823D82100
-------
-------
WATFR QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
Vol ume I
COfiTFMTS
page
ForpworH , i
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 - Process for Setting Site-Specific 1-1
Water finality Standards
Chapter 2 - Water Body Survey and Assessment Guidance
for Conducting a Use Attainability
Analysis Related to:
Aquatic Protection Uses
Purpose and Application 2-1
Physical Evaluations 2-5
Chemical Evaluations 2-8
Biological Evaluations 2-11
Appendix A - Sample State A-l
Classification System
*Appendix B T Case Studies R-l
Appendix C - Bibliography of Additional
Sources C-l
Recreational Uses 2-27
Chapter 3 - Guidelines for Deriving Site-Specific
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Life and its Uses
Purpose and Application 3-1
Rationale for the Development of
Site-Specific Criteria 3-1
Definition of Site 3-4
Assumptions 3-5
Procedures - Summary 3-8
Section A - Recalculation Procedure 3-12
Section R - Indicator Species Procedure 3-23
Section C - Resident Species Procedure 3-35
Section D - Heavy Metals Speciation 3-39
Procedure
Appendix I - Bioassay Test Methods 1-1
Appendix II - Determination of II-l
Statistically Significant Different
LC50 Values
Appendix III - General Plan to Implement III-l
Site-Specific Criteria Modification
* Under development.
-------
Chapter 4 - Benefit-Host Assessment Guidance
Purpose and Application 4-1
Discussion of the Major Impacts of the
Options Analyzed 4-9
Describing Benefits and Costs &-]?
Methods of Monetizing Benefits 4-14
Methods of Monetizing Costs 4-18
Other Considerations in a Benefit-Cost
Assessment 4-?2
Methods of Displaying Incremental Costs
and Benefits 4-31
Summary 4-41
Chapter F> - General Program Guidance
EPA Review, Approval, Disapproval, and 5-1
Promulgation Procedure
Public Participation and Intergovernmental 5-9
Cooperation
Mixing Zones 5-13
Volume II (Under development)
Case Studies
Water Body Survey and Assessment
Site-Specific Criteria Development
Benefit-Cost Assessments
-------
DRAFT
FORFWORD
-------
FOREWORD
This Draft Water Ouality Standards Handbook includes all available
guidance FPA has prepared to support program changes described in its
proposed Water Ouality Standards Regulation. This guidance is being
issued now so that the public will have a complete picture of the
program that FPA is proposing. This guidance on the proposed changes
in the Water Quality Standards Program encourages States to select
priority water quality areas and examine the appropriateness of the
existing water quality standard for the water body or segment. If the
uses or the criteria will not be met by achieving the technology
requirements of the Act, or as modified by a Section 301(c) waiver, or
by implementing cost-effective and reasonable best management practices
for nonpoint sources, then the guidance presented here is applicable.
The purpose of this guidance document is to provide States with a
number of approaches, methods, and procedures for conducting the
optional analyses recommended as part of developing site-specific water
quality standards. The result of a water-quality standard decision
supported by the optional analyses may be to: (1) reconfirm designated
uses and criteria, (2) retain an existing use but reflect more
appropriate site-specific criteria, (3) add uses requiring more
stringent criteria, or (4) modify or change uses (if the use has not
been attained) and setting appropriate criteria to protect the new use
classification. The resulting criteria nay be equal to or more or less
stringent than criteria currently incorporated in a State's standards.
The guidance document illustrates the type of scientific and technical
data and analyses FPA believes are sufficient for its review of
revisions to State water quality standards and for States to use in
-------
justifying water quality improvements in advanced treatment (AT)
project applications. EPA will be reviewing the adequacy of the data,
the suitability and appropriateness of the analyses, and how the
analyses were applied. In cases where the analyses are inadequate, EPA
will identify how the analyses need to be improved and will suggest the
type of evaluation or data needed.
A State that decides to conduct any of the suggested analyses is
encouraged to consult frequently with EPA before the analyses are
initiated and as they are carried out. EPA is striving to develop a
partnership with States to improve the scientific and technical bases
of the water quality standards decision-making process. By initially
agreeing on the analyses to be used in reviewing and revising the
standard, EPA will he able to expedite its review of the State water
quality standards to determine that the standards meet the reoiuirements
of the Act. States will also he assured that the analyses conducted
for a water quality standards review will meet the requirements of an
AT project application.
The amount of information and the extent of the analyses needed
varies depending on the water body or segment, the use and/or criteria
in the water quality standards being examined, the complexity of the
discharges, the resource impacts on the State, municipal and industrial
dischargers, and the controversy associated with the water quality
standards to be reviewed. The guidance does not dictate specific
-------
methodologies to be used. States have the flexibility of tailoring the
data collection and analyses to the water body being examined as long
as the methods used are scientifically and technically supportable.
EPA recognizes that States have or are beginning to use similar types
of analyses in their water quality standards decision-making process.
States are encouraged to continue with their own systems. Field tests
of the guidance are being conducted in cooperation with a number of
States.
This draft guidance will be revised to reflect results from field
tests, discussions at public meetings, and formal written public
comments. Your comments and suggestions are encouraged. They should
be di rected to:
David Sabock
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-SR5)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. ?0460
(Telephone 202-745-3042)
-------
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
States will no longer he required to review all of their standards
statewide every three years. Rather, States are encouraged to focus
their resources on analyzing their standards for priority water bodies
where more stringent controls are needed to attain designated uses.
Priority water bodies are identified in accordance with the
revised regulation for water quality management planning (40 CFR Part
130), guidance for State preparation of Section 305(b) reports, and the
State's continuing planning process. In addition to water quality
standards review, priority water quality areas will be selected for
establishing total maximum daily loads and waste load allocations,
special reviews for major permits, developing construction grant
priority lists and focusing monitoring, enforcement and reporting
efforts. Priority areas may include those areas where advanced
treatment (AT) and combined sewer overflow (CSO) funding decisions are
pending, new or reissuances of major water quality permits are
scheduled, or toxics have been identified or are suspected of
precluding a use, or may be posing an unreasonable risk to human
health.
In selecting priority areas, States should also take into account
the "Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of
1981" (P.L. 97-117, December 29, 1981). EPA interpets section 24 of
the Amendments as requiring States to assure that water quality
standards influencing construction grant decisions have been reviewed
-------
in accordance with Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. It prohibits
the issuance of a grant after December 1984, unless the State has
completed its review of the water quality standard for any segments
affected by the project grant (see Interim Final Rule 40 CFR 35.2111,
47 FR 20450, May 12, 1982).
To comply with Section 24 on effluent limited segments no further
water quality standards review will he needed beyond the determination
that the segment is effluent limited. A more comprehensive review will
be required for water quality limited segments for which AT project
application are anticipated. The level of review is dependent on
particular site-specific conditions. This guidance describes analyses
which States may find appropriate in reviewing their water quality
standard in detail.
The purpose of the optional analyses is to improve the scientific
and technical bases for water quality standards decisions. By
soliciting the assistance of other State agencies, municipalities,
industry, environmental groups and the community-at-1arge, and by
restricting their analyses to priority water quality areas, States
should be able to obtain the information necessary to conduct the
optional analyses recommended in setting appropriate site-specific
water quality standards.
The optional analyses form a multi-step process for determining
whether impaired uses are attainable, and for determining other
appropriate uses of a water body. They may include a water body survey
and assessment, site-specific criteria, a waste load allocation and if
appropriate, a benefit-cost assessment.
2
-------
Although described in separate chapters, the analyses are
interrelated and data and information generated for the purpose of
completing one analytical task can and should be used in any related
analyses. This tends to blur the distinction of where one analysis
ends and where another begins. The choice of which analysis is done
first will depend on the situation, except for benefit-cost assessments
which depend on first completing the water body survey and assessments
and the setting of site-specific criteria.
A water body survey and assessment examines the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the water body to identify
and define the existing uses of that water body. It is also used to
determine whether the designated uses in State water quality standards
are impaired and to identify the reasons why the uses are impaired. In
addition, the water body survey and assessment assists States in
projecting what use the water body could support in the absence of
pollution and at various levels of pollution control for point and
nonpoint sources.
The data and information from the chemical sampling and analyses
and biological surveys collected as part of the water body survey and
assessment are used to develop site-specific criteria. In developing
site-specific criteria, the characteristics of the local water body are
taken into account. EPA's laboratory-derived criteria may not
accurately reflect the toxicity of a pollutant in a water body because
of differences in temperature, pH, etc. Similarly, adaptive processes
-------
may enable a viable, balanced community to exist with levels of certain
pollutants that exceed their national criteria.
Total maximum daily loads and wasteload allocations are developed
as part of the evaluation of the attainability of various uses and
control options. Guidance on waste load allocations is not included
here but is available in draft from EPA.
A benefit-cost assessment identifies the significant incremental
effects of requiring more stringent pollution control technologies to
attain a particular use. The basis of the information for the
benefit-cost assessment is the water body survey and assessment, which
describes what uses could be attained based on the physical , chemical
and biological characteristics of the water body and on alternative
control options. All significant impacts (benefits or costs) of
attaining the standard whether quantifiable or not, are identified.
Even though some impacts can not be quantified, they may be crucial to
the decision.
In analyzing the attainability of uses, water body survey and
assessments, site-specific criteria, waste load allocations arid
benefit-cost assessments provide the basis for setting site-specific
water quality standards. NOT EVERY WATER DUALITY STANDARDS DECISION
WILL REOUIRE THAT ALL OF THE ANALYSES BE CONDUCTED. States may change
or modify their water quality standards if:
-------
0 criterion for particular pollutants are more stringent than
necessary or are not stringent enough to protect a use;
0 naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the
attainment of the use;
0 natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or
water levels prevent the propagation or survival of fish and
other aquatic life. However, these natural conditions may he
compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of
effluent to enable uses to be met;
0 human caused conditions or sources of pollution exist which
cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to
correct than to leave in place;
0 dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications
interfere with the attainment of the use, and it is not
feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or
to operate such modification in a way that will maintain the
use;
0 physical conditions unrelated to water quality preclude
attainment of the use; or
° benefits of attaining the use do not bear a reasonable
relationship to the costs.
In determining the level of detail necessary for a review of the
water quality standards, it is useful to analyze and display those
attributes of a review which increase the complexity of the analyses.
There may be issues involving the scientific and technical or economic
and social or institutional and legal aspects of the review which
increase the complexity of the review. By way of example, the matrix
in Figure i lists a number of attributes of a water quality standards
review which could increase its complexity. Hatch marks or a
description in the appropriate cells of the matrix may assist in
determining the overall approach or in highlighting a particular area
of the review that may require more detailed analysis.
-------
en O u
c I 40 o
T- . « C I
-0 40
_
c o
in f
40 it-
c c
3 O
Q O
,j* o cn
|io in o. t-
rT- C ,
C r
T- dl 40
en c
d) 1_ d)
r ro t_
. dl U co
. - -f Q- U cn dl .40
!>»»- I/I t- 40|3
. t- O T- >
, > 1 >
Ic 0140 o i-
.ai O ro 40 40
|40 r jC ro
,C O 40 (j L.
|T- C t- d)
|O +J CD Q.
in
dl di
in u JC
C C 40
O d)
-»- t- -U
in
d) i
> hs
di c c- .01
1. 3 40 40
E in O ,CL d)
dl 3 40 dl O 40 dl
T3 ra 1-
3 d) C40 ro ro 40 3
O r f- C CL, tO 40
jc jd to f ] vi to
C ro t. 40 o,d) >,i
3 ro"Or C_|ro S cr
ro
ci) a r i
cr. >,
C 40
in x
ro d)
Ol r-
L. a.
u? ,B
o o I fQ cn
»- E 40 ,d) c
c
*- c 3 40 o in _
COO C.ro U E
dl
di
OOt_
^ i I»
*O T3 tj
.fc di "5
|> > in
jl,
!l°5?
.o o
1^-2 c
r in JC
C dl dl
O t- 40
, > t- in
c O c
O ^ dl
1 t_J ^J -M
c c c
o *»
I ro 3
U U
O 40
C. C
dlCOt-<-Ot-ro
i- JO r "c E
ra dl d) ro cn-»-
JC I- dl t- N t- f
I/I
(O E r >
*OC(_in3l/l40l/>
Oin-i-ti-aiai
+-> ,
.a.S-0
|ra -1-5 O
'^^^
P-". cn dl
"O C 40
ro 40 2
o ^
r: Z- o
a. o m
ro O 3
ra
T
t_
40
in
o o
9*
cn
o -^
T) r^
c >-
ro 2 dl
40
i in ro
<0 d) O.
a. p »-
O 3 >-
f O 40
C in t.
3 !
O. >> C i
ra 3 r ro ?
O d! in S
C cn^- 40 d) n- c
** dl in o L. d) 40
CO ro r O.
dl
m
i!=
.di
o
dl
4->
O
J2
in
di
OJ
|r dl C O
1-1. \-» wi 'r- vj
Ul L. JJ r-
,dl <0 ,C O
r *J J= dl C
,cn c O .> J=
|c T- in |c o
If |X) r- -1- dl
> T- in
cn c 3 r
C 3 T3 i
U t- d)
ro dl U
X a
d) JD
in
T- «3
it
a>
.T3 10
I d)
cn
c
o
c
(4
«*o
F £
-U T-
: >
I «C
a*
!S
!l
I
|3 dl
PC"
i° °
IQ.O
in
o
a.
o
h- c
O
T O
,40 on
L. in
.dl dl
K-> C
C
o
(-
40
1/1
5
ro
M
. dl U
_ 3 £=
O Z i-t
C
lo
l&
lo
J3
i Ji
3 3
O
l/l
3 dl
OS
|o^ !
I1*- c '
|in 40
o in
|T3 40
di »-
O ro m
a. cr o
,di t. In
|40 d) f
ro 40 >
4-> ro d)
,00 2 t-
-------
The following chapters provide guidance on conducting water body
surveys and assessments, developing site-specific criteria, and
conducting a benefit-cost assessment. In addition, there is a
description of the overall standards setting process which incorporates
and relates these concepts to the overall aim of establishing
reasonable, site-specific water quality standards. Information on
general program policies also is included.
-------
CHAPTER 1
PROCESS FOR SETTING SITE-SPECIFIC
WATER DUALITY STANDARDS
-------
The following discussion integrates the optional analyses included
in the water quality standards review and revision process. It does
not deal with all of the administrative and legal procedures for State
adoption and EPA review and approval of State standards. The process
is outlined in Figure 1-1.
Implementation of the water quality standards review and revision
process and use of the optional analyses in setting site-specific water
quality standards are not routine, step-by-step procedures. Depending
on the availability of data and information and the analyses already
conducted on a particular body of water, States may start at different
points in the process. In actual practice, the process is iterative,
as adjustments in uses and criteria are weighed against the costs and
benefits of more stringent controls. Since the various parts of the
process are interrelated, no clean demarcation exists between the end
of one task and the beginning of another. For example, data gathered
as part of the water body surveys and assessments is used in developing
site-specific criteria, in performing wasteload allocations, and in
conducting benefit-cost assessments.
Water quality problems vary as do the data available. The
priority the State assigns to a problem, previous standard-setting
actions, other planning activities, the resources available to the
State, the assistance provided by other State, Federal, and local
entities, industry and the community-at-large, influence the process.
The amount of information needed, the sophistication of the analyses,
1-1
-------
>=»-£ >
s«<£s*
aS|sg
ttOulx
Is £
-1 ujU
1-2
-------
01
G
O
O
a
o
1-3
-------
and the timing and sequencing of the steps in the process will depend
on the site-specific situation. The process relies heavily on common
sense, and practical application of limited resources. NOT EVERY STEP
OF THIS PROCESS IS NECESSARY FOR EVERY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW.
It is crucial as States initiate their review process to consult early
and frequently with EPA. Early consultation with EPA will help EPA to
provide assistance to States in revising their water quality standards.
Such consultation may assist in determining priorities, identifying
valuable information and the additional information needed, determining
the type of analyses and the detail necessary, identifying who (EPA,
State, Industry, local municipality) might best supply the information,
and in developing a schedule for the work to be completed. This
consultation should also expedite EPA's review of whether any revisions
to State water quality standards meet the requirements of the Act.
The following describes the steps listed in Figure 1.1.
List of Water Quality Limited Segments
States know the location of their water pollution problems and
frequently list segments in order of priority in State water quality
reports issued biennially under Section 305(b). Water quality problems
are most frequently expressed in terms of the extent and frequency of
water quality criteria violations, impacts on the biota of the water
body, and restricted uses.
1-4
-------
Priority Water Quality Limited Stream Segments Selected for Water
Quality Standards Review
EPA recognizes that water quality standards should be revised only
where a need exists, given the limited resources available. EPA is
recommending that States select for standards review those water
quality limited segments on which there are advanced treatment (AT) and
combined sewer overflow (CSO) funding decisions pending, new or
reissuances of major water quality permits scheduled or toxics have
been identified or are suspected of precluding a use. There may be
other criteria for determining which segments will be reviewed, such as
human health problems, court orders, etc.
In connection with public meetings to identify and build consensus
on the priority water quality areas on which to focus, States may wish
to identify the water quality standards to be reviewed and solicit the
assistance of other State agencies, municipalities and industrial
dischargers, environmental groups and the community-at-large to
participate in collecting the data and information necessary for
reviewing water quality standards in detail. This will enable the
State to obtain and use existing data and information to the maximum
extent possible or to obtain the assistance of interested parties in
gathering any new information necessary for a detailed review of the
water quality standards.
The process of examining water quality standards in detail and
setting appropriate site-specific water quality standards based on that
analysis is a key element in improving the scientific and technical
justification for water quality standards decisions.
1-5
-------
Hater Body Survey and Assessments
An intensive survey of the water body is not necessary if adequate
data are available. The purpose of a survey is to pinpoint problems
and to characterize present uses, uses impaired or precluded, and the
reasons why uses are impaired or precluded.
Included in this guidance are examples of a full range of
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water body
which depending on the site may be surveyed if evaluating aquatic
protection uses. This information is then used in determining existing
species in the water body, the health of those species as well as what
species could be in the water body given the physical characteristics
of the water body or might be in the water if the quality of the water
were improved. In addition to aquatic uses, guidance will be
forthcoming on recreation.
If the results of the survey show that the water body is, in fact,
being used for the designated purposes and the biology of the water
body is healthy, although monitoring data show criteria continue to be
exceeded, EPA recommends that the State revise the water quality
standard by modifying the criteria to reflect actual instream pollutant
concentrations under varying seasonal conditions. This will avoid
overly restrictive regulatory requirements on dischargers and the
construction of unneeded and costly AT facilities.
1-6
-------
Review the Cause of Uses Not Being Met
If the survey indicates that designated uses are impaired, the
next step is to determine the cause. In many situations, both physical
conditions and the presence of water pollutants prevent the water body
from meeting its designated use. However, for simplicity, physical
limitations of the water body have been separated from water quality
pollutant problems in this discussion. Physical limitations of the
water body refer to such factors as depth, flow, turbulence or
structures such as dams which may make swimming, boating or certain
kinds of fishing unsuitable as a use.
If uses are precluded because of physical limitations of the water
body, the State may wish to examine modifications which might allow a
habitat suitable for a species to thrive where it could not before.
Some of the techniques which have been used include: bank
stabilization, current deflectors, construction of oxbows or
installation of spawning beds to name a few. A State might also wish
to consider improving the access to the water body or improving
facilities nearby so that it could be used for recreational purposes.
Determine Attainable Uses
If the uses are precluded because of physical limitations of the
water body, the next step is to evaluate the suitability of the water
body for other uses.
Consideration of the suitability of the water body to attain a use
is an integral part of the water quality standards review and revision
process. The data and information collected from the water body survey
-------
provides a firm basis for evaluating whether the water body is suitable
for the particular use. Suitability depends on the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of the water body, its geographic
setting and scenic qualities and the socio-economic and cultural
characteristics of the surrounding area. It is not envisioned that
each water body would necessarily have a unique set of uses. Rather
the characteristics necessary to support a use could be identified so
that water bodies having those characteristics might be grouped
together as likely to support particular uses.
Suitability depends, to a great extent, on the professional
judgment of the evaluators. To determine whether a use is attainable,
existing conditions are compared with the criteria or conditions
necessary to meet that designated use. Swimming may be unattainable
because the shallowness of the water body prevents the physical act of
swimming. A particular type of fishery may be impossible for a body of
water because the natural water temperature is too high. It is
primarily the responsibility of the evaluators to determine what types
of uses are attainable in the absence of physical impediments or
pollution. The question of whether the incremental cost of attaining
the use bears a reasonable relationship to the benefits is considered
later in the process.
Revise Use, Revise Criteria and Adopt a New Water Quality Standard for
the Stream SegmeTvt
If a change in the designated use is war ranted because of physical
limitations of the water body, States may modify the use now assigned.
In doing so, the State should designate a use such as a particular type
1-8
-------
of fishery which can be supported given the physical limitations of the
water body. Or, a State may designate a use on a seasonal basis.
Seasonal use designations may be appropriate for streams that lack
adequate water volume to support aquatic life year-round, but can be
used for fish spawning, etc. during higher flow periods.
Every change in use designations should also be accompanied by
consideration of the need for a change in criteria as part of a change
in the water quality standard. If a use is removed, the criteria to
protect that use may be deleted or revised to assure protection of the
remaining uses. If a use is added, the applicable water quality
criteria to protect the use must be scientifically developed and
adopted.
Uses Precluded Because of K'ater Quality Problems
If uses are not being met because of water pollution problems, the
first step in the process is to determine the cause. When background
levels of pollutants, whether natural or man-induced, are irreversible
and criteria cannot be met, States should evaluate other more
appropriate uses for the water body and the water quality standards
modified or changed.
If the cause of the water quality problem is pollution from point
or nonpoint sources, the criteria need to be reviewed to determine if
the criteria for the designated uses are appropriate for the site or
should be modified.
1-9
-------
Develop Site-Specific Criteria
Developing site-specific criteria is an important component of the
water quality standards review and revision process. Included else
where in this guidance are scientifically acceptable procedures for
setting pollutant concentrations that will protect the designated uses
based on local environmental conditions.
EPA's laboratory-derived criteria may not accurately reflect the
toxicity of a pollutant because of the effect of local water quality
characteristics or varying sensitivities of local aquatic communities.
In other cases, adaptive processes may enable a viable, balanced
aquatic community to exist in water with high natural background levels
of certain pollutants. Similarly, certain compounds may be more or
less toxic in some waters because of differences in temperature,
hardness, or other conditions.
Developing site-specific criteria is a method of taking local
conditions into account so that criteria are adequate to protect the
designated use without being more stringent than needed. A three phase
testing program which includes water quality sampling and analysis, a
biological survey, and acute bioassays provides an approach for
developing site-specific criteria presented in this guidance. The data
and information for the water quality sampling and analysis and the
biological survey can be obtained while conducting and assessing the
water body.
1-10
-------
After the site-specific criteria are developed, the water quality
standard is revised to incorporate the new criteria.
Determine Total Maximum Daily Loads and Perform Haste!oad Allocations
When the technology-based limitations and nonpoint source controls
are not sufficient to protect the designated use, the Clean Water Act
requires the development of more stringent limitations if States are to
maintain the water quality standards. EPA is encouraging States to
review in detail those segments where more stringent effluent
limitations are necessary to meet water quality standards. More
stringent limitations are generally developed as part of the total
maximum daily load and wasteload allocation processes required under
sections 303(d) and 303(e)(3)(A) of the Act. These sections require
States to identify waters requiring more stringent effluent
limitations, set priorities for calculating total maximum daily loads
and submit the above to the Administrator for approval. Total maximum
daily loads of pollutants are calculated so as to meet water quality
standards. A wasteload allocation involves: (1) identifying the
pollutant sources and their loadings, (2) applying mathematical models
and other techniques that predict the amount of load reduction
necessary to achieve the water quality standards, and (3) allocating
the necessary load reduction among the pollution sources.
Although not included in this document, guidance is available on
performing waste load allocations.^/ Again, the water body survey
\J U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Technical Guidance Manual for
Performing Wasteload Allocations. Monitoring and Data Support
Division, 1981.
1-11
-------
provides much of the data to determine the total maximum daily load and
waste load allocation. This includes existing water quality data, as
well as the identification of the point and non-point sources of
pollution.
Determine if Controls are Available
After determining the load reductions necessary to achieve the
designated uses, States must determine whether the technology is
available to control the pollutants contributing to the water quality
problems. In assessing the availability of controls, States must not
only determine whether the point source treatment technology is
available, but also whether the cost effective and reasonable best
management practices will control the nonpoint pollutant sources.
Benefit-Cost Assessment
If reasonable controls are available, a benefit-cost assessment
assists in the analysis of whether the costs of the more stringent
effluent limits bear a reasonable relationship to the benefits or
whether a use should be changed or modified to one which would require
1-12
-------
less stringent criteria and controls. A State may modify or change the
designated but impaired use if the State determines that the tangible
and intangible benefits of attaining a use do not bear a reasonable
relationship to the costs.
The benefit-cost assessment guidance included elsewhere in this
document provides a framework for identifying, organizing and
displaying significant impacts of attaining a use. The benefit-cost
assessment should enable the public-at-large and the rulemaking body to
evaluate the impacts of the standards decision. The water body survey
and assessment and the control alternatives developed as part of the
wasteload allocation process provide information on the level of
treatment necessary to attain particular uses.
It is difficult to generalize on the level of detail appropriate
for any site-specific benefit-cost assessment. In some cases a matrix
showing the increased benefits with each level of increased treatment
and best management practices may be sufficient. However, the more
controversial the potential impacts of a standards decision, the more
comprehensive the analyses of the impacts should be. The analysis
should be sufficiently detailed to identify and display both the
tangible impacts of attaining a use, and the intangible factors such as
who pays and who benefits from the decision. Not all benefits or costs
need to be quantified. However, the significant impacts and the
uncertainties associated with any of the scientific, technical and/or
economic assumptions should be identified so that the rulemaking body
has all the necessary information to determine that there is (or is
1-13
-------
not) a reasonable relationship between the incremental costs and
resulting incremental benefits.
If the State determines that the standard needs to be revised,
appropriate uses are selected and criteria are scientifically developed
to protect those uses. If the standard is maintained, discharge limits
based on total maximum daily loads, the wasteload allocation necessary,
and the NPDES permits issued to meet the water quality standard are
established.
Alternatively, the State may grant relief with a variance to an
individual discharger. EPA has defined and limited the use of
variances so that the applicant must demonstrate that meeting the
criterion will not preclude eventual attainment of the designated use
and will cause substantial economic hardship; the variance's
requirements are as close to the criterion as the applicants' financial
situation will allow without substantial economic hardship; the
variance does not exceed the time for which an NPDES permit is issued;
the variance does not exempt a discharger from compliance with other
criteria in the water quality standards which are attainable; and the
variance does not result in more stringent pollution control
requirements for other parties.
Pub!ic Hearing
Prior to removing or modifying any use or changing criteria, the
State must hold a public hearing. The analyses and supporting
documentation prepared in conjunction with the proposed water quality
1-14
-------
standards revision should be made available to the interested public
prior to the hearing. Open discussion of the scientific evidence and
analysis supporting a proposed revision in the water quality standard
is critical for reasoned decision making. It may be appropriate to
have EPA review the adequacy of the data and the suitability and
appropriateness of the analyses and how the analyses were applied prior
to the public hearing. In cases where the analyses are judged to be
inadequate, EPA will identify how the analyses could be improved and
suggest the type of evaluation or data needed. By consulting with EPA
frequently throughout the review process, States can be better assured
that EPA will be able to expeditiously review State submissions and
make the determination that the standards meet the requirements of the
Act.
Should the standard be changed?
At this point in the water quality standards review and revision
process, States should have adequate information to evaluate the
impacts of their decision to maintain, revise, or modify the water
quality standard for a particular water body. The following questions
will have been answered:
1. Hhat is the use to be protected? How is it characterized in
physical, chemical and biological terms, and in terms of its social
or economic value?
2. To what extent does pollution contribute to the impairment of the
use? Which pollutants are significant in terms of impairing the
1-15
-------
use? To what extent does water quality affect the use relative to
other non-water quality factors such as flow, and the physical
habitat? What level of in-stream water quality must be maintained
to provide adequate protection for the use given the
characteristics of the use?
3. What is the level of point source pollution control necessary to
restore or enhance the use? What are the pollutants of
significance that are present in the point source discharges? What
are the contributions of point-source discharges relative to
background levels (pollutants in the stream from upstream sources)
and relative to non-point sources generated in the reach. What is
the allowable pollution load from point-sources under specified
in-stream flow conditions in the reach and how does that translate
to permit requirements? What is the plan for control?
4. What is the level of non-point source pollution control necessary
to restore or enhance the use? What are the nonpoint source
pollutants of siqnificance that are present? What are the
contributions of non-point sources relative to background levels
and point sources? Does the occurrence of non-point sources
contribute to the impairment of the use? Is it significant? What
is the "feasible" level of control of non-point sources? What is
the plan for control?
5. Is it worth it? What are the incremental costs associated with the
level of pollution control necessary to attain the use? Do the net
benefits have a reasonable relationship to the costs when both the
1-16
-------
use and costs associated with achieving the use are considered?
Who pays? Who benefits? Are the distribution of costs and
benefits equitable7
Revisions made in water quality standards using the recommended
analyses should have an adequate scientific and technical foundation
and should form a firm basis for directing States' water quality
management programs.
Revisions made in water quality standards using the recommended
analyses should have an adequate scientific and technical foundation
and should form a firm basis of directing States' water quality
management programs.
1-17
-------
DRAFT
CHAPTER 2
MATER ROPY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT GUIDAMCF FOR
CONDUCTING A USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES
RFLATF.n TO THE AQUATIC PROTECTION USES
Ah'D RECREATIONAL USES
-------
Table of Contents
Page
AQUATIC PROTECTION USES
Purpose and Application 2-1
Section A - Physical Evaluations 2-5
Section B - Chemical Evaluations 2-8
Section C - Biological Evaluations 2-11
Section D - Approaches to Conducting the Physical,
Chemical, and Biological Evaluations 2-19
References 2-26
Appendix A - Sample State Classification System A-l
*Appendix B - Case Studies B-l
Appendix C - Bibliography of Additional Sources C-l
RECREATIONAL USES 2-27
*Note: Appendix B is under development and will be added to the
guidance as available.
-------
-------
AQUATIC PROTECTION USES
-------
PURPOSE AND APPLICATION
The purpose of the "Water Body Survey and Assessment Guidance for
Conducting a Use Attainability Analysis" is to identify the physical,
chemical and biological factors that may be examined to determine if an
aquatic protection use is attainable for a given water body. The use
attainability analysis is an important environmental analysis to
improve the scientific and technical basis of setting site-specific
water quality standards. The specific analyses included in this
guidance are optional. However, they represent the type of analyses
EPA believes are sufficient for States to justify changes in uses
designated in a water quality standard and to show in Advanced
Treatment Project Justifications that the uses are attainable. States
may use alternative analyses as long as they are scientifically and
technically supportable.
The "Water Body Survey and Assessment" guidance suggests several
approaches for analyzing the aquatic protection uses to determine if
such uses are appropriate for a given water body. States are
encouraged to use existing data to perform the physical, chemical, and
biological evaluations presented in this guidance document. Not all of
these evaluations are necessarily applicable. For example, if a
physical assessment reveals that the physical habitat is the limiting
factor precluding a use, a chemical evaluation would not be required.
In addition wherever possible, States also should consider grouping
together water bodies having similar physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics to either treat several water bodies or stream segments
2-1
-------
as a single unit or to establish representative conditions which are
applicable to other similar water bodies or stream segments within a
river basin. Using existing data and establishing representative
conditions applicable to a number of water bodies or segments should
conserve the limited resources available to the States.
The evaluations presented in this guidance document should be
sufficiently detailed to answer:
- What are the aquatic use(s) currently being achieved in the
water body?
- What are the causes of any impairment in the aquatic uses?
- What are the aquatic use(s) which can be attained based on the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water
body?
Questions addressing the evaluation of control options are
discussed in the Wasteload Allocation Guidance (EPA, draft, 1981).
Questions dealing with whether the incremental benefits of attaining
the use do (or do not) bear a reasonable relationship to the
incremental costs are covered in Chapter 4.
Table 1 summarizes the types of physical, chemical, and biological
evaluations which may be conducted. The guidance document presents
several approaches for conducting the physical, chemical, and
biological evaluations depending on the complexity of the situation.
Case studies will be included in the final document to show how the
analyses were used in evaluating the attainability of uses and in
setting appropriate uses for a site-specific water quality standard.
2-2
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
These approaches may be adapted to the water body being examined.
Therefore a close working relationship between EPA and the States is
essential so that EPA can assist States in determining the appropriate
analyses to be used in support of any water quality standards revisions
or Advanced Treatment Project justifications. These analyses should be
made available to interested parties prior to any public forums on the
water quality standards to allow for scientific discussion of the data
and analyses. This will allow for open debate of the scientific and
technical bases of the standards revision among interested groups and
enable the State rulemaking body to make more informed water quality
standards decisions.
2-4
-------
SECTION A: PHYSICAL EVALUATIONS
Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act recognizes the importance of
preserving the physical integrity of the Nation's water bodies.
Physical habitat plays an important role in the overall aquatic
ecosystem and impacts the types and number of species present in a
particular body of water. Physical parameters of a water body are
examined to identify any non-water quality related factors which
impair the propagation and protection of aquatic life and to determine
what uses could be obtained in the water body given such limitations.
In general, physical parameters such as flow, temperature, water depth,
velocity, substrate, reaeration rates and other factors are used to
identify any physical limitations that may preclude the attainment of
the designated use. Depending on the water body in question any of the
following physical parameters may be appropriately examined.
I. Channel and instreain characteristics including:
0 mean stream width and depth
0 total volume
0 flow and water velocity
0 reaeration rates
0 gradient
0 pools
0 riffles
2-5
-------
0 suspended solids
0 temperature
0 sedimentation
0 channel stability
0 channel obstructions:
- dams
- waterfalls, log jams, steep gradient
- other impoundments and channel obstructions
0 channel changes:
- road construction
- dredging activities
- clearing areas (culverts, bridges, etc.)
- channelization
0 instream cover:
- undercut banks
- overhanging brush
0 snags and woody debris
0 downstream characteristics
II. Substrate composition and characteristics including:
0 organic debris/muck ° gravel
0 clay ° cobble
0 silt ° boulder
0 sand ° bedrock
2-6
-------
III. Riparian characteristic including:
0 bank cover
- forested
- brush
- grass and herbaceous vegetation
- non-vegetated areas
0 bank stability
0 soil composition (percent boulder, gravel, cobble, sand,
silt, clay)
0 land gradients
0 bank width
Several assessment techniques have been developed which correlate
physical habitat characteristics to fishery resources (Stalnacker,
1978; Dunham and Cooper, 1975; Collotz and Dunham, 1978). The
identification of physical factors limiting a fishery is a critical
assessment that provides important data for the management of the water
body. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed habitat
evaluation procedures (HEP) and habitat suitability indices (HSI).
Several States have begun developing their own models and procedures
for habitat assessments. Parameters generally included in habitat
assessment procedures include: temperature, turbidity, velocity,
depth, cover, pool and riffle sizes, riparian vegetation, bank
stability, siltation, etc. These parameters are correlated to fish
species by evaluating the habitat variables important to the life cycle
of the species. Continued research and refinement of habitat
evaluation procedures reflects the importance of physical habitat.
If physical limitations of a stream restrict the use, there are a
variety of habitat modification techniques which might restore a
habitat so that a species could thrive where it could not before. Some
of the techniques which have been used include: bank stabilization,
flow control, current deflectors, check dams, artificial meanders,
isolated oxbows, snag clearing when determined not to be detrimental to
the life cycle or reproduction of a species, and installation of
spawning beds and artificial spawning channels (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1978). If the habitat is a limiting factor to the propagation
and/or survival of aquatic life, the feasibility of modifications might
be examined prior to imposing additional controls on dischargers.
2-7
-------
SECTION B: CHEMICAL EVALUATIONS
The chemical characteristics of a water body are examined to
determine why a designated use is not being met and to determine the
potential of a particular species to survive in the water body if the
concentration of particular chemicals were modified. The following is
a partial list of the parameters that may be evaluated:
0 toxicants
0 nutrients e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus
0 sediment oxygen demand
0 salinity
0 hardness
0 pH
0 alkalinity
0 dissolved solids
As part of the evaluation of the water chemistry composition, a
natural background evaluation is useful in determining the relative
contribution of natural background contaminants to the water body as
this may be a legitimate factor which effectively prevents a designated
use from being met. The natural background evaluation may be
accomplished by using available data from samples collected upstream
from discharges or by collecting new data.
To determine whether the natural background concentration of a
pollutant is adversely impacting the survival of species, the
concentration may be compared to one of the following:
2-8
-------
0 304(a) criteria guidance documents;
0 site-specific criteria; or
0 State-derived criteria;
Another way to get an indication of the potential for the species
to survive is to determine if the species are found in other waterways
with similar chemical concentrations. However, this is not a precise
i ndicator.
In determining whether man-induced pollution is irreversible,
consideration needs to be given to the permanence of the damage, the
feasibility of abating the pollution, or the additional environmental
damage that may result from removing the pollutants. If nonpoint
source pollution cannot be abated with application of best management
practices (BMPs) and the activity causing the non-point source
pollution problem is determined to be essential, States may consider
the pollution irreversible. Or, if instream toxicants cannot be
removed by natural processes and cannot be removed by man without
severe long-term environmental impacts, the pollution may be considered
irretrievable.
In some areas the water's chemical characteristics may have to be
calculated, using predictive water quality models, rather than
determined empirically. This will be true if the receiving water is to
be impacted by new dischargers, changes in land use, or improved
treatment facilities. Guidance is available on the selection and use
of receiving water models for biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved
2-9
-------
oxygen and ammonia for instream systems (EPA, 1981) and dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus for lake systems, reservoirs and
impoundments (EPA, 1981).
Once a State identifies the chemical or water quality
characteristics which are limiting the attainment of the use, differing
levels of remedial control measures may be explored.
2-10
-------
SECTION C: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS
In evaluating what aquatic uses are attainable, the biology of the
water body should be evaluated. The interrelationships between the
physical, chemical and biological characteristics are complex and
alterations in the physical and/or chemical parameters result in
biological changes. The biological evaluation described in this
section encourages States to (1) provide a more precise statement of
which species exist in the water body and should be protected; (2)
determine the biological health in the water body and; (3) determine
the species that could potentially exist in the water body if the
physical and chemical factors impairing a use were corrected. This
section of the guidance will present the conceptual framework for
making these evaluations. States may use other scientifically and
technically supportable assessment methodologies.
0 Biological Inventory (Existing Use Analysis)
The identification of which species are in the water body and
should be protected serves several purposes:
(a) By knowing what species are present, the biologist can
analyze, in general terms, the health of the water body. For
example, if the fish species present are principally carnivores,
the quality of the water is generally higher than in a water body
dominated by omnivores. It also allows the biologist to assess
the presence or absence of intolerant species.
2-11
-------
(b) Identification of the species enables the State to develop
baseline conditions against which to evaluate any remedial
actions. The development of a regional baseline based upon
several site- specific species lists increases an understanding of
the regional fauna. This allows for easier grouping of water
bodies based on the biological regime of the area.
(c) By identifying the species, the decision-maker has the data
needed to explain the present condition of the water body to the
public and the uses which must be maintained.
The evaluation of the existing biota may be simple or complex
depending on the availability of data. As much information as possible
should be gathered on the following categories of organisms:
0 fish
0 macroinvertebrat.es
0 microinvertebrates
0 phytoplankton
° macrophytes
It is not necessary to obtain complete data for all five categories.
However, it is recommended that whichever combination of categories is
chosen, fish should be included. The reasons for this recommendation
are: (1) the general public can relate better to statements about the
condition of the fish community; (2) fish are typically present even in
the smallest streams and in all but the most polluted waters; (3) fish
are relatively easy to identify and samples can be sorted and
identified at the field site; (4) life-history information is extensive
for many fish species so that stress effects can be evaluted (Karr,
1Q81).
2-1?
-------
Prior to conducting any field work, existing data should be
collected. EPA has computerized significant amounts of biological data
in the BIOSTORET system (EPA, Cincinnati). This is a good source of
information to consult. Besides BIOSTORET, EPA can provide data from
intensive monitoring surveys and special studies. Data, especially for
fish, may be available from State fish and game departments, recreation
agencies, and local governments or through environmental impact
statements, permit reviews, surveys, and university and other studies.
° Biological Condition/Biological Health Assessment
The biological inventory can be used to gain insight into the
biological health of the water body by evaluating:
(a) species richness or the number of species
(b) presence or absence of intolerant species
(c) proportion of omnivores and carnivores
(d) biomass or production
(e) number of individuals per specie
The role of the biologist becomes critical in evaluating the health of
the biota as the knowledge of expected richness or expected species
caries only from understanding the general biological traits and regimes
of the area. Best professional judgments by local biologists are
important. These judgments are based on many years of experience and
on observations of the physical and chemical changes that have occurred
over time.
There are many mechanisms to evaluate biotic communities that have
been and are continuing to be developed. The following briefly
describes mechanisms that States may want to consider using in their
biological evaluations:
2-13
-------
- Diversity Indices - Diversity indices permit large amounts of
information about the numbers and kinds of organisms to be summarized
in a single value. Diversity indices have been applied to ascertain
quantitative relationship between the health of the population and
waste discharges. However, as summaries, diversity indices lose
information concerning the identity of particular species involved and
thus may obscure major changes in species composition. These changes
are often indicative of changed conditions. The information on species
composition can be retained by developing a species list in rank order
of abundance such as the biological inventory discussed previously.
References on diversity indices may be found in the bibliography of
this guidance.
- Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Models - The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Habitat Suitability Index models relate habitat
requirements to specific fish species by identifying key habitat
variables and the range and optimums for such variables. These index
models are hypotheses of species-habitat relationships which may be
helpful in identifying the physical habitat characteristics that, are
crucial to the species and defines the ranges and optimums to allow
species survival and propagation.
- Tissue Analyses - Tissue analyses may be conducted to assess the
effects of heavy metals and pesticides on the biota present. This
analysis is especially important if the water body is used for
recreational or commercial fishing as high bioconcentration of metals
and pesticides by the organisms may create a human health problem.
- Recovery Index - Estimating the elasticity of an ecosystem, or
its ability to recover after displacement of structure and/or functi
to a steady state closely approximating the original, may be an
on
2-14
-------
interesting quantitative evaluation to make to answer the question of
what is the potential for recovery in this water body. Cairns et al
(1977) developed an index of elasticity based on the following
factors:
(a) existence of nearby epicenters for reinvading organisms
(b) transportability or mobility of disseminules
(c) presence of residual toxicants following pollutional stress
(d) general present condition of habitat following pollutional
stress
(e) management or organizational capabilities for immediate or
direct control of damaged area.
Stauffer and Hocutt (1980) applied the above index to the Conowingo
Creek in Pennsylvania. They believe that this concept may form the
foundation for a stream classification system based upon the structure
and function of fish communities.
- Intolerant Species Analysis - The evaluation of the presence or
absence of intolerant species refers to those species readily
identified as declining because of water quality degradation, habitat
degradation or a combination of the two. For example in midwestern
streams, species such as blacknose shiner, southern redbelly dace,
banded darter and others have been found to be intolerant.
- Omnivore-Carnivore Analysis - The proportion of top carnivores
and omnivores may give an indication of the relative health of the
community. Karr (1980) found that as a site declines in quality, the
proportion of individuals that are omnivores increases. Viable and
healthy populations of top carnivore species such as walleye,
smallmouth bass, rock bass and others indicate a relatively healthy,
diverse community.
2-1 fi
-------
A number of other methods have been and are being developed to
evaluate the health of biological components of the aquatic ecosystem
including short term in situ or laboratory bioassays and partial or
full life-cycle toxicity tests. These methods are discussed in several
EPA publications including: Basic Water Monitoring Programs (1973),
Model State Water Monitoring Program (1975) and the Biological Methods
Manual (1972)". Again, it is not the intent of this document to
specify tests to be conducted by the States. This will depend on the
information available, the predictive accuracy required, site-specific
conditions of the water body being examined, and the cooperation and
assistance the State receives from the affected municipalities and
industries.
0 Biological Potential Analysis
A significant step in the use attainability analysis is the
evaluation of what communities could potentially exist in a particular
waterway if pollution were abated or the physical habitat modified.
This evaluation is the basis of information for the benefit-cost
assessments and should highlight the environmental benefits that could
be achieved. The approach presented is to compare the waterway in
question to reference reaches within a region. This approach includes
the development of baseline conditions to facilitate the comparison of
several waterways at less cost. As with the other analyses mentioned
previously, available data should be used so as to minimize resource
impacts.
2-16
-------
The biological potential analysis involves:
0 defining boundaries of fish faunal regions;
0 selecting control sampling sites in the reference reaches
of each area;
0 sampling fish and recording observations at each reference
sampling site;
0 establishing the community characteristics for the
reference reaches of each area; and
° comparing the waterway in question to the reference
reaches.
In establishing faunal regions and sites, it is important to
select reference areas for sampling sites that have conditions typical
of the region. The establishment of reference areas may be based on
physical and hydrological characteristics. The number of reference
reaches needed will be determined by the State depending on the
variability of the waterways within the State and the number of classes
that the State may wish to establish. For example, the State may want
to use size, flow and substrate as the defining characteristics and may
consequently desire to establish classes such as small, fast running
streams with sandy substrate or large, slow rivers with cobble bottom.
It is at the option of the State to: (1) choose the parameters to be
used in classifying and establishing reference reaches and (2)
determine the number of classes (and thus the refinement) within the
faunal region.
2-17
-------
Selection of the reference reaches is of critical importance
because the characteristics of the aquatic community will be used to
establish baseline conditions against which similar reaches (based on
physical and hydrological characteristics) are compared. Once the
reference reaches are established, the waterway in question can be
compared to the reference reach. The results of this analysis will
reveal if the water body in question has the typical biota for that
class or a less desirable community and will provide an indication of
what species may potentially exist if pollution were abated or the
physical habitat limitations were remedied.
2-18
-------
SECTION P: APPROACHES TO CONDUCTING THE PHYSICAL,
CHEMICAL. AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS ~
Several measurements and experimental techniques have been
described for collecting and evaluating the chemical, physical, and
biological data to identify and define:
0 What aquatic protection uses are currently being achieved in the
water body,
0 What the causes are of any impairment in the aquatic protection
uses, and
0 What aquatic protection uses could he attained based on the
physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water
body"?
States that assess the status of their aquatic resources, in some
cases will have relatively simple situations not requiring extensive
data collection and evaluation. In other water bodies, however, the
complexity resulting from variable environmental conditions and the
stress from multiple uses of the resource will require both intensive
and extensive studies to produce a sound evaluation of the system.
Thus procedures that a State may develop for conducting a water body
assessment should be flexible enough to be adaptable to a variety of
site-specific conditions.
A common experimental approach used in biological assessments has
been a hierarchical approach to the analyses. This can be a rigidly
tiered approach. An alternative is presented in Figure 1.
2-19
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
The flowchart is a general illustration of a thought process used
to conduct a use attainability analysis. The process illustrates
several alternate approaches which can be pursued separately, or to
varying degrees, simultaneously depending on:
0 the amount of data available on the site;
0 the degree of accuracy and precision required;
0 the importance of the resource;
0 the site-specific conditions of the study area; and
0 the controversy associated with the site.
The degree of sophistication is necessarily variable for each
approach. Emphasis is placed on evaluating available data first. If
this information is found to be lacking or incomplete, then field
testing or field surveys should be conducted. A brief description of
the major elements of the process is given below.
Steps 1 and 2: These are the basic organizing steps in the
evaluation process. 3y carefully defining the objectives and scope of
the evaluation, there will be some indication of the level of
sophistication required in subsequent surveys and testing. States and
the regulated community can then adequately plan and allocate resources
to the analyses. The designated use of the water body in question
2-21
-------
should be identified as well as the minimum chemical, physical, and
biological requirements for maintaining the use. Minimum requirements
may include, for example, dissolved oxygen levels, flow rates,
temperature, and other factors. All relevent information on the water
body should be collected to determine if the available infonnation is
adequate for conducting an appropriate level of analysis. It is
assumed that all water body evaluations based on existing data, will
either formally or informally be conducted through Steps 1 and 2.
Step' 3: If the available infonnation proves inadequate, then
decisions regarding the degree of sophistication required in the
evaluation process will need to be made. These decisions will, most
likely, be based on the 5 criteria listed in Figure 1. Based on these
decisions, reference areas should be chosen (Step 4) and one or more of
the testing approaches followed.
Steps 5A, B, C, D: These approaches are presented to illustrate,
in a general way, several possible ways of analyzing the water body.
For example, in some cases chemical data may be readily available for a
water body but little or no biological information is known. In this
case, extensive chemical sampling may not be required but enough
samples should be taken to confirm the accuracy of the available data
set. Thus, in order to accurately define the biological condition of
the resource, 5C may be chosen, but 5A may be pursued in a less
intensive way to supplement the chemical data already available.
2-22
-------
Step 5A is a general survey to establish relatively coarse ranges
for physical and chemical variables, and the numbers and relative
abundances of the biological components (fishes, invertebrates, primary
producers) in the water body. Reference areas may or may not need to
be evaluated here, depending on the types of questions being asked and
the degree of accuracy required.
Step 5B focuses more narrowly on site-specific problem areas with
the intent of separating, where possible, biological impacts due to
physical habitat alteration versus those due to changes in water
quality. These categories are not mutually exclusive but some attempt
should be made to define the causal factors in a stressed area so that
appropriate control measures can be implemented if necessary.
Step 5C would be conducted to evaluate possibly important trends
in the spatial and/or temporal changes associated with the physical,
chemical, and biological variables of interest. In general, more
rigorous quantification of these variables would be needed to allow for
more sophisticated statistical analyses between reference and study
areas which would, in turn, increase tfte degree of accuracy and
confidence in the predictions based on this evaluation. Additional
laboratory testing may be included, such as tissue analyses, behavioral
tests, algal assays, or tests for flesh tainting. Also, high level
2-23
-------
chemical analyses may be needed, particularly if the presence of toxic
compounds is suspected.
Step 5D is, in some respects, the most detailed level of study.
Emphasis is placed on refining cause-effect relationships between
physical-chemical alterations and the biological responses previously
established from available data or steps 5A-5C. In many cases, state-
of-the-art techniques will be used. This pathway would only be
conducted by the States where it may be necessary to establish, with a
high degree of confidence, the cause-effect relationships that are
producing the biological community characteristic of those areas.
Habitat requirements or tolerance limits for representative or
important species may have to be determined for those factors limiting
the potential of the ecosystem. For these evaluations, partial or full
life-cycle toxicity tests, algal assays, and sediment bioassays may be
needed along with the shorter term bioassays designed to elucidate
sublethal effects not readily apparent in toxicity tests (e.g.,
preference-avoidance responses, production-respiration estimates, and
bioconcentration estimates).
Steps 6 and 7: After field sampling is completed, all data must
be integrated and summarized. If this information is still not
adequate, then further testing may be required and a more detailed
pathway chosen. With adequate data, States should be able to make
reasonably specific recommendations concerning the natural potential of
2-24
-------
the water body, levels of attainability consistent with this potential,
and appropriate use designations.
The evaluation procedure outlined here allows States a significant
degree of latitude for designing assessments to meet their specific
goals in water quality and water use.
2-25
-------
REFERENCES
Cairns, Dickson and Herricks (1977) Recovery and Restoration of Damaged
Ecosystems (University Press of Virginia: Charlottesvilie) 531 pp.
Collotzi, A.W. and O.K. Dunham 1978. Inventory and display of aquatic
habitat p. 533-542 J_n: Classification, Inventory, and Analysis of
Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Proc. Nat. Symp., U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Set., FWS/OBS-78/76.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish
Communities. Fisherie Vol 6, No. 6 p. 21-27.
Stalnacher, C.B. 1978. The IFG incremental methodology for physical
stream habitat evaluation p. 126-135 _I_n: Samuel, D.E., J.R. Stauffer ,
C. Hocutt and V'.T. Mason, eds. Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife
Needs in the Eastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser,
FV'S/OBS-78/81
Stauffer, J. R. and C. Hocutt 1980. "Inertia and Recovery: An Approach
to Stream Classification and Stress Evaluation" V'ater Resources
Bulletin Vol. 16 no. 1 p. 72-78
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1981. "Technical Guidance Manual
for Performing Wasteload Allocations". U.S. EPA Office of Monitoring
and Data Support.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1973. Biological Field and
Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and
Effluents. U.S. Env. Pro. Agen. EPA-670/4-73-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1975. Model State Water
Monitoring Program. U.S. Env. Pro. Agen. EPAO-440/9-74-002
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1978. "Western Reservoir and Stream
Habitat Improvements Handbook" U.S. Dept. of Interior Contract
No. 14-16-0008-2151 FWS
2-26
-------
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
States have the responsibility for the development and refinement
of use classification systems. The methodology, number of classes and
factors to be included in such systems are at the discretion of the
States. During the development of this guidance document, several
requests were made to include a sample State classification system
which is based on a ecosystem evaluation approach. In response to such
requests attached is the stream classification guidelines for Wisconsin
which includes a stream habitat evaluation. The inclusion of this
classification system does not, constitute an endorsement or that this
system should be adopted in other States. It is provided as
information which may be of interest to other States.
A-l
-------
STREAM CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES
FOR WISCONSIN
By
Joe Ball
Technical Bulletin No.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Madison, Wisconsin
1982
A-2
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of this classification system is to describe potential
stream uses and provide a basis for making and supporting water quality
resource management decisions. Only those uses which can be described
in terms of biological communities are discussed. "Use" is defined b>
a class or organisms capable of inhabiting a stream. The "use classes"
are: A - cold water sport fish, B - warm water sport fish, C -
intolerant forage fish, intolerant macroinvertebrates, or a valuable
population of tolerant forage fish, U - tolerant or very tolerant
forage or rough fish, or tolerant macroinvertebrates, and £ - very
tolerant macroinvertebrates or no aquatic life.
The appropriate use class for a stream is determined by comparing the
ecological needs of use class organisms with the natural ecological
characteristics of a stream system. A set of procedures to evaluate
stream system characteristics is presented. Stream system habitat
evaluation is stressed. A matrix is used to numerically rank habitat
characteristics from excellent to poor. Twelve habitat rating items
are listed and include characteristics of the watershed, banks, stream
substrate, stream morphology and hydrology, and aesthetics. Other
factors used to determine appropriate use classes are background
dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, toxics, and existing biota. A ratine
of values for all of these stream system characteristics is provided
which correlated with criteria required to support a specific use
class. Although the intent of the system is to provide more
objectivity to the classification process, professional judgment of e
stream's potential use is still important.
A-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
Procedures for classifying Wisconsin streams have been developed to
provide a scientific method for designating uses according to a
stream's natural ability to support a certain biological community. A
specific biological community is termed a "use class." The objective
of the classification system is to provide a basis for making and
supporting water quality management systems. The need for classifying
surface waters is based on the recognition that all surface waters will
not support the same level of use, and that different use classes may
require different levels of water quality to survive.
To classify streams, and meet both scientific and management
objectives, two basic assumptions are necessary: (1) stream systems
with similar characteristics will support similar biological
communities and can be described as a use class, and (2) if streams
within a use class are managed in a similar way they will support a
similar use.
Stream classification systems have generally been based on existing
conditions; e.g., fish populations, trophic state. The problem with
these types of systems is that existing biological communities or
trophic state may be a function of controllable pollution, not a
function of stream system potential. According to Warren (1979)
"classification of stream systems ought not to be based directly on
just measurement of stream performance, for then it would have little
value for prediction, explanation, understanding and management." He
recommended that stream classification systems should be based on
"watershed-environment and stream habitat-capacity," not on just
biological communities inhabiting a stream when it is classified.
A stream is an ecosystem made up of climate, watershed, banks, bed,
water volume, water quality, and biota. A stream's use is dependent
upon the natural characteristics of the entire stream ecosystem, and on
the cultural alterations or impacts which have occurred or are
occurring. Present stream uses are always affected by both natural
characteristics and cultural impacts. Potential uses are alwctys
affected by natural characteristics, and may be affected by cultural
impacts. Since the management goal is to control the cultural impacts
affecting stream use, it is logical to base classification on a
stream's potential to support a given use in the absence of
controllable impacts, not on the present state of the biological
community.
To determine the biological community a stream can support, it is
necessary to relate the natural characteristics of the whole system to
the ecological requirements of use class organisms. A stream
classification system structured in this way will predict the potential
use of a stream and will also serve to indicate the management
necessary to attain the use.
A-4
-------
Published stream classification systems based on stream system
potential are rare. A few systems include parameters which affect use
(Pennak 1971, Platt 1974, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1979).
However, these systems do not include a method for quantifying data and
observations to arrive at an objective classification. Perhaps the
reason for this is a lack of information on all the ecological
requirements of specific organisms. There is a good data base on how
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other chemical parameters affect
aquatic organisms, but not on the influence of habitat. The U.S.
Forest Service comes close to providing an adequate stream
classification system (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1975). It was
developed to quantitatively assess the stability of mountain streams
and to identify streams needing intensive management. Some of the
parameters in the Forest Service system are not applicable to Wisconsin
streams, but the concept is sound, and has been adapted for part of
this classification system.
The set of guidelines described in this report is not intended to be a
rigid assessment technique. Streams cannot always be realistically
classified by a totally objective system. Because of their dynamic
nature, biological communities are perhaps the most difficult objects
we have chosen to study. Similar stream systems should support similar
uses, but each stream is an individual ecosystem and must be classified
individually. A stream classification comes down to a final judgment
-- a judgment based on measurable factors, and perhaps just as
important, on intuition gained from experience and past observation.
A-5
-------
FACTORS AFFECTING STREAM USES
A variety of factors affect the ability of a surface water to support
certain uses (Table 1). Some are "natural" and are a function of the
watershed system in which the stream is embedded. Some are "cultural"
and are a function of societal use of the stream system. These natural
and cultural factors are characterized as either physical or chemical,
and further, they may be controllable or uncontrollable. For the
purpose of classification the uncontrollable factors, whether they are
natural or cultural, ultimately determine a stream's potential or
attainable use. Controllable factors such as point source discharges,
which have an impact on stream use, should not influence a stream's
classified use. Controllable factors are considered temporary,
TABLE 1. Example of common factors affecting stream uses.
Factor Comments
Uncontrollable Natural Factors
1) Flow regime
2) Habitat structure Habitat development
may be considered in
high quality streams
3) Water quality
Uncontrollable Cultural Factors
1) Land use
2) Existing hydrologic modification
a. Dam Some management may
b. Straightening be possible
c. Wetland drainage
Controllable Cultural Factors
1) Point sources These factors are
a. Municipal controllable within
b. Industrial bounds
2) Nonpoint sources
a. Agricultural runoff
b. Urban runoff
c. Construction site runoff
3) Other factors
a. Water withdrawal
b. Septic system drainage
c. Proposed hydrological alterations
pending implementation of control measures. The effects of some
cultural factors may be uncontrollable because they cannot be changed
A-6
-------
with the application of "reasonable"
cultural factors, and impacts, have
characteristics of a stream.
management. In many
become the "natural"
cases these
Natural Factors
Since most streams in Wisconsin
define a totally natural factor.
are defined as the characteristics
direct cultural impacts, such as dams
and point source discharges. Natural
have been disturbed, it is difficult to
For classification, natural factors
of a stream system in the absence of
flow reduction by withdrawal,
factors which affect stream uses
are flow,
of water.
habitat, and "natural" physical or chemical characteristics
Flow Regime
The flow or quantity of water available to support aquatic organisms is
of primary importance. It's an obvious fact that large fish species
require a higher level of flow than small fish species to survive in a
stream. Without adequate flow, large fish would not have room to move,
feed or reproduce. Stream flow is directly correlated to the classes
of organisms, or uses, a stream is capable of supporting. Flow
stability or frequency also becomes an important factor in some
streams. Flow stability or frequency also becomes an important factor
in some streams. Flow extremes, especially in streams running through
altered watershed, can be a major factor in determining appropriate
uses.
Habitat Structure
The physical structure and flow of water in a stream interact to create
an environment suitable to support various classes of organisms.
Substrate, pools and riffles, water depth, erosion and deposition
areas, and cover provide necessary habitat. Studies by Gorman and Karr
(1978), and Hunt (1971) clearly show that more diverse habitats support
more abundant and diverse aquatic communities. A stream with poor
habitat structure will support fewer organisms, to the extent that the
life support requirements of only very tolerant fish or insects may be
met. An analysis of habitat structure is an important factor in the
stream classification process.
Water Quality
The natural physico-chemical characteristics of general importance in
streams include dissolved oxygen, temperature, suspended solids, and
dissolved ions. These parameters are of major concern in determining
the ability of a stream to support certain classes of organisms. Water
quality extremes are of particular importance. Deviations from water
quality criteria levels, even for a short time, may stress aquatic
communities beyond recovery.
A-7
-------
Natural water quality is influenced by watershed geology, soils, and
surface features. Flow regime and instream habitat structure may also
have an influence on water quality. To classify a stream into an
appropriate use class it's important to determine the natural water
quality of a stream system.
Natural factors are generally not controllable. They are the most
significant factors in determining the potential uses of a stream.
CULTURAL FACTORS
Culturally induced conditions are those that have been caused by
certain actions on the land and in the water. Nearly all waters of the
state have been disturbed, in some cases more significantly than
others. Cultural factors are broadly defined as point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. These factors have an impact on habitat and
water quality, and on the uses that may occur in a surface water.
Culturally induced conditions can be further subdivided into
controllable and uncontrollable types, or similarly, reversible and
irreversible impacts. Theoretically, if cultural impacts are properly
managed or removed, an altered environment will revert to its natural
state. Grass and trees could be planted instead of corn, and all dams
could be dismantled. However, in some cases, actions to control or
reserve cultural impacts may not be reasonable.
Uncontrollable Cultural Factors
Uncontrollable cultural factors are those activities over which
regulatory agencies have little or no control, or prefer to exercise no
control. For purpose of stream classification, two major factors are
of concern -- existing land use and hydrologic modifications. These in
place activities are generally uncontrollable and may have significant
impacts on stream use. When the cause of an impact is uncontrollable,
the impact must be considered a normal characteristic of a stream for
the purpose of classification.
The present use of land for agriculture and urban development will, in
most cases, not change. The impacts of land use on a stream system are
not always obvious because they have occurred gradually. For example,
removal of native vegetation, destruction of wetlands and paving of
streets increases runoff and reduced groundwater recharge. This
removal of water may alter the flow regime and water quality of a
stream, and affect uses. Such actions may also increase peak flows,
resulting in long term and Jrreversible changes in habitat structure.
A more obvious cultural factor affecting stream use is hydrologic
alteration. Existing dams, straightened portions of streams, and
wetland drainage are examples of stream alterations which can affect
uses and appropriate classifications. The question of controllability
of these factors is technically and legally complex, but assuming no
regulatory measure can be taken to revert back to an original
A-8
-------
condition, then these alterations and their impacts must be considered
uncontrollable.
Controllable Cultural Factors
Sources of pollution in this category are those that can be controlled
by a reasonable level of management. The primary controllable factors
are the point sources of wastewater discharge. Programs are in place
to regulate what, how, when, and where point sources discharge wastes.
Point sources are, within certain bounds, always controllable. The
impact of point sources on water quality and stream uses should not be
factored into the classification process, assuming the impact can be
removed.
Also possibly controllable are activities on the land -- nonpoint
sources. Although Wisconsin does not have a program to regulate
nonpoint sources* its does have a grant and management program to
encourage nonpoint source control. Controllable nonpoint sources, as
envisioned here, are those associated with the application of "best
management practices" on agricultural and urban lands.
In situations where application of best management practices are likely
to result in stream use improvements, the impacts from nonpoint sources
should be disregarded in the classification process. However, it may
be difficult to show a direct cause and effect relationship between
nonpoint sources and water quality. It may be equally difficult to
show a direct relationship between nonpoint sources and habitat
deterioration except in extreme situations. For instance, even if
better land management was applied to a watershed, it may be difficult
to predict how long it may take an impacted stream to recover.
Classifying a stream to a higher use, based on an anticipated natural
improvement, which may or may not take place, may not be logical. In
some situations the impact of nonpoint sources on habitat should
probably be considered uncontrollable for current actions.
According to Karr and Dudley (1981) nonpoint control efforts that
improve water quality may fail to improve the biota of a stream if
suitable physical habitats are absent. This does not imply, however,
that nonpoint source control efforts are not worthwhile. Over a long
time period stream uses will improve, and the effect of nonpoint
sources on downstream uses must also be considered.
There are other cultural factors with immediate and direct effects on
stream uses which can generally be controlled by regulation. For
example, a flow management scheme that results in witholding or
diversion of water on a routine basis may preclude certain uses and
aquatic populations. Such actions are almost always controllable.
Sources of pollution, such as rural septic systems, are controllable.
Proposed stream alterations, such as dams and straightening, are
*Wisconsin does have regulatory authority for construction site runoff.
A-9
-------
controllable because these are regulated activities. Even an existing
dam, already discussed as being uncontrollable, may be managed in
certain ways to reduce impacts on stream uses.
Determining the factors affecting stream uses and their status of
controllability are the most important parts of this classification
procedure. The process of identifying factors and determining
controllability serves two important functions: (1) it supplies much
of the information required to designate appropriate stream uses, and
(2) it identifies the specific management required to achieve
designated uses. The most difficult task is determining
controllability, especially for nonpoint sources. Another related
problem is anticipating the response of a stream to management of
pollution sources. To classify streams, subjective judgments regarding
the status of these problems will likely have to be made for individual
situations.
A-10
-------
STREAM USE CLASSES
Stream use classes are listed in Table 2. Stream use is described by
the fish species or other aquatic organisms capable of being supported
by a natural stream system. Use classes in Table 2 are listed from the
most sensitive to the most tolerant use. Common fish species and their
representative classification categories are listed in Table 3. The
designation of an appropriate use class is based on the ability of a
stream to supply habitat and water quality requirements of use class
organisms. Sections or "reaches" of a stream may be assigned different
use classes, and the same stream or stream reach may be assigned
different use classes based on seasonal differences. This concept,
termed "seasonal classification," is used to describe variations in
stream conditions. For example, a stream may serve as a fish spawning
area in the spring, but natural changes in flow or water quality may
preclude the existence of fish in other seasons. Following are
descriptions of the use classes for classifying Wisconsin streams:
Class A, Cold Mater Sport Fish: Streams capable of supporting a cold
water sport fishery, or serving as a spawning area for salmon id
species. The presence of an occasional salmonid in a stream does not
justify a Class A designation (e.g., trout are occassionally taken from
the Mississippi River but that fact alone does not justify a cold water
sport fish designation).
Class B, Warm Mater Sport Fish: Streams capable of supporting a warm
water sport fishery, or serving as a spawning area for warm water sport
fish.
TABLE 2. Stream use classes for aquatic life
Use Class Description
A Capable of supporting cold water sport fish
B Capable of supporting warm water sport fish
C Capable of supporting intolerant forage fish*, intolerant
macroinvertebr ates, or a valuable population of tolerant forage
fish
D Capable of supporting tolerant or very tolerant forage or rough
fish*, or tolerant macroinvertebr ates
E Capable of supporting very tolerant macroinvertebr ates or no
aquatic life
*Refer to Table 3.
Although warm water sport fish are occasionally found in many small
streams, a stream should be capable of supporting a "common" designated
population to rate a "B" classification.
A-ll
-------
Class C, Intolerant Forage Fish, Intolerant Macroinvertebrates, or a
Valuable Population of Tolerant Forage Fish:Streams capable of
supporting an abundant, and usually diverse, population of forage fish
or intolerant macroinvertebrates. These streams are generally too
small to support cold or warm water sport fish, but have natural water
quality and habitat sufficient to support forage fish or
macroinvertebrates. Streams capable of supporting valuable populations
of tolerant forgage fish should also be included in Class C. This type
of stream may provide beneficial uses, such as a food source for a
downstream sport fishery, or a sucker fishery.
Class D, Tolerant or Very Tolerant Fish, or Tolerant
Macroinvertebrates: Streams capable of supporting only a small
population of tolerant forage fish, very tolerant fish or tolerant
macroinvertebrates. The aquatic community in such a stream is usually
limited due to naturally poor water quality or habitat deficiencies.
Class E, Very Tolerant Macroinvertebrates or Mo Aquatic Life:
only capable at best of supporting very tolerant
an occasional very tolerant fish. Such streams are
severely limited by water quality or habitat. Marshy
intermittent streams are examples of Class E streams.
Streams
macroinvertebrates, or
usually small and
ditches and
TABLE 3. Common fish species and classification categories
Sport Fish
Intolerant Forage Tolerant Forage
Very Tolerant
Forage or Rough
Fish
Trout (sp)
Salmon (sp)
Northern Pike
Muskellunge
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Yellow Bass
White Bass
Rock Bass
Walleye
Sauger
White Crappie
Black Crappie
Bluegill
Sunfish (sp)
Yellow Perch
Bullhead (sp)
Catfish (sp)
Sturgeon (sp)
Stoneroller
Rosyface Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Blacknose Shiner
Blackchin Shiner
Dace (sp)
Hornyhead Chub
Stonecat
Tadpole Madtom
Redhorse (sp)
Darter (sp)-(except
Johnny Darter)
Logperch
Sculpin (sp)
Golden Shiner
Common Shiner
Sand Shiner
Emerald Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Bluntnose Minnow
Creek Chub
Johnny Darter
Sucker (sp)
Brook Stickleback
Carp
Goldfish
Goldfish
Fathead Minnow
Sheepshead
Buffalo
Car p Sucker (sp)
Gar (sp)
Bowfin
Mooneye
A-12
-------
CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
The objective of stream classification is to designate logical uses by
evaluating and describing stream ecosystems. The classification
procedure includes a list of important factors which need to be
evaluated, and suggests how to merge data and perceptions into a final
decision about appropriate use. Designated uses are based on the
relationship and overall quality of all ecosystem components.
bounds
classes.
will dictate
added or what
basic steps
The stream classification procedure combines objective and subjective
analysis. Objectivity in the procedure comes from pointing out the
major individual factors one needs to evaluate, and by placing
on ecological "criteria" which separate streams into use , ^,
However, because ecosystems are extremely complex, professional
judgment must also be part of the classification process. This
flexibility is needed to allow for logical decisions about stream use.
The following guidelines do not cover all potential situations and
should be viewed as starting points from which experience
the scope of an investigation, including what needs to be
can be deleted. The classification process requires five
-- study design, data collection, data evaluation, impact
controllability analysis, and appropriate use designation:
Study Design
Because of the management objective of this classification procedure,
water quality evaluation staff have major responsibility. However, the
process should be a "team" effort and, at minimum, should be a
cooperative project with fisheries staff. Staff with expertise in
other areas may also be required. The team should determine the detail
and scope of analysis required to classify any given stream. In some
cases, file information coupled with a desk top evaluation may suffice.
In complex situations, detailed studies may be needed to reach a
credible decision.
Data Collection
Data located in files, studies, reports, etc. should be reviewed. If
sufficient current data exist they may be adequate to form the basis
for a classification. However, in all cases, a site visit is necessary
to verify the evaluation. If current data are insufficient, a stream
evaluation must be conducted.
Stream biota are generally dependent upon extreme conditions which
normally occur during periods of low flow. Thus, samples, measurements
and observations will give a more reliable indication of appropriate
use if taken when the stream is at a low or at least normal flow. In
situations where seasonal use changes are possible, additional data at
higher flows may be needed.
The following data may be required to determine and justify a use class
designation:
A-13
-------
1. Stream Flow -- The flow of a stream can vary over a wide range and
can he expressed in a number of ways.Stream use is often limited by
annual low flow which is expressed here as representative low flow.
Flow data for many streams are available from the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and can be used as points of reference for determining
representative low flow. If flow data are not available, it may be
necessary to gauge the present flow and obtain a low flow estimate from
USGS.
2. Water Quality -- Natural, or background water quality should
generally be used as the basis for classification. Daily, and
sometimes seasonal water quality extremes determine the class of
organisms a stream is capable of supporting. The most extreme water
quality conditions normally occur during low flow periods. Thus, an
attempt should be made to collect data at that time.
Water samples and instream data should be collected upstream from
controllable sources of pollution. In situations were this is
impossible, water quality may be a function of the controllable source
and can't generally be used as a basis for classification. Many forms
of water quality can have an impact on stream use. However, the
parameters most directly related to use include dissolved oxygen,
temperature and pH. Toxics and other parameters should be measured if
a problem is suspected.
3. Habitat Structure -- Habitat evaluation is considered the most
important factor in the stream classification process. In situations
where water quality data can't be used, habitat may be the only basis
for classification. The habitat rating is based on an evalution of
watershed, stream banks, and stream bed characteristics. The habitat
evaluation and rating procedure is detailed in a separate section.
4. Stream Biota -- The biological communities presently inhabiting a
stream including fish, benthic organisms, rooted vegetation, algae,
etc. should be determined. This need not be an exhaustive sample
collection effort since designation of attainable use will rarely be
based totally on biological data. Knowing what organisms are present
in a stream helps determine what the appropri-ate use class should be.
Many biological sampling and analysis methods are available. The
methods are left to the discretion of the evaluator, but should be
described in the classification report.
Data Evaluation
The use class a stream is capable of attaining is determined by
comparing stream system data to the life support needs of use class
organisms. Table 4 lists a set of stream system parameters and values
for each which correspond to the five use classes. The table is used
to estimate appropriate stream use based on the quality of individual
A-14
-------
Table 4. Physical and chemical criteria guidelines for aquatic life
use classes
Parameter
Dissoved
Oxygen
Temperature
PH
Toxics
Representati
Low Flow
Habitat
Rating
A
>4
<75
>5,<9.5
.5
<144
Use Class
B
>3
<86
>5,<10.5
3
<144
and Criteria
C
>3
<86
>5,<10.5
.2
<144
D
>1
<90
>4,<11
acute
>.l
>144
E
<1
>90
<4,>11
>acute
>0
>200
parameters. Parameter values and use classes are listed from high to
low quality and are intended to be mutually exclusive. Therefore, the
lowest class indicated by the lowest quality parameter is the estimated
appropriate use of a stream. The values shown in Table 4 are not water
quality standards criteria. Rather, values at the extremes are
conditions which the particular biota may be able to tolerate for a
short time. Criteria in water quality standards are developed to
assure protection for sensitive species throughout their life history
of exposure. Table 4 values are guides to determine if tolerable
conditions exist in a surface water. Even these values should be used
with care because observed conditions outside the noted bounds do not
necessarily preclude the existence of a use class. The values in Table
4 should be used to evaluate stream system data and be a major factor
in the stream clasification process. Following is a description of the
parameters in Table 4, and other stream characteristics used in the
evaluation procedure.
1. Flow Characteristics -- In this classification system
representative low flow most nearly reflects the long-term ability of a
stream to support certain organisms. Representative low flow values in
Table 4 are based on a review of fish community data from various
Wisconsin streams.
Streams receiving an effluent, or are proposed to receive an effluent,
should be evaluated as two representative low flows. One based on
natural flow, and one based on natural flow plus design effluent flow
adds significantly to a stream base flow. For example, an effluent
going to an otherwise dry drainage v/ay creates a stream. This
procedure involves interpolation of stream conditions at a higher or
lower flow, and relies heavily on professional judgement. The purpose
is to provide a more complete evaluation and consideration of
alternatives upon which to base a logical designation of appropriate
use. The procedures also provides more complete information needed by
resource managers to base subsequent decisions regarding effluent
limits or other management practices.
A-15
-------
2. Water Quality Characteristics -- Criteria in Table 4 are maximum or
minimum values at which use class biota may be expected to survive
during critical periods. If these extreme values were common in a
stream, the corresponding biota would probably not be maintained in a
healthy state. However, natural short-term fluctuations in water
quality are expected in some streams, and values exceeding "standards"
do not necessarily preclude associated uses. If water quality is a use
limiting factor due to a controllable impact, and natural water quality
cannot be determined, appropriate uses should be based on a flow and
habitat.
3. Habitat Rating -- The rating values in Table 4 are a numerical
ranking of the overall quality of a stream's watershed, banks and bed
characteristics. The rating procedure is described in the final
section of the classification guidelines. Rating values can range from
56 to 210 and lower number values indicate higher quality habitat.
High quality use usually requires high quality habitat. The range of
values within a specific use class also gives an indication of the
quality of use. For example, a trout stream with a rating of 60 would
be expected to support more fish than a trout stream with a rating of
120.
4. Biological Data Evaluation -- The biological community inhabiting a
stream may be used as an indication of attainable use, but should
generally not form the only basis for use class designation. Most
streams are disturbed in some way, and their present biota may be a
function of that impact. Thus, present biological communities nay not
indicate realistic attainable uses under proper management of the
sources of impact. Even in streams with no obvious problems, the
present organisms may not reflect what otherwise may be a higher
quality use. For example, a stream with trout stream characteristics
may not contain trout because they were never introduced. The
classification of such a stream, if based only on its present community
of organisms, may not indicate its true potential use.
The most important use of a biological evaluation is to determine if a
water quality problem exists. For example, a stream with flow end
habitat characteristic of a high use class, but not supporting that
class of organisms, most likely has a water quality problem. It is
then necessary to determine the source to the problem and judge if it
is controllable or not. If the problem is controllable the
classification should be based on flow and habitat. If the problem is
uncontrollable the classification may be based on the biological
evaluation.
Impact Controllability Analysis
A major objective of the data evaluation process was to identify the
factors limiting stream use. The objective of controllability
analysis is to determine if those limiting factors can be managed in
some way to improve stream use. That is, are the causes of impacts
limiting stream use controllable, and further, are the impacts
A-16
-------
reversible? Controllability was discussed in the factors affecting
stream uses section of these guidelines. Table 1 suggested what may or
may not be controllable, but no further guidelines are provided.
Determining controllability of sources and impacts can be a complex
decision point and it may be necessary to obtain help from other staff
with experience in the problem area.
Appropriate Use Designation
The use class designated for a stream should be based on Table 4, any
other data which may he available, and the professional judgement of
the evaluators. There will always be cases that do not conform to a
rigid analysis process, and this system is intended to be flexible
enough to account for those situations.
The evaluation of small streams receiving or proposed to receive waste
dishcarges may result in two possible use designations. When this
occurs it will be necessary to recommend one use class as more
appropriate. This is one point where the classification process may,
and perhaps should, digress from a purely scientific endeavor. Many
factors, such as resource value, downstream uses, effluent
characteristics and size, and even economics should be considered
before recommending a use class designation. As a final consideration,
the biological data can serve as a check on the results of the
evaluation as follows:
1. If the biological community conforms to the indicated use class
report that classification.
?.. If the biological community is better than the indicated use class
base the classification on the biological evaluation.
3. If the biological community is lower than the indicated use,
determine the factors affecting use and if they are controllable or
uncontrollable. If the factors are controllable, base the
classification on the use indicated by background water quality,
flow, and habitat. If the factors are uncontrollable, the
classification can be based on the biological evaluation.
To complete the classification process, the evaluators should file a
report which recommends a use class, and outlines why the use class is
appropriate. A number of management and administrative decisions may
be based on the use class. These decisions may be made by people
without first-hand knowledge of the stream. Thus, it is important to
document all factors, both objective and subjective, which entered into
the classification process. In most situations, there are key factors
influencing the use class recommendation, and those should be
highlighted in the report.
A-17
-------
STREAM SYSTEM HABITAT EVALUATION
Stream system habitat is defined as watershed, stream bank, and
instream habitat characteristics. Watershed and stream bank
characteristics are included because they directly affect instream
characteristics -- e.g., flow, depth, substrate, and pool-to-riffle
ratio. Stream system habitat is one of the most important factors
determining attainable use, and therefore habitat evalution is stressed
in this classification procedure. A detailed discussion of stream
system habitat evaluation is presented here to insure that, where
practical, uniform evaluation procedures are followed.
The purpose of this evaluation procedure is to integrate and rate
stream system habitat characteristics in relation to the various use
classifications. The final product is a numerical rank or score of
habitat quality which is used to help identify the use (Table 4). The
evaluation process used here is similar to one developed by the U.S.
Forest Service (1975) to assess the stability of mountain streams.
Some of the rating characteristics for stream habitats in that system
have been adapted and some new parameters added to fit the character of
Wisconsin streams.
Following is a description of stream system habitat characteristics and
an excellent-to-poor rating scale for each. The evalution form in
Appendix 1 provides a method to integrate data and observations of
individual characteristics into an overall habitat rating for a
stream.
Hater shed - The total area of land above the extreme high water line
that contributes runoff to a surface water. The character and
condition of a watershed affects the character of a stream and stream
bed. The portion of a watershed draining directly to a surface water
is usually of greatest concern.
1. Erosion - The existing or potential detachment of soil and
movement into a stream. Mass movement of soil into a stream results
in destruction of habitat and a reduced potential to suppport
aquatic life. This item can be rated by observation of watershed
and stream characteristics.
a. Excellent: No evidence of mass erosion that has reached or
could reach the stream. The water shed is well managed and
usually characterized by mature vegetation. The stream shows no
evidence of siltation.
b. Good: May be some erosion evident but few "raw" areas. There
may be well-managed agricultural fields in the area. Areas that
may have eroded in the past are revegetated and stable. The
stream shows little evidence of siltation.
Erosion from fields and some raw areas are evident.
storm events are likely to erode soil resulting in
A-18
-------
periodic high suspended solids in the stream. Some siltation is
evident in the stream, and has resulted in destruction of some
habitat. Vegetative cover may be sparse and does not appear
stable in all areas. There is moderate potential for mass
erosion.
d. Poor: Erosion sources are obvious. Almost any runoff will
result in detachment of soil from raw areas and cause suspended
solids and siltation problems in the stream. Instream habitat
may be poor due to siltation. Stream flow may fluctuate widely
("flashy stream").
2. Nonpoint Source Pollution and Other Compromising Factors - This
i tern refers to problems and potential problems other than silt at i on.
Nonpoint source pollution is defined as diffuse agricultural and
urban runoff. Other compromising factors in a watershed which may
affect attainable use are feedlots, wetlands, septic systems, dams
and impoundments, mine seepage, etc. Nonpoint sources and other
compromising factors can be a major source of pollutants, or create
problems which affect stream use. Examples of potential problems
from these sources include pesticides, heavy metals, nutrients,
bacteria, temperature, low dissolved oxygen, etc. If these types of
problems are suspected, it may be necessary to conduct an intensive
study to determine the problem. It is also important to determine
if the problem is controllable or not. If the problem is
controllable it should not be factored into the habitat evaluation
process.
a. Excellent: No evidence of sources or potential sources.
b. Good: No obvious problems, but there may be potential sources
such as agricultural fields, farms, etc. The watershed should
be well managed to fit this category.
c. Fair: Potential problems evident. Some runoff from farm
fields, watershed intensively cultivated, urban area, small
wetland area draining to stream, potential for barnyard runoff,
small impoundment, etc.
d. Poor: Sources of pollution which may be affecting stream use
are evident. Examples of sources are runoff due to poor land
management, high use urban or industrial areas, feed lots,
impoundments, drainage from large wetlands, mine seepage, tile
field drainage, etc. An absence of intolerant organisms in
streams with excellent to good habitat may be an indication of
the problems.
Stream Banks - The stream channel is composed of an upper and lower
bank, and a bottom (Figure 1). The upper band is the land area from
the break in the general slope of the surrounding land to the normal
A-19
-------
Extreme High Water
_ _Mqnna[ Mgh_ Water
Lower Bank
Figure 1. Stream Cross Section
Lower Bank
high water line. It is normally vegetated and is covered by water
in only extreme high water periods. Land forms vary from wide, flat
flood plains to narrow, steep slopes.
The lower bank is the intermittently submerged portion of the stream
cross section from the normal high water line to the low water line.
The lower channel banks define the stream width. This area varies
from bare soil to rock, and the land form may vary from flat to
steep.
Stream banks are important in rating stream system habitats because
their character and stability directly affect instream
characteristics and uses. The evaluation and rating is based on
observation of bank characteristics combined with observation of
resultant instream characteristics. Habitat rating items 3 and 4
refer to both upper and lower banks because it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish a line between the two. Also, the effect
on a stream is similar in situations where either bank area is a
problem.
Bank
Erosion, Failure - Existing or potential detachment of soil
into a stream. Steeper banks are generally more subject
erosion and failure, and may not support stable vegetation. Streams
with poor banks will often have poor instream habitat.
3.
and movement
to
a. Excellent: No evidence of significant erosion or bank
failure. Side slopes are generally less than 30% and are
stable. Little potential for future problem.
b. Good: Infrequent, small areas of erosion or bank slumping.
Most areas are stable with only slight potential for erosion at
flood stages. Side slopes up to 40% on one bank. Little
potential for major problem.
A-20
-------
c. Fair: Frequency and size of raw areas are such that normal high
water has eroded some banks. High erosion and failure potential
at extreme high stream flows. Side slopes up to 60% on some
banks.
d. Poor: Mass erosion and bank failure is evident. Many raw areas
are present and are subject to erosion at above normal flow.
Erosion and undercutting is evident on bends and some straight
channel areas. Side slopes greater than 60% are common and
provide large volumes of soil for downstream sedimentation when
banks are laterally cut.
4. Bank Vegetative Protection - Bank soil is generally held in place
by plant root systems. The density and health of bank vegetation is an
indication of bank stability and potential instream sedimentation.
Trees and shrubs usually have deeper root systems than grasses and
forbs and are, therefore, more efficient in reducing erosion (Khonke
and Bertrand 1959). Bank vegetation also helps reduce the velocity of
flood flows. Greater density of vegetation is more efficient in
reducing lateral cutting and erosion. A variety of vegetation is more
desirable than a monotypic plant community.
Vegetative protection is important in evaluating the long term
potential for erosion, and stability of the stream system. The
evaluation and rating is based on observation of existing vegetation,
erosion, and instream conditions.
a. Excellent: A variety of vegetation is present and covers more than
90% of the bank surface. Any bare or sparsely vegetated areas are
small and evenly dispersed. Growth is vigorous and reproduction of
species is proceeding at a rate to insure continued ground cover.
A deep, dense root mat is inferred.
b. Good: A variety of vegetation is present and covers 70-90% of the
bank surface. Some open areas with unstable vegetation are
evident. Growth vigor is good for all species but reproduction may
be sparse. A deep root mass is not continuous and erosion is
possible in openings.
c. Fair: Vegetative cover ranges from 50-70% and is composed of
scattered shrubs, grasses and forbs. A few bare or sparsely
vegetated areas are evident. Lack of vigor and reproduction is
evident in some individuals or species. This condition is ranked a
fair due to the percent of area not covered by vegetation with a
deep root system.
d. Poor: Less than 50% of the banks covered by vegetation.
Vegetation is composed of grasses and forbs. Any shrubs or trees
exist as individuals or widely scattered clumps. Many bare or
sparsely vegetated area are obvious. Growth and reproduction vigor
is generally poor. Root mats are discontinuous and shallow.
A-21
-------
5. Channel Capacity - Channel width, depth, gradient, and roughness
determine the volume of water which can be transmitted. Over time,
channel capacity adjusts to the size of watershed, climate, and changes
in vegetation (stability). When channel capacity is exceeded, unstable
areas are likely to erode resulting in habitat destruction. Indicators
of this problem are deposits of soil on the lower banks and organic
debris found hung up in bank vegetation. The objective in rating this
item is to estimate normal peak flow and if the present lower bank
cross section is adequate to carry the load without bank
deterioration.
The ability of a stream channel to contain flood flows can be estimated
by calculating the width-to-depth ratio (W/D ratio). The W/D ratio is
calculated by dividing the the average top width of the lower bank by
the height of the lower bank. This item is rated by the W/D ratio, and
by observing the condition of banks, position of debris, and iristream
siltation.
a. Excellent: The stream channel is adequate to contain peak flow
volumes plus some additional flow. Over bank floods are rare. W/D
ratio less than 7; i.e., 36 ft. wide divided by 6 ft. deep = 6.
b. Good: The stream channel is adequate to contain most peak flows.
W/D ratio of 8 - 15.
c. Fair: The channel can barely contain normal peak flows in average
years. W/D ratio of 15 - 25.
d. Poor: The channel capacity is obviously inadequate. Over bank flow
are common as indicated by condition of banks and accumulation of
debris. W/D ratio greater than 25.
6. Bank Deposition - The character of above water deposits is an
indication of the severity of watershed and bank erosion, and stability
of the stream system. Deposits are generally found on the lee side of
rocks and other objects which deflect flow. These deposits tend to be
short and narrow. On flat lower banks, deposition during recesssion
from peak flows may be quiet large. The growth, or appearance of bars
where they did not previously exist is an indication of upstream
erosion. These bars tend to grow in depth and length with continued
watershed disturbance. Deposition may also occur on the inside of
bends, below channel constrictions, and where stream gradient flattens
out. This item is evaluated and rated by observation.
a. Excellent: Little or no fresh deposition on point bars or on the
lee side of obstructions. Point bars appear stable.
b. Good: Some fresh deposits on old bars and behind obstructions.
Sizes tend to be of larger sized coarse gravel and some sand, very
little silt.
A-22
-------
c. Fair: Deposits of fresh, fine gravel, sand and silt observed on
most point bars and behind obstructions. Formation of a few new
bars is evident, and old bars are deep and wide. Some pools are
partially filled with fine material.
d. Poor: Extensive deposits of fine sand or silt on bars and along
banks in straight channels. Accelerated bar development. Most
pool areas are filled with silt.
Stream Bottom - The portion of the stream channel cross section which
is totally on aquatic environment (Fig. 1). The character and
stability of bottom material is important in determining stream use
because this area provides habitat necessary to support aquatic life.
A variety of stable habitat, which provides area for feeding, resting
and reproduction, will generally support a higher class of organisms.
Stream bottom characteristics are evaluated and rated by observation.
The evaluation should be conducted when the stream is free of suspended
material to enhance observation.
7. Scouring and Deposition - This item relates to the destruction of
instream habitat resulting from most of the problems defined under 1
through 6 above. Deposition material comes from watershed and bank
erosion. Scouring results from high velocity flows and is a function
of watershed characteristics, stream hydrology, and stream morphology.
Characteristics to look for are stable habitat and degree of siltation
in pools and riffles. Shallow, uniform stream stetches ("flat areas")
may be considered either scoured or silted, depending on stream
velocity. The rating is based on an estimate of the percent of an
evaluated reach that is scoured or silted; i.e., 50 ft. silted in a 100
ft. stream length equals 50%.
a. Excellent: No significant scouring or deposition is evident. Up
to 5% of the stream reach evaluated may be scoured or silted; i.e.,
0-5 ft. in a 100 ft. stream reach.
b. Good: Some scouring or deposition is evident but a variety of good
habitat is still present. Scouring is evident at channel
constriction or where the gradient steepens. Deposition is in
pools and backwater areas. Sediment in pools tend to move on
through so pools change only slightly in depth. The affected area
ranges from 5 to 30% of the evaluated reach.
c. Fair: Scoured or silted area covers 30 to 50% of the evaluated
stream reach. Scouring is evident below obstructions, at
constrictions, and on steep grades. Deposits tend to fill and
decrease the size of some pools. Riffles areas are not
significantly silted.
d. Poor: Scouring or deposition is common. More than 50% of
evaluated stream reach is affected. Few deep pools are present due
to siltation. Only the larger rocks in riffle areas remain
exposed. Bottom silt may move with almost any flow above normal.
A-23
-------
8. Bottom Substrate - This item refers to the availability of habitat
for support of aquatic organisms. A variety of substrate material and
habitat types is desirable. Different organisms are adapted to
different habitats; thus, a variety of habitat is necessary for
development of a diverse community. The presence of rock and gravel in
flowing streams is generally considered more desirable habitat,
However, other forms of habitat may provide the niches required for
community support. For example, trees, tree roots, vegetation,
undercut banks, etc., may provide excellent habitat for a variety of
organisms. This item is evaluated and rated by observation. The
evaluation should be conducted when stream flow is at a normal or lower
stage to enhance observation.
a. Excellent: Greater than 50% stable habitat. Rocks, logs, etc.
provide shelter. Gravel, debris, riffle areas provide habitat for
insects and feeding areas for fish.
b. Good: Stable habitat in 30 to 50% of the stream reach evaluated.
Habitat is adequate for development and maintenance of fish and
insects communities.
c. Fair: 10-30% stable habitat. Habitat is approaching a monotypic
type and may have a limiting effect on fish and insect populations.
Habitat is less than desirable.
d. Poor: Less than 10% stable habitat. Almost no habitat available
for shelter or development of a desirable insect or fish community.
Lack of habitat is obvious.
Stream Morphology and Flow - The rating items in this category include
depth, flow, and run-to-riffle or pool-to-bend ratio. These stream
characterisitics are closely related to previous rating items. Stream
depth, morphology and flow are a function of watershed characteristics
and climate. They may be the most important evaluation parameters
because they relate to the volume of water and habitat available to
provide life support requirements i.e., shelter, food and reproduction
needs. Low stream flow and shallow depth can be major limiting factors
preventing a certain use. Stream morphology relates to habitat and can
also become a limiting factor.
In situations where effluent flow significantly adds to or subtracts
from natural stream flow, the stream should be evaluated under both
flow conditions. This procedure applies to the Average Depth and
Stream Flow rating items.
9. Average Depth at Representative Low Flow - Average stream depth is
estimated by measuring the maximum depth in riffles and pools, adding
those depths and dividing by the total number of riffles and pools.
This rough estimate should be adequate because it relates to the
ability of a stream to provide a medium for shelter and movement. It
may not be practical to measure depth at a representative low flow.
However, if a stream is evaluated at average or lower flow, a
A-24
-------
representative low flow depth can be reasonable estimated. The
representative low flow depth is rated because it is a better
expression of prevailing conditions and the uses possible in a stream
most of the time. The following rating depths are based on depths of
streams in southern Wisconsin known to support various communities.
The rating depths are general guidelines only. For example, a cold
water stream with an average depth less than 24 inches may deserve an
excellent rating if otherwise excellent habitat is available.
a. Excellent: Average depth greater than 24 inches. Riffle depths
allow for free passage of fish and shelter when feeding. Pool
depths provide security and ample space for several fish, even at
a very low flow.
b. Good: Average depth 12-24 inches. Most riffles allow free passage
and shelter at normal flow conditions. Most pools provide adequate
shelter under all but very low flow conditions.
c. Fai r: Average depth 6-12 inches. Many riffles are too shallow for
free passage of fish at normal flow. Some habitat is provided by
pools but only at normal or higher flow. Depth may be sufficient
to support forage species and macroinvertebrates.
d. Poor: Average depth less than 6 inches. Riffles are shallow, even
at normal flow. Pools and flat area are shallow and uniform in
depth. Little cover available for any fish species. Stream may
cease to flow in very dry periods.
10. Stream Flow, at a Representative Low Flow - Stream flow relates to
the ability of a stream to provide and maintain a stable aquatic
environment. The rating flows are based on a review of Surface Water
Resources of Wisconsin Counties publications, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. Flows were compared to species of fish known to
inhabit streams.
a. Fxcellent: Stream flow greater than 5 cfs for warm water streams,
and greater than 2 cfs for cold water streams. These values are
based on the potential of a stream to support warm or cold water
sport fish.
b. Good: Stream flow 2 to B cfs for warm water streams, and 1 to 2
cfs for cold water streams. Surface water resources data for
Wisconsin indicates many warm water streams, with good habitat, in
this flow range support sport fish. Other streams, with good water
quality, support diverse forage fish populations. Many cold water
streams in this flow range will support trout, if habitat is good.
c. Fair: Stream flow 0.5 to 2 cfs for warm water streams, and 0.5 to
1 cfs for cold water streams. These stream flows are sufficient
to support forage species in warm water. Cold water streams in
this flow range may support a few trout. Streams with exceptional
habitat may support a fishable trout population. Many cold water
A-25
-------
streams in this range will support
macr oinver tebr ate populations.
diverse forage fish and
d. Poor: Stream flow less than 0.5 cfs for both warm and cold water
streams. Streams in this category may become intermittent in dry
periods. Streams with exceptional water quality and habitat may
support forage fish, or even serve as spawning or nursery areas for
trout.
11. Pool/Riffle or Run/Bend Ratio - This rating item assumes a stream
with a mixture of riffles or bends contains better habitat for
community development than a straight or uniform depth stream. "Bends"
refer to a meandering stream. Bends are included because some low
gradient streams may not have riffle ares, but excellent habitat can be
provided by the cutting action of water at bends. The ratio is
calculated by dividing the average distance between riffles or bends by
the averge stream width. If a stream contains both riffles and bends,
the most dominant feature which provides the best habitat should be
used.
a. Excellent: Pool-to-riffle or run-to-bend ratio to 5-7. Pools are
deep and provde good habitat. Riffles are deep enough for free
passage of fish.
b.
c-
Good: Pool-to-riffle
in pools and riffles.
or run-to-bend ratio of 7-15. Adequate depth
Fair : Pool-to-riffle- or run-to-bend ratio of 15-25. Occasional
riffle or bend. Variable bottom contours may provide some habitat.
d. Poor : Pool-to-riffle or run-to-bend ration greater than 25.
Essentially a straight and uniform depth stream. Little habitat of
any kind.
12. Aesthetics - This rating item does not necessarily relate to the
ability of a stream to support aquatic life. However, people's
perception of what constitutes a desirable surface water is important.
Even though a stream may not be capable of supporting high-use-class
orgnaisma, it may have desirable aesthetic qualities which deserve
protection. It is not possible to guide everyone to
aesthetic rating decision. However, various studies
conducted on what most people consider as aesthetics
a uniform
have been
when viewing
a setting. The various factors important in this evaluation include:
1. Visual pattern quality
2. Land husbandry
3. Degree of change
4. Recovery potential
5. Naturalness
6. Geological values
7. Historical values
8. Flora and fauna diversity
A-26
-------
a. Excellent: The stream or stream section has wilderness
characteristics, outstanding natural beauty, or flows through a
wooded or unpastured corridor.
b. Good: High natural beauty -- trees, historic site. Some watershed
development may be visible such as agricultural fields, pastures,
some dwellings. Land in use is well managed.
c. Fair: Common setting, but not offensive. May be a developed but
uncluttered area.
d. Poor: Stream does not enhance aesthetics. Condition of stream is
offensive, and recovery without extensive renovation of watershed
and stream is unlikely.
Habitat Rating Procedure - The habitat characteristics described are
rated from excellent to poor on the form provided at the end of this
section. The habitat score obtained from the rating form is used in
Table 4 to assist in determining attainable stream use. The rating
numbers are relative to one another from excellent to poor, and number
values are weighted to give more important rating items (depth, flow,
substrate) more significance in the total score. It is the proportion
of the rating values to one another that is important, not the actual
number value.
The rating form is completed using field measurements, observations,
maps, aerial photos, etc. If a stream is divided into segments, a
separate form is used for each one. One of the numbers best describing
the condition of the rating item is circled. If the actual conditions
fall somewhere between the conditions described, the number is crossed
out and an intermediate number that better describes the situation is
written TruWhen all items have been rated the total score in each
column is added up and the column scores totalled for a final ranking
score.
The rating items are interrelated so do not dwell on any one item for
long. Avoid keying in on a single indicator unless it has significant
impact on the stream's potential to support aquatic life. The weight
given to more important items is intended to account for this. In this
system a stream with excellent characteristics will receive a lower
number score than one with poor characteristics, i.e., the lower the
score, the better the stream system habitat.
The rating form should be completed in the field to insure all items
are rated at the site. The descriptions are intended to stimulate
mental images of indicator conditions which lead to consistent,
reproducible habitat ratings by different evaluators.
A-27
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Alabaster, J.S. and R. Lloyd. 1980. Water quality criteria for fresh
water fish. Food and Agricultural Org., United Nations.
Gorman, O.T. and J.R. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish
communities. Ecology, 59(3). pp. 507-5115.
Kohnke, H. and A.R. Bertrand. 1959. Soil Conservation. McGraw-Hill
Book Co. 298 p.
Lotspeich, F.B. 1980. Water sheds as the basic ecosystem: This
conceptual framework provides a basis for a natural classification
system. Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 16, No. 4, August 1980.
Memetz, P.N. and H.D. Drechsler. 1980. The use of biological criteria
in environmental policy. Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 16, No. 6.
Platt, W.S. 1974. Geomorphic and aquatic conditions influencing
salmonids and stream classification. U.S. For. Serv. SEAM Program, 199
PP.
Schuettpelz, D.H. 1980. Evaluating the attainability of water quality
goals. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality
Evaluation Section; May 1980.
Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois Streams: A classification based on their
fishes and an analysis of factors responsible for disappearance of
native species. Biol. Note No. 76, Illinois Natural Fish Survey,
Urbana, Illinois, November 1971.
Thurston, R.V., R.C. Russo, C.M. Fetteralf, T.A. Fdsall, and Y.M.
Barber (Eds.). 1979. A review of the EPA red book: quality criteria
for water. Water Quality Section, Am. Fish Soc., Bethesda, MO. 313 p.
Tramer, E.J. and P.M. Rogers. 1973. Diversity and longitudinal
zonation in fish populations of two streams entering a metropolitan
area. Am. Midland Nat., 90(2): 366-374.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Stream reach inventory and
channel stability evaluation. USDA; Forest service; Northern Reg.
Rl-75-002.
US EPA. 1977. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, US EPA; Washington, D.C. 256 p.
US EPA, Reg V. 1980. Environmental evaluation guidance. US EPA, Draft
Copy, December 1980.
Warren, C.E. 1979. Toward classification and rationale for watershed
management and stream protection. US EPA, EPA-600/3-79-059,, June 1979.
A-28
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
S 'd £2 S S
go * 0. - -
- " S S I §
TO ^ "*
S § i 51 S1
i» 5 a r» r*
cu a>
Z K X ~ -
Z S 9 £ £
an r* r*
VI M 77
^ 0
r i s 3 s
IM y 3f m
10 5 e -«
me 2 »
5 « S"
S c* 5 i S
ft C 1
- i
u> m r*
?
§ L m
; r *
_ | n
? +
-n
v 1 »
8 1 ^
H
.-o
1 '-r
» i
n M
ft 7>
7 It
>? s
5 i
rs»
i
r*
r*
n
M
8fS =
. 21 ^ S"
* S "*" "*
& S i?
ass
Ot r*
S-5
M ft r*
r» c
' << M
a-
00
« V» I X
M. o ^ "*
SM*
jTfr- 3
' II f
!s-j
VI C
!«
>< «
S
§oo
|aS
|?S
sP
o a
I*
I
:
O ft V)
* n <»
M ^
§ a:|
8 -*9-
!.?!
r> a
o o 9
III
sss
at
gf|
o «^
5
«*
?"
-3 Q
-»t *
ft
*» ^
M
ft r*
a *<
O
2.?
M or
r*
r*
^
5 a"
-|!
0 *" *
Jz|
W -^ IP
*» tj
7
\o
y o ^
nO O
q
i Is
jll
8"
a
-% "" w» rp
2«J l» 1* Or
"s- 1*
fQ ft INi
-.?$"
M a« »
" "E10
a
1
f»
3
*!
<
1
j^
1
3
f»
I
i
J
9
A-30
-------
APPENDIX C:
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ADDITIONAL
SOURCES
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ADPITIONAL SOURCES
Diversity Indices
Cairns, J., Jr., D. W. Albauqh, F. Busey, and M. D. Chanay (1968), The
sequential conparison index: a simplified method for non-biologists to
estimate relative differences in biological diversity in stream
pollution studies. F. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 40(9) :1607-1613.
Cairns, J. Jr., and K. L. Dickson (1971). A simple method for the
biological assessment of the effects of waste discharges on aquatic
bottom dwelling organisms. F. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. £0:755-782.
Dixon, W. J. and F. J. Massey, Jr. (1951), Introduction to statistical
analysis (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York), 370p.
Lloyd, M. and P.. J. Ghelardi (1964), A table for calculating the
"equitability" component of species diversity. F. Anim. Ecol .
33(2) :217-225.
Margalef, R. (1958), Information theory in ecology. Gen Systems
3:36-71.
MacAuthur, R. H. (1964^, Environmental factors affecting bird species
diversity. Aer. Natur. 98(903) :387- 397.
MacAuthur, R. H. (1965), Patterns of species . diversity. Biol. Rev.
40(4):510-533.
MacAuthur, R. H. and J. W. MacAuthur (1961), On bird species diversity.
Ecology 42(3) :594-598.
Mathis, B. J. (1965) Community structure of benthic macroinvertibrates
in an intermittent stream receiving oil field brines. Ph.D. Thesis,
Oklahoma State University, 52 p.
Mclntosh, R. P. (1967), An index of diversity and the relation of
certain concepts to diversity. Ecology 48(3) :392-404.
Patten, B. C. (196?), Species diversity in net phytoplankton of Raritan
Bay. J. Mar. Res. 20(1) :57-75.
Pielou, E. C. (1966), The measurement of diversity in different types
of biological collections. J. Theor. Biol. 13:131-144.
Pielou, E. C. (1%9), An introduction to mathematical ecology (John
Wiley $ Sons, New York), 286p.
Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver (1963), The mathematical theory of
communication (University of Illinois Press, Urbana).
C-l
-------
Wilhm, J. L. (1965), Species diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates in
a stream receiving domestic and oil refinery effluents (Ph.D.
dissertation) Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, 49p.
Wilhm, J. S. and T. C. Dorris (1968), Biological parameters for water
quality criteria. Bioscience 18(6):477-480.
Fishes - General References
Allen, G.H., A.C. Delcay, and S.W. Goshall. 1960. Quantitative sampling
of marine fishes - A problem in fish behavior and fish gear. In: Waste
Disposal in the Marine Environment. Pergamon Press, pp 448-5511.
American Public Health Association et al. 1971. Standard methods for
the examination of water and wastewater. 13th ed. APHA, New York.
pp. 771-779.
Calhoun, A., ed. 1966 Inland fisheries management. Calif. Dept. Fish
and Game, Sacramento. 546 pp.
Car lander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery; Life history data
on freshwater of the U.S. and Canada, exclusive of the Perciformes,
3rd ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 752 pp.
Curits, B. 1948. The Life Story of the Fish. Harcourt, Brace and
Company, New York. 284 pp.
Gushing, D.H. 1968. Fisheries biology. A study in population dynamics.
Univ. Wis. Press, Madison. 200 pp.
Green, J. 1968. The biology of estuarine animals. Univ. Washington,
Seattle. 401 pp.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1960. The biology of polluted water. Liverpool Univ.
Press, Liverpool. 202 pp.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto Press.
555 pp.
Jones, J.R.E. 1964. Fish and river pollution. Butter worth, London. 203
pp.
Lagler, K. F. 1966. Freshwater fisheries biology. William C. Brown Co.,
Dubuque. 421 pp.
Lagler, K.F., J.D. Bardach, and R.R. Miller. 1962. Ichthyology. The
study of fishes. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York and London. 545
pp.
C-2
-------
Macan, T.T. 1963 Freshwater ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New Yor. 338
PP.
Marshall, N.R. 1966. Life of fishes. The World Publ. Co., Cleveland and
New York. 402 pp.
Moore, H.B. 1965. Marine ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
493 pp.
Reid, G.K. 1961. Ecology of inland waters and estuaries. Reinhold Puhl.
Corp., New York. 375 pp.
Ricker, W. F. 1958. Handbook of computations for biological statistics
of fish populations. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Bull. 119. 300 pp.
Ricker, W.E. 1968 Methods for the assessment of fish production in
fresh water. International Biological Program Handbook No. 3.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh. 326 pp.
Rounsefell, G.A., and W.H. Everhart. 1953. Fishery science, its methods
and applications. John Wiley 8 Son, New York. 444 pp.
Rutter, F. 1953. Fundamentals of limnology. Univ. Toronto Press,
Tornoto. 242 pp.
Warren, C.E. 1971. Biology and water pollution control. W.8. Saunders
Co., Philadelphia. 434 pp.
Welch, P.S. 1948. Limnological methods. McGraw-Hill, New York. 381 pp.
- Electofishing
Applegate, V.C. 1954. Selected bibliography on applications of
electricity in fishery science. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci.
Rept. Fish. No. 127. pp. 1-55.
Bailey, J.E., et al. 1955. A direct current fish stocking technique.
Prog. Fish-Cult. 17(2):75.
Burnet, A.M.R. 1959. Electric fishing with pulsatory electric currect.
New Zeal. J. Sci.4(1):48-56
Burnet, A.M.R. 1961. An electric fishing machine with pulsatory direct
current. New Zeal. J. Sci. 4(1):151-161.
Dale, H.B. 1959. Electronic fishing with underwater pulses.
Electronics, 52(1):l-3.
El son, P.F. 1950. Usefulness of electrofishing methods. Canad. Fish
Cult. Mo. 9, pp. 3-12
C-3
-------
Halsband, E. 1955. Untersuchungen uber die Betaubungsgrezimpulzaheln
vor schiedener suswasser Fische. Arcniv. fur Fishereiwissenschaft,
6(l-2):45-53.
Haskell, D.C. 1939. An electical method of collecting fish. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 69:210-215.
Haskell, D.C. 1954. Electrical fields as applied to the operation of
electric fish shockers. New York Fish Game J. 1(2):130-17C.
Haskell, D.C., and R.C. Zilliox. 1940. Further developments of the
electrical methods of collecting fish. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
70:404-409.
Jones, R.A. 1959. Modifications of alternate-polar ity electrode. Prog.
Fish-Cult. 21(l):39-42.
Larkins, P.A. 1950. Use of electrical shocking devices. Canad. Fish.
Cult., No. 9, pp. 21-25.
Lennon, R.E., and P.S. Parker. 1955. Electric shocker developments on
southeastern trout waters. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 85:234-240.
Lennon, R.E., and P.S. Parker. 1957. Night collection of fish with
electricity. New York Fish Game J. 4(1):109:118.
Lennon, R.E., and P.S. Parker. 1958. Applications of salt in
electrofishing. Spec. Sci. Rept., U.S. Fish Wild!. Serv. No. 280.
Ming, A. 1964a. Boom type electrofishing device for sampling fish
populations in Oklahoma waters. Okla. Fish. Res. Lab., D-J Federal Aid
Proj. FL-6, Semiann. Rept. (Jan-June, 1964). pp. 22-23.
Ming, A. 1964b. Contributions to a bibliography on the construction,
development, use and effects of electrofishing devices. Okla. Fish.
Res. Lab., D-J Federal Ail Proj. FL-6, Semiann. Rept. (Jan.-June,
1964).pp. 33-46.
Monan, G.E., and D.E. Engstrom. 1962. Development of a mathematical
relationship between electri-field parameters and the electrical
characteristics of fish. U.S. Fish Wild!. Serv., Fish. Bull.
63(1):123-136.
Murray, A.P.. 1958. A direct current electofishing apparatus using
separate excitation. Canad. Fish Cult., No. 23, pp. 27-32.
Northrop, R.B. 1962. Design of a pulsed DC-AC shocker. Conn. Bd. Fish
and Game, D-J Federal Aid Proj. F-25-R, Job No. 1.
Omand, D.N. 1950. Electrical methods of fish collection. Canad. Fish
Cult. No. 9, pp. 13-20.
C-4
-------
Petty, A.C. 1955. An alternate-polarity electrode. New York Fish Game
J. 2(1) :14-119.
Ruhr, C.E. 1953. The electric shocker in Tennessee, Tenn. Game Fish
Comm. (mineo). 12pp.
Saunders, J.W., and M.W. Smith. 1954. The effetive use of a direct
current fish shocker in a Prince Edward Island stream. Canad. Fish.
Cult., No. 16, pp. 42-49.
Schwartz, F.J. 1961. Effects of external forces on aquatic organisms.
Maryland Dept. res. Edu., Chesapeake Biol. Lh., Copntr. No. 168,
pp. 26.
Smith, G. F. M., and P.F. Flson. 1950. A-D.C. electrical fishing
apparatus Canad. Fish Cult., Mo. 9, pp. 34-46.
Sullivan, C. 1956. Importance of size grouping in population estimates
employing electric shockers. Prog. Fish-Cult. 18(4):188-190.
Taylor, G.N. 1957. Galvanotaxic response of fish to pulsating D.C.J.
Wildl. Mgmt. 21(2):201-213.
Thompson, R.R. 1959. Capturing tagged red salmon with pulsed direct
current. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rept. - Fish, No. 355, 10
pp.
Vibert, R., ed. 1967. Fishing with electricity - Its applications to
biology and management. Europian Inland Fish. Adv. Comm. FAO, United
Nations, Fishing News (Books) Ltd. London, 276 pp.
Webster, D.A., J.L. Forney, R.H. Gihbs, Jr., J. H. Severns, and W.F.
Van Woert. 1955. A comparison of alternating and direct electric
currents in fishery work. New York Fish Game J. 2(1):106-113.
Whitney, L.V., and R.L. Pierce. 1957. Factors controlling the input of
electrical energy into fish in an electical field. Limno. Oceanogr.
2(2):55-61.
- Fish Identification
Bailey, R.M., et al. 1970. A list of common and scientific names of
fishes from the United States and Canada. 3rd ed. Spec. Publ. Amer.
Fish. Soc. No. 6. 149 pp.
Blair, W.F. and G.A. Moore. 1968. Vertebrates of the United States.
McGraw Hill, New York. pp. 22-165
Eddy, S. 1957. How to know the fresh-water fishes. Wm. C. Brown Co.,
Dubuque. 253 pp.
C-5
-------
Jordan, D.S., B.W. Evermann, and H.W. Clark, 1955. Check list of the
fishes and fish like vertebrates of North and Middle America north of
the northern boundary of Venezuela and Colombia. U.S. Fish Wild!.
Ser., Washington, D.C. 670 pp.
LaMonte, F. 1958. North American game fishes. Doubleday, Garden City,
N.Y. 202 pp.
Morita, C.M. 1953. Freshwater fishing in Hawaii. Div. Fish Game. Dept.
Land Nat. Res., Honolulu. 22 pp.
Perlmutter, A. 1961. Guide to marine fishes. New York Univ. Press, New
York. 431 pp.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Grossman. 1969. Checklist of Canadian freshwater
fishes with keys of identification. Misc. Publ. Life Sci. Div. Ontario
Mus. 104 pp.
Thompson, J.R., and S. Springer. 1961. Sharks, skates, rays, and
chimaras. Bur. Comm. Fish. Fish Wild!. USDI Circ. No. 119, 19 pp.
Marine: Coastal Pacific
Baxter, J.L. 1966. Inshore fishes of California. 3rd rev. Calif. Dept.
Fish Game, Sacramento. 80 pp.
Clemens, H.A., and G.V. Wilby. 1961. Fishes of the Pacific coast of
Canada. 2nd ed. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. No. 68. 443 pp.
McAllister, D.E. 1960. List of the marine fishes of Canada. Bull. Nat.
Mus., Canada No. 168:Biol. Ser. Nat. Mus. Can. No. 62-76 pp.
McHuqh, J.L. and J.E. Fitch. 1951. Annotated list of the clupeoid
fishes of the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Cape San Lucas, Baja,
California. Calif. Fish Game, 37:491-95.
Rass, T.S., ed. 1966. Fishes of the Pacific and Indian Oceans; Biology
and distribution. (Translated from Russian). Israel Prog, for Sci.
Translat., IPST Cat. 1411; TT65-50120; Trans Frud. Inst. Okeaual. 73.
266 pp.
Roedel, P.M. 1948. Common marine fishes of Calif. Div. Fish Game Fish
Bull. No. 68. 150 pp.
Hoi ford, L.A. 1937. Marine game fishes of the Pacific Coast from Alaska
to the Equator. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 205 pp.
C-6
-------
Marine: Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Ackerman, B. 1951. Handbook of fishes of the Atlantic seaboard.
American Publ. Co., Washington, D.C.
Bearden, C.M. 1961. Common marine fishes of South Carolina. Bears Bluff
Lab. No. 34, Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina.
Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the gulf of Maine.
Fish. Bull. No. 74. Fish. Bull. No. 74. Fish Wildl. Serv. 53:577 pp.
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1954. Deep water elasmobranchs and
chimaeroids from the northwestern slope. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zoo!.
Harvard College, 112:37-87.
Bohlke, J.E., and C.G. Chaplin. 1968. Fishes of the Bahamas and
adjacent tropical waters. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. Livingston
Publishing Co., Wynnewood. Pa.
Breder, C.M., Jr. 1948. Field book of marine fishes of the Atlantic
Coast from Labrador to Texas. G.P. Putnam and Sons, New York. 332 pp.
Casey, J.G. 1964. Angler's guide to sharks of the northeastern United
States, Maine to Chesapeake Bay, Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Cir. No. 179,
Washington, D.C.
Hildebrand, S.R., and W.C. Scott. 1966. Fishes of the Atlantic Coast of
Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. No. 155. 485 pp.
Leim, A.H., and W.B. Scott. 1966. Fishes of the Atlantic Coast of
Cananda No. 168;Biol. Ser. Nat. Mus. Can. No. 62. 76 pp.
McAllister, D.F. 1960. List of the marine fishes of Canada. Bull. Nat.
Mus. Canada Mo. 168; Biol. Ser. Nat. Mus. Can. No. 62. 76 pp.
Pew, P. 1954. Food and game fishes of the Texas Coast. Texas Game Fish
Comm. Bull. 33. 68 pp.
Randall, J.E., 1968. Caribbean reef fishes. T.F.H. Publications, Inc.,
Jersey City.
Robins, C.R. 1958. Check list of the Florida game and commercial marine
fishes, including those of the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies,
with approved common names. Fla. State Bd. Conserv. Educ. Ser. 12. 46
pp.
Schwartz, F.J. 1970. Marine fishes common to North Carolina. North Car.
Dept. Cons. Develop., Div. Comm. Sport Fish 32 pp.
Taylor, H.F. 1951. Survey of marine fisheries of North Carolina. Univ.
North Car. Press, Chapel Hill.
C-7
-------
Freshwater - Northeast
Bailey, R.M. 193R. Key to the fresh-water fishes of New Hampshire.
InrThe fishes of the Merrimack Watershe. Biol. Surv. of the Merrimack
Watershed. N.H. Fish Game Dept., Biol. Surv. Rept. 3. pp. 149-185.
Bean, T.H. 1903. Catalogue of the fishes of New York. N.Y. State Mus.
Bull. 60.784 pp.
Carpenter, R.G. and H.R. Siegler. 1947 Fishes of New Hampshire. N.H.
Fish Game Dept. 87 pp.
Elser, H.J. 1950. The common fishes of Maryland - How to tell them
apart. Publ. Maryland Dept. Res. Educ. No. 88.45 pp.
Greeley, J.R., et al. 1926-1940. (Various papers on the fishes of New
York.) In: Biol. Surv. Repts. Supl. Anm. Rept., N.Y. St. Cons. Dept.
McCahe, B.C. 1945. Fishes. In: Fish. Fur. Rept. 1942. Mass. Dept. Cons,
pp.30-68.
Van Meter, H. 1950. Identifying fifty prominent fishes of West
Virginia. W.Va. Cons. Comm. Div. Fish Mgt. No. 3. 45 pp.
Whiteworth, W.R., R. L. Berrieu, and W.T. Keller. 1968. Freshwater
fishes of Connecticut. Conn. State Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv, Bull. No.
101. 134 pp.
Freshwater - Southeast
Black, J.D. 1940. The distribution of the fishes of Arkansas. Univ.
Mich. Ph.D. Thesis 243 pp.
Briggs, J.C. 1958. A list of Florida fishes and their distribution.
Bull. Fla. State Mus. Biol. Sci. 2:224-318.
Carr, A.F., Jr. 1937. A key to the freshwater fishes of Florida, proc.
Fla. Acad. Sci. (1936): 72-86.
Clay, W.M. 1962. A field manual of Kentucky fishes. Ky. Dept. Fish
Wildl. Res., Frankfort, Ky. 147 pp.
Fowler, H.W. 1945. A study of the fishes of the southern Piedmont and
coastal plain. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia Monogr. No. 7. 408 pp.
Gowanlock, O.N. 1933. Fishes and fishing in Louisiana. Bull. La. Dept.
Cons. No. 23. 638 pp.
Heemstra, P.C. 1965. A field key to the Florida sharks. Tech. Ser. No.
45. Fla. Bd. Cons., Div. Salt Water Fisheries.
C-8
-------
King, W. 1947. Important food and game fishes of North Carolina. N.C.
Pept. Cons, and Dev. 54 pp.
Kuhne, E.R. 1939. A guide to the fishes of Tennessee and the mid-South.
Tenn. Dept. Cons., Knoxville. 124 pp.
Smith, H. 1970. The fihes of North Carolina. N.C. Geol. Econ. Surv.
2:xl;453 pp.
Smith-Vaniz, W.F. 1968. Freshwater fishes of Alabama. Auburn Univ. Agr.
Exper. Sta. Paragon Press, Montgomery, Ala. 211 pp.
Freshwater - Midwest
Railey, R.M., and M.O. All urn. 1962. Fishes of South Dakota. Misc. Publ.
Mux. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 119. 131 pp.
Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas, Mic. Publ. Mus. Nat.
Hist. Univ. Kansas No. 45. 357 pp.
Eddy, S., and T. Suber. 1961. Northern fishes with special reference to
the Upper Mississippi Valley. Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis. 276 pp.
Evermann, R.W., and H.W. Clark. 1920. Lake Maxinjuckee, a physical and
biological survey. Ind. St. Dept. Cons., 660 pp. (Fishes, pp.
238-451).
Forbes, S.A., and R.E. Richardson. 1920. The fishes of Illinois. 111.
Nat. Hist. Surv. 3: CXXXI. 357 pp.
Gerking, S.D. 1945. The distribution of the fishes of Indiana. Invest.
Ind. Lakes and Streams, 3(1):1-137.
Greene, C.W. 1935. The distribution of Wisconsin Fishes. Wis. Cons.
Comm. 235 pp.
Harlan, J.R., and E.B. Speaker. 1956. Iowa fishes and fishing. 3rd ed.
Iowa State Cons. Comm., Des Moines, 337 pp.
Hubbs, C.L., and G.P. Cooper. 1936. Minnow of Michigan. Cranbrook Inst.
Sci., Bull 8.95 pp.
Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region.
Uniov. Mich. Press, Ann Arbor. 213 pp.
Johnson, R.E. 1942. The distribution of Nebraska fishes. Univ. Mich.
(Ph.D. Thesis). 145 pp.
Trautman, M.B. 1957. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Univ. Press,
Columbus. 683 pp.
C-9
-------
Van Ooosteri, J. 1957. Great Lakes fauna, flora, and their environment.
Great Lakes Comm., Ann Arbor, Mich. 86 pp.
Freshwater - Southwest
Beckman, W.C. 1952. Guide to the fishes of Colorado. Univ. Colo. Mus.
Leafl. 11. 110 pp.
Burr, J.G. 1932. Fishes of Texas; Handbook of the more important game
and commercial types. Bull Tex. Game, Fish, and Oyster Comm. Mo. 5, 41
pp.
Dill, W.A. 1944. The fishery of the Lower Colorado River. Calif. Fish
Game, 30:109-211
LaRivers, I., and T.J. Trelease. 1952. An annotated check list of the
fishes of Nevada. Calif. Fish Game, 38(1) :113-123
Miller, R.R. 1952. Bait fishes of the Lower Colorado River from Lake
Mead, Nevada, to Yuma, Arizona, with a key identification. Calif. Fish
Game. 38(l):7-42.
Sigler, W.F., and R.R. Miller, 1963. Fishes of Utah. Utah St. Dept.
Fish Game. Salt Lake City. 203 pp.
Walford, L.A. 1931. Handbook of common commercial and game fishes of
California. Calif. Div. Fish Game Fish Bull. No. 28
Ward, H.C. 1953. Know your Oklahoma fishes. Okla. Game Fish Dept,
Oklahoma City. 40 pp.
Freshwater - Northwest
Baxter, G.T., and J.R. Simon. 1970. Wyoming fishes. Bull. Wyo. Game
Fish Dept. No. 4. 168 pp.
Bond, C.E. 1961. Keys to Oregon freshwater fishes. Tech. Bull. Ore.
Agr. Exp. Sta. No. 58. 42 pp.
Hankinson, T.L. 1929. Fishes of North Dakota. Pop. Mich. Acacl. Sci.
Arts, and Lett. 10(1928):439-460.
McPhail, J.D., and C.C. Lindsey. 1970. Freshwater fishes of
Northwestern Canada and Alaska. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Ottawa No.
173. 381 pp.
Schultz, L.P. 1936. Keys to the fishes of Washington, Oregon and
closely adjoining regions. Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 2(4):103-270
c-10
-------
Schultz, L.P. 1941. Fishes of Glacier National park, Montana. USDI,
Cons. Bull. No. 22. 42 pp.
Wilimovsky, N.J. 1954. List of the fishes of Alaska. Stanford Ichthyol.
Bull. 4:279-294.
Macroi nvertebrates
Chutter, P.M. and R.G. Noble. 1966. The reliability of a method of
sampling stream invertebrates. Arch. Hydrobiol., 62(1):95-103.
Dickson, K.L., J. Cairns, Jr., and J.C. Arnold. 1971. An evaluation of
the use of a basket-type artificial substrate for sampling
macroinvertebrate organisms. Trans. Am. Fish.Soc. 100(3):553-559.
Elliott, J.M. 1970. Methods of sampling invertebrate drift in running
water. Ann. Limnol. 6(2) :133-159.
Elliott, J.M. 1971. Some methods for the statistical analysis of
samples of benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biological Association,
U.K. Ferry House, Ambleside, Westmorland, England. 144 pp.
Flannagan, J.F. 1970. Efficiencies of various grabs and corers in
sampling freshwater benthos. J. Fish. Res. Bdg. Canada,
27(10):1691-1700.
Fullner, R.W. 1971. A comparison of macroinvertebrates collected by
basket and modified multiple-plate samples. JWPCF, 43(3):494-499.
Gaufin, A.R., and C.M. Tarzwell. 1956. Aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities as indicators of organic pollution in Lytle Creek. Sewate
« Ind. Wastes, 28(7) :906-924.
Hamilton, A.L., W. Burton, and J. Flannagan. 1970. A multiple corer for
sampling profundal benthos. J.Fish Res. Bdg. Canada, 27(1)):1867-1869.
Henson, E.B. 1965. A cage sampler for collecting aquatic fauna. Turtox
News, 43(12):298-299.
Henson, E.R. 1958. Description of a bottom fauna concentrating bag.
Turtox News, 361(1):34-36.
Hester, F.E., and J.S. Dendy. 1962. A multiple-plate sampler for
aquatic macroinvertebrates. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 91 (4):420-421.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1969. An artificial substrate device for sampling
benthic stream invertebrates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 14(3):465-471.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Liverpool Univ.
Press.
C-ll
-------
Ingram, W.M., and A.F. Bartsch. 1960. Graphic expression of biological
data in water pollution reports. JWPCF, 32(3):297-310.
Ingram, W.M. 1957. Use and value of biological indicators of pollution:
Fresh water clams and snails. In: Biological Problems in Water
Pollution, C.M. Tarzwell, ed. USDHEW, PHS, R.A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center, Cincinnati.
Kolkwitz, R., and M. Marsson, 1909. Ecology of animal saprobia. Int.
Rev. of Hydrobiology and Hydrogeography, 2:126-152. Translation In:
Biology of Water Pollution, USDI, FWPCA, Cincinnati. 1967.
Lewis, P.A., W.T. Mason, Jr., and C.I. Weber. A comparison of Peterson,
Ekman, and Ponar grab samples from river substrates. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati. In preparation.
Mason, W.T., Jr., J.B. Anderson, and G.E. Morrison. 1967. A
limestone-filled artificial substrate sampler-float unit for
collecting macroinvertebrates from large streams. Prog. Fish-Cult.
29(2) :74.
Mason, W.T., Jr., P.A. Lewis, and J.B. Anderson. 1971.
Macroinvertebrate collections and water quality monitoring in the Ohio
River Basin, 1963-1967. Cooperative Report, Office Tech. Programs.
Ohio Basin Region and Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, WQO,
USEPA, NFRC-Cincinnati.
Mason, W.T., Jr., C.I. Weber, P.A. Lewis, and E.G. Julian. 1973.
Factors affecting the performance of basket and multiplate
macroinvertebrate samples. Freshwater Biol. (U.K.) 3:In press.
Paterson, C.G., and C.H. Fernando. 1971. A comparison of a simple corer
and an Ekman grab for sampling shallow-water benthos. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada, 28(3):365-368.
Patrick, R. 1950. Biological measure of stream conditions. Sewage Ind.
Wastes, 22(7):926-938.
Pennak, R.W. 1953. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States.
Ronald Press Co., New York. 769 pp.
Richardson, R.E. 1928. The bottom fauna of the middle Illinois River,
1913-1925: Its distributionj abundance, valuation, and index value in
the study of stream pollution. Bull. 111. Mat. Hist. Surv.
XVII(XII):387-475.
Scott, D.C. 1958. Biological balance in streams. Sewage Ind. Wastes,
30:1169-1173.
Waters, T.F. 1962. Diurnal periodicity in the drift of Stream
invertebrates. Ecology, 43(2):316-320.
-------
Waters, T.F. 1969. Invertebrate drift-ecology and significance to
stream fishes. In: Symposium Salmon and Trout in Streams, T.G.
Northcote, ed. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Univ. British
Columbia, Vancouver, pp. 121-134.
Welch, P.S. 1948. Limnological methods. The Blakiston Co.,
Philadelphia, Pa. 381 pp.
Wilhm, J.L. 1970. Range of diversity index in benthic macroinvertebrate
populations. JWPCF, 42(5):R221-R224.
Wurtz, C.B. 1955. .Stream biota and stream pollution. Sewage Ind.
Wastes, 27(11):!270-1278.
Mi croi nvertebrates
Arnon, W., et al. 1965. Towing characteristics of plankton sampling
gear. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10(3):333-340.
Barlow, J.P. 1955. Physical and biological processes determining the
distribution of zooplankton in a tidal estuary. Biological Bull.
109(2):211-225.
Barnes, H., and D.J. Tranter. 1964. A statistical examination of the
catches, numbers, and hiomass taken by three commonly used plankton
nets. Aut. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 16(3):293-306.
Curl, H., Jr. 1962. Analysis of carbon in marine plankton organisms. J.
Mar. Res. 30(3):181-188.
Dove!, W.L. 1964. An approach to sampling estuarine macroplankton.
Chesapeake Sci. 5(1-3) :77-90.
Frolander, H.F. 1957. A plankton volume indicator. J. Cons. Perm. int.
explor. Men. 22(3):278-283.
Frolander, H.F. 1968. Statistical variation in zooplankton numbers from
subsampling with a Stempel pipette. JWPCF, 40(2), Pt, 2 82-R 88.
Hazelwood, D.H., and R.A. Parker. 1961. Population dynamics of some
freshwater zooplankton. Ecology, 42(2):266-274.
Jossi, J.W. 1970^ Annotated bibliography of zooplankton sampling
devices. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Special Scientific Report.
Fisheries. No. 609.
Likens, G.E., and J.J. Gilbert. 1970. Motes on quantitative sampling of
natural populations of planktonic rotifers. Limnol. Oceanogr.
15(5):816-820.
C-13
-------
McGowan, J.A., and V.J. Fraundorf. 1966. The relationship between size
of net used and estimates of zooplankton diversity. Limnol. Oceanogr.
ll(4):456-469.
National Academy of Sci. 1969. Recommended procedures for measuring the
productivity of plankton standing stock and related oceanic
properties. Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
Paquette, R.G., E.L. Scott, and P.N. Sund. 1961. An enlarged
Clarke-Rumpus sampler. Limnol. Oceanogr. 6(2):230-233.
Smith, P.E., R.C. Counts, and R.I. Clutter. 1968. Changes in filtering
efficiency of plankton nets due to clogging under tow. J. Cons. Perm.
Int. Explor. Mer. 32(2):232-248.
Smyly, W.J.P 1968. Some observations on the effect of sampling
technique under different conditions on numbers of some fresh-water
planktonic Entomostraca and Rotifera caught by a water-bottle. J. Nat.
Hist. 2:569-575.
Stress, R.6., J.C. Neess, and A.D. Hasler. 1961. Turnover time and
production of planktonic Crustacea in limed and reference portion of a
bog lake. Ecology, 42(2) :237-245.
Tranter, O.J., J.D. Kerr, and A.C. Heron. 1968. Effects of hauling sped
on zooplankton catches. Aut. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 19(l):65-75.
Ward, J. 1955. A description of a new zooplankton counter. Quart. J.
Microsopical Sci. 96:371-373.
Yentsch, C.S., and A.C. Duxbury, 1956. Some factors affecting the
calibration number of the Clarke-Bumpus quantitative plankton sampler.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 1(4) :268-273.
Yentsch, C.S., and F.J. Hebard. 1957. A gauge for determining plankton
volume by the mercury immersion method. J. Cons. Perm. int. explor.
Mer. 32(2):184-190.
Phytoplankton
Holmes, R.W. 1962. The preparation of marine phytoplankton for
microscope examination and enumeration on molecular filters. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Serv., Special Scientific Report. Fisheries No. 433, 1-6.
Ingram, W.M., and C.M. Palmer. 1952. Simplified procedures for
collecting, examining, and recording plankton. JAWWA. 44:617.
Jackson, H.W., and L.R. Williams. 1962. Calibration and use of certain
plankton and chantes in some organims due to formalin preservation.
Publ. Health Repts. 53(47):2080-93.
C-14
-------
Holmes, R.W. 1962. The preparation of marine phytoplankton for
microscopic examiantion and enumeration on molecular filters. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Serv., Special Scientific Report. Fisheries No. 433,
1-6.
Jackson, H.W., and L.G. Williams. 1962. Calibration and use of certain
plankton and chantes in some organims due to formalin preservation.
Publ. Health Repts. 53(47):2080-93.
Lackey, J.B. 1938. The manipulation and counting of river plankton and
changes in some organisms due to formalin preservation. Pub. Health
Rep. 53:2080.
Levinson, S.A., R.P. MacFate. 1956. Clinical laboratory diagnosis. Lea
and Febiger, Philadelphia.
Lund, J.W.G., C. Kipling, and F..D. LeCren. 1958. The inverted
microscope method of estimating algae numbers and the statistical
basis of estimations by counting. Hydrobiologia, 11(2):143-70.
McNabb, C.D. 1960. Fnumeration of freshwater phytoplankton concentrated
on the membrane filter. Limnol. Oceanogr. 5:57-61.
National Academy of Sciences. 1969. Recommended procedures for
measuring the productivity of plankton standing stock and related
oceanographic properties. NAS, Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
Palmer, C.M., and T.E. Maloney. 1954. A new counting slide for
nannoplankton. Amer. Soc. limnol. Oceanog. Spec. Publ. No. 21, pp.
1-6.
Schwoerbel, J. 1970. Methods of hydrobiology (freshwater biology).
Pergamon Press, Hungary, 200 pp.
Weber, C.I. 1968. The preservation of phytoplankton grab samples.
Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc. 87:70.
Welch, P.S. 1948. Limnological methods. Blakiston Co., Philadelphia.
C-15
-------
OTHER REFERENCES
Ballentine, R.K., and L.J. Guarraia. 1977. The integrity of water. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-055-001-010-01068-1, Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
Batteke, J.P.H. 1977. The watershed as a management concept, pp.
203-208 in The integrity of water. R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia
(editors), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-055-001-01068-1,
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
Bauer, N.J., R.J. Seidler, and M.D. Knittel. 1981. A simple, rapid
bioassay for detecting effects of pollutants on bacteria. Bull.
Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 27:577-582.
Bordner, R., and J. Winter. 1978. Microbiological methods for
monitoring the environment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/8-78-017, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Branson, O.R., and D.N. Armentrout, W.M. Parker, C.V. Hall, and L.I.
Bone. 1981. Effluent monitoring step by step. Environm. Sci. Techn.
15:513-518
Brett, J.R. 1956. Some principles on the thermal requirements of
fishes. Q. Rev. Biol. 31:75-87
Brett, J.R., and J.M. Blackburn. 1981. Oxygen requirements for growth
of young coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and sockeye (£. nerka) salmon at
15° C. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 38:399-404
Brungs, W.A., and D.I. Mount. 1978. Introduction to a discussion of the
use of aquatic toxicity tests for evaluation of the effects of toxic
substances, pp. 15-26 j_n_ Estimating the hazards of chemical substances
to aquatic life, ASTM STP 657. J. Cairns, Jr., K.L. Dickson., and A.W.
Maki (editors), American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philaphelphia, Pennsylvannia.
Cairns, J., Jr., 1968. The need for regional water resources
management. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 71:480-490.
Cairns, J., Jr., 1977. Oualification of biological integrity, pp.
171-187 in The integrityof water. R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia
(editorsJT U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-055-001-01068-1,
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
Cairns, J., Jr., and K.L. Dickson. 1973. Biological methods for the
assessment of water quality, STP 528. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Cairns, J., Jr., and D. Gruger. 1980. A comparison of methods and
instrumentation of biological warning systems. Water Res. Bull.
16:261
C-16
-------
Cairns, M.A., R.R. Carton, and R.A. Tubb. 1982. Use of fish ventilation
frequency to estimate chronically safe toxicant concentrations. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 111:70-77.
Cochran, W.G., and G.M. Cox. 1957. Experimental designs. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York.
Costle, D.M. 1977. Forward, pp. v im The integrity of water. R.K.
Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia (editors), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-055-001-010-01068-1, Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials, Washington, D.C.
CRME (Committee to Review Methods for Ecotoxicology). 1981. Testing for
effects of chemicals on ecosystems. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Grouse, M.R., and R.R. Kindschy. In Press. A method for predicting
riparian vegetation potential of semi-arid rangelands.
Grouse, M.R., G.A. Gallahan, K.W. Malueg, and S.E. Dominguez. 1981.
Effects of fine sediments on growth of juvenile coho salmon in
laboratory streams. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 110:281-286.
Cummings, P.T. 1981. Congressional staffers take a retrospective look
at PL~92-500. Part 2. Journal WPCF 53:1370-1377.
Cummins, K.W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems.
BioScience 24:631-641.
Pickson, K.L., J. Cairns, Jr., and R.J. Livingston. 1978. Biological
data in water pollution assessment: quantitative and statistical
analyses, SEP 582. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dickson, K.W., A.C. Hendricks, J.S. Corssman, and J. Cairns, Jr. 1974.
Effects of intermittently chlorinated cooling tower hlowdown on fish
and invertebrates. Environmental Sci. Tech. 8:845-849.
Drummond, R.A., W.A. Spoor, and G.F. Olson. 1973. Some short-term
indicators of sublethal effects of copper on brook trout, Salvelinus
fontinalis. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 30:698
Dutka, B.J., nd K.K. Kwan. 1981. Comparison of three microbial toxicity
screening tests with the Microtox test. Bull. Environm. Contain.
Toxicol. 27:753-757.
Farnwoth, E.G., and M.C. Nichols ^aj_. 1979. Impacts of sediment and
nutrients on biota in surface waters of the United States. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/3-79-105, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
C-17
-------
Frey, D.G. 1977. Biological integrity of water -- an historical
approach, pp. 127-140 in The integrity of water. R.K. Ballentine and
L.J. Guarraia (editors~J7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-055-
001-101-01068-1, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials,
Washington, D.C.
Fritz, E.S., P.J. Rago, and I.P. Murarka. 1980. Strategy for assessing
impacts of power plants on fish and shellfish populations. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-80/34, Department of Interior,
Washington, D.C.
Gammon, J.R. 1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the
Wabash River. Technical Report No. 86, Purdue University Water
Resources Research Center, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Gammon, J.R., A. Spacie, J.L. Hamelink, and R.L. Kaesler. 1981. Role of
electrofishing in assessing environmental quality of the Wabash River.
p. 307-324 in_ Ecological Assessments of Effluent Impacts on
Communities of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms, ASTM STP 730. J.M. Bates
and C.I. Weber (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials.
Gaufin, A.R. 1973. Use of aquatic invertebrates in the assessment of
water quality, p. 96-116 J_n Biological Methods for the Assessment of
Water Quality, J. Cairns, Jr. and K.L. Dickson (editors), American
Society for Testing and Materials, STP 528, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Gore, J.A., and R.D. Judy, Jr. 1981. Predictive models of benthic
macroinvertebrate density for use in instream flow studies and
regulated flow management. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic. Sci. 38-1363-1370.
Guthrie, R.K., D.S. Cherry, and R.N. Ferebee. 1974. The effects of
diuron on bacterial populations in aquatic environments. Water Res.
Bull. 10:304-310.
Guthrie, R.K., D.S. Cherry, and F.L. Singleton. 1976. Alteration of
microbial populations in thermal stress. J. Water. Poll. Control. Fed.
48:962-965.
Hall, J.D., M.L. Murphy, and R/S. Aho. 1978. An improved design for
assessing impacts of watershed practices on small streams. Verh.
Internat. Verein. Limnol. 20:1359-1365.
Hanson, D.J., E. Matthews, S.L. Nail, and P.P. Dumas. 1972. Avoidance
of pesticides by untrained mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicoo. 8:46-51.
Hasler, A.D. 1975, Coupling of land and water systems. Springer-Verlag,
New York.
C-18
-------
Hawkins, C.P., and J.R. Sedell. 1981. Longitudinal and seasonal changes
in functional organization of macroinvertebrate communities in four
Oregon streams. Ecology 62:387-397.
Herricks, F.E., and J. Cairns, Jr. 1982. Biological monitoring Part III
-- receiving system methodology based on community structure. Water
Res. 16:141-153.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1977. Use of arthropods to evaluate water quality of
streams. Tech. Bull. No. 100. Dept. Nat. Resour., Madison, Wisconsin.
Hocutt, C.H. 1978. Fish. p. 80-103 iji Methods for the assessment and
prediction of mineral mining impacts on aquatic communities; a review
and analysis. W.T. Mason, Jr. (editor), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, FWS/OBS - 78/30, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.
Hocutt, C.H. 1981. Fish as indicators of biological integrity. Bull.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 6:28-30.
Hughes, R.M., and J.M. Omerick. 1981. Use and misuse of the terms
watershed and stream order. American Fisheries Society, Warmwater
Streams Symposium 1981:320-326.
Hughes, R.M., J.H. Gakstatter, M.A. Shirazi, and J.M. Omernik. In
Press. An approach for determining biological integrity in flowing
waters. Paper presented at Inplace Resource Inventories: Principles
and Practices, A National Workshop. University of Maine, Orono, Maine.
Isom, B.B. 1978. Benthic macroinvertebrates. p. 67-74 jjn Methods for
the assessment and prediction of mineral mining impact? on aquatic
communities: a review and analys. W.T. Mason, Jr. (editor), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-78/30, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.
Johnson, R. 1977. Fisheries, pp. 165-169 i_n The integrity of water.
R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia (editors), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-055-001-010-01068-1, Office of Water Hazardous
Materials, Washington, D.C.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities.
Bull. Amer. Fish. Soc. 6:21-27.
Karr, J.R., and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological persepective on water
quality goals. Environmental Management.
Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water
interface. Science 201:229-234.
Karr, J.R., L.A. Toth, and G.D. Garman. In Press. Habitat presentation
for midwest stream fishes: principles guidelines. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
C-19
-------
Kraft, K.J., and R.H. Sypniewski. 1981. Effect of sediment copper on
the distribution of benthic invertebrates in the Keweenaw waterway. J.
Great Lakes Res. 7:258-263.
Larsen, O.P., D.W. Schults, and K.W. Malueq. 1981. Summer internal
phosphorus supplies in Shagawa Lake, Minnesota. Limnol. Oceanogr.
26:740-753.
Leffler, J.W. 1980. Microcosmology: theoretical applications of
biological models, p. 14-29 jm Microcosms in ecological research. J.P.
Geisy, Jr. (ed.), U.S. Department of Energy, CONF-781101, DOE
Symposium Series, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia.
Likens, G.E., and F.H. Bormann. 1974. Linkages between terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems. Bioscience 24:447-456.
Lotspeich, F.B. 1980. Watersheds as the basic ecosystem: this
conceptual framework provides a basis for a natural classification
system. Water Res. Bull. 16:581-586.
Mackenthun, K.M. 1977. Legislative requirements, pp. 5-7 in The
integrity of water. R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia (edTtors), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-055-001-010-01068-1, Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
Matthews, R.A., A.L. Buikema, Jr., J. Cairns, Jr., and J.H. Rodgers,
Jr. 1982. Biological monitoring Part IIA -- receiving system
functional methods, relationships, and indices. Uater Res. 16:129-139.
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins. 1978. An introduction to the aquatic
insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
Miller, W.E., J.C. Greene, and T. Shiroyama. 1978. The Selenastrum
capricornutum Printz algal assay bottle test. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-600/9-78-018, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Moring, J.R., and R.L. Lantz. 1975. The Alsea watershed study: effects
of logging on the aquatic resources of three headwater streams of the
Alsea River, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish.
Res. Rept. No. 9, Corvallis, Oregon.
Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science
164:262-270.
Omernik, J.M., M.A. Shirazi, and R.M. Hughes. In Press. A synoptic
approach for regionalizing aquatic ecosystems. Paper presented at the
Inplace Resource Inventories: Principles and Practices, A National
Workshop, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.
C-20
-------
Outen, R. 1977. A conservationist's view. pp. 215-220 jn_ The integrity
of water. R.K. Ballentine nd L. J. Guarraia (editors), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-055-001-010-01068-1, Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
Palmer, C.M. 1977. Algae and water pollution. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-600/9-77-036, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Patrick, R. 1975. Stream communities, p. 445-459 ^i_n Ecology and
evolution of communities, M.L. Cody and J.M. Diamond (editors),
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Patrick, R. 1977. Identifying integrity through ecosystem study, pp.
155-162 in The integrity of water. R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia
(editors~J7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-055-001-010-
01068-1, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
Pfankuch, D.J. 1978. Stream reach inventory and channel stability
evaluation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Northern
Region, Missoula, Montana. 26 p.
Platts, W.S., M.A. Shirazi, and D.H. Lewis. 1979. Sediment particle
sizes used by salmon for spawning with methods for evaluation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/3-79-043, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Prater, B.L., and M.A. Anderson. 1977. A 96-hour bioassay of Otter
Creek, Ohio. J. Water Pollut. Control. Fed. 49:2099-2106.
Reiser, D.W., and T.A. Wesche. 1977. Determination of physical and
hydraulic preferences of brown and brook trout in the selection of
spawning locations. University of Wyoming, Water Resourcs Series No.
64, La ramie, Wyoming.
Resh, V.H., and J.D. Unzicker. 1975. Water quality monitoring and
aquatic organisms: the importance of species identification. J. Water
Poll. Control Fed. 47:9-19.
Robie, R.B. 1977. The State's view. pp. 211-214 jm The integrity of
water. R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia (editors), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-055-001-010-01068-1, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
Rosenberg, D.M., V.H. Resh et al. 1981. Recent trends in environmental
impact assessment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:591-624.
Sandine, M.F. 1974. Natural and simulated insect-substrate
relationships in Idaho Batholth streams. Master's thesis. University
of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.
Schuytema, G. In Press. A review of aquatic habitat assessment methods.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
C-21
-------
Seven'nghaus, W.D. 1981. Guild theory development as a mechanism for
assessing environmental impacts. Environmental Management 5:187-190.
Sheldon, A.L., and R.A. Haick. 1981. Habitat selection and association
of stream insects: a multivarite analysis. Freshwater Biology
11:395-403.
Shirazi, M.A., and M.K. Seim. 1979. A stream systems evaluation -- an
emphasis on spawning habitat for salmonids. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-6000/3-79-109, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Smith, M.E., and J.L. Kaster. 1981. Improved stream sampler for
periphyton. Prog. Fish-Cult. 43:124-125.
Sprague, J.B. 1973. The ABC's of pollutant bioassay using fish. p. 6-30
jjn Biological Methods for the Assessment of Water Quality, ASTM STP
528, American Society for Testing and Materials.
Sprague, J.B., and D.E. Drury. 1969. Avoidance reactions of salmonid
fish to representative pollutant, pp. 169-170 j_n S.H. Jenkins
(editor), Advances in water pollution research. Pergamon Press,
Oxford, England.
Stalnaker, C.B. 1979. The use of habitat structure preferenda for
establishing flow regimes necessary for maintenance of fish habitat.
p. 321-337 in The ecology of regulated streams, J.V. Ward and J.A.
Stanford (edTtors), Plenum Press, New York.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1977. Methods for collection and
analysis of aquatic biological and microbiological samples. R.E.
Greenson et al. (editors). IJSDI Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Vollenweider, R.A. 1969. A manual on methods for measuring primary
producation in aquatic environments. IBP Handbook Mo. 12, Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford, England.
Ward, J.V., and J.A. Stanford. 1979. The ecology of regulated streams.
Plenum Press, New York.
Warren, C.E. 1979. Toward classification and reationala for watershed
management and stream protection. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-600/3-79-059, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Waters, B.F. 1976. A methodology for evaluating the effects of
different streamflows on salmonid habitat. j_n J.F. Osborn and C.H.
Allman (editors), Instream flow needs. Vol. 2. Am. Fish. Soc.., Proc.
Spec. Conf.
Weber, C.I. 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for
measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/4-73-D01, National
Environmenal Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
C-22
-------
DRAFT
RECREATIONAL USES
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT FOR RECREATIONAL USES
The purpose of this guidance is to identify the environmental
factors which may be examined to determine whether the use of the water
for recreational activities is attainable. Three central questions to
be answered by the use attainability analysis are:
- What are the recreational uses currently being achieved in the
water body?
- What are the causes of any impairment in the recreational uses?
- What are the recreational uses which can potentially be attained
based on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
the water body?
In order to answer the above questions, States may consider any of
the following factors that affect the recreational uses of a water
body. The following factors are divided into major inventory groups
based on the work of Chubb and Bauman (1977). Depending on the water
body in question any of the foil-owing parameters may be appropriately
exami ned:
1. Basic Physical Features
0 Physical Dimensions - Various recreational uses are limited by
considerations of depth, width and length. Canoes, for example,
2-27
-------
have a draft of three or four inches but a depth of 18 to 24 inches
is needed for paddling.
Velocity - Velocity can both enhance and limit the recreational
uses of a water body. For example, if a water body is subject to
high velocities, the resulting safety hazard would suggest limiting
certain types of recreational usage such as swimming, diving and
water-skiing. Velocity may enhance the usage and esthetics of a
waterbody by creating white-water situations.
Flow Fluctuation - High and low flows can affect the types of
recreation and time periods that a water body may be used.
Turbulence (which is a factor that can promote reaeration of a
river, improve fish habitat and enhance scenic quality) may be
altered by changes or fluctuations in flow.
Substrate - Spawning areas for sport fisheries may be dependent on
the type of substrate in the water body as certain species have
very specific substrate requirements. Substrates may also impact
the use of a water body for swimming and wading as muck and bedrock
substrates may not be conducive for such activities.
Bank Characteristics - Bank cover, width, stability and composition
are characteristics that may be examined in evaluating the
water body as the bank is important to the aquatic habitat.
2-28
-------
0 Habitat Characteristics - The appropriateness of the aquatic
habitat to the desired sport fishery should be examined.
Characteristics such as pools, riffles, runs, etc. may affect the
reproduction, migration and survival of species in the water body.
Guidance on evaluating habitats may be found in "Water Body Surveys
and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses as
Related to Aquatic Protection Uses".
0 Site Development Potential - The adaptability of an area to
provide facilities, i.e. picnic areas, trails may be considered
based on the physical conditions of the area. This factor may be
important since much "water-based recreation" may rely on proximity
of water largely for its aesthetic characteristics, i.e., scenic
beauty, soothing sound of running water, etc.
2. Special Physical Features
Several physical factors may distinguish a particular water body
from others in the general region and may be considered. The following
are some factors that may enhance usage for recreation:
0 Sandy Beaches ° Islands
0 Oxbow Lakes ° Bayous
Other special factors may negatively affect recreational usage
including:
0 navigational obstructions
0 snags and woody debris
2-29
-------
3. General Water Quality
0 Turbidity - Turbidity affects the appearence of water to the viewer
and thus the aesthetics of the water body. Turbidity is also a
factor that may affect the use of the water body for swimming since
it is important that waters at bathing and swimming areas be clear
enough for users to estimate depth and to see subsurface hazards
easily and clearly.
0 Temperature - The temperature of natural waters is an important
factor governing the character and extent of recreational
activities. Temperature may determine, for example, the period
that a water body can be used for swimming or the types of species
that will be present for sport fishing.
0 pH - In evaluating waterbodies for bathing and swimming activities,
pH should be considered since eye irritations and discomfort may
result from too much acidic or alkaline waters. This discomfort is
a result of buffering capacity of the lacrimal fluid in the eye
being exhausted.
0 Nutrients - Nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus may
impact recreational activities if the input of nutrients will cause
algal blooms or extensive plant growth.
0 Dissolved Oxygen - Examination of dissolved oxygen during the warm
months is important to insure that anaerobic conditions do not
2-30
-------
occur. Anerobic conditions cause hydrogen sulfide generation
resulting in a rotten egg smell which impairs the aesthetic
qualities of the water body for recreational uses.
0 Chemical pollutants - Sport fishery usage nay be affected by the
presence of chemicals which may retard growth or inhibit
reproduction. The presence of chemicals may also result in
unacceptable residue levels in the fish tissues. Pollutants may
also pose odor problems and cause skin irritations.
4. General Soil Limitations for Recreational Use
The soil conditions along the water body may be evaluated to
determine if such activities as camping, picnicking, hiking and bank
fishing may be feasible. Muck or other conditions may limit such
dryland activities.
5. Biological Features
0 Availability of Desirable Sport Species - The availability and
ability to maintain an active sport fishery may be evaluated. The
potential for a put and take fishery may also be examined.
0 Aquatic Macrophytes - Extensive growths of aquatic macrophytes
interfere with boating of all kinds, but the extent of
interference depends on the growth form of the plants, the density
of the colonization, the fraction of the waterbody covered and the
2-31
-------
purposes, attitude, and tolerance of the boaters. Dense growths of
macrophytes are also objectionable to the swimmer, diver, water
skier and scuba enthusiasts.
0 Fecal Coliform - All recreational waters should be sufficiently
free of pathogenic bacteria so as not to pose health hazards
through infections. This is a particularly important requirement
for planned bathing and swimming areas. Illnesses of the eye, nose
and throat; gastrointestinal disturbances, and skin irritations are
some of the problems associated with swimming or bathing in waters
where fecal coliform are abundant.
0 Vectors and Nuisance Organisms - The impact of both aquatic vectors
of diseases and nuisance organisms on water-related recreational
and aesthetic pursuits varies from the creation of minor nuisances
to the closing of large recreational areas. For example,
chironomid midges whose larvae thrive in the largely organic bottom
sediments of productive natural lakes may interfere with man's
comfort and activities. Massive emergences of caddisflies and
mayflies have also been known to interfere with recreational
activities.
6. Land Use
The land use patterns adjacent to the waterbody in question may be
evaluated. Factors included are:
2-35?
-------
0 Public versus Private Ownership - The ownership of land adjacent
to the water body in question is a factor to be considered since
private ownership of adjacent lands may limit accessability.
Public ownership provides unlimited accessability and may also
provide for revenue generation by the State or local government.
0 Accessability - Roads, trails, ownership and other aspects of
accessability are important factors in evaluating the potential
usage of a water body for recreational uses.
0 Historic Sites - This factor gives consideration to those
cultural activities that have resulted in a legacy of historic
structures of local, state or national interest. Not every
historic site would be expected to generate the intensity of
interest of a Liberty Bell, but intense interest in an object can
prevail in very localized areas and this should be respected.
0 General Land Use Patterns - Land use adjacent to the water body
in question may affect water quality and the aesthetic quality of
the reach. Agriculture, logging, construction and other human
activities may negatively affect the use of water body for
recreation. Camping areas, hunting grounds and wilderness may
positively affect the water body for recreational usage.
7. Aesthetic Features
Aesthetics, though subjective, can he evaluated by looking at:
2-33
-------
0 scenic variety
0 general beauty
0 unique features
0 remoteness
0 trash
0 detrimental structures
As s e s sment Met hod ol ogje s
In evaluating the factors mentioned above, States may derive an
assessment methodology that is appropriate to the site. Qualitative
judgments or quantitative assessments such as weighting schemes may be
used. Several methods for conducting surveys and assessments as
related to recreational activities appear in the literature. Leopold
(1969) conducted aesthetically based studies by including three groups
of river characteristics - physical, biological and human use and
interest. Using data concerning these variables a uniqueness ratio was
calculated, based on the premise that unique landscapes are more
significant to society than common landscapes.
Dearinger (1968) developed a comprehensive method involving an
on-site inventory of river characteristics. Using 92 physical and
chemical factors, he assigned a score between one and five to each
factor. The scores for those factors appropriate to each recreation
activity were then weighted to obtain a total score. At that point
Dearinger calculated a percentage score for each of 16 recreational
activities by dividing the total score by the total possible score.
2-34
-------
Chubb and Baunan (1Q77) also have used the five point scoring system
and developed a computer program called RIVERS (River Inventory and
Variable Evaluation for Recreation Suitability) to process the data.
Morisawa (1971) developed her method for assessing river values by
evaluating an entire watershed. Recreational activities were divided
into three groups: active outdoor recreation, active water recreation
and nature observation and interpretation. The possibility of each
activity group occurring at a site was rated on a seasonal basis using
a five-point scale.
Aerial photography has also been used to estimate recreational
potential. Dill (1963) suggested that aerial photography could be used
in three ways:
(1) to estimate the number of potential recreation sites in a large
area by using a sampling technique
(2) to identify and locate specific recreation sites and
(3) to assist in final site selection, site planning and plan
presentation.
01 sen et al. (1969) estimated the boating, swimming and camping
potential of a five township size area using panchromatic aerial
photographs.
In addition to analyzing the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the water body to determine its potential for
particular recreational activities, conducting a benefit-cost
assessment can assist the rule-making body compare the value of the
2-35
-------
water body for recreation as opposed to other conflicting uses which
may be made of the water body. There are a number of methods or
approaches which can be used in approximating the demand for and the
value of various outdoor recreation activities. The section on
"Benefit-Cost Assessments in the Water duality Standards Decision-
Making Process" presents a number of approaches for identifing and
displaying tangible and intangible benefits of recreational as well as
other uses of the water body.
2-36
-------
REFERENCES
Chubb, Michael, and Peter G. Ashton. 1969. Park and recreation
standards research: The creation of environmental quality controls
for recreation. Dept. Park and Recreation Resources, Mich. State
Univ., East Lansing.
Chubb, Michael, and Eric H. Bauman. 1976. The RIVERS method: A pilot
study of river recreation potential assessment. Dept. Geog. Mich.
State Univ., East Lansing.
Chubb, Michael and Eric H. Bauman. 1977. Assessing the Recreation of
Potential of Rivers. Jour. Soil and Water Conser. Vol 32 no. 2 pg 97
Dearinger, John A. 1968. Aesthetic and recreational potential of small
naturalistic streams near urban areas. Water Resources Inst., Univ.
Ky., Lexington.
Dill, Henry W. 1963. Airphoto analysis in outdoor recreation: Site
inventory and planning. Photogrammetric Eng. 29(1): 67-70.
Leopold, Luna B. 196°. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic
factors among rivers. Circ. 620. U.S. Geol. Surv., Washington, D.C.
Morisawa, Marie. 1971. Evaluation of natural rivers, final report.
State Univ. N.Y., Binghamton.
Olson, Charles E., Larry W. Tomhaugh, and Hugh C. Davis. 1969.
Inventory of recreation sites. Photogrammetric Eng. 35(6): 561-568.
U.S. EPA 1982. Water Body Survey and Assessment for Analyzing the U.S.
Attainability as Related to Aquatic Protection Uses. Draft. U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA 1982. Benefit-Cost Assessments in the Water Quality Standards
Decision Making Process. Draft. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Additional References
David, Elizabeth L. 1972. "Public Perceptions of Water Quality," Water
Resources Research. Vol.7, No. 3.
Nielson, Larry A. 1980. Water Quality Criteria and Angler Preference
for Important Recreational Fihes, EPA Benefits Project Recreation
Working Paper No. 3, report to Resources for the Future.
U.S.EPA 1973 Development of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria for Freshwater
Fish, Office of Research and Monitoring, Washington, D. C.
Vaughan, William J. 1981. The Water Quality Ladder, Resources for the
Future
2-37
-------
DRAFT
CHAPTER 3
Guidelines for Deriving Site-Specific Water
Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Life and its Uses
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Purpose and Application 3-1
Rationale for the Development of Site-Specific
Criteria 3-1
Definition of Site 3-4
Assumptions 3-5
Procedures-Summary 3-8
Section A - Recalculation Procedure 3-12
Section B - Indicator Species Procedure 3-23
Section C - Resident Species Procedure 3-35
Section D - Heavy Metals Speciatlon Procedure 3-39
Appendix I - Bloassay Test Methods 1-1
Appendix II - Determination of II-l
Statistically Significant Different
LC50 Values
Appendix III - General Plan to Implement III-l
Site-Specific Criteria Modification
-------
PURPOSE AND APPLICATION
The purpose of the "Guidelines for Deriving Site-Specific Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and its Uses" 1s to provide
guidance for the development of water quality criteria which reflect local
environmental conditions. These site-specific criteria may be utilized as a
basis for establishing reasonable water quality standards to protect the uses
of a specific water body.
Rationale for the Development of Site-Specific Criteria
National, laboratory-derived water quality criteria guidance may be
underprotective or too stringent if: (1) the species at the site are more or
less sensitive than those included in the national criteria data set or (2)
the water quality characteristics of that site alter the bioavailability and
ultimately the toxicity of the chemical.]j Therefore, it is appropriate
that the individual Site-Specific Guidelines procedures address each of these
conditions separately, as well as the combination of the two. Figure 1 lists
the chemicals for which national criteria are available and from which
site-specific criteria will generally evolve.
Site-specific critera development is justified because species at a site
may be more or less sensitive than those in the national criteria document.
For example, the national criteria data set contains data for trout, salmon,
or penaeid shrimp, aquatic species that have been shown to be especially
sensitive to some chemicals. Since these or other sensitive species may not
occur at a particular site, they may not be representative of those species
j_/ National water quality criteria were published as guidance under Section
304(a) of the Clean Water Act, Nov. 28, 1980, (45 FR 79318), using a
methodology described in the same Federal Register notice. This
methodology has since been modified and improved. Site-specific criteria
are criteria that are intended to be more precise and applicable to a
given site.
3-1
-------
FIGURE 3-1
FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER NATIONAL CRITERIA LIST
(x = criteria are available)
Chemical
Aldrln
Ammonia
D1eldr1n
Chlordane
DDT & Metabolites
Endosulfan
Endrln
Heptachlor
Llndane
Toxaphene
Arsenlc(III)
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromlum(VI)
Chromlum(III)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenlum(IV)
Silver
Z1nc
Freshwater
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Saltwater
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
-
X
-
-
X
X
X
X
X
3-2
-------
that do occur there. Conversely, there may exist at a site untested
sensitive species that are ecologically or economically important and would
need to be protected.
Water quality has been demonstrated to ameliorate or enhance the
bioavailability and subsequent toxicity of chemicals in freshwater and
saltwater environments. Hardness, pH, suspended, solids and/or salinity
influence the toxicity of some heavy metals, ammonia and other chemicals.
For some chemicals, hardness or pH dependent national criteria are available
in freshwater. No salinity-dependent criteria have been calculated because
most of the saltwater data for heavy metals has been developed in high
salinity waters. However, in some estuarine sites where salinity may vary
significantly with seasons, the development of salinity-dependent
site-specific criteria for metals of local interest may be appropriate.
Such criteria would be seasonally oriented.
The effect of seasonality on water quality and subsequent effects on
toxicity, may also justify seasonally dependent site-specific criteria.
Seasonally dependent national criteria may also be appropriate whenever that
criterion is water quality dependent.
3-3
-------
Definition of Site
Since the rationales for the Site-Specific Guidelines are usually based
on potential differences in species sensitivity, water quality
characteristics, or a combination of these, the concept of site must be
consistent with this rationale.
There is no single definition of a site. It is a matter of State
discretion. However, a site 1s not intended to be so limited as to imply an
area at a single point source discharge. Rather a site may be quite large
for real and practical reasons. If a site were considered to be discharge
specific, the data requirements of the Site-Specific Guidelines would be
unrealistic and, in most cases, economically unjustifiable. Conversely, it
is equally unrealistic to view the Mississippi River from Minnesota to
Louisiana or the east coast from Maine to Florida as single sites.
If water quality effects on toxicity are not a consideration, the site
will be as large as a generally consistent blogeographlc zone permits. In
this case, for example, large portions of the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Michigan,
3-4
-------
or the Ohio River may each be considered as one site 1f their aquatic
communities do not vary significantly.
Unique populations may justify designation as a distinct site (site
within a site). When sites are large, the necessary data generation can be
more scientifically and economically supportable.
If the resident community 1s acceptably consistent with that represented
1n the national criteria data set, and water quality 1s the only factor
supporting modification of the national criteria, then the site would be
defined on the basis of significant expected changes 1n toxldty due to water
quality variability.
Two final considerations 1n defining a site are: 1) ecologically
acceptable communities must occur, or be historically documented, 1n order to
develop a 11st of resident species, and 2) the site must contain acceptable
quality dilution water upstream from the point of discharge 1f site water
will be required for testing (to be discussed later 1n these Guidelines).
Assumptions
There are numerous assumptions, associated with the Site-Specific
Guidelines, most of which also apply to and have been discussed 1n the
3-5
-------
National Guidelines. A few need to be emphasized. The principal assumption
is that the species sensitivity ranking and toxicological effects (e.g.,
death, growth, or reproduction), derived from appropriate laboratory tests
will be similar to those in field situations. Another assumption is that the
site-specific criterion, like the national criterion, should protect most of
the aquatic organisms at the site most of the time.
It is assumed that the Site-Specific Guidelines are an attempt to more
correctly protect the various uses of aquatic life by accounting for
toxicological differences in species sensitivity or water quality at specific
sites for designated uses. Modification of the national biological data
base and use of bioassay data obtained on resident species in either
laboratory or site water must always be scientifically justifiable and
consistent with the assumptions, rationale, and spirit of the National
Guidelines.
Site-specific and national criteria are not intended or assumed to be
enforceable numbers, but they may be used by the States to develop
enforceable numbers such as water quality standards, mixing zone guidance, or
water quality based effluent limits (discharge permits). The development of
such standards or limits should take into account additional factors such as
the use of the site, social, legal, and economic considerations, as they
impact the site, the environmental and analytical chemistry of the chemical,
the extrapolation from laboratory data to field situations, and the
relationship between the species for which data are available and the species
in the body of water which is to be protected.
3-6
-------
Plant and Other Data
No national Final Plant Value or national Other Data In the criterion
documents has been used as the basis for a national criterion. For some
chemicals, these categories of observed effects occurred at concentrations
near the criterion. The following procedures do not contain techniques for
handling such data, but 1f a less stringent site-specific criterion Is
derived, plant and other data may need to be considered.
Establishment of Site-Specific Criteria Without These Procedures
Two types of historical observations have raised questions of the
validity of applying section 304(a)(l) aquatic life criteria to field
situations. In the first case, the biota 1s judged to be healthy, even
thriving, 1n an aquatic ecosystem possessing "biological Integrity" and yet
1n-stream concentrations of toxics significantly exceed laboratory-derived
section 304(a)(l) criteria. This anomaly can be explained by either (1)
there are subtle biological effects exerted on the ecosystem by the toxicants
not easily observable; (2) there are erroneous measurements for the In-stream
concentrations of toxics; or (3) section 304(a)(l) criteria are not
appropriate for the site. Site-specific criteria development Is premised on
this third explanation.
In the second case, biological Impacts on the biota are observed and yet
1n-stream concentrations for pollutants are at or below section 304(a)(l)
criteria. As with the first case, this anomaly can be explained by any of
the three reasons and again criteria modification would be premised on the
third reason.
3-7
-------
Where the State has adequate historical Information on water quality and
biota and can document the "health" of an aquatic community of organisms,
site-specific criteria development may consist of equating the Iri-stream
concentrations of pollutants with maximum permissible concentrations
(criteria). However, before taking this approach, the State should be aware
of all of the possible biological Impacts (gross and subtle) that pollutants
exert on members of the aquatic community.
This approach 1s the least resource Intensive of any of the site-
specific procedures, for 1t assumes there Is adequate background Information.
Often, this 1s not the case. Also, this approach does not allow for the
estimation of the total assimilative capacity (chemical and biological) of
the water body which, 1f known, could aid 1n the Issuance of future water
quality-based permits.
A protocol for Implementing this procedure 1s under development.
PROCEDURES
Summary
There are four procedures 1n these Site-Specific Guidelines for
developing site-specific clterla. States may choose any of these or similar
procedures depending on site considerations and resource availability to
modify criteria. The procedures for the derivation of a site-specific
criterion are:
A. The recalculation procedure to account for differences 1n resident
species sensitivity to a chemical.
B. The Indicator species procedure to account for differences In
b1oava1labH1ty, and therefore toxldty, of a chemical due to water
quality variability.
3-8
-------
C. The resident species procedure to account for differences 1n resident
species sensitivity and differences In the bloavallablllty, and
therefore toxlclty, of a chemical due to water quality variability.
D. The heavy metal spedatlon procedure to allow the comparison of
ambient soluble or biologically available metal concentrations to
criteria In State water quality standards.
The following 1s the sequence of decisions to be made before any of the
above procedures are Initiated. Information upon which to make the decisions
will be generated In part by the water body survey and assessment done In
conjunction with a use attainability analysis.}./
0 Define the site boundaries.
0 List the resident species.
0 Determine from the national criterion document If water quality 1s
known to affect the bloavallablHty, and therefore toxlclty, of a
chemical of Interest.
0 If there 1s reason to suspect that the range of sensitivity of the
resident species to the chemical of Interest 1s different from that
range for the species In the national criterion document and water
quality Is not expected to be a factor, States may use the
I/ See Water Body Survey and Assessment Guidance for Conducting a Use
Attainability Analysis Related to the Aquatic Protection Uses.
3-9
-------
recalculation procedure (A). This procedure is the least resource
intensive and the least costly, since it may require no additional
bioassays.
0 If there is reason to suspect, based on data in the national criterion
document or on data available to the States, that site water quality
characteristics may affect the bioavailability, and therefore
toxicity, of the chemical of interest, and the resident species range
of sensitivity is similar to that for the species in the national
criterion document, States may use the indicator species procedure
(B).
0 If there is reason to suspect that, based on data in the national
criterion document or on data available to the States, that site water
quality characteristics may affect the bioavailability, and therefore
toxicity, of the chemical of interest, and the resident species range
of sensitivity 1s different from that for the species in the national
criterion document, States may use the resident species procedure
(C). This procedure is the most resource intensive and, therefore,
the most costly since it may require a large number of acute and
chronic bioassays.
3-10
-------
0 If there is reason to suspect that significant portions of ambient
heavy metals concentrations are present in biologically unavailable
forms associated with particulates or sediments, States may use the
heavy metal speciation procedure (D) to determine if ambient criteria
based on dissolved metal may be more appropriate for a particular
site.
3-11
-------
SECTION A: RECALCULATION PROCEDURE
1. Definition: This recalculation procedure allows modifications in the
national acute toxicity data set on the basis of eliminating families
of organisms that are not represented by resident species at that
site. For the purpose of the Site-Specific Guidelines, the term
resident species is defined as those species that commonly occur in a
site including those that only occur seasonally (migration) or
intermittently (periodically returns or extends its range into the
site). It is not intended to include species that were once present
in that site and cannot return due to anthropogenic changes in the
habitat which cannot be renedied, or species that occur too
infrequently to be considered.
When this elimination of families of organisms for this recalculation
procedure for the site-specific Final Acute Value results in d
reduction in the national data base below the minimum data set
requirements, additional resident species acute bioassays in
laboratory water may be run before this procedure can be used.
States will decide on data requirements appropriate for each
situation. States and EPA should consult on this before water
quality standards are revised to affect an expeditious review by
EPA.
2. Rationale: This procedure is designed to compensate for any real
difference between the sensitivity range of species represented in
the national data set and species resident to the site. There are
several possible reasons for this potential difference. The
principal reason is that the resident communities in a site way
3-12
-------
represent a more narrow mix of species due to a limited range of
natural environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, salinity,
habitat, or other factors affecting the spatial distribution of
aquatic species). The number of resident species will generally
decrease as the size of the site decreases.
A second potential reason for a real difference in sensitivity could
be the absence of most of the species or groups of species (e.g.,
families) that are traditionally considered to be sensitive to
certain, but not all, chemicals (e.g., trout, salmon, saltwater
shrimp, and Daphnla magna). Predictive relative sensitivity almost
certainly does not apply to all chemicals, and the assumptions that
sensitive species are unique rather than representative of equally
sensitive untested species is tenuous.
Some or all of the information necessary in conducting this procedure
may have already been obtained through a previously conducted use
attainability analysis.
3. Summary of Procedure:
The following procedure is based upon satisfying a minimum
site-specific data base but only from a suggested or idealized sense.
The water quality standards regulation allows for maximum State
flexibility to effectively use available data and recognizes resource
limitations. The appropriate data base for developing site-specific
criteria at a given site will be determined by the State and depends
upon numerous factors, including the complexity of the site and the
environmental and economic impact of the final decision.
3-13
-------
States will decide on data requirements appropriate for each
situation. States and EPA should consult on this before water
qualtiy standards are revised to affect on expeditious review by EPA.
a) Derivation of the site-specific maximum instantaneous
concentration:
0 If, after data deletion for aquatic species inappropriate to the
site from the national acute toxicity data set, the minimum data
set requirements of the National Guidelines are met, recalculate
a site-specific Final Acute Value (FAV) with the resident data
set.
0 If, after data deletion, the minimum data set requirements are
not met, generate necessary additional acute toxicity data with
resident species in laboratory water. Then recalculate a
site-specific FAV with the resident species data set.
0 Multiply the site-specific FAV by 0.5 to obtain the site-specific
maximum instantaneous concentration.
b) Derivation of the site-specific maximum 30-day average
concentration:
3-14
-------
o
Divide the site-specific FAV by the national acute-chronic ratio
to obtain the site-specific Final Chronic Value.
For lipid soluble compounds whose national Final Residue Value is
controlled by an FDA action level, determine the percent lipid
content of consumed resident species and determine the
site-specific Final Residue Value. For lipid soluble compounds
(e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls and DDT) whose national Final
Residue Value is controlled by wildlife consumers of aquatic
species, use that national residue value as the site-specific
Final Residue Value. For non-lipid soluble chemicals (e.g.,
mercury) whose national Final Residue Value is controlled by an
FDA action level, conduct an acceptable biconcentration test
with an edible aquatic resident species using methods given in
Appendix 3 to determine the site-specific Final Residue Value.
The lower of the site-specific Final Chronic Value and the
site-specific Final Residue Value becomes the site-specific
maximum 30-day average concentration unless plant or other data
indicate a problem of protection.
4. Conditions:
0 This procedure would be used to develop a site-specific criterion
that compensates for a difference in resident species sensitivity
only.
3-1 5
-------
0 If deletion of data for non-resident species results in the
minimum data set requirements of the National Guidelines not
being met, additional acute toxicity data in laboratory water for
untested resident species may be needed (State's discretion)
before a calculation of the site-specific criterion could be
made.
0 Certain families or organisms have been specified in the National
Guidelines minimum data set (e.g., Salmonidae in freshwater and
Penaeidcte or Mysidae in saltwater). If this or any other
requirement cannot be met because the family or other group
(e.y., a benthic insect or a bentnic crustacean in freshwater) is
not represented by resident species, then untested resident
species from additional families or groups that would be expected
(State's opinion) to represent the sensitivity of those absent
families or groups should be selected for acute toxicity testing.
The results of these tests should then be added to the resident
species data set to satisfy the minimum data base requirement.
0 Due to the emphasis this procedure may place on resident species
testing when the minimum data set has been lost by deletion of
non-resident families, there may be difficulty in selecting
species compatible to laboratory testing. Therefore, some
culture/handling techniques may need development.
0 No chronic testing is required by this procedure since the
national acute-chronic ratio will be used with the site-specific
Final Acute Value to obtain the site-specific Final Chronic
Value.
3-16
-------
0 For the lipid soluble chemicals whose national Final Residue
Values are based on KDA action levels, adjustments in those
values based on the percent lipid content of consumed resident
aquatic species is appropriate for the derivation of
site-specific Final Residue Values.
0 For lipid soluble chemicals, the national Final Residue Value is
based on an average 15 percent lipid content for the freshwater
lake trout and an average of 16 percent lipids for the saltwater
Atlantic herring (45 FR 79347). Resident species of concern may
have higher (e.g., Lake Superior siscowet, a race of lake trout)
or lower (e.g., many sport fish) percent lipid content than used
for the national Final Residue Value.
0 For some lipid soluble chemicals such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) and DDT, the national Final Residue Value is
based on wildlife consumers of fish and aquatic invertebrate
species rather than an FDA action level because the former
provides a more stringent residue level (see National Guidelines
for details). Since the data base on the effects of ingested
aquatic organisms on wildlife species is extremely limited, it
would be inappropriate to base a site-specific Final Residue
Value on resident wildlife species. Consequently for those
chemicals, the modification procedure does not permit adjustment
based on resident wildlife species but only on percent lipid
content of resident species consumed by humans.
3-17
-------
0 For the lipid soluble chemicals whose national Final Residue
Values are based on wildlife effects, the limiting wildlife
species (mink for PCB and brown pelican for DDT) are considered
acceptable surrogates for resident avian and mammalian species
(e.g., herons, gulls, terns, otter, etc.). Conservatism is
appropriate for those two chemicals due to the above-mentioned
extranely limited data base, and no modification of the national
Final Residue Value is appropriate. The site-specific Final
Residue Value would be the same as the national value.
5. Details of Procedure:
0 Combine resident species into families.
0 If difference in resident species sensitivity is expected, delete
the non-resident species (families) and calculate a site-specific
FAV if the minimum data set requirements are met. Multiply by
0.5 to derive the site-specific maximum instantaneous
concentration.
0 If the minimum data set requirements are not met, satisfy those
requirements with additional testing of resident species in
laboratory water. Multiply by 0.5 to derive the site-specific
maximum instantaneous concentration.
0 If representative species in a family at the site have been
tested, then their Species Mean Acute Values should be used to
calculate the site-specific Family Mean Acute Value and data for
3-18
-------
non-resident species in that family should be deleted fran that
calculation. If representative resident species in that family
have not been tested, the State may choose to test those species
and proceed as above. If the State decides not to perform
additional testing, then the site-specific Family Mean Acute
Value would be the same as the national Family Mean Acute Value.
0 Divide the site-specific FAV by the national Final Acute-Chronic
Ratio to obtain the site-specific Final Chronic Value.
0 When a site-specific Final Residue Value can be derived for lipid
soluble chemicals controlled by FDA action levels, the following
recalculation equation would be used:
site-specific Final Residue Value =
' FDA action level ' '
(mean normalized BCF from criterion document) (appropriate % lipids)
3-19
-------
where the appropriate percent lipid content is based on consumed
resident species. An acceptable method to determine the lipid
content of tissues is given in Appendix I.
0 For PCB and DDT whose national Final Residue Values are based on
wildlife consumers of aquatic organisms, no site-specific
modification procedure is appropriate.
0 In the case of mercury, a site-specific Final Residue Value can
be derived if the national value is not desired by conducting an
acceptable bioconcentration test with an edible aquatic resident
species using methods given in Appendix I. For a saltwater
residue value, a bivalve species (the oyster is preferred) is
required, and for a freshwater value, a fish species is required.
These taxa yield the highest known bioconcentration factors for
metals. The following recalculation equation would be used:
site-specific Final Residue Value =
FDA action level
site-specific BUF
The lower of either the site-specific Final Chronic Value and the
site-specific Final Residue Value becomes the site-specific
maximum 30-day average concentration unless site-specific plant
or site-specific other data indicate a problem of protection.
3-20
-------
6. Limitations
0 Whatever the results of this recalculation procedure may be, the
State regulatory agency responsible for developing the standards
or permits which are based on the site-specific criteria should
decide if the numerical differences, if any, are sufficient to
warrant changes in the criterion component of those regulations.
0 The number of families used to calculate any Final Acute Value
significantly affects that value. Even though the four lowest
Family Mean Acute Values (most sensitive families) are most
important in that calculation, the smaller N is, the lower the
Final Acute Value. Consequently, if none of the four most
sensitive families are changed or deleted, any reduction in N (a
distinct possibility when this method is applied) will result in
a lower Final Acute Value. Changes in or deletions of any of the
four lowest values, regardless of whether N is changed, may
result in a higher or lower FAV.
0 Site-specific or national Final Residue Values based on FUA
action levels may not precisely protect that use since the FDA
action levels are adverse (i.e., loss of marketability).
0 Bioaccumulation, except in field studies, does not add to the
laboratory-derived bioconcentration factors because the
laboratory procedures preclude food chain uptake. Consequently,
some residue levels obtained by laboratory studies of
bioconcentration (direct uptake of the chemical fran water) may
3-21
-------
underestimate potential effects encountered in the field. The
magnitude of site-specific bioconcentration factors obtained in
the laboratory, therefore, may riot be sufficient to protect the
public from the effects of the ingested chemical of concern.
7. Examples:
° A recalculation method, (Recalculated Aquatic Life Criteria -
State by State via Resident Family Recalculation) is available
upon request from the person listed on p.iii. This method
presents the recalculated freshwater final acute values for 21
toxic (section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act) pollutants on a
State-by-State basis. Where species deletion results in failure
to meet the National Guidelines minimum data set, the
State-specific final acute value will be equal to the national
criteria Final Acute Value. Presentation of these recalculated
values on an entire State basis is for illustrative purposes
only. This procedure is intended for application on a
site-by-site basis. However, States may want to use the
information in this entire State format to evaluate the efficacy
of this procedure for certain sites, individual water bodies, or
water body segments.
Statewide-specific maximum 30 days average concentrations have
also been calculated in the above recalculation method following
similar procedures. As with final acute values, this procedure
is intended for application on a site-by-site basis.
3-22
-------
SECTION B: INDICATOR SPECIES PROCEDURE
1. Definition: This procedure is based on the assumption that water
quality at an individual site may influence the toxicity and/or
bioavailability of a chemical. Acute toxicity in site water and
laboratory water is determined using species resident to the site, or
acceptable non-resident species, as indicators or surrogates for
species found at the site. This difference in toxicity, expressed as
a water effect ratio, is used to convert the national FAV for a
chemical to a site-specific FAV.
This procedure also provides three ways to obtain a site-specific
Final Chronic Value. Depending on the circumstances at the site,
data available in the national criteria document, or resources
available to the State, the site-specific Final Chronic Value may be
(1) calculated (no testing required) if a Final Acute-Chronic Ratio
for a given chemical is available in the national criteria document.
This ratio is simply divided into the site-specific FAV to obtain the
site-specific Final Chronic Value; (2) obtained by performing matched
acute and chronic toxicity tests with at least one fish and at least
one invertebrate species (resident or non-resident) in site water.
Acute-chronic ratios are calculated for each pair of tests on a
species, and the geometric mean of these is then divided into the
site-specific FAV to obtain the site-specific Final Chronic Value;
and (3) obtained by performing one chronic test with both a fish and
3-23
-------
an invertebrate (resident or non-resident) in both laboratory water
and site water and calculating a geometric mean chronic water effect
ratio which is then multiplied by the national Final Chronic Value to
obtain the site-specific Final Chronic Value.
2. Rationale: This procedure is designed to compensate for site water
which may markedly affect the toxicity of a chemical. Major factors
affecting the aquatic toxicity of many chemicals, especially the
heavy metals, have been identified. For example, the carbonate
system of natural waters (pH, hardness, alkalinity, and carbon
dioxide relationships) has been the most studied and quantified with
respect to effects on heavy metal toxicity in freshwater; however,
the literature indicates that in natural systems organic solutes,
inorganic and organic colloids, salinity and suspended particles also
play an important but less quantifiable role in the toxicity and/or
bioavailability of heavy metals to aquatic life. This procedure,
with few exceptions, is similar to that used to establish national
criteria. It also provides a means of obtaining a site-specific
Final Chronic Value for a chemical when the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio
in the national criteria document is available but thought not to be
applicable to site-specific situations.
Some or all of the information necessary in conducting this procedure
may have already been obtained through a previously conducted use
attainability analysis.
3. Summary of Procedure:
The following procedure is based upon satisfying a minimum
site-specific data base but only from a suggested or idealized sense.
The water quality standards regulation allows for maximum State
flexibility to effectively use available data and recognizes resource
limitations. The appropriate data base for developing site-specific
3-24
-------
criteria will be determined by the State and depend upon numerous
factors, including the complexity of the site and the environmental
and economic impact of the final decision. States will decide on
data appropriate for each situation. States and EPA should consult
on this before water quality standards are revised to affect an
expeditious review by EPA.
a) Derivation of a site-specific maximum instantaneous
concentration:
0 Conduct acute measured tests with a sensitive fish and
invertebrate simultaneously in site and laboratory dilution
water.
0 For hardness related chemicals adjust laboratory water to site
water hardness and use the hardness adjusted national FAV.
0 If site and laboratory acute toxicity tests result in a water
effect ratio not significantly different from 1.0
(Site Water LC50 = 1.0) then the national FAV becomes the
Lab Water LC50
site-specific FAV.
0 If the site and laboratory acute toxicity tests result in a water
effect ratio significantly different from 1.0 then the
site-specific FAV is determined by multiplying the national FAV
by the geometric mean of the water effect ratios obtained from
the two tested aquatic species.
0 To obtain the site-specific maximum instantaneous concentration,
multiply the site-specific FAV by 0.5.
3-25
-------
b. Derivation of a site-specific Final Chronic Value.
0 If the pollutant's national acute/chronic ratio potentially found
1n the National Criteria Document is available and applicable,
calculate the site-specific Final Chronic Value by dividing this
acute/chronic ratio into the site-specific Final Acute Value.
0 States may require chronic tests with a sensitive fish and
invertebrate simultaneously in site and laboratory dilution
water if the pollutant's national acute/chronic ratio potentially
found in the National Criteria Document is either not available
or does not apply (see National Guidelines for details).
0 When chronic toxidty testing is required for chemicals whose
chronic toxicity is hardness related, adjust laboratory water to
site water hardness and use the hardness adjusted national Final
Chronic Value.
0 If site and laboratory chronic toxicity tests result in a water
effect ratio that is not significantly different from 1.0, the
national Final Chronic Value becomes the site-specific Final
Chronic Value.
0 If site and laboratory chronic toxicity tests result 1n a water
effect ratio significantly different from 1.0, then the
site-specific Final Chronic Value is determined by multiplying
the national Final Chronic Value by the geometric mean of the
water effect ratios obtained from the two tested aquatic
species.
3-26
-------
c) Derivation of the site-specific maximum 30-day average
concentration.
0 As in Recalculation Procedure (A), calculate site-specific Final
Residue values for appropriate pollutants.
0 The lower of the site-specific Final Chronic Value and the
site-specific Final Residue Value becomes the site-specific
30-day average concentration unless site-specific Plant or
site-specific Other Data indicate a problem of protection.
4. Conditions:
0 There is no reason to suspect that the resident species
sensitivity is different from those species in the national data
set.
0 The toxic response from a qualitative sense (i.e. mortality,
reproductive impairment, etc.) seen in the tests using laboratory
water in the development of the national water quality criterion
would be essentially the same if site water required in this
procedure had been used instead.
0 Differences in the toxicity of a specific chemical between
laboratory water and site water may be attributed to chemical
(e.g., complexinq ligands and carbonate system) and/or physical
3-27
-------
factors (e.g., adsorption) that alter the bioavail ability and/or
toxicity of the chemical.
0 Selected indicator species directly integrate water quality
caused differences in the bioavailability and/or toxicity of a
chemical of interest and provide a direct measure of the capacity
of a site water to increase or decrease toxicity relative to
laboratory water.
° The frequency of testing (i.e., the need for seasonal testing)
will be related to the variability of the site water as it is
expected to affect the toxicity of the chemical of interest. As
the variability of site water quality increases due to seasonal
impacts, the frequency of testing will increase.
0 National Final Acute-Chronic Ratios for certain chemicals can be
used to establish site-specific Final Chronic Values.
0 A site-specific acute-chronic ratio, obtained in site water
testing, reflects the integrated effects of water quality on
toxicity.
0 The water effect ratio concept used in this procedure for
modifying national Final Acute Values to site-specific situations
is also applicable to modifying national Final Chronic Values to
site-specific situations.
3-28
-------
5. Details of Procedure:
0 Test at least two Indicator species, a fish and an invertebrate,
using laboratory dilution water and site dilution water according
to acute toxicity test procedures recommended in Appendix I.
Test organisms must be drawn from the same population and be
tested at the same time and most importantly, except for the
water source, be tested under identical conditions (i.e.,
temperature, lighting, etc.). The concentration of the chemical
in the acute toxicity tests must be measured and be within the
solubility limits of the chemical. Therefore, species selected
for testing should be among the more sensitive to the chemical of
interest to reduce solubility problems.
0 Compare the replicated laboratory and site water LC50 values for
each indicator species to determine if they are different (see
statistical procedure in Appendix III). If the LC50 values are
different, calculate the water effect ratio for each species
according to the following equation:
Water Effect Ratio = Site Water LC50 Value
Laboratory Water LC50 Value
Calculate the geometric mean of the water effect ratios for all
the species tested.
If the geometric mean water effect ratio is not significantly
different from 1.0, the national Final Acute Value (FAV) is the
3-29
-------
site-specific FAV. If the water effect ratio is significantly
different from 1.0, the site-specific FAV can be calculated by
using the following equation: site-specific FAV = water effect
ratio x the national FAV (or x the national FAV water
characteristic - adjusted to fit that water quality
characteristic value of the site water when appropriate such as
for a metal and hardness).
This site-specific FAV multiplied by 0.5 is the site-specific
maximum instantaneous concentration. The site-specific FAV is
also used to calculate the site-specific Final Chronic Value.
0 If the national Final Acute-Chronic Ratio for the chemical of
interest was used to establish a national Final Chronic Value,
the site-specific Final Chronic Value may be calculated using the
acute-chronic ratio in the following equation:
Site-Specific Final Chronic Value =
Site-Specific Final Acute Value
Final Acute/Chronic Ratio
NOTE: States may still use the National Final Acute/Chronic
Ratio if it is available in the pollutant's criteria document
even if this ratio was not used to establish the national Final
Chronic Value. Depending on the reason for the non-applicability
of this ratio in the national criteria document and depending on
the circumstances at the site, this ratio could still be applied
to the site-specific FAV to yield the site-specific Final Chronic
3-30
-------
Value. This deviation from the Site-Specific Guidelines could be
taken, 1f appropriate, after consultation with EPA.
0 If the national Final Acute-Chronic Ratio was not used to
establish a national Final Chronic Value (subject to above NOTE),
the national Final Chronic Value may be used as the site-specific
Final Chronic Value, or 1t may be measured by performing 3 acute
and 3 chronic tests (matched), (Appendix I) using site water. At
least one fish and one Invertebrate species must be tested, and
an acute test must be conducted at the same time as the chronic
test using site water of similar quality. These data are used to
calculate an acute-chronic ratio for each species and the
geometric mean of all 3 acute-chronic ratios 1s used to calculate
the site-specific Final Chronic Value using the following
equation:
Site-Specific Final Chronic Value =
Site-Specific Final Acute Value
Geometric Mean of the Site-Specific Acute-Chronic
Ratios for the Tested Species
0 A site-specific Final Chronic Value can be obtained by testing
Indicator species for chronic toxldty. Test at least two
Indicator species, a fish and an Invertebrate, using laboratory
dilution water and site dilution water according to chronic
toxldty test procedures recommended In Appendix I. Test
organisms must be drawn from the same population and be tested at
the same time and most Importantly, except for the water source,
3-31
-------
be tested under identical conditions (e.g., temperature,
lighting). The concentration of the chemical in the toxicity
tests must be within the solubility limits of the chemical.
Therefore, species selected for testing should be among the more
sensitive to the chemical of interest.
0 Compare the laboratory and site water chronic values for each of
the indicator species to determine if they are reasonably
different.
If for a species the chronic values are not different,, the
chronic water effect ratio = 1.0.
If the chronic values are different, calculate the water effect
ratio for each species according to the following equation:
Chronic Water Effect Ratio =
Chronic Value in Site Water
Chronic Value in Laboratory Water
Calculate the geometric mean of the water effect ratios for the
species tested.
If the geometric mean of the water effect ratios is not different
from 1.0, the national Final Chronic Value is the site-specific
Final Chronic Value.
If the water effect ratio is different from 1.0, the
site-specific Final Chronic Value can be calculated by using the
3-32
-------
DRAFT WATER DUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK (ERRATA)
This is the correct page 3-33 and should he substituted for what is
contained in the printed document.
*******
following equation: site-specific Final Chronic Value = Water
Effect Ratio x the national Final Chronic Value (or x the
national Final Chronic Value water characteristic-adjusted to fit
that water quality characteristic value of the site water when
appropriate such as for a metal and hardness).
The site-specific Final Chronic Value can then be compared to the
site-specific Final Residue Value (if appropriate), site-specific
Final Plant value (if appropriate), or site-specific Other Value
(if appropriate) to determine the site-specific maximum 30-day
average concentration.
fi. Limitations:
0 If filter feeding organisms are among the most sensitive to the
substance of interest in the national criteria document, and/or
members of the same group are important components of the site
food web, a member of that group, preferably a resident species,
should he included in the species to be tested in order to
discern ingestion-caused differences in the bioavailability
and/or toxicity of the chemical of interest.
0 Site water for testing purposes should be obtained under typical
conditions immediately upstream from the point or points of
discharge of the pollutant of concern and can be obtained at any
3-33
-------
site-specific FAV. If the water effect ratio is significantly
different from l.fi, the site-specific FAV can be calculated by
using the following equation: site-specific FAV = water effect
ratio x the national FAV (or x the national FAV water
characteristic - adjusted to fit that water quality
characteristic value of the site water when appropriate such as
for a metal and hardness).
This site-specific FAV multiplied by 0.5 is the site-specific
maximum instantaneous concentration. The site-specific FAV is
also used to calculate the site-specific Final Chronic Value.
0 If the national Final Acute-Chronic Ratio for the chemical of
interest was used to establish a national Final Chronic Value,
the site-specific Final Chronic Value may be calculated using the
acute-chronic ratio in the following equation:
Site-Specific Final Chronic Value =
Site-Specific Final Acute Value
Final Acute/Chronic Ratio
NOTF: States may still use the National Final Acute/Chronic
Ratio if it is available in the pollutant's criteria document
even if this ratio was not used to establish the national Final
Chronic Value. Depending on the reason for the non-applicability
of this ratio in the national criteria document and depending on
the circumstances at the site, this ratio could still be applied
to the site-specific FAV to yield the site-specific Final Chronic
3-33
-------
time of the day or season. Storm or flood-impacted water may be
atypical and, therefore, is not acceptable as site water.
0 The site water should be used as soon as possible after
collection in order to avoid significant water quality changes.
If diurnal water quality cycles (e.g., carbonate systems,
salinity, dissolved oxygen) are known to markedly affect a
chemical's toxicity, use of on-site flow-through testing is
suggested; otherwise transport of water to off-site locations is
acceptable. During transport and storage, care should be taken
to maintain the quality of the water; however, certain conditions
of the water may change and the degree of these changes should be
measured and reported.
0 Seasonal site-specific criteria can be derived if monitoring data
are available to delineate seasonal periods corresponding to
significant differences in water quality (e.g., carbonate
systems, salinity, turbidity).
0 The limitations on the use of indicator species to derive a
site-specific Final Chronic Value are the same as those when
indicator species are used for site-specific modification of
national Final Acute Values.
Appendix III describes a typical site study plan for conducting
criteria modification by this procedure or the following resident
species procedure.
3-34
-------
SECTION C: RESIDENT SPECIES PROCEDURE
1. Definition: The resident species procedure concurrently compensates
for both species sensitivity and water quality differences by
developing the complete minimum data set by conducting tests with
resident species in site water.
2. Rationale: This procedure is designed to compensate for both factors
covered by the two previous procedures. It is designed to adjust for
any real differences between the sensitivity range of species
represented in the national data set and species resident to the
site. It is also designed to compensate for site water which may
markedly affect the toxicity of the chemical of interest. The
principal reason for the former is that the resident communities in a
site may represent a more narrow mix of species due to a limited
range of natural environmental conditions. A second reason for a
difference in sensitivity could be the absence of most of the
species, or groups of species, that are traditionally considered to
be sensitive to certain, but not all, chemicals. With respect to
water quality, many factors such as the carbonate system of national
waters and others have been shown to play an important role in
determining the bioavailability and/or toxicity of some chemicals
(e.g., metals).
Some or all of the information necessary in conducting this procedure
may have already been obtained through a previously conducted use
attainability analysis.
3-35
-------
3. Summary of Procedure: The following procedure is based upon
a minimum data base as specified in the National Guidelines. States
and EPA should consult on this procedure before water quality
standards are revised to affect an expeditious review by EPA.
Derivation of the site-specific maximum instantaneous concentration
and site-specific maximum 30-day average concentration would be
accomplished after the complete site-specific minimum data set
requirements of the National Guidelines have been met subject to the
above remarks on data requirements for site-specific situations.
4. Conditions:
0 When both sensitivity and water quality are expected to affect
the bioavailability and/or toxicity of a chemical at the site,
the complete minimum data set must be developed using site water
and resident species.
0 The frequency of testing will be related to the temporally driven
variability of the components of the site water expected to
affect the toxicity of the chemical of interest. As the
variability increases, the frequency of testing will increase.
5. Details of Procedure:
0 If both species sensitivity and water quality are expected to
affect the toxicity of a chemical of interest, the complete
minimum acute toxicity data set must be developed in site water.
Testing frequency will be dictated by the degree of annual
3-36
-------
variability In the water quality characterlstlc(s) affecting
toxldty. Recalculation would then be done to develop a water
quality related site-specific Final Acute Equation (see National
Guidelines for details). The guidance for site water testing has
been discussed 1n the Indicator species procedure (B). The
guidance for resident species testing has been discussed In the
recalculation procedure (A).
0 Certain families of organisms have been specified In the National
Guidelines minimum data set (e.g., Salmonldae 1n freshwater and
Penaeldae or Mysldae 1n saltwater). If this or any other
requirement cannot be met because the family or other group
(e.g., a benthlc Insect or a benthlc crustacean 1n freshwater) Is
not represented by resident species, then additional families or
groups expected to represent the sensitivity of those absent
groups may be tested, and the data added to the minimum data set
to derive the site-specific FAV.
0 Development of the site-specific Final Chronic Value would be
Identical to that of the Indicator species procedure (B).
0 The national Final Residue Value or a site-specific Final Residue
Value (as described 1n the recalculation procedure) would be
considered together with the site-specific Final Chronic Value 1n
derivation of the site-specific maximum 30 day average
concentration 1f a site-specific Final Plant Value or 1f
site-specific Other Data were themselves not considerations.
3-37
-------
6. Limitations:
Resident species testing 1n site water 1s the most cost Intensive
procedure since the complete minimum acute toxldty data set must
be developed at a frequency dependent upon water quality
variability. However, those projected costs could be compared to
the potential savings 1n waste treatment If the resultant
criteria may be less stringent than the national criterion for
that chemical. Conversely, the site-specific criteria may be
more stringent.
Many of the limitations discussed for the previous two procedures
would also apply to this procedure.
3-38
-------
SECTION D: HEAVY METAL SPECIATION PROCEDURE
The national criteria for metals are developed using historical
laboratory data 1n which concentrations have been reported primarily as
total, total recoverable, or add extractable metal concentrations.
Consequently, these national criteria are expressed as total recoverable
metal. It 1s well established that metals exist 1n a variety of chemical
forms or species. Available toxlcologlcal data have demonstrated that some
forms are much more toxic than others. Although there are few analytical
methods available to distinguish different metal species, total metal can be
separated Into filterable and non-filterable factions. Metal measured after
filtering a sample through a 0.45 urn filter 1s termed dissolved metal
(Standard Methods, 15th Edition, 1980). Available data Indicate that for
most metals the toxic species probably reside 1n the dissolved fraction.*
The national criteria values may be unnecessarily stringent 1f applied
to total metal measurements 1n waters where total metal concentrations
Include a preponderance of metal forms which are highly Insoluble or strongly
bound to partlculates and therefore probably biologically unavailable and
non-toxic. Even though the data base on the toxlclty of the various metal
forms 1s marginal, derivation of criteria based on dissolved metal 1s
possible. When analysis of total vs. soluble metal concentrations at a site
(where soluble metal added to site water Indicates that the metal 1s rapidly
converted to Insoluble forms or to other forms with presumed low
* The non-dissolved fraction may exert toxlclty to some extent, especially to
benthlc organisms. As Information on the effects of non-dissolved metal
are developed, 1t should be factored Into the site-specific criteria
establishment process.
3-39
-------
bioavailability) development of ambient criteria based on dissolved metal may
be more appropriate.
Criteria based on total recoverable metal, however, should not be used
to evaluate dissolved metal concentrations without recalculating the criteria
using bioassay data reported as dissolved metal. It may be that for some
metals the dissolved criteria would be equal to the total recoverable
criteria but this cannot be established without recalculation. EPA is
reviewing the data base, and for some metals, will provide criteria for
dissolved metal in revisions to the criteria documents.
The dissolved metal method should not be used to analyze effluents or to
base permit limits because the concentration will likely change upon mixing
with receiving water. Because of limited resources in most States, the best
procedure where dissolved metal criteria or standards are available is to
assume that total recoverable metal in the effluent is equal to dissolved
metal after mixing. In many cases this is a reasonable assumption (the total
recoverable method is not as rigorous as the total metal method permittees
are now required to use). If desired, the applicant may demonstrate
otherwise by mixing the effluent with receiving water in the expected
proportion and measuring the ratio of dissolved to total recoverable metal in
the mixture. The ratio may then be used as a coefficient to calculate total
recoverable metal effluent limits:
Criteria Qe + Qr mixture total = effluent limit
(as dissolved) X Qe X mixture diss. (as total metal)
3-40
-------
If a coefficient 1s used, caution 1s necessary where ambient controlling
factors are expected to change (e.g., where a downstream source discharges a
low pH waste).
Because the data base for relating metal speclatlon to bloavallablllty
and toxlclty 1s limited, States may choose to use the Indicator species or
resident species procedures for derivation of site-specific criteria In cases
where toxlclty Is significantly affected by water chemistry. Under these
circumstances, derivation of a site-specific criterion based on site-water
effects by either the Indicator or resident species procedures will probably
result In less stringent criteria values. These approaches account for
changes In the bloavallablllty or toxlclty of metals but use total
recoverable metal as the measurement of metal concentration and avoid the
problems associated with monitoring effluent versus receiving water metal
concentrations and calculating permit limits.
3-41
-------
APPENDIX I
TEST METHODS
The following are recommended procedures for conducting tests with
aquatic organisms, Including fishes, Invertebrates, and plants. These
are examples of acceptable procedures. Other procedures of scientific merit
would also be acceptable.
Because all details are not covered 1n the following procedures,
experience In aquatic toxicology, as well as familiarity with the pertinent
references listed, are needed for conducting these tests satisfactorily.
Requirements concerning tests to determine the toxldty and
bloconcentratlon of a chemical 1n aquatic organisms are stated In the
National Criteria Document Guidelines.
A. ACUTE TESTS:
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 15th ed. American Public
Heath Association, Washington, D.C. 1134 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1980. Standard practice for
conducting acute toxlclty tests with fishes, macrolnvertebrates, and
amphibians. Standard E 729-80, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. 25 p.
1-1
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Methods for acute
toxicity tests with fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. IN:
Ecological Research Series, EPA-660/3-75-009. 61 p.
American Society for Testing Materials. 1980. Standard practice for
conducting static acute toxicity tests with larvae of four species
of bivalve molluscs. Standard E 724-80, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. 17 p.
B. PLANT TESTS:
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980. Standard methods for
the examination of water and wastewater. 15th ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington, D.C. 1134 p.
Lockhart, W. L. and A. P. Blouw. 1979. Phytotoxicity tests using the
duckweek Lemna minor, pp. 112-118, IN: Toxicity tests for
freshwater organisms. E. Scherer (ed.), Can. Spec. Pub!. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 44. (Canadian fiovernment Publishing Centre, Supply and
Services Canada, Hull, Ouebec, Canada K1A 059.)
Joubert, G. 1980. A bioassay application for quantitative toxicity
measurements, using the green algae Selenastrum capricornutum.
Water Res. 14: 1759-1763.
1-2
-------
Miller, W. E., J. C. Greene, and T. Shiroyama. 1978. The Selenastrum
capricornutum Prlntz algal assay bottle test - Experimental design,
application, and data Interpretation protocol. EPA-600/9-78-018,
Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis, Corvallis, Oreg. 125
P.
Steele, R. L., and G. B. Thursby. A toxlcity test using life stages of
Champia parvulas [Rhodophyta]. Presented at the Sixth Symposium on
Aquatic Toxicology. Sponsored by the American Society for Testing
and Materials Committee E-47 on Biological Effects and Environmetal
Fate. 13-14 October 1981. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Marine algal assay
procedure; bottle test. Eutrophication and Lake Restoration Branch,
National Environmental Research Center, Corvallis, Ore. 43 p.
C. FISH LIPID ANALYSIS PROCEDURE:
Approximately 10 g tissue is homogenized with 40 g anhydrous sodium
sulfate in a Waring blender. The mixture is transferred to a Soxhlet
extraction thimble and extracted with a 1:1 mixture of hexane and
methylene chloride for 3-4 hours. The extract volume is reduced to
approximately 50 ml and washed into a tared beaker, being careful not to
transfer any particles of sodium sulfate which may be present in the
extract. The solvent is removed in an air stream and the sample is heated
to 100° C for 15 minutes before weighing the sample.
The lipid content is calculated as follows:
% lipid = total residue - tare weight x 100
tissue weight
1-3
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory-Duluth, Duluth, MN 55804.
D. BIOCONCENTRATION FACTOR (BCF) TEST:
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice
for conducting bioconcentration tests with fishes and saltwater
bivalve molluscs. J. L. Hamelink and J. G. Eaton (Task Group
Co-chairmen). American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft.)
Veith, G. D., D. L. DeFoe, and B. V. Bergstedt. 1979. Measuring and
estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish. J.
Fish. Res. Board Can. 36: 1040-1048.
E. CHRONIC TESTS:
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 15th ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington, D.C. 1134 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice
for conducting toxicity tests with early life stages of fishes. S.
C. Schimmel (Task Group Chairman). American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft).
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice
for conducting Daphnia magna renewal chronic toxicity tests. R. M.
Comotto (Task Group Chairman). American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft).
1-4
-------
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice
for conducting Daphnia magna chronic toxicity tests in a flow-through
system. W. J. Adams (Task Group Co-chairman). American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft.)
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard practice
for conducting life cycle toxicity tests with saltwater mysid shrimp.
Susan Gentile and Charles McKenny (Task Group Co-chairman). American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest
draft.)
1-5
-------
APPENDIX II
Examples of how to determine 1f two LC50 values are statistically
significantly different (P=0.05):
0 Obtain the 95% confidence limits for both LC50 values.
0 If the confidence Intervals do not overlap the two values are
different.
0 If one confidence Interval encompasses the other the values are not
different.
0 If the confidence Intervals partly overlap the values may be
different. To ascertain 1f they are different the following or
similar statistical procedures can be used.
To determine If two LC50 values are statistically different, examine the
confidence Interval of the difference. If this Interval brackets zero, the
difference Is not statistically significant; If the confidence Interval does
not bracket zero, then the difference 1s statistically non-zero.
The following example demonstrates how the LC50 values can be compared
when the estimated LC50 values are obtained by the trimmed Spearman-Karber
method. (See Hamilton et a!., for a discussion of the Spearman-Karber
method, Including calculation of the variance.) The example Is similar to
actual 96-hour acute tests for cadmium toxldty. The example presents a
difference between laboratory and site LC50 values that 1s statistically
significant.
Table 1 gives the estimated LC50 values with 95% confidence Intervals
for both the lab and site measurements. The LC50 values are obtained by
using the trimmed Spearman-Karber method on the natural logarithm of the
concentrations.
II-l
-------
To determine If the difference is statistically significant, it is
essential to work with the metric in which the analysis was performed. In
the example the metric is the natural logarithm of the concentration of
cadmium. The LC50 values in Table 1 were obtained from the results in Table
2, which gives loge LC50 values and variances.
The calculations for the difference and its 95% confidence interval are
given in Table 3. Since the confidence interval does not cover zero, there
is a statistically significant difference between laboratory and site LC50
values.
II-2
-------
Table 1 LC50 Values (in ug/1 of cadmium)
Source Estimated LC50 95% Confidence Interval
Lab 75 (54,104)
Field 130 (100,169)
Table 2 Loge LC50 Value
Source Logp_LC50 Variance
Lab 4.32 .027
Field 4.87 .017
Table 3 Calculation of Difference Between Laboratory and Site LC50 Values and
95% Confidence Intervals
(i) Difference = loge LC50 site loge LC50 lab = 4.87 4.32 = .55
(ii) Variance of difference
= variance of loge LC50 site + variance of loge LC50]ak
= .017 + .027 = .044
(iii) Confidence limit = 2 x (variance of difference)*/2
= 2 x (,044)V2 = .42
(iv) Confidence interval = difference _+ confidence limit
= .55 jf .42 = (.13, .97)
(v) Since the confidence interval does not bracket zero, the difference
in laboratory and site LC50 values is statistically significant at
P = .05.
Reference:
Hamilton, Martin, A.; Russo, R.C.; Thurston, R.V.; "Trimmed Spearman-Karber
Method for Estimating Median Lethal Concentrations in Toxicity Bfoassays,"
Environmental Science and Toxicology. V. 11, 1977, pp. 714-719.
II-3
-------
APPENDIX III
GENERAL PLAN TO IMPLEMENT SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA MODIFICATION
I INTRODUCTION
Section 30A(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to publish and
periodically review water quality criteria for the protection of public
health and welfare, aquatic life, and recreation. The criteria
incorporate a series of data from plants and animals occupying various
trophic levels with recent scientific judgements relating pollutant
concentrations to environmental and health effects. These water
quality criteria are then used by the States in conjunction with a
designated water use in the formulation of ambient water quality
standards.
In an effort to give the States increased flexibility in standard
setting, EPA has developed a series of protocols whereby the laboratory
derived national water quality criteria may be modified to reflect
local environmental conditions. The protocols take into account
site-specific variations in species composition, physical factors, and
chemical water quality variables. The consideration of local
conditions helps to assure that criteria for a given water body are
neither overprotective nor underprotective of aquatic life and its
uses.
The general work plan describes a general process to initiate the
criteria modification process at the State level. The scheme involves
implementation of the process at a variety of test sites around the
country. It is the goal of the program to orient and familiarize the
States with the methodology as well as to provide them with practical
III-l
-------
"hands on" experience. The work plan requires (1) the selection of a
test site, (2) data collection and evaluation, (3) biological/water
quality sampling and toxicity testing, and ultimately, (4) the
generation of new water quality criteria.
II GENERAL WORK PLAN
Site Selection: The following criteria have been used to select sites
0 The size of the stream segment must be such as to make
examination of the stream site practical.
0 The stream segment under examination should be affected by only
one or two chemicals.
0 The pollutant should be entering the receiving body as a point
source discharge that can be characterized in terms of pollutant
loading.
0 The concentration of the chemicals at the site should be
measured as to greatly exceed the national water quality
criteria, yet the affected segment should contain evidence of a
"thriving aquatic community."
0 Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents should be available for
the chemicals under consideration.
0 Historical, physical, chemical, and biological data should be
available for the selected toxic pollutants, as well as the
presence of ongoing monitoring programs.
0 There is interest on the part of the State; resources and
technical people are available.
III-2
-------
Site Characterization/Data Collection and Review:
Recent chemical, physical, and biological monitoring data received from
the States and EPA Regional offices 1s reviewed. Additional personnel,
primarily at the State level are contacted 1n order to obtain a
historical perspective of the discharge and the study area, and to
Identify gaps 1n the data base.
An assessment of State resources Including manpower, laboratory and
sampling capabilities, as well as funding, are also conducted. Fact
sheets Identifying key personnel, available resources, and a
preliminary sampling schedule are drawn up for each site.
Design/Conduct Field Mater Quality Sampling and Toxldty Tests:
Having characterized the nature of the problem for each particular site
under Investigation, the next step 1s to design and conduct the field
water quality sampling and toxldty tests. Individual sampling designs
are formulated 1n accordance with the protocols and suggested revisions
of protocols as developed by EPA.
The field sampling and toxldty testing program 1s to be carried out 1n
three parts. These parts Involve:
0 Chemical Sampling and Analysis
° Biological Survey
0 Acute Bloassays
III-3
-------
During the initial portion of the field sampling procedures,
representatives from EPA will meet State personnel and conduct a visit
to the study site. The testing procedures as well as the criteria
modification protocols are discussed with the State personnel.
Chemical Sampling and Analysis
A series of water quality parameters upstream and downstream from the
discharge are measured in order to characterize the ambient stream
water quality and the nature of the discharge. Upstream, mixing,
impact, and recovery zones are delineated on the basis of the water
quality measurements. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and
conductivity can be used to characterize the discharge and identify the
zone where complete mixing of the discharge and receiving stream has
occurred. Additional parameters to be analyzed include: total
nitrogen, un-ionized ammonia, residual chlorine, surfactants, total
organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, total and filtrate residues,
calcium and magnesium hardness and alkalinity. An automated composite
sampler may be placed in the impact zone to determine the fluctuation
of metals concentration in the receiving stream.
II
-------
Biological Survey
An intensive biological survey of the entire study reach is conducted
to assess the nature of the aquatic community and sensitive species in
the various zones identified in the preceding paragraph, as well as to
identify changes in community composition and structure.
To sample macroinvertebrate populations, samples are taken from a wide
range of stream habitats. Electro-fishing, dip netting, and seining
may be used for fish collection. Additional parameters are measured at
each sampling location to ensure sampling similar habitats. These
parameters include: stream velocity; water depth; substrate size,
shape, and stability; turbidity; and stream cover.
Acute Bioassays
Acute 96-hour static bioassays are conducted in site water* and
reconstituted lab water, using laboratory-reared, hatchery reared, or
unexposed organisms taken up stream from the experimental site. Test
organisms are species that live or have been reported to occur in the
stream (as determined in the biological survey) and are listed in the
EPA National Criteria Document as among the most sensitive to the
chemical. Bioassay tests are conducted according to accepted ASTM
methods.
*The exact location is determined after chemical and biological samples
have been taken from the study site.
III-5
-------
For initiation of site-specific criteria modification in the States,
EPA and appropriate State personnel are responsible for assessing the
capabilities and resources of the States to conduct the above sampling,
testing, and analyses. To familiarize the State Agencies with the
criteria modification program wherever possible, State personnel are
encouraged to handle the field and laboratory work. For criteria
modification initiation where the States are unable to carry out all or
part of the work, EPA will initially provide or contract for the
services on behalf of the States.
Calculation of Site-Specific Instantaneous Maximum Criterion and
Maximum 30-day Average Criterion:
The results of the toxicity testing program will be used in the
calculation of the Site-Specific Instantaneous Maximum Criterion for
each chemical of concern. This is the culmination of the modification
process, resulting in the determination of a new concentration for a
chemical in a specific body of water, reflecting local site-specific
conditions. Using the revised protocols from EPA, the Site-Specific
Instantaneous Maximum Concentration will be calculated. The results of
the toxicity testing will also be used in the calculation of the
maximum 30-day Average concentration.
Review of Modification Process
EPA and appropriate State representatives will confer to evaluate the
criteria modification process for each site. A review of the efficacy
and practical utilization of the protocols in establishing criteria
will be conducted. In addition, there will be an examination of the
cost effectiveness of the procedure and the validity of its results.
III-S
-------
DRAFT
CHAPTER A
BENFFIT-COST ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND APPLICATION
0 What is a benefit-cost assessment?
0 What is the legislative basis for a benefit-cost
assessment?
0 How does a benefit-cost assessment fit into the
water quality standards decision-making process?
0 When is a benefit-cost assessment conducted?
0 What does EPA expect in a benefit-cost
assessment?
DISCUSSION OF THE MAJOR IMPACTS OF THE OPTIONS ANALYZED
DESCRIBING BENEFITS AND COSTS
METHODS OF MONETIZING BENEFITS
METHODS OF MONETIZING COSTS
OTHFR CONSIDERATIONS IN A BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT
0 The distribution of benefits and costs
0 The ability of the affected municipality and/or
industry to pay for the controls
0 Uncertainly and the sensitivity of benefit and
cost estimates to key assumptions and variables
0 Uniqueness and irreversibility
METHODS OF DISPLAYING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS AND COSTS
SUMMARY
REFERENCES (Complete Bibliography to be included in
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy and Resource Management,
Economic Analysis Division, Benefit-Cost
Assessment Handbook for Water Programs,
Washington, D.C., Draft, Novermber, 1982.)
Page
4-1
4-9
4-12
4-14
4-18
4-22
4-31
4-41
-------
PURPOSE AND APPLICATION
The purpose of the Benefit-Cost Assessment Guidance is to assist
States in identifying, describing, and analyzing the impacts of their
water quality standards decisions. This guidance provides the
framework for the assessment. Field testing will be conducted and
included in Volume II of the Hater Quality Standards Handbook along
with the field tests of the Water Body Survey and Assessment and
Site-Specific Criteria guidance (see Chapters 2 and 3).
Details on various means of defining and measuring benefits and
costs are described in another document, Benefit-Cost Assessment
Handbook for Water Programs (U.S. EPA, Economic Analysis Division,
Draft, November, 1982).
Currently, laws or administrative procedures in 15 States
require an assessment of the economic impacts of proposed standards and
regulations. States who have developed economic assessment procedures
are encouraged to use them.
This section provides answers to several key questions about the
purpose and application of benefit-cost assessments in the water
quality standards program.
4-1
-------
WHAT IS A BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT?
A benefit-cost assessment identifies and describes the INCREMENTAL
environmental, economic and social impacts of setting water quality
standards when more stringent treatment than the technology-based
requirements of the Clean Water Ad: (the Act) is required to attain a
use. The assessment assumes that ^he minimum technology-based
requirements of the Act have been achieved. Those requirements are
specified in Section 301(b)(l) and (2) of the Act, or in a Section
301(c) waiver. Technology-based requirements may also include cost-
effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source
control.
A benefit-cost assessment identifies the outcomes of a proposed
action, highlights the key elements of the decision and then organizes
this information so that the public and decision-making entity may make
more informed judgments. The level of detail is tailored to the nature
of the decision. If the potential benefits and costs of a water
quality standards decision are clear-cut, a qualitative assessment may
be all that is necessary. If the situation is more complicated, then a
more detailed quantitative assessment may be appropriate.
A distinguishing feature of a water quality standards benefit-cost
assessment, as opposed to a classical cost-benefit analysis, is that a
benefit-cost assessment identifies and describes beneficial and adverse
impacts in the most appropirate terns. Hot all impacts are described
in purely monetary terms. In this nore flexible process, a
BENEFIT-COST RATIO IS INAPPROPRIATE.
4-2
-------
Beneficial and adverse impacts may be described qualitatively, or
in quantitative measures. Issues dealing with questions of equity and
the uniqueness of a resource may be unquantiified, but their importance
needs to be adequately described, and considered. Where appropriate
market values or surrogates do not exist, environmental gains often can
be quantified in units such as "river miles of pristine condition",
"number of fish species present", etc. Dollar values, in some cases
may be appropriate for measuring and comparing benefits and costs
because these benefits may help in clarifying the assessment. This is
particularly true for recreation benefits that may be substantial and
relatively easy to derive.
WHAT IS THF LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR BFNEFIT-COST ASSESSMENTS?
EPA is recommending that States conduct a benefit-cost assessment
where the assessment will assist States in clarifying for the public
and decision makers the outcomes of standards decisions. This may
include retaining, modifying or adding uses requiring more stringent
criteria to protect the uses.
Section 303(c) of the Act provides that standards:
"shall be such as to protect the public health or
welfare, enhance the qulity of water, and serve the
purposes of this Act. Such standards shall be
established taking into consideration their use and
value for public water supplies, propagation of
fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and
agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and
also taking into consideration their use and value
for navigation." (Emphasis added).
4-3
-------
In addition section 101(a)(2) of the Act states:
"it is the national goal that wherever attainable,
an interim goal of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish
and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on
the waters be achieved by July 1, 1983." (Emphasis
added).
The phrase "wherever attainable" is not defined in the Act nor
explicitly discussed in the legislative history. However, it
previously has been interpreted by regulation to allow consideration of
the economic impact as well as the technical feasibility of attaining a
use.
HOW DOES A BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT FIT INTO THE HATER QUALITY DECISION
MAKING PROCESS?
A benefit-cost assessment is one of several optional analyses that
are recommended as part of the State review of water quality standards.
These other analyses include water body survey and assessments (Chapter
2), site-specific water quality criteria (Chapter 3), and waste load
allocations (U.S. EPA, draft, 1981). They form the scientific and
technical basis for setting an appropriate standard and provide
information for determining the impacts of a particular action.
A benefit-cost assessment builds on a water body survey and
assessment and waste load allocation. It compares alternative actions
-- maintaining, modifying, or changirg designated but impaired uses,
4-4
-------
adding new uses, or requiring more stringent criteria -- with
alternative levels of treatment to determine whether the benefits of an
action bear a reasonable relationship to its cost. The State
determines, after a public hearing, whether the benefits of attaining
the use bear a reasonable relationship to its cost.
A benefit-cost assessment is not a decision document. State and
local plans for a water body, along with some important components of
public perceptions and value judgments are not included in an
assessment. However, they must be factored into the water quality
standards decision process.
WHEN IS A BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED?
A benefit-cost assessment is conducted to assist the public and
the water quality standards decision-making entity to understand the
implications of various water quality standards options by analyzing
and displaying the impacts and focusing on the differences in their
respective benefits and costs. A benefit-cost assessment is
appropriate:
in cases where the water quality standard can be attained by
implementing more stringent treatment controls than the minimum
treatment requirements of the Act;
when the use is not precluded by natural or human caused
conditions which can not be remedied or might cause more
environmental damage to correct than to leave in place;
4-5
-------
in cases where a stream use is deemed appropriate but there are
questions raised as to whether the costs necessary to attain a
use are reasonable in relationship to the projected benefits;
and
in justifying water quality improvements for Federal funding of
advanced treatment (AT) or combined sewer overflow (CSO)
projects.
WHAT DOES EPA EXPECT IN A BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT?
A benefit-cost assessment should concisely present relevant
information on the significant impacts of maintaining, modifying, or
changing a use resulting in criteria or effluent limits that would
impose more stringent technology. The approach is a pragmatic
site-specific decision that will depend on the complexity of the
issues. Some of the factors that influence this complexity are:
the type of water body, the pollutants of concern, the uses
examined, the effectiveness of coitrol options and the
scientific/technical reliability of linking effluent controls,
receiving water quality and the attainability of uses;
the types of expected impacts, the distribution of impacts and the
public's perceptions of the uses to be made of the water body; and
the political/institutional arena in which the water quality
standards review and revision process takes place and the resources
available for the analyses from o~:her State agencies, local
governments, industry, environmental groups and the community-at-
large.
The content and detail of each assessment should be tailored to
the particular site and any State requirments for the review of water
quality standards. The State may develop and adopt a general
methodology as part of its continuing planning process document and use
4-li
-------
the general methodology as the basis for the design of a specific
benefit-cost assessment. In developing a methodology for a benefit-
cost assessment, the State and EPA should agree upon an approach prior
to initiating an assessment. This agreement should ensure that the
analyses adequately support any changes the State may propose in its
water quality standards. Where the analyses are inadequate, EPA will
identify early in the process how the analyses need to be improved and
will suggest the type of information or evaluations needed. This
cooperative effort between EPA and the State will assist EPA in its
review of State water quality standards submissions and assure the
State of the adequacy of its analyses prior to public hearings. The
benefit-cost assessment along with the other analyses conducted in
support of any changes in State water quality standards are to be made
available to the public, to review and comment, prior to a public
hearing on any water quality standards revisions. Final State
decisions on the appropriate action are not made until after the public
hearing. EPA's review of the analyses in support of any standard
revisions is a review of the adequacy of the analyses; it is not a
review of State value judgments.
The key elements of a benefit-cost assessment are included in
Figure 1 and more fully described in the sections that follow.
4-7
-------
FIGURE 4-1
KEY ELEMENTS IN A BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT
Complete the scientific and
technical use-attainability
assessment for the water body
Identify the existing
and designated uses and
the changes or modifica-
tions to be evaluated
List impacts and determine
the complexity of the
analysis
Simple,clear-
cut cases
More conpl =
cases
Increasingly complex cases
or cases with benefits
particularly amenable to
monetary evaluation
Describe impacts
in a narrative
Describe quantifiable
and nonquantifiable
benefits and costs
I
Describe quantifiable
benefits and costs in
monetary terms to the
extent feasible
Describe uncertainties,
conduct sensitivity
analysis for key variables
Translate monetary values
into common units using
a discount rate and
appropriate time horizon
Describe the distribution
of benefits aid costs,
equity issue;, etc.
Display findings of the
benefit-cost assessment
4-e
-------
DISCUSSION OF THE MAJOR IMPACTS OF THE OPTIONS ANALYZED
The type of impacts considered and the detail of the associated
analyses depends on the complexity of the problem. States must rely
on judgment and common sense in identifying expected impacts and in
determining whether an impact is important enough to be included in
an assessment. Site-specific features and complexities determine
whether it is necessary to go beyond assessing traditional ecological
impacts and include economic impacts as well. One possible indicator
of whether and what level of detail is necessary in describing the
impacts is the controversy surrounding a standards decision. In
controversial cases, which involve highly vocal interest groups that
advocate conflicting objectives for use of a water body, a more
thorough review of the associated impacts may be advisable. In all
cases, the assessment should be tailored to the problem at hand. A
number of impacts that may occur and might be considered in a
benefit-cost assessment are presented in Table 1. They are presented
only to stimulate a look at the variety of impacts which may be
attributable to a standards decision. Not all of these impacts are
likely to result from any single standards decision. In identifying
the impacts associated with any particular standards action, extreme
care must be taken to avoid double counting and to distinguish between
primary and secondary impacts.
4-9
-------
Table 1
Examples of Impacts Associated with a
Water Quality Standards Decision
USES:
1. AOUATIC PROTECTION
° Biological Impacts
enhancement/Improvement in health/diversity of marine/estuarine
fishery or particular species
enhancement/improvement in health/diversity of coldwater fishery
or particular species
enhancement/improvement in health/diversity of warmwater fishery
or particular species
Improvement/enhancement in aquatic vegetation
improvement in lake trophic status
-- protection of rare or endangered species
protection of sensitive and/or productive ecosystems/wetlands
- etc.
0 Chemical Impacts
-- elimination/enhancement/reduction of limiting factor (heavy
metals, D.O., Ammonia, etc.)
-- improvement in quality of groundwater recharge
etc.
° Physical Impacts
-- elimination/reduction/enhancement of factors affecting the
habitat (flow, substrate, pools, riffles, toxic laden sediment
deposits)
etc.
2. RECREATION
0 Biological Impacts
enhancement (number, diversity) warmwater sport fishery
enhancement (number, diversity) coldwater sport fishery
enhancement (number, diversity) marine/estuarine sport fishery
etc.
Chemical Impacts
reduced disease risk (e.g., water contact diseases)
-- reduced toxicant risk (e.g., factors affecting fish consumption
with fish contaminated with PCB).
Physical Impacts
elimination/reduction/enhancement of factors (flow, depth, etc.)
increased assessibility
improvement in aesthetic qualities - (scenic, odor, etc.)
-- etc.
0 Economic Impacts
increase in property values, tax base, user chargers, growth
potential, etc.
etc.
3. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
° Chemical Impacts
reduced health risk
-. reduced toxicant risk
etc.
Physical Impacts
-- increased availability
etc.
° Economic Impacts
-- reduced treatment costs
-- reduced storage costs
-- etc.
4. AGRICULTURAL
° Chemical Impacts
reduced salts
-- reduced health risk for animals
etc
0 Physical Impacts
increased availability of water (due to improved raw water
quality)
etc.
° Economic Impacts
-- reduced water storage and treatment costs
-- changes in operations (tillage, fertilization, other BMP's that
reduce soil loss to receiving water)
etc.
5. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
* Biological Impacts
increase in number or diversity of particular species
etc.
0 Chemical Impacts
elimination/reduction of limiting factors (hardness, color,
turbidity, chlorides, etc)
etc.
° Economic Impacts
-- recycling/reuse/recovery of chemicals
process changes
-- reduced raw water treatment costs
-- increase in capital and 0+M costs
etc.
6. NAVIGATION
° Chemical Impacts
elimination/reduction of limiting factors (corrosive materials,
etc.)
etc.
' Physical Impacts
-- elimination/reduction of limiting factors (depth, debris,
turbidity, dredging)
-- etc.
° Economic Impacts
reduced maintenance costs
-- etc.
7. OTHER
0 Community Impacts
-- changes in property values, tax base, etc.
-- increase in user charges, bond payments, etc.
-- increase/decrease attractiveness of community (industry,
business, aesthetics)
-- etc.
0 Equity among dischargers
0 State and local Legal/Institutional Impacts
° Impact on Historical/Archeological Sites
0 Continuity or program consistency with past actions
° Impact on downstream uses or downstream dischargers
° Foreclosing future options
4-10
-------
In some instances, the impacts associated with a water quality
standards decision can be projected easily (e.g. predicting higher
user charges). For more difficult cases, such as potential
foreclosure of a future water supply source or fishing opportunity,
the thoroughness of the investigation will depend on site-specific
conditions. Impacts may range from effects on downstream aquatic life
to effects on groundwater recharge areas. Regardless of the
complexity, only the significant impacts are necessary for an effective
assessment.
In many benefit-cost assessments, it will become clear that
certain key impacts or issue areas dominate and form the basis for the
decision process. When this occurs, the benefit-cost assessment need
only focus on these key impacts. States may find the approach used in
environmental impact, statements, that of rank-ordering impacts, a
useful one in a benefit-cost assessment.
4-11
-------
DESCRIBING BENEFITS AND COSTS
Once the relevant impacts of an action have been identified, the
task becomes one of describing the impacts in terms of benefits and
costs. This requires assigning meaningful units of measure to each
impact.
Impacts perceived as favorable are labeled BENEFITS; those that
are unfavorable, as COSTS. Benefits are defined in terms of the uses
which can be made of the water body while costs are defined in terms of
what must be given up to attain that use. When a decision involves
removing or modifying a use which can not be achieved, "benefits
foregone" and "cost savings" (compared with attaining the designated
use) are discussed.
It is conceivable that an impact may be considered as a benefit
by one sector of society, and a cost by another. For example, some
industries might actually prefer a lower dissolved oxygen
concentration because it inhibits metal corrosion. This is
especially true of industries using receiving waters for process
cooling. However, the State may look at the same water body quite
differently. A State may want to have a high dissolved oxygen
concentration to protect and improve a valuable warm water sport
fishery. It is assumed that the State will evaluate and describe
impacts as benefits or costs from the public's perspective.
4-12
-------
Conflicting perceptions concerning the desirability of anticipated
outcomes may also result because of the time horizons used by different
sectors of society. Frequently, industry develops management
strategies based on short-term planning horizons (1-5 years) while the
public sector usually plans much further into the future (20 years).
It is likely that States will evaluate impacts from a long term public
perspective.
Some impacts lend themselves quite readily to quantification,
while others are not easily measured. Every impact does not need to be
quantified. Nevertheless, all impacts need be described meaningfully.
Visitor days and miles of pristine shoreline are examples of
quantitative measures that could assist in determining the relative
value of an outcome.
In some cases, impacts can be measured directly in dollars; in
others, monetary units can be assigned to numerical units such as
user days to arrive at a final dollar value (as shown in Table 2).
Such monetization may be desirable in complex assessments. For impacts
that are difficult to quantify or monetize, it is assumed that
decision-makers, after public hearings, will reflect the public's
preferences regarding the value of particular uses. If some impacts
can be easily expressed in dollars, the tendency to give greater
emphasis to these impacts at the expense of other impacts described in
non-monetary units should be stringently avoided. In many cases,
non-monetized impacts may be of overriding importance and social
significance. Because of the variety of ways to describe impacts, a
benefit-cost ratio should not be used.
4-13
-------
METHODS OF MONETIZING BENEFITS
Generally, the available methods of measuring benefits are less
precise than the available methods of measuring costs because
environmental commodities typically are not bought and sold in
ordinary markets. Nevertheless, methods are available to estimate
some of the benefits of water quality improvement. One such method
is the costs of substitutes; another is an individual's willingness to
pay.
In using the cost of substitutes, for example, treatment costs of
providing safe drinking water that could be avoided by water quality
improvements would be an appropriate measure of the benefits to the
community of improved water quality. If alternative supplies are
unavailable or very expensive, people may be willing to pay a very high
price for water quality improvement.
Individuals' willingness to pay is frequently used to define the
benefits from recreation. The methods used to estimate the willingness
to pay are diverse and often quite technical. The data needs, key
assumptions, and level of detail required for each method are
summarized in Table 2. When selecting a method or set of methods for
measuring the incremental benefits of a water quality standard
decision, a State should consider: (1) available resources; (2) the
types of impacts (e.g., recreation, municipal water supply); and (3)
4-H
-------
METHOD
TRAVEL COST
DESCRIPTION
The travel cost model has been
usea to estimate recreational
benefits in a wide variety of
applications. The logic under-
lyiny this approach is quite
simple. The travel behavior of
recreationists fron different
origin points can be used to
analyze the demand for a site's
services. A recent study of the
Monunganela Kiver provides a
general travel cost model that can
be used to predict the recreation
benefits of water quality improve-
ments. Key features of the model
are its potential use for a large
number of water quality standards
applications, use of the most
preferred method of measuring
recreation benefits, the limited
amounts of data needed, and the
incorporation of the effect of
important site attributes like
access and facilities in addition
to water quality.
TABLE 4-2
METHODS OF MONETIZING BENEFITS
DATA NEEDS
0 ungin zones for users of the
recreational site. The origin zone
should not be larger than the user's
county of residence.
° Population, size, and summary measures
for features of population in encn
origin zone (e.g., median family
fncone, median age, median education,
etc.).
0 Round-trip mileage from each origin to
site.
° Vehicle costs per mile and implicit
time costs of travel.
0 Information on length of stay.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS. FEATURES AMI LIMITATION'S
The model measures demand for services ot
a specific site, not total or yeneral
recreation demand.
° Site demand depends on site's noillty to
produce services for tne rP\)uired
activities.
° Tne cost of time spent at tne site often
1s excluded. This suggests tnat
"full-cost" may not be expressed in a
demand relationship. Particularly when
most visitors cone snort distances, tne
opportunity cost of on-site time should
be included.
° There are only a few good substitute
sites available. If many substitutes are
available, the simple model will
overstate the demand for the site.
0 The price, or travel cost, is capable of
capturing all the factors tnat influence
the decision to recreate at the site,
° The primary purpose of tne trip is to
recreate at the particular site. If this
is not the case, the cost of the trip is
a joint cost, whicn must be allocated
between multiple purposes.
Consistent length of stay for each tnu is
assumed.
cnNTIfGENT VALUATION
RECREATION
PARTICIPATION
The contingent valuation survey
applied to measuring environmental
benefits involves asking Individuals
what they are willing to pay for
well-defined changes 1n environmental
conditions such as i change in water
quality. The recent Monongahela River
Contingent Valuation Study measured the
recreational and related benefits of
water quality Improvements by comparing
alternative techniques for eliciting a
respondent's willingness to pay, It
measured both user and nonuser
values. The results showed that
plausible benefit estimates can be
developed, that results are consistent
across methods, and that nonuser benfH
are quite large ($40 to $90 per person
per year).
Many State and Federal agencies
undertake surveys of the general
population in an effort to identify
participation patterns for recrea-
tional activities. As a rule, these
surveys provide detailed Information
on the socioeconomlc characteristics
of the households Involved and the
types and amounts of outdoor recrea-
tion in which they participated.
These surveys have been used to
estimate recreation participation
models. Such models are neither
demand or supply relationships but
summaries of all the determinants of
the likelihood that an Individual
will boat, fish, swim, etc., as well
as the level of participation 1n
specific activities. The participa-
tion decision is usually divided Into
two steps: determining whether or not
the respondent participates in a
particular activity and modeling the
expected number of days (or trips)
the respondent spends at the acHivlty
over a season.
Survey of individuals designed to be
representative of affected population.
Clearly defined and pretested survey
Instrument. In-person interviews are
generally more reliable.
Survey of recreation patterns of general
population with socioeconomlc detail and
Identification of residential location
of respondents (preferably below the
level of State of residence).
Identification of sites used for recrea-
tion activities 1s highly desirable.
Measures of water quality for sites used
by survey respondents or linkage between
water quality and capacity related
measures for recreation activities.
Individual responses to hyopthetlcal
questions are assumed to be Indicative of
their actual valuations of the changes
described in the questions.
Careful tests are required to determine
appropriate starting points and
mechanisms for payment, as well as
consistency of responses with other
budgetary requirements.
Careful control 1s required over
Information given respondents so answers
are based on the same Information in each
Interview.
An Independent estimate 1s required of
Individual's willingness to pay for a da>
or trip spent 1n each recreation
activity. Frequently this 1s based on
the Individual's opportunity cost of
time.
The economic structure(1.«., demand and
supply relationships) 1s assumed to
remain stable.
Model specification (I.e., two-step
partition of participation decision and
level of participation) is assumed to be
correct, and functional forms are assumed
to have selected adequate approximations.
4-1 R
-------
TABLfci 4-2
METHOD DESCRIPTION
PROPERTY VALUE Two types of empirical models use
METHOD variations In either property values
or real wages, with quantltive
measures of environmental amenities,
to estimate Individual willingness to
pay for > change 1n one or more of
those amenities. Only property value
models have been used 1n the case of
water quality. This approach
would likely exceed the resources
available in most States.
METHODS'OF MONETIZING BENEFITS
DATA NEEDS
0 Property values (preferably sale price)
for residential sites around water
bodies with different water qualities in
the same housing market.
Information on other site and
neighborhood characteristics that may
affect property values.
Information on Individual's perceptions
of water quality and relationship to
available physical measures of water
quality.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS, FEASDRES AND LIMITATIONS
" Market equilibrium.
Full knowledge of implications and
effects of water quality.
° Ability to determine extent of market
and specify functional relationships
for price and inverse demand
functions.
° Full adjustment and ease of mobility.
FIRM BENEFITS The estimation of a firm's benefits
from water quality has been much less
sophisticated than 1n the case of
household benefits. The primary'
focus has been on estimation of the
cost savings associated with the
water quality change. The estimates
are derived largely from engineering
cost eslmates. Producer benefits 1n
the form of cost savings from
implementing the water quality stan-
dard are expected to be small because
the largest share of their benefits
from Improved water quality will he
attributed to other regulatory
programs already in place.
Information on how firms' production
processes will be modified as a result
of the change in water quality.
Products and inputs (labor, machines)
are bought and sold in markets where no
buyer or seller Influences market
price.
-° The supply curve reflects the marginal
social cost of producing the product or
service. This implies that neither
external costs not subsidies are
present 1ri the market.
In the cases of agriculture and
navigation, Institutional factors, such
as the subsidization of waterway
activities and the regulated rates 1n
those markets may distort the true
social cost.
Control over market prices and outputs
will distort the supply relationships
and make prices higher than in
competition.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
Reductions in treatment requirements
for municipal Mater supplies
constitutes another potential source
of benefits from the water quality
standards program. Once again, 1t 1s
essential to remember that the focus
of the benefit measurement should be
the incremental benefits attributable
to attaining the standard, not total
benefits from all water regulations.
Information on cost savings for public
water supply systems.
Various water quality standards would not
affect the amount of toxic substances In
the municipal water supply.
4-16
-------
the designated use(s) of the water body. A number of these methods can
be used in combination with one another to reinforce the validity of
the estimates. However, care must be taken to avoid double counting.
The Benefit-Cost Assessment Handbook for Water Programs (EPA,
Economic Analysis Division, November, 1982) provides more detailed
descriptions and examples of each method.
4-17
-------
METHODS OF MONETIZING COSTS
The true cost of an action is its opportunity cost. Opportunity
cost is the basis of measuring the cost of any resource -- labor,
machinery, environmental resources, etc. Opportunity cost measures
the cost of a resource in terms of its next best alternative use.
That is, the appropriate concept of costs is that of the value of the
foregone alternative. Since opportunity cost is not dependent on who
uses the resource, all possible alternative uses should be
considered. Consequently, opportunity costs represent tradeoffs --
what must be given up of one thing to have more of something else.
Where a market exists for a given resource, the market value,
expressed in dollars, is usually indicative of the resource's
opportunity cost. The Benefit-Cost Assessment Handbook for Water
Programs will provide a more detailed discussion of how to determine
opportunity costs and the factors which affect this determination.
Costs usually are divided into capital costs and operation and
maintenance (0 & M) costs. Capital costs represent initial costs
associated with the construction or upgrading of a facility to meet
treatment requirements (beyond the technology requirements of the
Act). 0 & M costs represent the annual costs of running and
maintaining the facility after its construction plus periodic
reinvestments as individual components wear out and require
replacement. The baseline for water quality standards costs is the
INCREMENTAL costs beyond the technology-based requirements. These
4-18
-------
incremental costs may include both additional end-of-pipe treatment
units and the modification of existing production or treatment units,
The cost of a treatment process depends on many factors. The
more important factors include the wastewater flow rate, pollutant
loading, plant location, amount of pollutant removed, and permitted
effluent concentrations.
There are four basic approaches for predicting the cost of a
treatment process: (1) total system estimates; (2) planning level
estimates; (3) engineering estimates; and (4) contractor estimates.
The cost estimates generated with these techniques vary in accuracy
and range from the generalized project conceptualization of total
system estimates to site specific contractor estimates. The same
basis for developing costs should be applied to all alterntives
analyzed. Otherwise, there are likely to be inconsistencies.
For the purposes of water quality standards decisions, planning
level estimates are generally most appropriate to use. Planning
level estimates are based on prior analyses of treatment system
components in which costs have been related to important design
parameters. If more detailed costs, such as engineering estimates,
are available, they should be used.
Table 3 presents several methods of generating planning level
estimates for both publicly owned and industrial treatment works.
4-19
-------
Table 4-3
Methods of Estimating Costs
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
0 CAPDET* A computerized model that prepares cost estimates for up to
35 alternative treatments specified by the user. Alternative
designs are included for some unit processes. CAPDET cost
estimates are based on statistical' analyses of similar
facilities, along with unit costs based on input prices for
identified unit cost elements. CAPDET recently has been
revised to allow it to explicitly handle upgrades of existing
facilities.
0 Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual**
Planning level estimates of costs for upgrading an existing
facility are developed from generalized cost curves. The
manual has been designed specifically to aid Federal and
State review authorities in the administration of innovative
and alternative requirements of the Construction Grants
Program as well as providing some basic methodological and
technical information to individuals involved in facility
plan development.
Industry
0 EPA Development Documents***
Can be used to provide planning level costs for particular
industries.
0 When there is NO Information
Identify the pollutants that are of major concern at the
particular plant, their concentration, and the effluent flow.
Then, based on an examination of analagous industries,
identify waste treatment unit processes that may be
applicable for the identified pollutants.
* Process Design and Estimating Algorithms for the Computer Assisted
Procedure for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment"
Systems (CAPDET), January 1981, prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Proram Operations and Office,
Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C. To obtain access
to CAPDET programs and documentation, contact the Systems Analysis
Group of EPA Regional Offices or the Facilities and Requirements
Division, Office of Water Program Operations, EPA in Washington,
D.C.
** Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, CD-53,
February 19RO, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Program Operations, Office of Research and Development
(MERL).
*** EPA Development Documents for effluent limitations guidelines and
standards (issued by the Effluent Guidelines Division of EPA,
these documents provide the technical background for the
development of waste treatment rules for particular industries).
4-20
-------
Municipal costs may include alternative levels of advanced treatment
processes and/or best management practices for nonpoint source
controls. It may be more difficult to obtain costs for industrial
treatment. Industrial costs arise either from direct costs of
treatment facilities, process changes or pretreatment prior to
discharge to publicly owned treatment works. The Benefit-Cost
Assessment Handbook for Water Programs will provide more detailed
descriptions and examples of cost estimating techniques.
4-21
-------
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN A BENEFIT-COST ASSESSMENT
Other pertinent issues also may need to be addressed as benefits
and costs are identified and measured. These include who is going to
pay for compliance costs and their financial status, questions of
equity and efficiency, the uncertainty involved in the methods used to
project attainable uses and to quantify costs and benefits,
reversibility of proposed actions, and the uniqueness of the resource
at risk.
The distribution of benefits and costs
A description of who benefits and who pays may be a significant
component of the assessment. Benefits or costs may accrue to local
residents, industries, or downstream users. Costs for publicly owned
waste treatment facilities may be allocated by municipalities through
higher taxes, user chargers, or reductions of other public services.
Industries may be expected to pay for treatment through increased
prices or through reduced dividends to stockholders. How the costs are
paid imposes different burdens on various segments of the population.
What constitutes an equitable cost allocation depends on site-
specific conditions and local decisions about fairness. One relevant
site-specific condition is the scope of the stream segment under
consideration. Too small of a segment may shift potentially beneficial
or adverse impacts to downstream users or dischargers and too large a
segment may make the assessment unmanageable. Regional management may
4-22
-------
be more cost effective 1n many Instances than Individual management
systems. An allocation scheme might consider assigning regional costs
based on some proportional use of the facility, such as wastewater flow
or BOD load.
Another consideration 1n allocating costs 1s the question of
equity versus efficiency. Although there are no right or wrong
answers, consideration of equity and efficiency may be Important,
particularly Involving segments with a number of municipal dischargers.
Efficiency criteria may Indicate that adding phosophorus removal to a
small community's facility 1s preferable to requiring additional
phosphorous treatment (e.g. going from the existing 85% removal to 95%
removal) for a large municipality. However, the cost per household for
a large municipality to Increase Its percentage of phosophorus removal
may be considerably less than requiring a small community to add
phosphorus removal to Its treatment facility.
In addition, the locatlonal advantage or disadvantage of one
discharger over another may be Important. It may be necessary to
evaluate the Impacts upstream of a discharger before requiring that
discharger to Incur the total cost of meeting a standard.
Another aspect to consider when assessing cost burdens Is the
presence of existing controls. Some dischargers may have treatment
4-23
-------
systems or portions of systems already 1n place, and the incremental
treatment may not pose as serious a burden. On the other hand,
questions may be raised that the other dischargers should carry "their
fair share" of the costs of meeting the water quality standards, even
if it would be a more costly process.
In evaluating control options for both municipalities and
industries there are usually a number of alternatives which can be
explored. It may be appropriate for municipalities to consider cost
effective and reasonable best management practices to control nonpoint
sources of pollution as well as alternative levels of advanced
treatment and additional industrial pretreatment, etc. Alternatives
for industrial treatment may encompass product or even process changes
depending on the industry involved.
The complexity of the problem increases when multiple industrial
processes/products, municipalities and nonpoint sources are involved in
a given reach. In such complex circumstances, costs frequently are
allocated among affected parties through negotiated settlements based
on site-specific and industry-specific conditions.
The ability of the affected municipality and/or industry to pay for the
controls
An important consideration in a benefit-cost assessment is whether
compliance with additional pollution control costs necessary to attain
4-24
-------
a standard will impose undue economic hardship on the affected parties.
EPA's draft policy on determining financial capability of communities
to construct, operate and maintain treatment works goes beyond
affordability and encourages communities to evaluate the entire range
of financial issues associated with the proposed treatment facility.
The draft policy encourages prospective grantees to look at things such
as the roles and responsibilities of the participating agencies,
estimated local costs, proposed methods of financing the local share of
the costs, annual costs to the typical household user (affordability),
and whether the community as a whole has the financial resources
necessary to build and operate the facility as proposed.
The traditional concept of affordability is only one element in
EPA's draft policy which calls for grantees to develop a comprehensive
profile of the community's overall financial capability. The purpose
of this expanded analysis is to encourage communities to evaluate
realistically their own financial capability to build and operate the
proposed treatment works. Further technical information on this may be
found in the Financial Capability Handbook (EPA, draft, 1982).
The impact of additional pollution control costs on a firm's
economic or financial vitality are evaluated to determine whether there
is potential for adverse impacts on growth and employment. In extreme
cases, if the costs of compliance would force a company out of
business, it would be necessary to assess the effects of such a
shutdown on local as well as regional employment.
4-25
-------
A number of measures for assessing the ability of a firm to pay
for additional pollution control costs as well as the impact o>f any
reductions 1n employment due to an adverse financial impact on a firm
are presented in Table 4. The accuracy of each depends on the
availability and reliability of financial data. Reliable cost data for
individual firms may be difficult to obtain.
Uncertainty and the sensitivity of benefit and cost estimates to key
assumptions and varlablesT
Uncertainty may surround many facets of the analyses associated
with the water quality standards review, including (1) the projection
of future conditions based on the scientific and technical analyses and
(2) the estimation of benefits and costs. Many of the conclusions will
be based on judgement, even though the water body survey and eissessment
and wasteload allocation guidance were used to provide the scientific
and technical information. Frequently there is only a limited
understanding of the efficiencies of point or nonpoint source treatment
controls, of linking water quality to the attainment of uses, of
Unking downstream uses to upstream water quality, etc. While
uncertainty cannot always be removed even with additional information
and analyses, States need to at least point out where uncertainty
exists in the analyses.
4-26
-------
Table 4-4
Financial Impact Measures for Firms
Measure
Source
Availability Reliability
I. Vitality of Firm
1. Costs/sales ratio
2. Cost/production
cost ratio
3. Net cash flow
4. Rate of return
5. Net present value
6. Company solvency
II. Changes in employment
and output
1. Due to closure
2. Due to output
reduction
Production and
price estimates
in public data
bases
EPA economic
impact analysis
Plant financial
data
Plant and company
financial data
Plant and company
financial data
Company financial
data
Plant data
Plant data, engi-
neering report
High
High
Medium
Low
Low
Depends
on size
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
High
High
Depends
on size
Medium
Medium
4-27
-------
Another consideration in measuring benefits and costs is their
sensitivity to changes in the value of key variables. Sensitivity
analyses address the uncertainties inherent in the methods selected to
describe benefits and costs. The most crucial issue in the monetary
aspects of a benefit-cost assessment is the selection of an appropriate
discount rate to translate dollar amounts of benefits and costs
occurring in different years into a common unit of comparison, usually
present value. While compliance costs may be realized as soon as
construction of a proposed treatment begins, benefits may not accrue
until after construction is completed, and may continue to accrue for
many years. Because the discount rate is a key variable, a range of
values (0-10%) is recommended in conducting the assessment.*
While uncertainty cannot be removed, it can be addressed. A range
of impacts can be used to express uncertainty. As uncertainty
increases so does the expected range of impacts.
Uniqueness and Irreversibility
The uniqueness of a receiving water body will influence its value.
If numerous bass fishery streams exist in a region, advanced treatment
to enable an additional bass fishery to be established in a stream not
* There is considerable controversy and confusion over which discount
rate to use - market rate of interest or social rate of time
preference. For further information, see U.S. EPA, Guidelines for
Performing Regulatory Impact Analyses. Appendix C, Regulatory Impact
Analysis Guidance for the Discount Rate. Draft, August 1982. The
Construction Grant regulation (see 40 CFR 35.2030(b)(3), 47 FR 20461
May 12, 1982) specifies that in conducting a cost effectiveness
analyses as part of a construction grant application, the discount rate
established by the Water Resources Council be used.
4-28
-------
presently attaining that use may not be advisable. However, 1f a
receiving water 1s one of only a few In a region that could attain a
bass fishery, 1t may be deslreable to preserve and enhance the stream
even at considerable cost.
Appropriate consideration also should be given to the degree of
reversibility of an action. Some actions, like streetsweeplng In the
control of nonpolnt sources of pollution can be reversed 1f found to be
Ineffective. Others, like construction of a treatment facility,
usually Involve a long-term commitment of capital and other resources,
which 1s largely Irreversible. Considering a combination of reversible
actions and monitoring as an option might be appropriate rather than
only considering Irreversible measures.
Another aspect of reversibility that needs to be considered 1n the
assessment 1s the 1rrevers1b1l1ty of the effects anticipated from an
action. For example, a particularly valuable species may reside In a
given stream segment, and 1t would be unwise to jeopardize Its survival
with an Inappropriate upstream standards decision. Unknowns
surrounding fish propagation suggest caution 1n handling Irreversible
effects on receiving waters. While difficult to assess, these should
be mentioned 1n the assessment.
The emphasis placed on each of the aforementioned considerations
will vary from case to case, but 1t 1s necessary that each be properly
displayed for decision-makers. This leads to the next Important task
4-29
-------
1n the benefit-cost assessment. Once the benefits and costs associated
with the impacts of alternative courses of action have been Identified
and measured, and key questions concerning distribution of benefits,
allocation of costs, financial capability, sensitivity of the analyses,
degree of reversibility of the proposed actions and anticipated effects
of those actions have been addressed, the final task becomes one of
displaying the information.
4-30
-------
METHODS OF DISPLAYING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS AND COSTS
The value of the benefit-cost assessment lies in Its ability to
describe and clearly display the alternative outcomes of different
courses of action. It focuses on the differences 1n Impacts of the
alternatives analyzed and emphasizes Issues deemed critical for
decision-makers. Several display techniques are available. The more
useful ones Include: (1) narratives, (2) matrices, and (3) graphical
displays. Each technique varies 1n sophistication and data
requirements. The selection of an appropriate display technique
depends on the situation. Regardless of the display technique, 1t is
the INCREMENTAL benefits and costs that are displayed, not the total
benefits/costs of water quality improvement.
NARRATIVES: Narratives are qualitative and/or quantitative
descriptions of the outcomes of alternative actions. Narratives are
appropriate for displaying some impacts, but are rarely sufficient to
use by themselves. It 1s frequently necessary to use other techniques
in conjunction with narratives. Any benefit or cost can be addressed
(although not necessarily quantified), making narratives simple to
apply. However, their simplicity may be offset by the lack of
meaningful quantification, which makes direct comparisons between
alternatives difficult. In general, because of the lack of detail and
structure, narratives alone are usable in only the most simple
assessments. Table 5 combines a narrative approach with some
quantification.
4-31
-------
Table 4-5
Narrative Descriptions of Benefits and Costs
of Alternative Control Options
Existing Condition
Secondary treatment
plant overflows.
Low concentrations of
dissolved oxygen and
high concentrations
of ammonia periodi-
cally cause fish
kills.
Treatment Options
I Three industrial
dischargers pre-
treat wastes
II Advanced waste
water treatment
plant with nitri'
fication
Costs
$1 million
$3 million
III Installation of
7 stormwater
retention ponds
IV All of abvove
$300,000
each for a
total cost of
$2.1 million
$6.1 million
Benefits
Remove toxic metals
enabling municipal
treatment plant to work
better. Allows the
return of more
sensitive biota.
Raise dissolved oxygen
concentrations and
lower ammonia
concentrations elimi-
nating fish kills.
Protects warmwater
sport fishing.
Lower sediment loadings
and hydropholic toxics.
Protects warmwater
sport fishing habitat.
All of above. Protects
a good warmwater sport
fishery with only
limited substitutes
available.
4-32
-------
MATRICES: Matrices are arrays where physical, biological,
socio-economic and cultural Indicators can be shown for each control
alternative. All benefits and costs can be addressed, and multiple
objectives/Issues can be displayed 1n a single exhibit. In developing
a matrix, judgment will be needed to limit the display to only the most
Important benefits and costs. Otherwise, the display will become so
complex that It Is difficult to understand. Care must also be taken to
avoid double-counting the Indicators.
Matrices vary In complexity. Tables 6 and 7 are small arrays for
evaluating the environmental Impacts of a single control option. Tables
7 and 8, on the other hand, may be used to display the uses, costs,
uncertainties, and critical Issues for a variety of control
alternatives. It Is necessary to tailor the design of a matrix to the
problem at hand.
Matrices are Information display mechanisms only; they do not
guide the evaluator to a solution. A narrative description of the
salient points In the matrix 1s frequently necessary to supplement the
matrix.
4-33
-------
S'fe
ii
a
«c
t
Z
l_!
o
ce
**
to >
oc * cc
C
I?
F ^
"7 <
w s:
_J '
§1
I
o:
o
1
e. u. <
3: e-
uj z Z
s: ts
c o
Z l^ 10
CDC
>
ir> ts
C LU O
O. Z Z
cr,
c
(/- C
:; ^ -c
^ c
4-34
-------
TABLE 4-7
Example Matrix
Quantity
Monetary value
(million $,
present values)
Types of Benflts
1. Fishing, swimming, recreation
near water
2. Improved aesthetics for users
recreators and property owners
near stream
3. Improved aesthetics for nonusers
4. Enhanced ecological diversity
Types of Costs
1. Advanced treatment for
municipal wastes
2. Advanced treatment cost
for industrial dischargers
1 million visits
10 new fish species
smallmouth bass and
others; 1,000 acres
of improved wildlife
habitat. No unique
species are provided.
1 new plant
3 additional treat-
ment operations
10 to 30
Not monetizable
8 to 10
1 to 4
4-35
-------
TABLE 4-R
EXAMPLF MATRIX
Use(s) Information from
Hater, Hody Survey
and Assessment
Ff-h
Survival
Rec rpa tlon
Puhlfc
Supply
Aqricul ture-
./Maximum temperature
^ ^£x-M1nlTO ^^^ Cover
-x-Fecal Col f form
^^^Oepth
^X*Depth
^X*^yne (' °^ species)
^^Pcrlort (days/months )
^/^Sulffltes
^^^fflr^sl tic Orqanlsii
^^Sodlum adsorption
TIow
beveran.es ^Mlardness
^^x^^-^/^Turbldl ty
^^^^^Chlorl de
^^ydrogen sulfldps
r^r,il.
"^MurbldHy
Limiting
Factor (s)
Management/
Control Options
Probability
(el Imfnat Ion of
reduction of
limiting factor)
lmp?c ts
Costs
Benefits
(0,113 1 1 tat 1 VP ,
quantitative val'/r-
statment
11-ibH.at rpqulrpments for Black Crapple, Wh'le Crapple, Cutthroat Trout, Channel Catfish, Slough Darter, BlueglM and Crepk Chut) available froi I) ?.rJ'.$
4-36
-------
c.
i C f
K c
r- > i. I/J
"- > 01 C
1C i- -> >
< ^ < 3
c 7^-
C w in
0, _ D
:H.e
^ ^ , w t e""w
c c.c c-t. - e ' e jc
tfc= _> C C = f tr. c^'ts'ci^
»-UCk- -^- i- E i- ; C O U~
Z C = C C t ^_J-C
C = C V CJ = U<0 Ij TC'CC.' CE
fa-fc^ ?£.- iS £Me^«
Ctir. 'C"IT_T- t. 0, IA C ^
c c re oc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c
1A
c- r
4-37
-------
GRAPHICAL DISPLAYS: Graphical displays are among the most effective
techniques to clearly show the impacts of a water quality standards
decision. Their visual impact make these displays powerful tools in
selling an option to the public and decision makers. However,
graphical displays may create a false sense of precision given the
uncertainties involved in linking treatment controls to the attainment
of a use.
Display techniques appropriate for resource economic decisions in
the public sector are evolving. Bar graphs and pie charts are
frequently used; trade off curves are receiving increasing attention.*
Trade off curves are graphical displays that enable decision- makers to
compare marginal impacts toward two well-defined objectives.
A curve can be constructed by identifying, as in Figure 2, the two
objectives: (1) reducing the costs of treatment, and (?) increasing the
number of sport fish in a water body.
* For a more in-depth treatment of trade off displays and multi-
objective therory see:
Majors, David C. Multi-Objective Water Resource Planning,
American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC W=»ter Resources Monograph,
No.4, 1977.
Margline, Stephen A. Public Investment. Criteria, Cambridge, MIT
Press, 1969.
4-38
-------
CO
rH
O
c
o
o
u-i
O
Cfl
o
O
A
$1M
$2M
$3M
$4M
FIGURE 4-2
Multi-objective Tradeoff Curves
A cost
less attractive alternatives
envelope of extreme
points, i.e. "attractive"
alternatives
en
o
4-
1234
Benefit objective (increase the number of fish)
4-39
-------
A number of pollution control alternatives are available to
enhance the number of fish residing in the river. Associated with each
alternative, such as single stage nitrification or best management
practices for nonpoint source controls, are costs and benefits,
in this case increasing the number of fish.
If a number of independent alternatives are analyzed and their
benefits and cost.s are plotted as in Figure 2, the envelope of extreme
points define the "attractive" alternatives. The envelope does not
necessarily imply that there is a mathematical relationship between
these independent alternatives. The alternatives in the interior are
less attractive because greater contributions to both objectives can be
gained by moving to the envelope of extreme points. Once the envelope
of attractive options is created, decisions regarding the preferred
alternative can be aided by reference to the slope of the envelope at a
given point. That is, choosing alternative D over alternative C
implies that society is willing to pay the costs associated with
increasing the number of fish in the water body. Similarly, movement
from C to B would imply society is unwilling to pay higher treatment
costs to increase the number of fish.
The curve assists the decision-makers in visualizing tradeoffs
between objectives (reducing costs and increasing the number of fish),
but does not lead to a theoretically "optimum" choice of a single
alternati ve.
Only a few display techniques have been discussed. Most find it
useful to use a variety of techniques - narratives, matrices, as well
as graphical displays to clearly present the impacts of alternative
standards decisions to the public and decision makers.
4-40
-------
SUMMARY
This guidance has focused on what components, concepts and
considerations should be included when assessing the impacts of a water
quality standards decision. As such, it does not detail exactly how
assessments should be performed. Such specificity is impossible
because the individual problem complexities and site-specific features
that could be encountered preclude a "cookbook" approach. Rather, the
intent has been to provide a framework that highlights the important
aspects and issues of a benefit-cost assessment such as cost
allocation, benefit distribution, the links between and the
uncertainties associated with water quality and beneficial uses, the
sensitivities of the analyses used, etc. Methods of monetizing
benefits and costs are identified and display techniques described. It
is up to the States to determine how the benefit-cost assessment is
conducted and to ensure that the analyses used adequately support any
proposed changes in water quality standards.
4-41
-------
DRAFT
CHAPTER 5
GENERAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE
-------
EPA REVIEW, APPROVAL. DISAPPROVAL AND PROMULGATION PROCEDURES
Introduction
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act provides the basis for EPA
review and approval of State adopted or revised water quality
standards. It requires States to hold hearings to review these
standards at least once every three years, and to revise standards
where necessary; 1t establishes time limits for various State and
federal actions; and It provides a mechanism for Federal promulgation
1f the State's action Is Inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.
EPA's water quality standards regulation establishes a
comprehensive state water quality standard review and revision process.
Under the regulation, EPA outlines the requirements for the review
process and encourages States to: (1) design a water quality standard
program based on priority water bodies; (2) select appropriate uses and
criteria; (3) revise uses based on analysis of the attainability of
uses; (4) determine the benefits and costs of attaining the uses; (5)
and set site-specific criteria.
EPA assistance will Include meeting with State officials before
WQS revisions are Initiated to mutually agree upon what standards and
water bodies will be reviewed. This agreement will outline the extent
and detail of analyses needed to support any changes In the standards,
how the analyses will be conducted, who might be participating In the
analyses, the sources of existing data and Information, and a schedule
5-1
-------
for completion of the analyses. EPA will assist 1n the analyses and
recommend approaches where needed and requested by the State, The
objective 1s to develop a close working partnership between the States
and EPA and to assure the Involvement of locally affected parties.
Local Involvement should assist In developing the acceptance and
commitment to achieve the standards. Also, 1t will assist EPA In Its
review of State water quality standards and lessen the possibility that
EPA will question or disapprove formally adopted standards.
Components of a Water Quality Standards Submission
The Governor, or his deslgnee, should submit the results of the
review and any adopted revisions to State water quality standards to
the Regional Administrator. The submlttal should Include the following
Information:
(1) A statement by the State Attorney General, or other
appropriate legal authority within the State, that, the
revised water quality standards were duly adopted by the
State and are Included within State law. (Note that
standards are an element of the State Water Quality
Management plan, that the State's Continuing Planning Process
describes their Implementation and that regulatory programs
Implementing the plan must assure that water quality
standards are met - see 40 CFR Part 131. It 1s through these
regulatory mechanisms that standards are enforced under State
law.)
(2) Descriptions of and methods used and analyses conducted to
support water quality standards revision.
5-2
-------
(Note that use attainability analyses, benefit-cost
assessments, and/or site-specific criteria are optional
analyses. Any analyses conducted should be mutually agreed
upon by the State and EPA prior to being conducted.)
(3) Technical justifications for site-specific criteria that are
in accordance with EPA guidance or other technically sound
methods.
(4) Justifications for any revisions which significantly affect
the content of the water quality standards.
(5) A summary of the intergovernmental coordination and public
participation activities which were carried out in the
development and adoption of the revised water quality
standards. The summary should include a discussion of the
public comments received and where appropriate, a discussion
of various analyses made to support the adoption of the
revised water quality standards.
EPA's Review of State Water Quality Standards
EPA will review State water quality standards to ensure that the
standards meet the requirements of the Act. For example, EPA will look
to see whether beneficial uses have been designated and that the
criteria to protect the designated uses are sufficient to protect these
5-3
-------
uses. EPA will review the adequacy of the analyses 1n support of any
changes 1n the standards. Where the analyses are Inadequate, EPA will
Identify how the analyses need to be Improved and will suggest the type
of Information or analyses needed. EPA will not, however, be
questioning the judgments of the State 1f the analyses are adequate.
EPA will also be looking at whether uses and/or criteria are
consistent throughout the body of water and that downstream uses are
protected. This type of review 1s most Hkely to Involve bodies of
water on or crossing Interstate and International boundaries.
Timing of State Water Quality Standards Submission
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States to review
and revise, 1f necessary, their standards at least once every three
years. However, rather than require a statewide review of all
standards every three years, EPA encourages States to review standards
on priority stream segments. By focusing on priority segments States
should be able to apply their resources more efficiently to better
analyze their water quality standards.
Under the "Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981" (P.L. 97-117) after 1984, EPA may make a
construction grant only where a State has reviewed the water quality
standards for the segment affected by the project. If the water
quality standards review 1s done In support of a construction grant,
5-4
-------
the review should include sufficient analyses to demonstrate that if
the receiving water is classified as effluent limited, it is indeed
effluent limited. If the segment is water quality limited, then the
review should show that with advanced treatment the standards can be
attained.
Policies and Procedures Related to Approvals
If revisions to State water quality standards meet the require-
ments of the Act they are approved by the Regional Administrator. When
only a portion of the revisions submitted meet the requirements of the
Act, the Regional Administrator may only approve that portion. The
Regional Administrator must promptly notify the Governor or his
designee by letter of the approval and forward a copy of the letter to
the appropriate State agency. The letter should contain any
information which may be helpful in understanding the scope of the
approval action. If particular events could result in a failure of the
approved standards to continue to meet the requirements of the Act,
these events should be identified in the approval letter to facilitate
future review/revision activities.
Policies and Procedures Related to Disapprovals
If the Regional Administrator determines that the revisions
submitted are not consistent with or do not meet the requirements of
the Act, the Regional Administrator must disapprove such standards.
5-5
-------
Such disapproval Is by written notification to the Governor of the
State or his designee. The letter must state why the revisions are not
consistent with the Act and specify the revisions which must be adopted
to obtain full approval. The letter must also notify the Governor
that the Administrator will initiate promulgation proceedings if the
State fails to adopt and submit the necessary revisions within 90 days
after notification.
Policies and Procedures Related to Promulgations
If the State fails to appropriately amend its standards during the
90 day period following the notification of disapproval, the
Administrator is required to promptly publish proposed revisions to the
State standards in the Federal Register. Generally, a public hearing
will be held on the proposed standards. Final standards are
promulgated after giving due consideration to written comments received
and statements made at any public hearings on the proposed revisions.
Although only the Administrator may promulgate State standards,
the Regional Office has a major role in the promulgation process. The
Regional Office provides the necessary background information and
conducts the public hearings. The Regions are encouraged to prepare
drafts of the rationale supporting EPA's action included in the
proposed and final rulemakings. The rationale should clearly state the
reason for the disapproval of the State standard. The documentation
5-6
-------
should be forwarded to the Director, Criteria and Standards Division
(WH-585).
If a State remedies the deficiencies In Its water quality
standards prior to promulgation, the Administrator will terminate the
rulemaklng proceedings.
Withdrawal Notices
Proposed Rulemaklng:
Whenever promulgation proceedings are terminated, a notice of
withdrawal of the proposed rulemaklng must be published 1n the Federal
Register. The Regional Offices are responsible for Initiating such
action and furnishing a rationale for use 1n preparing the notice for
the Administrator's signature. These materials should be sent to the
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585).
Promulgation:
A promulgated standard should be withdrawn when 1t Is no longer
necessary to assure that State water quality standards meet the
requirements of the Act. Withdrawal action Is appropriate when the
Regional Administrator approves revisions to State water quality
standards which Included the Identical or substantive content of the
promulgation.
5-7
-------
In such a situation, the Regional Office should initiate the
withdrawal action by notifying the Criteria and Standards Division
(WH-585) that it is requesting the withdrawal and specifying the
rationale for the withdrawal. Unless a duly adopted State regulation
is in all respects clearly identical to (or more stringent than) the
Federal standard, withdrawal of the Federal standard must be done
through notice and comment on the proposed withdrawal under the
Administrative Procedure Act. (Where the State water quality standards
are the same or more stringent, EPA does not need to first solicit
comments on a proposal to withdraw.)
5-8
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This guidance Includes two objectives that emphasize public
participation and Intergovernmental coordination. The first Is to
Involve the regulated community (municipalities and Industry) In the
review and revision of water quality standards. The second objective
1s to encourage local, State, EPA, Regional and Headquarters personnel
to cooperate as partners 1n the water quality standards review process.
This partnership will ensure cross-fertilization of Ideas, data and
Information and will Increase the effectiveness of the total water
quality management process.
Revisions 1n the water quality standards program were made to
Improve the scientific and technical basis of water quality standards
decisions. The analyses described 1n previous sections of this
Handbook should assist States 1n analyzing their standards and 1n
setting appropriate site-specific water quality standards.
An Important component of the water quality standards setting
process 1s the meaningful Involvement 1n the process of those affected
by standards decisions. At a minimum, States are required by Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act to hold a public hearing 1n reviewing and
revising their water quality standards. However, States are urged to
more actively Involve the public 1n the review process. By opening the
water quality standards decision-making process to the public, States
5-9
-------
can encourage scientific discussion of the analyses and build the
consensus necessary for Implementing water quality standards
decisions.
There are several points 1n the water quality standards decision-
making process where public (municipal, Industrial, environmental,
academic, etc.) Involvement would be beneficial. Additional guidance
Is being prepared on the selecting of priority water bodies.
Enlisting the support of municipalities, Industries,
environmentalists and universities 1n collecting and evaluating data
for the recommended analyses Is another way States can Involve those
affected by standards decisions In the review process. The participa-
tion of outside groups 1n data collection and analyses must be based on
State guidelines and oversight to ensure the Integrity of the analyses.
The extra time and effort necessary to organize and coordinate the
participation of outside groups 1s worth the effort, particularly if
the standards review is likely to generate widespread interest and/or
controversy. The Office of Water is also preparing guidance on
performing local cooperative monitoring programs.
Involving the public in the analysis and interpretation of the
data should assist States in improving the scientific basis of the
standards decisions and in building the support for a standards
decision. Scientific discussion for the data can clarify areas of
uncertainty, bring in new data, and/or identify areas where new data is
necessary. The more people that are Involved early in the process of
setting appropriate standards, the more support the State will have in
implementing the standards.
5-10
-------
For the formal public hearings on the reviews and/or revisions of
State water quality standards, the following requirements are
applicable and include:
(1) A notice of the public hearing must be published at least 30
days prior the hearing. The notice should include:
(a) time and location of hearing,
(b) hearing agenda,
(c) notification of the availability of a Fact Sheet (The
sheet must outline the major issues to be discussed,
relevant tentative State staff reports on the standards,
determinations on proposed revisions, and any analyses
conducted in support of proposed revisions that the
public should be aware of prior to the hearing.), and
(d) the location where reports, documents and data to be
discussed at the hearing are available for public
inspection.
(2) Notice of the public hearing should be mailed at least 30
days prior to the hearing to interested and affected persons
and organizations including private and government
organizations and individuals who have filed with the State
requesting such notices. Notice of hearings should also be
mailed to downstream States and to Federal and State agencies
which are affected by existing State water quality standards
or the proposed revisions.
(3) In addition, any other requirements necesssary to comply with
State law for rulemaking hearings.
5-11
-------
The hearing notice should solicit comments and provide opportunity
for public comment. It 1s suggested that the hearing be held 1n the
locally affected area. The State should prepare transcripts and
summaries of the hearings which would be available for Inspection by
the public and the Regional Administrator. To facilitate EPA's review
of revisions, States should supply the Agency with responses to the
public comments related to the revlslon(s).
As has been Indicated, effective public participation In the
standards revision process 1s far more than a public hearing. The *
Interaction of local, State and Federal governments along with the
Input of Industry, municipalities and public Interest groups will make
the process more effective.
5-12
-------
MIXING ZONES
Introduction
The concept of a mixing zone, a limited area or volume of water
when Initial dilution of a discharge takes place, has been covered by a
series of guidance documents Issued by EPA and Its predecessor
agencies. Although mixing zones have been applied 1n the water quality
standards program since Its Inception, until now the Water Quality
Standards regulation has had no explicit reference to mixing zones.
The proposed rule recognizes that States may adopt mixing zones as a
matter of State discretion. Guidance on defining mixing zones has
previously been provided 1n the following documents: the Department of
Interior Report, Water Quality Criteria 1968. (Green Book), the
National Academy of Science. Water Quality Criteria 1972, (Blue Book),
the EPA Quality Criteria for Hater 1976 (Red Book), and Chapter 5,
"Water Quality Standards, 1n the Guidelines for State and Area Wide
Water Quality Management Program. 1976. The current guidance evolved
from and supersedes these sources.
General
A limited mixing zone, serving as a zone of Initial dilution In
the Immediate area of a point or nonpolnt source of pollution, may be
allowed.* Whether to establish a mixing zone policy 1s a matter of
State discretion. Such a policy, however, must be consistent with the
Act and 1s subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator.
*In the broadest sense, the zone surrounding, or downstream from, a
discharge location 1s an "allocated Impact zone" where numeric water
quality criteria can be exceeded as long as acutely toxic conditions
are prevented.
5-13
-------
Careful consideration must be given to the appropriateness of a
mixing zone where a substance discharged is bioaccummulative,
persistent, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic. In such cases the
State must consider the ecological and human health effects of
assigning a mixing zone including such effects as bioconcentration in
sediments and aquatic biota, bioaccumulation in the food chain, and the
known or predicted safe exposure levels for the substance. The effects
of bioaccumulation will depend on the predicted duration/ concentration
exposure of the biota; thus, the likelihood that the mixing zone will
be inhabited by resident biota for a sufficiently long time to cause
adverse effects should be considered. Factors such as size of the
zone, concentration gradient within zone, physical habitat, attraction
of aquatic life, etc., are important in this evaluation. In some
instances, the ecological and human health effects may be so adverse
that a mixing zone is not appropriate.
Definition of Allowable Mixing Zones
Water quality standards for individual water bodies should
describe the State's methodology for determining the location, size,
shape, outfall design and in-zone quality of mixing zones. The
methodology should be sufficiently precise to support regulatory
actions, issuance of permits and determination of BMP's for nonpoint
sources. EPA recommends the following:
5-14
-------
Location. Biologically important areas are to be identified and
protected. Where necessary to preserve the zone of passage for
migrating fish or other organisms in a water course, the standards
should specifically identify the portion of the waters to be kept free
from mixing zones. The zone of passage should be based on the water
quality criteria needed to allow migration of fish. This is typically
less stringent than water quality criteria needed to maintain good
growth and propagation of fish.
Size. Various methods and techniques for defining the surface area and
the volume of mixing zones for various types of waters have been
formulated. Methods which result in quantitative measures sufficient
for permit actions and which protect the designated uses of the water
body as a whole are acceptable. The area or volume of an individual
zone or group of zones must be limited to an area or volume that will
not interfere with the designated uses or with the established
community of aquatic life in the segment for which the uses are
designated.
Shape. The shape of a mixing zone should be a simple configuration
that is easy to locate in the body of water and that avoids impingement
on biologically important areas. A circle with a specified radius is
generally preferable, but other shapes may be specified in the case of
unusual site requirements. "Shore-hugging" plumes should be avoided.
5-15
-------
Outfall Design. Prior to designing any mixing zone, the State should
assure that the design and location of the existing or proposed outfall
will avoid significant adverse aquatic resource and water quality
impacts of the wastewater discharge.
In-zone Quality. Water quality standards should provide that all
mixing zones conform with the following requirements. Any mixing zone
should be free of point or nonpoint source related:
(a) Materials 1n concentrations that will cause acute toxicity to
aquatic life.*
(b) Materials in concentrations that settle to form objectionable
deposits;
(c) Floating debris, oil, scum and other matter in concentrations
that form nuisances;
(d) Substances in concentrations that produce objectionable color,
odor, taste or turbidity; and
(e) Substances in concentrations which produce undesirable aquatic
life or result in a dominance of nuisance species.
* Acute toxicity as used here refers to aquatic life lethality caused
by passage through the mixing zone by migrating fish moving up - or
down stream, or by less mobile forms drafting through a plume.
Requirements for waste water plumes which tend to attract aquatic
life should take Into account such attraction and reduce toxicity so
as not to cause Irreversible toxic effects in such attracted aquatic
life.
5-16
-------
Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or F111 Material
EPA, 1n conjunction with the Department of the Army, has developed
guidelines to be applied 1n evaluating the discharge of dredged or fill
material In navigable waters. (See 40 CFR Part 230, Federal Register,
December 24, 1980.) The guidelines Include provisions for determining
the acceptability of mixing discharge zones (§230.11(f)). The
particular pollutants Involved should be evaluated carefully 1n
establishing dredging mixing zones* Dredged spoil discharges generally
result 1n a temporary short-term disruption and do not represent a
contlnous discharge of materials that will affect beneficial uses over
a long-term. Disruption of beneficial uses should be the primary
consideration 1n establishing mixing zones for dredged and fill
activities. State water quality standards should reflect these
principles 1f mixing zones for dredging activities are referenced.
Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects
The Administrator Is authorized, after public hearings, to permit
certain discharges associated with approved aquaculture projects
(Section 318 of the Act). The regulations relating to aquaculture
(40 CFR §122.56and §125.11), provide that the aquaculture project must
not result 1n a violation of standards outside of the project area and
project approval must not result In the enlargement of any previously
approved mixing zone. In addition, the aquaculture regulations provide
5-17
-------
that designated project areas must not include so large a portion of
the body of water that a substantial portion of the indigenous biota
will be exposed to the conditions within the designated project area
(125.11(d)). Areas designated for approved aquaculture projects should
be treated in the same manner as other mixing zones. Special
allowances should not be made for these areas.
5-18
------- |