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

-------