
access and use RF3 data.  As shown  in Figure 5-1, four States expressed interest in the
capabilities of RF3 and companion software such as the Water Quality Analysis Software
(WQAS) and the Mapping and Graphical Display Manager, (MDDM).

Very few of the  senior State staff interviewed for this project had basic knowledge of the
applicability of RF3 to State programs and the systems's resource requirements. States
expressed the need for written information on the following aspects of RF3:

  •     Capabilities of RF3, alone and in concert with other Office of Water software and
       data systems;

  •     State resources required to fully use the system;

  •     Additional user documentation; and

  •     Availability of EPA technical  assistance for incorporating the RF3 system.

  •     Hands-on training on RF3 and other Office of Water systems was requested.

The above listed information needs to be provided before some  States  can  make a decision
to incorporate RF3 coordinates into their other databases. This "indexing" of  other
databases to RF3 is a key to EPA's plans for national level mapping of data from the
WBS.  At present, Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin have clear plans to reach-index their
waterbodies to RF3.  In the case of Illinois, it plans a long-term update of State WBS with
RF3 detail. In addition to 305(b)  assessment tracking,  the State will  then utilize its system
to track stream classifications given detail provided by RF3.
                                          5-4

-------
5.2.2  Assessment Results

The States have designated thousands of waterbodies for 305(b) reporting  and makes use
support determinations for each waterbody.  Various computer systems have been
developed for tracking the results of these biennial assessments.  To foster consistency in
reporting and to aid States without such systems, EPA developed the WBS in the late
1980s.  WBS provides a geographical framework for entering, tracking, and reporting
information on the quality of individual waterbodies. Each State delineates waterbodies as
it chooses.  The system stores water quality assessment results, not the raw data that
support the assessment.  All information is organized by waterbody and assessment date.
WBS contains the following main types of data elements:

  •    Identifiers-e.g.. waterbody name, identification number, type of waterbody
       (stream, lake, estuary, etc.), geographic locators (counties, Reach File indexing
       expressions, latitude/longitude);

  •    Assessment types—e.g..  based on monitored vs. evaluated data, type of monitoring,
       media/pollutants assessed;

  •    Assessment results dealing with status—use support, trophic status, water quality-
       Limited status; and,

  •    Assessment results dealing with causes and sources—pollutants causing impairment,
       point and nonpoint sources contributing to impairment.

WBS was used by many States  for their 1990 305(b) assessments. The system is currently
being upgraded at the users' request to increase speed and user-friendliness and  to
incorporate Windows software.

States' use of WBS and/or interest in the system is shown in Figure 5-1 and described in
more detail in Table 5-1.  Ohio is currently the major WBS user in Region 5.  Ohio has
used WBS for one 305(b) cycle and is satisfied with  its usefulness, especially  for
organizing data with a geographic perspective. In its 1990 305(b) report, Ohio  describes
its use of WBS:

       The 1990 cycle marked Ohio's first full use of the WBS software.  Ohio uses the
       PC version of the WBS for entering and updating the assessment information of
       waterbodies.  Data entered into this system is [SIC] also uploaded to the  mainframe
       version of the WBS.  In addition to the variables tracked by the U.S. EPA WBS,
       Ohio EPA maintains numerous data files containing biological, physical and
       chemical data that are geo-referenced to the files in the WBS'.
                                         5-5

-------
  Figure 5-2. Example of Hydrologic Traces in EPA Reach
  File 3 (RF3) Map of USGS Topographic Quadrangle near
                   Raleigh, North Carolina
  The DLG database would produce the same printout of hydrologic traces.
                      7.5 MIN MAP, SE CORNER IS   35.7500    078.b25
 PF KEYS

 2 SAVE MAP-REPRT
 3 EXIT
 4 CITIES
 5 SHIFT
 b ENABLE STA LOC
 7 N/A
 8 N/A
 9 N/A
 10 ENABLE RCH LOC
 11 ROUTE  REACHES
 12 TAGS
 13 7.5
 H WATERBODY
    CITY DATA
CITY   : RALEIGH
 CITY
CNTY,ST: WAKE
            . NC
LflT
LONG
 35.7713
O78.b330
                                                 EIGM
                               5-6

-------
Ohio sees one drawback to WBS in that the system treats all levels of data in the same
way; i.e., it does not address the relative power levels or levels of confidence in different
data types.  Ohio feels very strongly about recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the
data, and ultimately, the information used in decision making.  They also highly
recommend that a 386  or 486 based computer be used for the WBS.

As described in Table 5-1, until recently Indiana has planned to use the PC version of
WBS for the 1992 305(b)  assessment cycle. However, at this time it appears that staff
resource limitations will prevent data entry this 305(b) cycle. Indiana has no existing
system for assessment tracking, and using WBS would save the State considerable
development costs.  Indiana now has the computer hardware needed and is in the process
of designating waterbodies throughout the State for entry into WBS.

Michigan  is considering switching  from their RBASE tracking system to WBS after the
1992 305(b) cycle.  Wisconsin used WBS for lakes in 1990, and staff are redesignating all
stream waterbodies and entering data into us WBS by sub-watershed and individual
streams.

Illinois and Minnesota  have had customized 305(b) tracking databases for years and do not
see the need to convert to WBS. Each State's database contains  some information that
would be lost upon conversion unless additional data fields were added to WBS.  (PC WBS
can be modified somewhat to suit specific State needs, although this is not commonly
done).

5.2.3  Other Findings

In addition to limitations resulting  from lack of training, hardware limitations and policy
still limit the effective use of data systems in some States.   Wisconsin staff cannot use the
mapping and graphical capabilities of STORET because of hardware limitations.  In
Indiana, Division policy and lack of inexpensive hardware limit the access of those
responsible for 305(b) assessments to the national data systems.  Requests for retrievals
must be communicated to  a data management group in another part of Indianapolis,
resulting in delays and reducing the usefulness of STORET in particular.

States have high expectations for the accuracy of data in national data systems. As an
example, a 5 percent error rate in discharger location data in the Industrial Facilities File
might be acceptable for national level screening of potential toxics problems.   However,
State agencies want such location data to be nearly 100 percent correct because they must
deal with the dischargers themselves.  This finding has implications for State acceptance of
national systems, because  States must invest staff resources to update such data.

Also,  some States expressed concern over their lack of involvement in,  and knowledge of,
the STORET modernization effort  at Headquarters.

                                          5-7

-------
                                              Table  5-1.   State Use of WBS and RF3
L/i

00
                      Use of the Waterbody System (WBS)
                    Illinois
                    Illinois uses its own dBASE system for 305(b)
                    assessment tracking. Illinois' system includes
                    capabilities  beyond those required tor 305(b)
                    reporting, including a system for prioritizing
                    how State dollars for construction grants will
                    be spent. IL's system also related STORE!
                    stations to specific waterbodies, which WBS
                    does not The 1990 assessment data have
                    been transferred to the national WBS.
                    Indiana
                    RTI installed PC WBS software and
                    demonstrated WBS and RF3 during this
                    project. IDEM has hired a data entry person
                    and waterbody designation is underway by
                    IDEM  staff.
Michigan
Michigan's Surface WQ Division used their
own RBASE file for the 1990 report. A
Michigan-provided ASCII file was uploaded to
WBS in 1990. The Division is considering
switching to  EPA WBS.	
                    Minnesota
                    Minnesota uses its own SAS files for
                    assessment data.  RTI has uploaded these files
                    to the National WBS, but WBS is not used for
                    305(b) reporting.                 	
                   Ohio
                   Ohio uses PC version of WBS for entering
                   and updating assessment information of
                   waterbodies.  Data are also uploaded to
                   mainframe version of WBS.
                   Wisconsin
                   Wisconsin personnel used WBS for lake
                   assessments in 1990, and are redesignating
                   stream waterbodies using WBS for streams
                   also.  Prior to this, they considered a
                   watershed to be one waterbody.  1990 data
                   were uploaded to the Natioal WBS.	
                                           Locational Data for use in
                                                    WBS
                                          •Each waterbody is
                                          associated with a station
                                          number
                                          •Reach numbers are given,
                                          but they  are often the
                                          number for the nearest reach
                                          inRF1.  Waterbodies typically
                                          include parts of more than
                                          one reach.
                                          Not yet clear.
                                          WBS is not yet implemented.
                                          Reach indexing cannot be
                                          done until waterbodies are
                                          designated and stored.	
                                                             •USGS Cataloging  Unit
                                                             numbers
                                          •Rivers: hydrologic unit
                                          codes and segment numbers
                                          •Lakes: lake id. numbers
                                          developed by MNDNR
                                          •Waterbody id no.
                                          •5 digit river code number
                                          and segment description
                                          •River Mile System uses:
                                          section/ township/ range and
                                          river mile
                                          •STORET stations have
                                          lat/long
        Will State use RF3?
At this time they have no plans to use
RF3. Unless IL switches to the EPA
WBS (a major effort), using RF3 may not
be desirable because RF3's capabilities
could not be fully utilized.
Not yet clear.
WBS.
Staff must first implement
Yes, resources permitting. There is a lot
of interest in linking together multiple
databases with RF3. First, however,
Michigan must delineate its waterbodies.
EPA support may be necessary.	
Minnesota personnel are interested in
using RF3 but are reluctant to commit to
it until they know more about its
capabilities and resource requirements
RF3 will be cross-referenced with Ohio's
existing waterbody  definitions.  Although
Ohio will reach index their waierbodies,
they plan to keep existing waterbody
sizes as the scale for reporting, trend
assessments, etc.	
Wisconsin personnel may need assistance
from EPA to complete implementation of
RF3 by the  next 305(b) cycle. They
hope it will provide better linkage
between databases.

-------
It was beyond the scope of this project to determine the extent to which the national data
systems could be used to support management decisions in the States.  WBS currently is
used mainly for compiling data and assisting with 305(b) report preparation.  However, the
WBS also has potential as  an information management system for water resource planners
and managers.
5.3   Recommendations

The following recommendations follow from the State interviews and a review of readily
available materials about State data systems.  No systems analysis was done; such an
analysis would result in more detailed, State-specific recommendations.

  •    Indiana and Michigan could benefit from using the EPA WBS and should proceed
      with its implementation. These States do not have comparable systems, and WBS
      should meet most or all of their assessment tracking requirements. Illinois and
      Minnesota already have fully implemented State systems with some capabilities not
      offered by WBS.

  •    The PC WBS should be modified, as needed, for specific  State needs.  Also, the
      availability of STORET and other datasets in CD-ROM format (for multiple
      platforms such as UNIX, Mac-OS, and DOS/Windows) would substantially increase
      the number of users.

  •    Assuming the two  States listed above are successful in implementing WBS, they
      should receive technical support, as needed, to  accomplish reach-indexing in a
      timely fashion. This would  encourage the use of consistent geographic locators
      throughout much of the Region.

  •    Hardware should no  longer limit access to the mapping and graphical capabilities of
      EPA's national water data systems.  For only about $2000, a PC can be upgraded
      to simulate a graphics terminal on the EPA/NCC mainframe.

  •    Water quality analysts need direct access to data systems as tools of their trade.
      Impediments  to such access should be removed wherever possible.

  •    States requested additional training, user-friendly documentation, and user support
      for their  national water data systems.  Onsite training  or EPA-subsidized travel to
      training sites  was suggested because of State travel restrictions. The Waterbody
      System's package of support~a Users Group that makes suggestions for system
      improvements, a newsletter, telephone user support, and the User's Guide—was
      cited as a good example.
                                        5-9

-------
•    EPA should prepare a report or brochure, with examples, on the potential
     applications of the combined RF3/WBS/WQAS systems to State water quality
     planning and management.  The report should also discuss State obligations for
     system implementation.

•    The EPA Regions should take steps to ensure that all appropriate  State personnel
     receive reports and documentation to counteract the Likelihood that only computer
     specialists will hear about the capabilities of the national data systems.

•    The level of State involvement in STORET  modernization should be increased.

•    A followup study is recommended to identify opportunities for increased use of
     WBS, RF3, and other national systems in management decisionmaking.  Two  or
     three representative States should be selected, preferably from Region 5, to save
     data gathering costs.
                                       5-10

-------
              6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING AND USING
                         ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
6.1    Overview

Water resource policy is undergoing important changes at the Federal, State and local
levels that reflect a fundamental shift in the approach to environmental protection and
management.1 The new approach emphasizes risked-based decision-making that relies
more heavily on scientific information and pollution prevention.  While this new approach
offers the opportunity for more effective environmental protection, it also poses new
information needs for water resource planners and managers.2  Comprehensive
implementation of watershed planning and management requires significant resource
commitments and coordination among Federal, interstate, State, and local organizations.

Four overall recommendations from this study and related projects and initiatives include:

  1.    EPA and States should develop a tiered classification scheme for environmental
       indicators that relates basic characteristics of indicators (e.g., spatial and temporal
       coverage, scientific defensibility, and relationships to environmental impact) with
       basic planning and  management objectives.  For example, some indicators, such as
       designated use support, are best suited for overall water resource evaluation.
       Others, such as water column chemistry, sediment chemistry, and tissue contami-
       nation provide more detailed information related to cause-effect mechanisms.

  2.    EPA and States should develop a long-term, plan for integrating  environmental
       indicators across water resources, including surface water, ground  water and
       ecological resources. Once environmental indicators are developed for specific
       water resource categories  (e.g.,  rivers and streams, wetlands), the  plan should
       address how resource-specific and generic indicators can be developed and
       implemented,  taking into account factors such as technical feasibility, costs and
       presentation value.

  3.    EPA, other Federal Agencies, interstate organizations and States should take
       advantage  of shared and complementary interests related to water resource planning
       and  management.  States,  in particular,  must have the basic capabilities  for
       assessment activities such  as site-specific studies (e.g., assimilative capacity/TMDL
       development), assessment of program success over wide geographic areas, and
    *See discussion of Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection in introduction, pp. 1-9 to 1-13.

    2See discussion of Surface Water Monitoring:  A Framework for Change in
Introduction,  pp. 1-6 to 1-9.

-------
       development of protective standards such as biocriteria and other geographically
       stratified criteria.  These  groups should continue and improve upon their working
       relationships to ensure that monitoring and assessment programs support planning
       and management objectives, both collectively and independently.  Pilot projects
       could be excellent mechanisms for improving State capabilities and fostering the
       much needed coordination.

 4.    EPA should  conduct studies in other EPA Regions that are similar or identical to
       the Region 5 project.

The remainder of this chapter provides specific discussion and recommendations related to
four primary planning and management objectives:

 1.    Water resource evaluation

 2.    Problem identification and characterization

 3.    Management strategy development,  implementation, and evaluation

 4.    Communication of results to the public and legislators.


6.2    Water Resource Evaluation

States collect data that can be used to assess the status of a water resource, whether or not
the status has changed over time, and the sources and causes  affecting the water resource
quality.  Recommendations for improving this data collection and management are
summarized below.

6.2.1  Water Resource Status

Region 5 States rely heavily on aquatic life designated use attainment as the primary
indicator of surface water resource status.  However,  the States vary in the emphasis
placed on the data used to assess designated use attainment (Figure  3-2 and 3-3). States
have historically relied upon  chemical monitoring to assess use attainment, but are
establishing stronger biological community survey capabilities to complement their
chemical and lexicological programs.  Substantial improvement in the collection and
analysis  of the biological data as well as  more thorough integration  of the biological and
habitat information with the existing programs must continue.

To improve the assessment of the status of the quality of water resources, we recommend
the following:
                                          6-2

-------
  1.    Attainment of aquatic life designated uses for rivers, and streams, and lakes must
       include direct measures of the aquatic life to supplement the existing chemical and
       lexicological approaches.

  2.    The direct measures applicable to aquatic life use attainment for rivers and streams
       must include multiple assemblages (e.g., fish and benthos)  assessed with a multiple
       metric approach for fish (e.g.,  IBI) and benthos (e.g.,  RBPs), and include a
       numeric habitat evaluation (e.g., QHEI).

  3.    Methods and approaches for determining aquatic life use attainment should be
       consistently applied within a State and among States, while allowing for
       consideration  of distinct regional and State-specific characteristics.

  4.    EPA and the States must re-evaluate their current selection of designated uses in
       State water quality standards to  ensure that aquatic life uses are specifically
       represented and that numerical assessment methods are linked to the attainment or
       non-attainment of those aquatic  life uses.

  5.    EPA must work more cooperatively with the States on implementing biological
       criteria in the State programs and should re-evaluate some existing policies which
       tend to be barriers towards biocriteria implementation.

6.2.2  Water Resource Trends

Water resource trend assessment has emerged as an essential,  but  neglected, activity at the
State level.  The focus of State programs towards improving the quality of the water
resource by  site-specific measures without consistently demonstrating how the quality has
improved on a larger geographic scale  (State-wide trends) prompted new program
development  by Federal agencies such as the USGS's NAWQA (National Water Quality
Assessment) program and USEPA's EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program).  NAWQA is designed to provide  data/information on a basin scale while EMAP
will provide statistically-based random  sampling geared for regional and national
perspectives. Enhanced versions of EMAP may be  applicable towards Regions or even
States.  However, both NAWQA and EMAP are long-term programs.

The following general recommendations are intended to identify areas which need to be
addressed in the short-term to facilitate trend assessments of the water resource quality.

  1.    The importance of statistically-based trend assessments using a random sampling
       approach, as opposed to trend assessments based on existing,  non-random sampling
       data,  should be clarified.  In addition, the spatial and temporal scales necessary to
       conduct useful trend assessments at the State, Regional, and National levels should
       be determined.

                                         6-3

-------
 2.    States may not need to strictly utilize a statistically-based time series trend analysis
       to evaluate temporal changes in water resource status.  Depending upon the data,
       status assessments at specific time intervals will also provide substantial information
       on tracking environmental progress.

 3.    EMAP should provide the opportunity to expand efforts to identify reference sites
       and conduct basin assessments based upon faunal and ecoregional boundaries rather
       than State political boundaries.

 4.    EMAP should assist with the development and implementation of more consistent
       approaches to determining aquatic life use attainment and better utilization of
       specific environmental indicators.
6.3 Problem Identification and Characterization

Region 5 States rely heavily on best professional judgment, supported by both monitoring
and evaluative data,  to identify and characterize sources and causes of surface water
impairment.  This step provides a valuable link between water resource evaluation and
management strategy development.  Incomplete or inaccurate problem identification and
characterization can  contribute to fragmented and ineffective management strategies. In
general, all Region 5 States expressed interest in improving their methods for identifying
and characterizing problems, but expressed concerns over the availability of tools (e.g.,
GIS technologies), resources, and data.

6.3.1 Problem Identification

Region 5 States use  a variety of data to detect problems with water resources, such as:
changes in biological community and habitat data, exceedances of water-quality standards
(predominately chemical), citizen complaints, discovery of fish kills, point and non-point
source monitoring and land-use surveys.

However, it is unclear how this information is  used to assess designated use attainment of
waterbodies, since the  States rely on the judgment of individual professionals. All of the
States expressed a high level of interest in developing and improving upon their data
acquisition, management, and analysis by using GIS, trend analysis,  and  remote sensing
tools.  At least a  few of the States expressed an interest in improving the ability to use
forecasting tools forecasting trends within watersheds to help identify and prevent future
problems.  The following recommendations are intended to improve  the quality and
consistency of problem identification:

  1.    EPA and States  should jointly develop guidance and training for identifying water
       resource problems, including procedures for detecting potential sources and causes

                                          6-4

-------
       before water resources are significantly impacted.  The guidance and training should
       help ensure more effective and consistent procedures are implemented within and
       among States.

  2.    EPA should ensure that States have adequate resources and training for utilizing
       new technologies,  such as geographic information systems and remote sensing.

  3.    States should document their procedures for identifying problems to provide data on
       the  reliability of results and to help ensure the reproducibility of procedures.  The
       State 305(b) reports, EPA Waterbody System, and State-Compatible systems,
       should be modified to accommodate data related to problem identification methods.

  4.    In the long-term, EPA and States should develop the capacity to identify and
       anticipate problems caused by sources or causes originating within  and outside
       watersheds that have measurable impacts on water resources. Examples of
       problems that may arise outside individual watersheds include atmospheric
       deposition of contaminants, interbasin transfers  of effluent and solid waters, and
       human-induced climate change.

6.3.2  Problem Characterization

Problem characterization should provide the following types of information important to
decision-makers and planners:  the degree of human health,  ecological and welfare risks,
the spatial  extent, temporal characteristics (e.g., new vs.  old problem,  trends, persistence),
cause-effect relationships, and identification  of pathways through which the environment is
affected. This information could help States develop response strategy, prioritize
problems, target resources to areas of greatest risk and areas of greatest risk-reduction
potential, and communicate program needs to legislators and the public.

Region 5 States use a variety of tools for characterizing water resource problems, including
intensive, integrated basin-wide surveys, facility inspections, basin wide waterload
allocation modeling, effluent toxicity testing, and intensive special studies  (e.g., Illinois'
Pesticides Survey).  As part of the 305(b) process, States characterize problems by
reporting a variety of narrative and graphical information for different  water resource
categories.   These include: state-wide causes and sources of nonattainment, basin-wide
water quality summaries,  contaminant-specific and general data on public health/aquatic
life concerns, waterbody-specific data on sources and causes of nonattainment,
documentation of methodologies, and summaries of monitoring and assessment programs.
The following recommendations are intended to improve problem characterization:

  1.    Historically, EPA and States,  have tended to focus their monitoring and assessment
       programs to support permitting and enforcement related to point sources.  As a
       consequence, problem characterization of nonpoint sources has not  been adequately

                                          6-5

-------
      supported, even though these problems are often the dominant sources and causes of
      water resource degradation within watersheds.  EPA and State monitoring and
      assessment programs should be developed or modified, with sufficient funding and
      resources, to provide the necessary data for comprehensive problem
      characterization.

 2.   A long-term, national strategy should be developed to integrate numerous activities
      conducted by Federal,  interstate,  State, and local organizations that support problem
      characterization.  Pilot studies at  the watershed, State and Regional levels could
      provide valuable feedback to support the development of this strategy, including the
      identification and testing of potential environmental indicators and analytical tools
      (see descriptions of the EPA's EMAP and the USGS's NAWQA programs in
      Introduction).

 3.   EPA and States should consider monitoring and assessment approaches that more
      fully integrate monitoring and evaluative data collected in the field with information
      management technologies such as GIS, remote  sensing and geopositioning
      techniques.  For example, land use and land cover data that is correlated with
      intensive field surveys within selected watersheds could be used to assess or predict
      conditions in other watersheds. The use of an  ecoregion approach, rather than a
      traditional hydrologic unit approach, would provide a strong framework for
      integration.  Potential benefits include more effective targeting of monitoring
      resources and management actions, reduction in monitoring and assessment costs,
      broader  spatial and temporal characterization of problems, and more accurate
      geographic referencing of assessment data.

 4.   Recognizing the real and large differences in stream size that exist is  an important
      first step towards more realistic aggregation of data. In the long-term, EPA and
      State's should identify or develop mechanisms  for linking quantitative and
      qualitative water resource data.  For example,  a watershed map that illustrates water
      quality conditions  of streams by color and stream size (e.g., annual average flow in
      cubic feet per second) by thickness or width on the map could be a useful decision-
      making and communication tool for watershed  planners and managers.
6.4 Management Strategy Development, Implementation and Evaluation

Since the early 1970s, the focus of State and EPA surface water protection and
management programs has been directed to control large, obvious point sources such as
municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities.  Given statutory mandates and
resource constraints, EPA and the States have not until recently paid sufficient attention to
new problems or the development of new  management strategies.  Further, it has been
difficult or impossible in many instances for EPA and States to adequately evaluate their

                                         6-6

-------
programs.  Today, EPA and State programs broadly recognize the need for better
information to support integrated, anticipatory planning and management on a watershed-
basis.  It is important to note that some of the Region 5 States have been at the forefront of
this shift in water resource policy.  The following recommendations highlight important
opportunities for developing and using environmental indicators to support management
strategy development, implementation and evaluation:

  1.    The success of watershed planning and management depends, to a large extent,  on
       the  ability to identify, access, manage,  and use relevant information.  It is
       particularly important to provide linkages between environmental indicators,
       quantitative resource data, program plans, management activity measures, and data
       on environmental stresses.  EPA, other Federal agencies, and States should jointly
       develop a computer-based tool that provides  central, user-friendly access to the
       above types of information to support watershed planning and management.  The
       tool should be designed to take full advantage of recent modernization efforts in
       data and information systems (e.g., Waterbody System, Reach File Version 3, and
       STORET), both  within and outside EPA. Selected watersheds throughout the U.S.
       could be used to pilot test the tool to ensure  its usefulness and flexibility.
       Computer-based planning and decision-making, using the 305(b) process as a
       framework, could dramatically improve the development, implementation and
       evaluation of management strategies.

  2.    Federal, State and local budget deficits  are encouraging water resource planners and
       managers to seek innovative, more effective  solutions, particularly those oriented
       toward pollution prevention.  To support these policies, pollution prevention
       indicators  should be identified and used to provide feedback, via environmental
       monitoring results, for strategy development, implementation and program
       evaluation. Examples of potential indicators  include per capita water consumption,
       water and fertilizer application rates for various crops, and waste/product ratios for
       industrial processes.
6.5    Communication of Results to Public and Legislators

Measures of success in our environmental programs will only be recognized if we can
effectively and accurately communicate the results.  Although we have many
communication vehicles available, the biennial State 305(b) reports remain the primary
structure through which most water quality information is conveyed.  Various
environmental agencies are working with citizens groups to make more data available and
to facilitate the proper use of the information that is provided given to the public and the
legislators.
                                         6-7

-------
6.5.1  State Biennial 305(b) Reports

Unfortunately, information included in current 305(b) reports does not support status and
trend assessments at the National, Regional, and State levels.  There are very large
inconsistencies among States in how water quality data are collected, analyzed and
reported.  States assess different subsets of their waters from one year to the next.
Moreover, States have considerable discretion in developing their own water quality
standards.  As a result of these differences among States in the type of information
reported in 305(b) reports, national comparisons of status and trend assessments are
essentially impossible.  In addition, the inconsistencies in sampling design from year to
year make it difficult to assess trends  even within individual States.  EPA's National
305(b) Consistency workgroup has revised the 305(b) guidance to reduce some of the
problems  with the reports.  Inconsistences will, however, still exist in  the State reports.
Therefore, 305(b)  Consistency efforts should be continued and accelerated.

To ensure that regional and national 305(b) consistency efforts continue on an accelerated
time table to support State and EPA envkonmental indicators programs,  we recommend the
following:

  1.    The 305(b) reporting process must be viewed as a continual process and not merely
       as  a State effort every two years.  States should assign 305(b) coordinators and
       dedicate resources necessary to sustain that position with EPA support.

  2.    The States must fully document all decision-making processes in the 305(b) reports
       to  allow for detailed reviews and understanding on how each  State determines
       designated use attainment for aquatic life protection.

  3.    The National 305(b)  Consistency Workgroup should formalize a schedule for
       reviewing and revising the 1994 305(b) report guidelines shortly after the 1992
       reports are submitted.  This  workgroup must ensure that State guidelines are
       finalized at least one year before the reports are due (April 1,  1993 should be the
       deadline for the 1994 Guidelines).

  4.    EPA must provide States with incentives to increase use of the  WaterBody System
       as  well as Reach File 3 Indexing for program management and decision-making.
       These incentives must include  dedicated funding for qualified personnel,  training for
       State and Regional staff,  contractor support for reach indexing  and entering in
       current and historical information into the WaterBody System,  and funding for the
       necessary hardware to  fully  utilize our information management systems.

  5.    EPA must ensure that data,  information management and communication systems
       are fully functioning, finalized, and available to all States and Regions prior  to
       requiring their use for  any particular 305(b) cycle. Information management

                                          6-8

-------
       systems and communication tools (e.g., videos, interactive graphics) should be
       designed to be user friendly, dynamic and flexible to accommodate to diverse
       background and interest of potential users.

6.5.2  Citizen Monitoring Activities

Citizen monitoring activities generally fulfill two needs: (1) education of the public and our
legislators, and (2) collection of additional water quality information. Citizen monitoring
programs have been tremendously successful throughout  the country and within Region 5;
however, they should never be viewed as a substitute or  replacement for State monitoring
programs.  State-wide citizen lake monitoring in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are
nationally recognized for their excellence and the data generated from these programs are
used in the 305(b) process.  Citizen lake monitoring data from Indiana are also widely
used.

Stream citizen monitoring programs have lagged behind the lake programs since the data
collection for lakes has been relatively simple compared with biological data needs for the
stream programs.  However, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources operates an
exceptional program for Scenic Rivers that has achieved  national recognition.  Michigan
has maintained strong basin-specific stream monitoring programs (e.g. Rouge River), and
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources has recently initiated a State-wide
program  for streams which Illinois EPA intends  to support. Wisconsin is attempting to
initiate a streams  program while Indiana and  Minnesota have not committed to initiating
such programs.

Citizen and volunteer monitoring programs need to achieve greater recognition and utility
by EPA and the States.  The Office of Water has been sponsoring citizen monitoring
activities including the upcoming Third  National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring
Conference in March 1992. To facilitate responsible cooperation among EPA, States, and
citizen monitoring organizations we recommend  the following.

  1.    Each State should inventory citizen monitoring activities, with support from the
       Regions.

  2.    Each EPA Region should identify lake and stream citizen monitoring coordinators
       to work with the States in interacting with the citizen monitoring groups.

  3.    The intent (data quality objectives) of  each citizen monitoring group and program
       should be made clear to ensure that the program will not require participants to
       perform tasks for which they are not properly trained.
                                          6-9

-------
4.   Quality assurance program plans must be completed and approved by the States and
     EPA for citizen monitoring program data to be utilized by States in Section 305(b)
     reporting.

5.   EPA and the States should develop technical guidelines and provide training for
     citizen monitoring programs.

6.   EPA and the States should develop strategies, which include modern information
     technologies, for more effectively capturing, managing and disseminating citizen
     monitoring data.
                                        6-10

-------
                                7.  REFERENCES
Brown, C.J.D. 1944.  Michigan Streams - Their Lengths, Distribution and Drainage
    Areas.  Michigan Department of Conservation.  Institute for Fisheries Research
    Miscellaneous Publication No.  1, Ann Arbor, MI. 21 pp.

Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index  for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22(2):
    361-369.

Dahl. 1990.  Wetland Issues in the United States, 1780's to 1980's. Report to Congress.
    U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Davis, W. (ed.).  1990. Proceedings of the 1990 Midwest Pollution Control Biologists
    Meeting. EPA 905/9-90/005. USEPA Region 5, Chicago, IL.

Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omernik, and R.M. Hughes. 1989.
    Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources.  EPA/600/3-
    89/060. USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory,  Corvallis, OR. 152 pp.

Heiskary and Wilson.  1988. Minnesota Lake Water Quality Assessment Report: 1988.
    Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,  St. Paul, MN.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1977. Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality of Streams.
    Technical Bulletin 100. Wisconsin DNR, Madison, WI.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams.
    Technical Bulletin 132. Wisconsin DNR, Madison, WI.

Hirsch, R.M., W.M. Alley, and W.G.  Wilber.  1988. Concepts for a National Water-
    Quality Assessment Program. U.S.  Geological Survey  Circular 1021. Denver, CO.

Hughes, R.M., and D.P. Larsen. 1988.  Ecoregions: an approach to surface water
    protection.  J. Water Poll Contr. Fed. 60(4):486-493.

IEPA. 1985. Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, Memorandum of Agreement.
    Planning Section,  Division of Water Pollution, Springfield, IL.

IEPA. 1987. Quality Assurance/Quality  Control and Field Methods Manual.  Planning
    Section, Division  of Water Pollution Control, Springfield, IL.
                                        7-1

-------
IEPA.  1989. Biological Stream Characterization (BSC): A Biological Assessment of Illinois
    Stream Quality.  Special Report No. 13 of the Illinois State Water Plan Task Force.
    Illinois EPA, Division of Water Pollution Control, Springfield,  IL.

Karr, J.R., and K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermier, P.R. Yant, and IJ. Schlosser. 1986.
    Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. //. Nat.
    Hist. Surv. Spec. Publ. 5. 28 pp.

Leahy, P.P., J.S. Rosenshein, and D.S. Knopman.  1990. Implementation Plan for the
    National Water Quality Assessment Program.  U.S. Geological Survey Open File
    Report 90-174.

Ohio EPA. 1989a. Addendum to Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life:
    User's Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio  Surface Waters.  Division of
    Water Quality Planning  and  Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, OH.

Ohio EPA. 1989b. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume III.
    Standardized Biological Field Sampling and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish
    and Macroinvertebrate Communities. Division  of Water Quality Planning and
    Assessment, Columbus, OH.

Ohio EPA. 1990a. The Cost of Biological Field Monitoring.  Division of Water Quality
    Planning and Assessment, Columbus, OH.

Ohio EPA. 1990b. The Use of Biocriteria in the Ohio EPA Surface Water Monitoring and
    Assessment Program. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus,
    OH.

Plafkin et al.  1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers - Benthic
    Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/440/4-89-001.  Office of Water,  Washington,  D.C.

Rankin, E.T. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale,
    Methods, and Application. Ohio EPA, Division of Water Quality Planning and
    Assessment, Columbus, OH.

Rankin and Yoder. 1990.  The Nature of Sampling  Variability in the Index ofBiotic
    Integrity (IBI) in Ohio Streams. Ohio EPA, Division  of Water Quality Planning and
    Assessment, Columbus, OH.

Sommers,  L.M. 1977. Atlas of Michigan. Michigan State  University Press; East Lansing,
    MI. 242 pp.
                                         7-2

-------
U.S. EPA.  1974. Model State Water Monitoring Program, EPA-440/9-74-002. USEPA
    Offices of Water and Hazardous Materials, Monitoring and Data Support Division,
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1977. Basic Water Monitoring Program.  EPA-440/9-7-76-025, USEPA,
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1978. Basic Water Monitoring Program (Revised). USEPA, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1983. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for
    Conducting Use Attainability Analyses. Office of Water, Monitoring and Data Support
    Division, Washington,  D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1984a. Monitoring Strategy: Office of Water. Office of Water, Monitoring and
    Data Support Division, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1984b. Planning and Managing  Cooperative Monitoring Projects. EPA 440/4-
    84/0/8. Office of Water, Monitoring and Data Support Division, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1985. Guidance for State Water Monitoring and Wasteland Allocation
    Programs. EPA-440/4-85-031. Office of Water  Regulations and Standards,
    Monitoring and Data Support Division, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1987. Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change. Office of Water
    and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington,  D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1990a. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters.
    EPA 440/5-90/004. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1990b. Draft Water Monitoring Program Guidance. Office of Water,
    Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,  Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1990c. Feasibility Report on Environmental Indicators for Surface Water
    Programs.  Office of Water and Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1990d. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
    Protection. Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Ecological Indi-
    cators. EPA-600/3-90/060.  Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
                                       7-3

-------
U.S. EPA.  1991. Surface Water Monitoring and Research Strategy-Fiscal Year 1991.
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1991. Total State Waters: Estimating River Miles and Lake Acreages for the
    1992 Water Quality Assessments (305b Reports). Draft. Office of Wetlands,  Oceans,
    and Watersheds, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA.  1991. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1992 State  Water Quality
    Assessment (305(b) Reports). Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA.  1991. Environmental Indicators: Policies, Programs, and Success Stories:
    Workshop Proceedings. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, ERFB,
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. GAO. 1981. Better Monitoring Techniques Are Needed to Assess the Quality of
    Rivers and Streams (Volumes I&II). U.S.  GAO CED-81-30, April 30,  1991.
    Washington, D.C.

Yoder, C.O. 1989.  The Development and Use of Biological Criteria for Ohio Surface
    Waters. Water Quality Standards 21st Century, 1989:  139-146.  U.S. EPA,  Criteria
    and Standards Division, Washington, D.C.

Yoder. 1991. Answering Some Concerns About Biological Criteria Based on Experiences
    in Ohio. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, 1989: 95-104.  U.S. EPA,
    Office of Science and Technology, Washington,  D.C.
                                       7-4

-------