Water Quality Standards
for the 21st Century
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Water Quality Standards
for the 21st Century
Proceedings of a National Conference
March 1-3,1989
Dallas, Texas
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
1989
-------
Prepared by JT&A, Inc. and Dynamac Corporatioa under contract 68-C8-0052 for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Editor CretchenH. Flock
Production Manager LuraK. Taggart
ii
-------
i
Contents
Foreword vii
Opening Addresses
Welcome 1
Robert Layton, Jr.
Opening Address 3
Rebecca Hanmer
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century 7
JayD. Har
A Historical Perspective 11
William Eichbaum
A Framework for Action: Water Quality Standards Planning for 1989-1995 15
Martha Prothro
Nonpoint Sources and Water Quality Standards
Nonpoint Sources and Water Quality Standards 19
John Clausen (Moderator) "
«
Nonpoint Sources and Water Quality Standards: The Oregon Situation 21
John E.Jackson
Organization and Management of Environmental Data Sets: The Ecoregional Perspective . . 25
Spencer A. Peterson
Water Quality Standards for the 20th Century- The Nonpoint Source Agenda 37
Paul Tliompson
Integrating Rsh Habitat Into State Water Quality Standards 41
Stephen B. Bauer.
Diversity and Innovation in State Standards Programs
Idaho's Antidegradation Program: A Model 49
GregoryWForge
A Strategy for Nutrient-Enriched Waters in Virginia ................. 55
Jean W. Gregory
Identification and Control of Toxic Pollutants
Identification and Control of Toxic Pollutants 63
Kenneth L. Dickson (Moderator)
Looking Backwards and Forward at the Water Quality Programs 65
Richard A. Kmerle, Donald R. Grothe, William J.Adams
in
-------
Developments in Sediment Criteria ........................ 71
Nelson Thomas
identification and Control of Toxic Pollutants ..................... 73
Jessica C Landman
Tackling Toxics Through the Chesapeake Bay Program .75
Bernard Caton
Developments in Sediment Criteria
Developments in Sediment Criteria S3
HowardZar(Moderator)
Identification and Control of Toxic Pollutants 85
Nelson Thomas
Developments in Sediment Criteria: Sullivan's Ledge Superfund Site . . 87
Jane Downing
Developments in Sediment Criteria ........................ 89
Arthur/. Newell
Developments in Sediment Criteria ........................ 93
JamesM. C onion
Water Quality Standards and Indian Tribes
Water Quality Standards and Indian Tribes ................. .~. .... 99
Kathleen Sisneros (Moderator)
Water Quality Standards and Indian Tribes ...................... 101
Richard Du Bey, Attorney
For Water Quality Act Administration, The Federal Government Will Treat Indian Tribes as They
Do States: A Dumb Idea That Has Come of Age .................... 105
JackBamett
Environmental Protection and the Rights of Indians 109
Don Tahkael
Lake Protection Through Standards
Lake Protection Through Standards 115
Douglas Hofy (Moderator) ^.,
Lake Protection Through Standards-A State's Viewpoint ............... 117
Steven A. Heiskary
Water Quality Standards for Lakes ......................... 123
RobertJ. Johnson
Lake Protection Through Standards ........................ 129
Donald B. Porcella
iv
-------
Development of Biocriteria
Development of Biocriteria 133
Donald Steffeck (Moderator)
Implementation of Biocriteria in the Water Quality Standards Program . . 135
David L. Courtemanch
The Development and Use of Biological Criteria for Ohio Surface Waters 139
Chris O.Yoder
Ecoregional Biological Criteria 147
Robert'M. Hugftes
Development of Biological Criteria 153
Suzanne K. Macy Many
Criteria and Advisory Development by EPA: Their Derivation and Applications
Criteria and Advisory Development by EPA: Their Derivation and Applications 161
Rolf Horning (Moderator)
Status of the Development of Water Quality Criteria and Advisories 163
DavidJ. Hansen
Water Quality Criteria-the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (a Matter of Perspective) ...... 171
James T, Ulanosti
Issues in Applying Water Quality Criteria 175
Mark Van Putten
«t
Implementing Antidegradation
Implementing Antidegradation 183
Charles Sutfin (Moderator)
Implementing Antidegradation Policy in Colorado 185
PaulFrohardt
ERES — Delaware's Priority for Antidegradation Protection 189
MarkC.Blosser
Outstanding National Resource Waters 191
Barbara West
Implementing Antidegradation .195
Mark Van Putten
a i
Extending Standards to Wetlands
How States Can Use 401 Certification and State Standards to Affect Federal Permits ..... 203
Thomas J. Dawson
Extending Standards to Louisiana's Wetlands 207
Robin S. Knox
-------
Setting Human Health Standards
Setting Human Health Standards . ..„....'................ .211
Shing-Fu Hsueh (Moderator)
The Human Health Issue Pertaining to Risk Assessment 213
Cynthia Sonich-MulUn
Setting Human Health Standards .217
Philip H. Vorsatz
Louisiana's Approach to Setting Human Health Standards-One State's Perspective . . . .219
Dugan S. Sabias
Water Quality Standards and Human Health: New Approaches 221
Douglas N. Rader
Water Quality, Quantity, and Conservation
Water Quality, Quantity, and Conservation 231
MaxDodson (Moderator)
Water Quality, Quantity, and Conservation ..................... .233
Dartene E. Ruiz
Integration of Water Quality and Water Quantity .................. .235
LawrenceJ. MacDonneU
Supplying Denver with Water Efficiency- An Alternative to Two Forks Dam , . .239
John C. Woodwetl
Water Quality, Quantity, and Conservation . .245
Elizabeth Tabbutt
Closing Remarks
Priorities and Tlmeframes for the Water Quality Standards Framework ,. ........ ,253
Martha Prothro
Participants .257
Questions, Answers, and Comments that follow each session were transcribed from audio-
tapes. Speakers' names were included whenever possible; often, they either were not given
or were unintelligible on the tape.
vi.
-------
Foreword
The term "consensus" appears'frequently throughout this proceedings — but if
one were to apply the word literally, one would miss the true spirit of the Con-
ference.
This was a gathering of diverse groups: all the constituencies involved in
protecting our Nation's waters.
Each — the States, the Federal Government, the environmental groups, the
Indian tribes, industry — brought to the forum a valid point of view on water
quality standards.
Many expressed concern about insufficient funding, and by extension, a lack of
commitment by the Federal Government Others advised caution in developing
new standards; some advocated the ecoregion approach, several questioned the
flexibility of standards relative to risk levels and specific sites.
If one were to find consensus at all, it would have been in the sense of coopera-
4*
tion, a spirit that imbued this Conference's very diversity with depth and richness.
Time and again speakers urged participants to stop wasting limited resources on
confrontation, but instead, work together to build consensus around programs in-
volving growth and protecting specific aquatic resources.
One participant observed "there are four cornerstones to the water quality
standards program: the Federal Government, the State government, the public in-
terest groups, and the regulated community."
Those four cornerstones met in Dallas and opened a dialogue, one that must
continue in the cooperative spirit with which it began if we are truly to protect our
Nation's water resources.
vii
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989:1
Opening Addresses
Welcome to Conference
Robert Layton, Jr.
Regional Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, Texas
Welcome to Dallas, Region VI, and to this first-ever
national conference on water quality standards. I'm
pleased that the meeting is here in Dallas, not only
because many of my water quality staff can attend
and are attending, but also because I am proud of the
accomplishments that we have made here in water
quality standards.
During the next three days we all will endeavor to
further the understanding of our Nation's water
quality standards and, hopefully, establish the direc-
tion that these standards will take in years to come. In
this region, as in your regions and States, we are
deeply concerned about the quality of our waters.
specifically how to gauge water quality as it relates to
the protection of aquatic life and human health. Over
the course of the conference, we will seek insight into
the future direction of water quality standards. We of
Region VI will be sharing our experiences, and we ex-
pect to benefit from hearing about the ways other
regions and States have developed and imple-
mented their water quality standards. We welcome
this information exchange and encourage everyone
to participate, whether you represent EPA, industry, a
State, a locaf government, or Indian government, or if
you have come just as a concerned citizen.
EPA Region VI is composed of a diverse group of
jurisdictions that include 68 Indian tribes and 5
States. From the arid, mountainous area of New '
Mexico to the humid lowlands of Louisiana, Region
VI encompasses a wide range of features that
present a challenge for our staff who are overseeing
the development of appropriate water quality stan-
dards. We have had many successes; for example,
Texas has adopted 30 numeric criteria for protection
of aquatic life. Arkansas has been a leader in employ-
ing an ecoregion-type approach in its standards.
Louisiana has proposed adoption of 47 numeric
human health criteria. Oklahoma and New Mexico
are also revising their standards to better address
toxics. And there is the unprecedented process of
working with the Indian tribes to develop water
quality standards. I hope you who represent these
entities will share your experiences in these areas
and those of ypur counterparts.
We do have challenges here in Region VI. For ex-
ample, we must apply water quality standards to our
coastal wetlands to protect these areas from future
losses. We must assist in the development and adop-
tion of appropriate human health criteria in water
quality standards. We must further develop bio-
criteria to use as a tool for assessing attainment of
uses and, most importantly, we must continue to
respond to the challenges of the requirements in the
amended Clean Water Act
It is critical for States to establish water quality
standards as the mechanism for driving water
quality-based permits that include limitations for
_4 toxic chemicals. Most municipal permits in Region VI
are water quality-based, requiring advanced treat-
ment techniques and state-of-the-art technology. We
fully appreciate the significance of and importance of
the issues you will be dealing with over the next few
days.
Ayain, I appreciate seeing each of you at this valu-
able conference. Working together, we can meet the
challenges facing us in the 1990s and beyond.
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989:3-6
Opening Address
Rebecca Hanmer
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
The issues we are focusing on in water quality-stan-
dards are extremely important I was part of the first
water quality standards staff, which was one of the
greatest learning experiences of my life and con-
vinced me of the importance of standards. I still
remember the excitement that we feit in June 1967 as
the States' standards packages began to come in to
the Department of Interior. The excitement began to
build, and on June 30. the very last day (EPA was still
meeting deadlines then), Alaska's standards arrived,
completing the 50 States. It was really a great
achievement Since that time, the States and EPA
have gone beyond the original interstate standards
to standards for essentially all waters in the United
States. We have also added dramatically to the num-
ber of constituents covered, especially now as we
add to the list of water quality standards for toxic sub-
stances.
We also did an interesting thing back in 1965 - we
absolutely insisted that ail State standards include
what were then called the "four (or five) freedoms" or
"free froms." At that time, these narrative standards
were just a base. We weren't sure what we were
going to do with those narrative standards, but sure
enough, all the State standards had them. About
1982 we decided to erect a numerical framework on
the narrative "no toxics in toxic amounts," and you
know what we have been able to do with that. I have
been looking lately at the other narrative standards.
"No objectionable deposits on the bottom," for ex-
ample, is a standard just waiting to be rediscovered
in an analytical program. If we just look back at those
old standards, we will get a lot of inspiration.
In the Clean Water Act there is a very healthy and
active relationship between the national standards,
which are largely technology-based, and the
geographic-based standards - that is, the State
water quality standards. We have been able to use
both the national technology-based approach and
the geographic-specific approach .«ry well in this
program, but there are many new programs and
challenges that we now have to face. For example,
despite all of our progress we are still losing coastal
habitat and coastal water quality at a very dramatic
rate. We are still losing wetlands, and we have a huge
agenda in nonpoint source pollution control. There
are many areas where discharges from the past have
resulted in contaminated sediments, and we have to
figure out what to do with them.
I think that the standards program can be central
to dealing with these dilemmas. In fact, for me the
standards program is the framework that holds all of
these other things together — the way in the clean
water program that we can take science and marry it
to values and to the ever-changing array of discharg-
es and source types. In fact, I think that the water
quality standards, of all of our mechanisms, are our
road map to the 21 st century and, in fact, beyond.
This is why we are holding this conference — to look
forward on a very long-term basis as well as a short-
term basis to what we want the water quality program
to look like in this country, to articulate what our
vision is for the waters of the United States and, in
fact the world.
For me, at least this unfinished agenda provides
no more exciting enterprise in all of EPA and certainly
in the water program, nothing more worthy of our
best administrative skills, our best legal skills, our
best scientific and technical skills, our best ideas. We
all have some different priorities for what we want to
do with this program, but I think we can all agree that
having a long-term master plan for the standards pro-
gram in which we specify priorities and set a course
toward what we want to achieve in the triennial
review laid down in the law, for the next triennium
1991-1993, for the triennium after that - that setting
these kinds of priorities and making some choices
will enable us to have a much more effective stan-
dards program.
The master plan that we have offered is the Draft
Framework for the Water Quality Standards Pro-
gram, now expressed on a five-year basis. What we
are all here to do, besides share our experiences and
. our visions, is to discuss and debate specifically this
Water Quality Standards Framework and decide
what should be accomplished in this last decade as
we get ready to enter the 21 st century. What should
be our priorities, what tools do we need, when should
we expect to accomplish what tasks, what are the
resource implications, and to what should the public,
the Congress, and we, ourselves, hold us account-
able? The goals of this conference are to build a con-
-------
R HANMEH
sensus on this Framework: the program priorities,
the activities, and the timing. From that consensus
will come a commitment to carry out this Framework.
During our discussions it is crucial to keep in mind
how the standards program fits into a broader en-
vironmental perspective. The water quality standards
have been a critical part of the national water pollu-
tion control programs since 1965 because they have
played a central role. These standards are more im-
portant now than they have ever been in the past We
have worked our way through most of the technol-
ogy-based agenda, and the water quality standards
have become more and more central. Standards pro-
vide the goals for many of our water programs; they
provide the legal authority and the regulatory basis
for all water-quality-based treatment standards that
go beyond the minimum technology requirements.
Standards provide a way to address a number of new
program priorities — for example, protection of the
marine environment, protection of wetlands, and
dealing with nonpoint sources. Finally, the standards
provide a crucial yardstick for measuring success.
It is the goals and the yardstick function — the
goals for the water quality program that can be ex-
pressed in specific scientific terms through stand-
ards and can be measured — that unite science,
technology, and public values. For me that is why the
standards program is the most critical of the
programs that EPA administers. It is a way to unite
science, to make sense out of public values and
translate them from what people want from their
water environment into terms we all can use as scien-
tists, engineers, and program administrators, such
as effluent concentrations, best management prac-
tices, different kinds of in-stream standards. This
function of being able to marry public values,
science, and technology makes the standards the
road map they are.
The goals function of the standards was recog-
nized from the very beginning. One of the main ele-
ments of the standards process was to provide
inspiration for the whole water pollution control en-
deavor by defining our goals in terms that people
could understand and relate to - fishing, recreation,
water supply. Congress, in creating the first national
standards mandate in 1965, talked about defining
water uses as the first step in the standards process. I
remember receiving .. .etter from a grandfather who
used to be able to swim In the once-clean waters of
Stanford Harbor. He said, "I want my grandchildren
to be able to swim in Stanford Harbor someday."
People said, "We used to be able to see the bottom in
this stream. I want to be able to see the bottom, too."
Those are not things that it takes a scientist to under-
stand; those are the values that people were telling
us they wanted from their water program.
People want to get involved in this enterprise, and
since they have to pay the price (and the price is
going to get steeper for water pollution control), they
must be involved. We need them to be effectively in-
volved, and standards are our best means for doing
it. People love to boast about restoring or enhancing
their river, their lake, or their bay where fish can be
caught and eaten and where people can swim, boat,
ski, enjoy the view. The restoration of the Ohio and
Potomac Rivers, which we often cite as good ex-
amples, could not have been accomplished without
public involvement The efforts underway in the
Chesapeake Bay are, in large measure, in response
to public concern, pressure, and involvement. If suc-
cess requires the involvement and cooperation of
public environmental groups, small and large busi-
nesses, towns, cities, and States, then the standards
program provides a means for allowing people to ar-
ticulate those values and wishes and to translate
them into program reality. In the standards program,
then, we need to continue this public involvement
and improve it In fact we need to master public in-
volvement again because we have let it slip in the last
few years. As we consider our Water Quality Stan-
dards Framework, we need to consider how we can
reenergize, ifwe need to, public involvement in the
standards setting process.
The second important role for the standards is to
provide the legal authority and the regulatory basis
for water quality treatment requirements. Goals with
dout—this is what makes the standards more mean-
ingful than just a plan. The standards plan is a plan
with a regulatory handle, something we can use to
make things happen out there.
Congress was pretty clear in the 1987 water
quality amendments (WQA) to the Clean Water Act
that it was not totally pleased with our progress in
setting up regulatory requirements, particularly for
toxic pollutants. The amendments to section 303 of
,-• the WQA were a good compromise. EPA talked to
Congress about its concern; in effect we said, "Could
you spare us the kind of thing you did in the Safe
Drinking Water Act or some of the other laws, could
you trust us a little bit? Do not give us an endless list
of chemicals that you want us to do something with,
whether it is the right list or not, but trust us to be able
through our science and knowledge to pick the pol-
lutants, develop the criteria, set the standards, and
get the job done." And Congress said OK.
.We now have in this program a lot of trust and con-
fidence that we can lose very quickly if we do not do
this job. I do not consider this the work of the future,
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989: 3-6
especially the job of getting State toxic water quality
standards into place. It is a crucial piece of unfinished
business, and it is also a crucial piece of credibility for
this program. EPA wfll be pressing the States to get
this job done, and we will be helping the States as
much as possible. Even though this conference is
about the future, the future has to be based on a
strong foundation in the present We have a job to do
in the next couple of years to get this particular piece
of business out of the way.
Another piece of unfinished business, which is
part of our future, is antidegradatfoa In 1967, the
water quality standards staff wrote the first guidance
for antidegradation, which the States all put in their
water quality standards as a value statement How-
ever, many States have not developed the proce-
dures that are necessary to carry out those
antidegradation rules.
Another piece of unfinished business is a strong
coastal and marine policy, and antidegradation fits
here. We have simply got to take a look at many of
the basin areas and decide if we are going to allow
any increased discharges at all. That draconian ap-
proach may not be necessary for many of the river
areas, but it is badly needed for some lakes and
coastal areas. Antidegradation cannot be just a
bunch of fancy words in the water quality stan-
dards-we have to translate the idealistic words into
regulatory reality, and we have to do it soon.
Over the years EPA may not have been tough
enough in promulgating standards. Our preference
has been to work through the State agencies be-
cause, after ail, these are State water quality stan-
dards. They are subject to Federal approval, but we
need to have the States create them, buy into them.
and implement them. That is still EPA's preference;
however, in the areas I have just mentioned, our legal
mandate is dear and the timing is urgent We may
have to reevaluate soon whether or not we are going
to wait, or how long we are going to wait in some of
these areas. You may be seeing increased Federal
promulgations. I hope not, because Federal promul-
gation generally represents a failure of our work
together, rather than a success. However, EPA can-
not stand by and do nothing.
Now, to focus on the Framework. We have to take
a look at how we use water quality standards to rein-
force and put new meaning into the n^..point source
program. Our old water quality standards were basi-
cally developed to deal with continuous discharges
and to protect uses under low flow conditions. The
nonpoint source problems, however, don't come
quite that way; often they are discontinuous dis-
charges at high flow. We must look at our standards
program and design standards to fit the reality of the
nonpoint source program. Many of our existing
standards will work, but more attention must be paid
to sediment contamination, for example, or to the
proper regulation of high flow events.
I would like to ask you to reflect again on the "free
froms" in the contaminated sediments area, because
I think that an effective program to deal with con-
taminated sediments has been a long time in coming.
It will be an extraordinarily expensive program, which
is why there is such a demand for standards. We can-
not restore some of these harbor areas by simply
turning off the existing discharges. I am counting on
the standards program to give us the kind of scien-
tific intelligence that tells us what we need to do and
when to do it, that gives a basis for action.
There are several different ideas for what sediment
criteria might look like. To the designers of the
Framework, I say go back to your "free from" narra-
tive standard, look at "no objectionable deposits on
the bottom," find out what you want, and make sure
that we have a variety of approaches to deal with that
crucial problem.
Biological criteria and assessment methods have
been an integral part of a strong water-quality-based
program, but they must become even more impor-
tant If use attainability analyses had been done cor-
rectly, we would have been using our biological
criteria all along. We should focus closely on
developing better biological assessment tools,
criteria, and measures of success.
More research and information gathering will be
needed to define how we can use water quality
criteria more effectively to protect terrestrial animals
that are using surface-waters. We should encourage
these efforts in the Water Quality Standards Frame-
work. State water pollution control agencies, working
with the State fish and game agencies, are in a good
position to gather data, and some of the State water
pollution control agencies are working actively in
wildlife criteria, so I think that is something that we
can feasibly take a look at Next, wetlands criteria.
f.t EPA must help the State water quality programs
protect wetlands more effectively. A tool available to
all State water pollution control agencies, 401 cer-
tification of permits, is one way to do it. A 401 cer-
tification rests on what water quality standards
require. If we have a tool here that we can use very ef-
fectively for protecting wetlands, what do water
quality standards need to look like to do that? Do
there need to be vegetative standards to supplement
water column and aquatic organism techniques?
Creativity is possible in this program; we are not
restricted by anything but our intelligence, our
science, and our good sense.
-------
a HANMB*
A final challenge is water quality planning, which is
no longer confined to the waters of the United
States—it involves the waters of the world and infor-
mation-sharing with other countries, but it is also a
cross-media effort Clearly there are linkages and im-
pacts across all of the media, all of the programs that
EPA and the State environmental agencies ad-
minister. We must get actively involved, be strongly at
the heart of source reduction and recycling, and be-
cause w© know the adverse water quality impacts of
a lot of different kinds of air pollutants, we must help
develop air pollution control strategies.
Water quality standards have to be at the heart of
basinwide planning to protect estuaries and wet-
lands and to control nonpoint source pollution. Water
quality standards have to go up the banks into land
use and land management, into landscape design.
From EPA's perspective, one of the things that makes
the standards program so exciting is that there is a
role for all of us in it — scientists, administrators, en-
gineers, and other concerned citizens. We need ag-
gressive leadership at all levels to make the stan-
dards a proactive, not a reactive, program. We must
lead pollution control efforts with this program, not
respond to losses. That will be a challenge for all of
us.
We can accomplish our objectives and priorities
together by working in a coalition to come up with a
framework, by negotiating compromises where there
might be differences, communicating our objectives
and priorities early, and by talking, for example, of the
things that we can't do in the next triennium because
we just don't know enough. I invite you to start tal king
about the triennium after that, and say, maybe we
cant do aO the sediment work in this three-year
period but let*s set ourselves an objective right away
to build the science that will allow us to finish the job
six or ten years from now.
Standards are not the total answer to goal setting
and water quality protection in the 21st century, but
they are as good a place to start as any other. We
have the flexibility to design the standards program
the way we want it I'm excited about the challenges
and the possibilities, and welcome everyone to join
this endeavor.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989: 7-10
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century
Jay D. Hair
President, National Wildlife Federation,Washington, D.C
I am honored that you have invited me to open this
conference on "Water Quality Standards for the 21 st
Century." I understand it's been many years since
water quality officials from EPA and the States have
gathered in this kind of session. For that reason,
alone, this Is obviously an important meeting. But,
I'm particularly pleased to be here today fortwo addi-
tional reasons.
First, these are exciting and challenging times for
all of us concerned with protecting the environment
There is an awakening of environmental conscious-
ness around the globe. As we approach the 20th an-
niversary of Earth Day, April 22,1990, never has there
been more public support for our mission to protect
the environment This "environmental renaissance"
comes not a moment too soon, as is so graphically il-
lustrated by Time magazine's recent and unprece-
dented selection of the "Endangered Earth" as its
"Planet of the Year."
History wot remember 1988 as the year the en-
vironment fought back. I predict that 1989 will be.
remembered as the year governments began to lis-
ten, the year that will illustrate the importance of the
adage: "When the people lead, eventually the leader
will follow." We have a new President who proudly
daims the title, "environmentalist" And he has ap-
pointed the first EPA Administrator to come from the
ranks of the environmental movement, William Reilly.
I know Bill Reilly well as a valued colleague and as a
personal friend. I know of no one I would rather see at
EPA today than Bill Reilly, I know he is committed to
our work: protecting the quality of our environment,
including the subject of this conference, our lakes
and rivers.
The second reason I'm so pleased to be with you
today is the nature of your agenda. You've set an am-
bitious task for the next three days: to agree on the
water quality goals and programs that will bring us
into the 21 st century. I commend you for this forward-
looking agenda and for recognizing the need to ar*»--
uiate coherent and ambitious goals. To borrow a
phrase from President Bush, you've recognized the
importance of "the vision thing." A clear vision of your
goal is critical, both to direct your efforts and to mobi-
lize public support.
So, what should you be considering as you
ponder this agenda over the next few days? What
issues does the National Wildlife Federation view as
critical in protecting our Nation's waters into the next
century?
First, let me put the subject of your deliberations -
water quality standards-in the proper context It's
essential that you begin by recognizing and reaffirm-
ing the wisdom of the Clean Water Act's basic ap-
proach to water pollution: zero discharge. In 1972,
Congress decided that disposing of our wastes by
dumping them into lakes and rivers was unaccept-
able. Thus, Congress directed EPA to strive for a goal
of zero discharge by developing successively strict-
er technology-based controls on water pollution
sources.
Many policy makers of the 1980s disparage this
vision, arguing that it amounts to pollution control for
its own sake. In its place, they support only those
controls that seem to be necessary in particular in-
stances. As a result of this philosophy, we have
recently heard assertions that "Some of America's
lakes and rivers are too dean and that our pollution
controls should be relaxed.
Sadly, we've slipped back into an argument about
how much pollution is 'too much." The difficulties in
calculating how much pollution is too much are com-
pounded when we look at the toxic pollutants. As we
leam more about the-impacts of these pollutants on
aquatic ecosystems, we realize how little we know.
We can spend years arguing about "acceptable
amounts" of pollution while our lakes and streams
die, our forests crumble, and our wildlife vanish. The
zero discharge goal is more important today in deal-
ing with toxic pollutants than it was in 1972.
Now don't get me wrong. Water quality standards
and the pollution controls needed to meet them are
very important These controls help protect par-
ticularly sensitive ecosystems and apply to some
sources not covered by technology-based controls.
But you must not lose sight of their secondary role.
Water quality-based controls put flesh on the bones
of the Clean Water Act's intermediate goal of "fish-
able-swimmable" waters; they do not define the final
goals of our pollution control efforts.
Contrary to common belief, the zero discharge im-
perative of the Clean Water Act has direct sig-
nificance for your work. Its technology-forcing
principle offers you a way to resolve some of the
-------
j.a HAIR
knottiest problems you face in developing and im-
plementing water quality standards. What do I mean
by this? Here are some specific examples.
When Bill Ruckelshaus told a congressional hear-
ing in 1971 that "dilution wasn't the solution to pollu-
tion," the response was laughter. But the results of
the past 16 years Indicate that if s not a laughing mat-
ter. Too often, water quality standards do not trans-
late into meaningful controls on pollution sources
because dilution is seen as the solution. Indeed,
there are some pollutants that are rapidly assimi-
lated; but there are others-persistent and bfoac-
cumulative toxic pollutants, for example—that
present a different problem.
Long-term loadings of these pollutants, even at
low concentrations, can severely damage aquatic
ecosystems. The Great Lakes are the best example.
Marty diffuse sources of toxics at low concentrations
result in elevated levels of these poisons in Great
Lakes fish, and in the humans and wildlife that eat
them. For these kinds of pollutants, technology-
based, principles should be applied by you to
eliminate, where possible, or otherwise minimize
dilution. In practical terms, you should translate
these principles into a presumption that water quality
standards for persistent toxic pollutants apply at the
source.
Only upon a showing by the source that com-
pliance is technologically infeasible and that no en-
vironmental harm to downstream waters wilt result
from higher concentrations should any dilution be al-
lowed. This "ho dilution" presumption for persistent
toxic pollutants can be used to solve many other dif-
ficult problems you face in implementing standards.
For example, it suggests a presumption against
mixing zones or "zones of initial dilution"; it means
calculating stream flows so as to limit or deny dilu-
tion; it requires limited use of rapid diffusers or mixing
devices and it renders irrelevant analytical detection
levels. Similarly, understanding the fundamental
technology-based imperative of the Act provides you
direction in developing strong antidegradation and
antibacksliding programs. If s the only way to protect
our hard-won water quality victories.
So far I've talked about how you control pollution
sources using water quality standards. Another im-
portant issue that you will undoubtedly consider over
the next three days is which sourc — to control. His-
torically, we have focused our pollution control ef-
forts on point sources—the discharge pipe from an
industrial or municipal facility. Overall, you've done a
remarkable job in developing and implementing con-
trols on these sources.
We now understand the significance of other
sources, those less amenable to conventional con-
trol strategies, but no less important EPA has es-
timated that over 50 percent of the remaining pollu-
tion in our lakes and rivers comes from these
nonpoint sources. They include pesticide-con-
taminated runoff from farmers' fields and heavy me-
tals in urban runoff. But there are other, even more
problematic sources, including airborne pollutants
and contaminated sediments.
We're all famOiar with the problem of acid rain. It
appears that we've finally got the leadership in the
Federal Government to develop controls on the
sources of the precursors of acid rain. But rain and
snow are similarly contaminated with other pol-
lutants—most distressingly, with toxic pollutants. In
some areas of the country, like the Great Lakes, at-
mospheric deposition is one of the major toxic pollu-
tion sources. For example, it's been estimated that
over 50 percent of the current PCB inputs into Lake
Michigan and over 90 percent of the inputs into Lake
Superior travel through the atmosphere.
So what's this got to do with your work? Water
quality standards should be the basis for setting our
priorities in controlling sources of atmospheric pol-
lutants. By applying standards to evaluate the
cumulative impacts of toxic pollutants on target
ecosystems like the Great Lakes, we can identify the
specific pollutants that need immediate control.
Using these priorities, we should quickly control the
"upwind" 'sources without waiting to prove a direct
cause and effect relationship between each source
and the downwind pollution.
Simflariy, we should use water quality standards to
identify those river mouths and harbors with con-
taminated • sediments that require immediate
cleanup. Here, too. it's important that standards be
developed and applied in a way that reflects the
cumulative impact of pollution from several different
toxics at once.
In applying standards to develop controls on
these pollution sources, it's important that we care-
fully consider the impact of toxics on entire ecosys-
tems. For example, we must consider the impact of
' food chain contamination on people and wildlife that
eat contaminated fish. Among people, sport anglers
and their families are probably at greatest risk and
have historically been inadequately protected. To
protect these people, water quality standards must
be based on a consistent and well-founded assess-
ment of the risks posed by consuming these fish.
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) has under-
way a two-year project to develop the necessary
methodology, Our Great Lakes Natural Resources
Canter is developing a model risk assessment-based
approach to evaluating the health risks posed by
consumption of Lake Michigan sport fish. Our quan-
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21* CENTURY, 1989:7-10
titative risk assessment will be completed in draft
form next month. Hopefully, ft will serve as a first step
in developing more protective methods for basing
water quality standards on the health risks posed by
consuming contaminated fish. Also, water quality
standards should consider the impacts of toxics on
fish-eating wildlife, which may be at an even greater
risk than are humans eating the same fish.
You may have noticed that IVe mentioned the
Great Lakes several times. NWF has focused much
of its water quality protection work on these mag-
nificent lakes. This focus can be adapted to reflect
the unique needs of sensitive ecosystems. EPA's
Near Coastal Waters Initiative reflects similar think-
ing, and we heartily support it However, implement-
ing this concept in practice requires a commitment to
interstate and international cooperation. This com-
mitment, unfortunately, has been rare in the past
Probably the best example is the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978. In this agreement
the United States and Canada vow to take specific
action to protect these lakes from toxic water pollu-
tion. Unfortunately, the fine rhetoric of the agreement
has mattered little in practice. EPA and the Great
Lakes States have not incorporated the agreement's
provisions in their pollution control programs. In-
stead, they've viewed the agreement as containing
little more than unenforceable goals.
It's essential that EPA and the States take this
agreement seriously. The agreement is widely recog-
nized as a model of international cooperation to
solve common environmental problems. EPA wfll not
be a credible leader In developing international solu-
tions to global wanning and other global environ-
mental problems unless EPA makes good on the
promises of this agreement NWF has recently peti-
tioned EPA to apply the agreement in reviewing
revisions to Wisconsin's water quality standards; in
our view, this is a major test of EPA's commitment to
keep those promises.
Not far from the site of this meeting lies the Gulf of
Mexico, another sensitive ecosystem shared by
several States and two nations. Like the Great Lakes,
it has special pollution problems demanding crea-
tive, shared solutions. Puget Sound, Chesapeake
Bay, and all of the Nation's wetlands are other special
aquatic ecosystems that require special protection
from pollution.
To those of you from these regions of the country, I
urge you to develop pollution control programs that
consider more than the concentration of pollutants in
the vicinity of the source. Develop creative programs
that estimate the total loading of critical pollutants
from all sources. Consider the cumulative impact of
these pollutants on the ecosystems and on the food
chain. Develop enforceable mechanisms for requir-
ing targeted reductions of these loadings over time.
Be sure that you identify who is responsible for
achieving these reductions: holding someone ac-
countable for reducing pollutant loadings is a key
element
NWF Is committed to this holistic, ecosystem-
based approach to protecting sensitive aquatic en-
vironments. Recently, in conjunction with a Canadian
environmental research organization, we launched a
five-year project to develop and implement model
water quality standards for the Great Lakes. The goal
of this project is to develop model standards and to
see them adopted by all the Great Lake States and
Canadian Provinces. These standards will work
backwards from the Lakes to estimate the needed
mass loading reductions from all potential sources.
The reductions wfll be required over a definite time
period based, in part, on the feasibility of reductions
from the various source categories.
Development and implementation of these crea-
tive, regional approaches wilt require increased
public participation. Since the solutions are interstate
and international, the public needs to be involved at
this level of decisionmaking. Frankly, we reject as
outdated the position of EPA's-water quality stan-
dards program.
Historically, EPA has said that public participation
in the state review process is adequate and that no
additional public participation is needed in EPA's
oversight role. But the kind of regional problem-solv-
ing approach I have described leaves certain critical
decisions in EPA's hands. Only EPA can consider the
impact of one State's standards on interstate waters
in conjunction with the impact of the existing stan-
dards in another State. Only EPA can determine
whether Interstate and international agreements are
being satisfied.
The public demands and deserves to have its
voice heard in this regional process. Sooner or later
the courts will require it. EPA could gain public con-
fidence and avoid litigation by recognizing the in-
evitable and opening up to the public its water quality
standards oversight process.
Obviously, it won't be easy to implement all of the
concepts I've discussed. But these ideas, these
themes, are part of our coherent vision for continued
improvements in the quality of our lakes and rivers
into the next century. You need not accept wholesale
the National Wildlife Federation's vision of the kind of
lakes and rivers we will leave to future generations.
Bat I challenge you, if you disagree with our vision, to
develop a competing vision. Free yourselves from
-------
J.O. HAIR
the conventional ways of doing business; ask what We look forward to working with you to achieve
dean lakes and rivers mean to us; and articulate your our mutual goals of the development of rigorous
dream of what they should be, can be, in the 21st standards to protect our Nation's water.
century.
10
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989:1M3
A Historical Perspective
William Eichbaum
Former Undersecretary The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Boston, Massachusetts
I want to commend EPA for holding this first-ever na-
tional conference on water quality standards.- Cer-
tainly a number of us have been what you might call
water quality standards junkies for a long time. If s
nice to be part of a conference that is:devoted to this
issue and to explore in great depth trie many dimen-
sions that the water quality standard issue presents
as we look at environmental management questions
in general.
The title of this conference is important: we will be
looking to the 21 st century. This suggests a notion of
stability, a notion of constancy of approach in the use
of water quality standards in our overall water quality
programs for a period of more than a decade as we
look at the next century. That is something that has
been missing. As those of you who have worked in
this area for a long time are well aware, there has
been a significant oscillation in the degree to which
the use of water quality standards is an acceptable
key element in achieving our goals. Hopefully, that
period is coming to an end.
I want to reflect on water quality history somewhat
because I believe there are some very useful lessons
to learn from it The first significant point is the period
from 1965 to 1972, when the Federal-State partner-
ship to achieve water quality was in many ways solely
based upon a water quality standards approach. It
was largely a voluntary system between the Federal
Government and State governments and relied on a
strong working relationship between a number of
professionals on both levels who had been long
engaged in this area. It was a system that did not at-
tempt to address the terribly sophisticated or com-
plex problems we now face daily. Particularly from
the water quality perspective, it was a much more
traditional approach that dealt with what I would call
"conventional pollutants" such as total suspended
solids, temperature, oil and grease, pH, and dis-
solved oxygen.
It is important to remember that there are some
notable success stories involved with the implemen-
tation of that program. One is the restoration of dis-
solved oxygen levels in the Delaware River, a body of
water that had been virtually poisoned by wastes and
was practically impassable to fish coming up from
the Delaware Bay to spawn. The cleanup of the
Thames was a restoration of dissolved oxygen levels.
The Rhine cleanup, at least in part, was again a res-
toration of dissolved oxygen levels. Each one of
those examples, each of those achievements of a
water quality standard, has had a direct, beneficial
impact on the ability of living resources, in this case
the fish that migrate through those waters, to return
to an important habitat
As primitive as that program may have been, when
using water quality standards (particularly for dis-
solved oxygen), it did produce positive results.
Nonetheless, by the late sixties and early seventies
the overall accomplishment of State and Federal
Governments in implementing that system and
producing protected water was found by both the
public and the professionals to have not really met
the total need. Earth Day and, following it, the great
concern evinced by the public about the conditions
of our environment—rivers catching fire, which
shocked everyone—helped to provide the impetus
for enactmerjt of the 1972 amendments to the Clean
Water Act
Those 1972 amendments really had a multiple per-
sonality as far as this issue is concerned. One per-
sonality was the technology approach, and another
was the continued acknowledgement that there were
State water quality standards and, if they should ever
produce a more stringent requirement than the tech-
nology approach, then that was to be implemented,
but this decision was largely left up to the States.
There was also the goal of achieving waters that
would be fishable and swimmable. And then there
was the final personality—that of the ultimate con-
trol —no discharge. So there was this period of multi-
., pie emphases, but the bottom line was the
technology approach.
Why did this technology approach come into
favor, and why was the water quality standards ap-
proach rejected? There were probably three or four
problems with the water quality approach as it was
usea in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It depended
upon a wasteload allocation scheme, which was
hard to enforce either equitably or in a way that had
scientific merit and therefore could be defended in a
regulatory or enforcement proceeding. A second
criticism was that there didn't appear to be adequate
scientific data, either in the hands of the agencies or
of the industries and municipalities that were the ob-
11
-------
BCHBAUM
jects of this scheme, to make informed decisions.
There was also a sense that the enforcement tools
were not there even if the theory of the wasteload al-
location system would work and if there were enough
data. A strong permit and compliance system simply
was not in place to translate theory into enforceable
requirements for dischargers.
When Congress placed prime emphasis on the
technology approach in 1972. it had a relatively
simple concept That was to find out what the best,
most practicable technology being used somewhere
in the country was and to make everybody use it
Pretty straightforward-at least it would achieve an
incremental leap in treatment
I would make the following two points about the
experiences of the seventies and the early eighties in
implementing that approach. First, in a lot of cases,
for a long time we never knew (or at least couldn't
decide) what the best technology was. So people
used another approach that is called "best engineer-
ing judgment" The engineers writing permits started
the analysis in many cases with the State's water
quality standards and tried, in some way, to require
technologies to meet them. So even the technology
approach, as long as it worked out of the best en-
gineering judgment theories, was a water quality
standard-derived system.
Secondly, in many areas it was dearly understood
that the engineering technology approach was not
adequate, and that, given what was known about
water quality conditions, about concentrations of
particular materials in the water and the effects those
materials might be having on aquatic resources,
some effort had to be made to go beyond it One ex-
ample of "going beyond" was the development of the
upper Chesapeake Bay phosphorus strategy during
the mid- to late 1970s, where we took a look at the
dissolved oxygen problems in the Bay, tried to quan-
tify them in a fairly sophisticated way using then fairly
complex modeling techniques, and then derived
limitations and control strategies for the sewage
treatment plants that were discharging to the Bay
and Susquehanna River. This process produced a
treatment requirement for many of those plants far in
excess of the technology of secondary treatment
mandated by the statute at that time, particularly by
requiring phosphorus removal. The point is that,
even during this period of a technology-driven As-
tern, the scientific standard that we wanted to
achieve in terms of water quality drove many of our
most expensive and our most adventuresome kinds
of control strategies during the 1970s and the early
1980s and really become a very important part of
what was happening at the State level.
Nonetheless, there continued to be nationwide
concern that we were still not making adequate
progress and that the technology approach wasn't
working. So, at least as represented in some of the
important sections of the 1987 Act, there was a return
to the notion of water quality standards, particularly
with respect to toxics, and also in section 319 dealing
with nonpoint sources. It is dear, as represented by
the interest in this conference, and because of dis-
cussions across the country that on a broad basis,
there has been a reemergence of water quality stan-
dards as a tool to achieve our overall water quality
goals. :
As we embrace water quality standards anew, I
want to look back at what people thought was wrong
with the water quality system in the late 1960s and
the early 1970s. First, there was not adequate scien-
tific information to support what people wanted a
water quality standards system to achieve. In the
1980s, we need to be very careful when we look at
what w® are trying to accomplish to make sure that
the science is adequate. As we try to relate the
problems of wetlands, of toxics in sediments, of non-
point pollution, of eutrophication to water quality
standards and to controls, we need to remember that
there still are serious scientific problems about the
development and use of these standards.
Second, there is the question of wasteload alloca-
tion. Even if we can derive a water quality standard
relating to these more esoteric environmental
problems, how do we then translate that number
back into proper allocation of controls? When you
think about the problems of nonpoint sources, for ex-
ample, the waste allocation problems of today make
the problems of 1968 look like child's play. The prob-
lem of wasteload allocation remains as serious as it
was 20 years ago.
Third, are the problems of enforcement and com-
pliance. Only five or so States have even a rudimen-
tary system of regulating agricultural discharges;
other States have cooperative systems. None has a
., permit system. Look at the problem of wetlands. We
have virtually no particularly good national system
for protecting and enforcing the protection of inland
wetlands. Again, the tools for applying water quality
standards in these complex settings are probably as
rudimentary as the 1967-68 system.
However, a major difference between t^Jay and
20 years ago is that then there wasn't much of a na-
tional commitment to make water quality standards
work. In the late sixties, this was an interesting area
for public health people to be concerned about, but it
was not on the public agenda. The public didn't care
about making that program work, didn't make the
12
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989:11-13
resources available, didn't provide the political
leadership or the legislative tools for enforcement
and compliance. After the first Earth Day in 1970,
however, public opinion changed dramatically. The
result was the 1972 dean Water Act What has
changed between 1968 and 1989 is that now there is
political will and public commitment
It is absolutely vital that we use standards to really
make an incremental leap forward in achieving water
quality, and that we remember that public support for
the program will be the key to success. The public is
not only citizens who are technically uneducated but
concerned because there is something in their back-
yard buf also the sophisticated staffs of environmen-
tal organizations and elected officials. The under-
standing and the shared sense of the value of this ef-
fort has to be built and maintained along all the
dimensions of that axis.
So as not to squander renewed public support
the water quality standards program should be
based on good, understandable science. A process
that is unintelligible to all but the most sophisticated
will fafl. We will lose the darity and simplicity and
coherence of our message and of our goal. We will
lose the public's confidenca
Over the next few days, think about whether the
people back in your community understand what
you are talking about Remember the bottom line-
why are we doing this? The public asks some pretty
simple questions about water Can I swim in it? Can I
eat the fish? Is the environment healthy? It is impor-
tant to dearly articulate a strategic approach that em-
bodies a set of standards and ultimately relates to
some important aspect of public health or of protect-
ing the resource in a natural environment
In this regard I want to touch on the important role
of monitoring. The establishment of water quality
standards can set an agenda by which we report to
the public about how we are doing. All too often,
however, these reports are in a form that is unintel-
ligible and noninformative—in other words, they are
data, not information. We need to give the public in-
formation, and monitoring information has to be a
key part of that process. The public needs to be told
about the condition of our environment: why it is that
way, what is the trend, and what kind of progress we
are making.
Another element is the role of the States, which is
critical in the water quality standards approach. I
suggest that we need to be cautious as we design a
national program of water quality standards; it must
be responsive to and reflect the peculiarities of the
environment as it actually exists. A system of control
must be tailored to that peculiar and unique constel-
lation of hydrology, land, natural resources, and
human effects. An overly rigid national system will
make it impossible to apply standards effectively.
Finally, a water quality standards program for the
future needs to develop a different approach than the
traditional linear leap from water quality standards to
wasteload allocation and then effluent limitations.
That may have worked for dissolved oxygen 20 years
ago; today we require a more sophisticated effort.
Water quality standards should be seen as defining a
condition of the environment that is desired. Then the
causes for deterioration of the resource have to be
identified and a general strategy for corrections
designed.
Using that strategy, one must examine all sources
in the entire system and, depending on the nature of
the particular source, tailor a variety of control ap-
proaches. There are technology considerations,
economic considerations, and social acceptability
conditions to be taken into account as well as relative
contributions of various sources of pollutants. This
somewhat more strategic, less mechanistic ap-
proach will serve us well, particularly as we move
toward the 21st century. The time is now. Let's do a
little bit of talking, and then let's do some hard work
for water quality standards.
13
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989:15-16
A Framework for Action: Water Quality
Standards Planning for 1989-1995
Martha Prothro
Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Our challenge at this conference is to come up with a
realistic agenda and program for water quality stan-
dards efforts over the next several years. We're not
going to be able to do everything that we'd like to do
— we may not even be able to do everything we think
we need to do. Much of the Water Quality Standards
program is choices, hard choices. I want to remind
you of that and I'm going to suggest some questions
we need to ask as we go through the agenda.
First, I want to let you know who is attending this
conference. There are 33 States represented. 17 in-
dustrial representatives, 5 Federal agencies (exclud-
ing EPA), 7 national environmental groups, 9 of EPA's
regional offices, several laboratories, and repre-
sentatives from Indian tribes, cities, trade associa-
tions, and various EPA program offices outside of
Water Regulations and Standards. There are enfor-
cement and permit representatives, marine and es-
tuarine protection people, and the wetlands
protection people. I am very gratified by the turnout
at this conference; it's thrilling. It is also a little
frightening.
My experience with the water quality program has
been primarily as a consumer of water quality stan-
dards because I came from NPDES permit program
and standards were one of the tools used to produce
permits. Standards were very important to us, and
we thought we knew exactly what the standards pro-
gram should be doing to serve our program. When I
moved over to the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, I found that I was not the only one who
was telling the standards people what they should be
doing. Now I was hearing from all of you about what
you wanted and also from the Superfund Office, who
wanted us to do something about sediment con-
tamination. I was also hearing from Congress about
things that it wanted us to be doing. It seems we have
quite a few constituencies to satisfy in our program.
At the Federal Executive Institute they teach that
the mark of the successful Federal executive is the
ability to at least minimally satisfy all of his or her criti-
cal constituencies. I don't know if EPA can do that or
not in this program. It sounds nearly impossible but,
looking back, that's probably what people were
saving 15 or 20 years ago: "How are we going to get
50 States to develop water quality standards
programs? It's impossible!" Maybe we've been
lucky-or maybe we have just worked really hard. I
suspect that luck plays more of a role than we usually
want to recognize.
. EPA has focused this conference around the Draft
Framework for the Water Quality Standards Pro-
gram. We're not trying to sell this document; we're
not trying to say this is the way to go; we're just
saying we need something to set our agenda and
help us recognize what the tradeoffs are. Because
this is a very ambitious document, we are continually
trying to look at what the resource investment might
be, not only for EPA but for States and others that
want to be involved in these efforts. We don't have
our numbers refined, but it looks like we have twice
as much work in this agenda as we can possibly ac-
complish with our current resource levels. This
means that we must get more precise about what we
are going to do and decide what it is we are not going
to do, or what we will have to defer to the future.
I sent copies of the Framework to States, regional
offices; and many'environmental groups. EPA's
original hope was to have completed this document
by the end of this fiscal year; now maybe I will send it
out again for comment because I've been disap-
pointed in the response so far. We've received only
17 comment letters: 13 from States. 3 from EPA
regional offices, and 1 from the North American Lake
Management Society.
The most prevalent State comment received thus
far was that the Framework should not inhibit State
flexibility in the Water Quality Standards Program.
This comment is a general summary of many specific
Issues that indicate most States' concern that EPA
might require .nore commitment to the standards
program by States than they (the States) really want
to give at this point. EPA needs to know what the
States' reservations are, what your problems are. Is it
lack of State resources or concern about economic
impact on dischargers, or is it the lack of science in
some areas? We need to get more precise about
basic concerns.
IS
-------
M. PROTHRO
A couple of comments stressed the need for EPA
to distinguish clearly between statutory require-
ments, regulatory requirements, and guidance or
policy. Let's not forget as we're talking about a long-
term plan that the Clean Water Act is coming up for
reauthorization again in 1992. It is very likely that
some of the decisions we make during this con-
ference could be reflected in future amendments. We
need to think about what is a good idea just as
seriously as we think about what is required by the
law because these concepts could easily become re-
quirements.
We had several suggestions about adding lakes to
the documents. There are a number of people at this
conference who are experts in lake management
and I think they can help us devise ways to put in
some special considerations for lakes. A number of
States recommended that EPA give even higher
priority to marine, estuarine, and wetlands activities.
EPA would like to get into the particulars: exactly
what is It that needs to be done; is it achievable; to
what extent can the people who are in those
programs support our efforts in these areas; how
much of the work is going to be in the standards pro-
gram? EPA has received suggestions and questions
about some very specific activities by Indian tribes.
What should EPA and the States do to assist Indian
tribes, and what do the Indian tribes need and want
from EPA?
We had a comment from one State that the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement should be reflected
in the Framework. There were suggestions that EPA
needs to put together more specific guidance ac-.
tivities in the areas of antidegradation. toxic criteria,
human health criteria, sediment criteria, and the
widespread social and economic impacts that result
from water quality standards advances. Most of the
comments on antidegradation suggested that this is
primarily an implementation and not a standards
issue. Let me know what you think about that — it
may be a bit of both, we need to work that through.
Two States recommended that we drop the link
between section 304(1) and standards reviews.
Through our management systems, EPA has tried to
link up the identification of problem waterbodies
under section 304(1) of the statute to the identification
of waterbodies needing additional standards
development However, that is just one of the criteria
that we will be using to identify waterbodies that need
more standards work. We may already put too much
emphasis on 3040) and should supplement it with
greater emphasis on other criteria.
Three States thought the dates were unrealistic. I
think I agree but obviously was gratified that only
three reported this opinion. (Maybe some States
shared but failed to express that concern.) A number
of States suggested that EPA should do the resource
analysis; they did not indicate that they knew where
we would end up once we had done it however.
A couple of comments indicated that some States
think that EPA has a lot of unfinished business and
may be a little premature in setting an agenda for the
future. From my point of view, it is important to
prepare for the next round, for us to get the science
and the guidance going, and to decide what will be
the next initiatives. I planned to go through the
Framework in detail and suggest some questions we
can ask ourselves. But I think you can look at it your-
selves, go through it and decide what your questions
are.
I hope we will try to keep our eyes firmly on the fu-
ture of the program and the business of the con-
ference. This Is not. just a chance for us to get
acquainted and fee* reinvigorated — we really have
some work to do. Somebody once said that even the
best plans eventually degenerate into real work. Well,
that is why we are here.
16
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989
Questions, Answers, and Comments
0. How do we bring the zero discharge philos-
ophy and the technology-based principles of the
Clean Water Act back into the water quality stan-
dards-based approach?
A. (Prothro) We have not abandoned the technol-
ogy-based approach; in fact we are identifying in-
dustries to address in a new round of effluent
guidelines development We hope to complete our
plan this year and publish it along with work in the
water quality standards area. The most important
technology-based work remaining is dealing with in-
direct dischargers. In the future, water quality stan-
dards will provide controls for regulating direct
discharges. Publicly owned treatment works that im-
plement pretreatment programs need technological
guidance to help them deal with industrial discharg-
es. (Hamner) The phrase 'technology-based" was
used very specifically when Congress promulgated
effluent guidelines in the Water Quality Act There are
significant limitations to the water quality-based and
technology-based approaches; therefore, you need
both methods. You can use technology-based ap-
proaches in the broader term, not as effluent limita-
tions but (for example) as best management
practices or for low-input agriculture.
We will be introducing just such a creative mixture
between science and technology as part of the
standards program and overall program. We cannot
effectively relate specific best management practices
to a nonpoint source as we did for point sources or
derive effluent sources limitations for best manage-
ment practices. The relationship between standards
and nonpoint source best management practices will
not be simitar to the relationship between continuous
discharges and present-day standards. Continuous
discharges are no longer the problem we should be
focusing major attention on. We will lose the
resource if we don't focus broadly on land manage-
ment practices, on agricultural practices, and a wide
variety of other things. But no matter what we do, the
technology people will want to know what they are
getting for their money, and the answer is provided
through the standards program. We must define
terms for technological programs and outline water
quality goals.
We must have a vision of healthy environment To
achieve it, we must use the standards program to
take that goal and translate it into technical terms that
will move programs. This program is a unique oppor-
tunity. There is no other way to communicate be-
tween the vision and regulation of nonpoint and point
sources.
I'm going to assume that our purpose here is to
focus on all those goals for the 21 st century. Between
now and the next three years we will be working on a
huge agenda, and the fact that this conference con-
centrates on the future should not demean the impor-
tance of the present—in fact, it is supremely
important
C. I find the list of criteria ridiculously small; essen-
tially anything can be toxic if it is present in high
enough quantities. EPA is recognizing that particular
issue and stepping up scientific evaluations, espe-
cially the water quality advisories. However, if you
base a judgment on less information, then uncertain-
ty gets greater and therefore safety margins grow
larger and larger. If everything is working ap-
propriately, a minimal water quality advisory will have
a much lower number than if this material were
elevated to a water quality criterion. This then gets
you into direct conflict if, at the State level, you con-
vert an advisory that is conservatively based to a
standard and later on decide, on a scientific basis,
that you were appropriately overly conservative ear-
lier.
Now we're running into the antibacksliding and
antidegradatifln statutes. As we try to add materials
that should be controlled, we also should consider
how statutes can contradict themselves internally
(and get us into a hold position) and decide if it is cor-
rect to go only with advisories and forget about any
other criteria.
C. It is important to keep sight of the substance of
our goals and to let States know what is a regulation
or a guidance.
C. As we focus inward at the water quality pro-
gram we can also focus outward at other programs
that provide the context for pollution reduction. We
should consider ways to maximize these very en-
" dangered dollars we're spending on pollution con-
trol.
CL Our biggest concern is manpower and resour-
ces; which should take priority?
A. (Hanmer) Where did anybody ever decide that
clean water was free? We inherited it for nothing, but
we have really done a grand job of messing it up-
keeping this resource from being messed up beyond
the point of any kind of recovery takes people and
money. Clearly the Federal Government has got to
make an investment in water pollution control.
17
-------
-------
WAI CH uuAurr STANDARDS FOR THE 2i« CENTURY. 1939:19-20
Nonpoint Sources and Water
Quality Standards
John Oausen (Moderator)
Research Assistant Professor, School of Natural Resources
Aiken Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
Applying water quality standards to nonpoint source
problems in the 21st century offers several challen-
ges. There are several differences between point
source pollution and nonpoint source pollution that
influence how and which water quality standards can
be applied to a particular waterbody. The parameters
associated with nonpoint source pollution are dif-
ferent from those used for point source pollution. For
example, nutrients from diffuse sources (rather than
biochemical oxygen demand) are of utmost impor-
tance for preventing eutrophication. A second major
difference influencing standards is the variation in
flow. Point sources typically flow at a fairly constant
and uniform rate. The reverse is true for nonpoint
sources where the flow rate is highly variable and
standards violations may occur only during brief
rainstorms.
Sampling to assess compliance with criteria is dif-
ferent between the two sources. It is relatively easy to
set up a sampling station at a pipe, but to establish
sampling stations along a stream that is receiving
nonpoint sources along its entire length presents a
different problem. The water quality response we
might expect from land use controls also is different
between sources. When treatment is applied to a
point source, such as a treatment plant upgrade, the
response is almost immediate following a shake-
down period. The water quality response to control-
ling diffuse nonpoint sources may take several years.
The ease of monitoring point sources differs from
nonpoint sources; it is usually quite easy to sample
pipes, but sampling streams, especially in the winter-
time, can be difficult. The response to flow is different
for point sources and nonpoint sources; point source
pollutants are cMuted by high flow in-streams,
whereas nonpoint source contaminants are con-
centrated during stormflow.
Finally, in-stream effects from point sources are
different from nonpoint sources. For example, below
the discharge of a point source in a stream there will
be a mixing zone, whereas for nonpoint sources the
entire stream functions as the mixing zone.
In Vermont, we are attempting to determine the
water quality that can be achieved by using agricul-
tural best management practices (BMPs). Larsen
identified the water quality attainable in Ohio in cer-
tain ecoregions. My objective is to determine
whether we can achieve attainable water quality.
Point and NonpointJWonitoring
in Vermont
*
We have been monitoring both point and nonpoint
sources in the St Albans Bay Watershed, a Rural
Qeah Water Program project, and in the LaPlatte
River Watershed, a PL-566 land treatment project.
This monitoring has allowed us to evaluate water
quality standard violations. Sampling of Jewelt Brook
in the St. Albans Bay Watershed indicates that we are
violating the dissolved oxygen standard in that
stream between 30 and 40 percent of the time. There
are 16 farms in this watershed, which is in 88 percent
agricultural land use. Fifteen farms have signed con-
tracts with the Soil Conservation Service and are in-
stalling BMPs. The fecal coliform standard of 200
organisms per 100 mLs is being exceeded about
three-quarters of the time. Recently, the coliform
violations have been declining. We used a phos-
phorus criterion of 0.05 mg/L to relate to eutrophica-
tfon problems. In Jewett Brook, this criterion was
violated 100 percent c' le time. Generally, we have
not achieved water quality standards in Jewett Brook
during the first eight years of implementing BMPs.
To assess downstream impacts, we modeled 138
lakes in Vermont and determined what percent would
shjft trophic class from mesotrophic to eutrophic
given the loadings from our monitored watersheds.
Almost 100 percent of those lakes would shift trophic
class. A loading'from forests as reported by Omernik
19
-------
J. CLAUSEN
would cause 2 percent of Vermont's mesotrophic
lakes to become eutrophic.
- We also have monitored individual best manage-
ment practices in our watersheds including
vegetated filter strips for treating milkhouse waste
and barnyard runoff as well as the proper land ap-
plication of animal wastes. The milkhouse filter strip
was very effective in improving water quality and
reduced concentrations and mass of milkhouse
wastes by over 90 percent However, the water, leav-
ing that filter strip would still not be highly polished.
We researched the percent of Vermont lakes that
would switch from mesotrophic to eutrophic based
on these various best management practices. Milk-
house waste treatment could reduce the percent of
lakes becoming eutrophic from 41 percent to 1 per-
cent Runoff from the barnyard filter strip would still
adversely influence 12 percent of Vermont's lakes.
An eutrophication indicator for streams in Ver-
mont has been 20 micrograms per litre, which has
been reported as a threshold for periphyton growth.
We modeled Vermont streams to determine the per-
cent of streams that would exceed that 20 micro-
grams per liter criteria where perphyton would likely
grow. Following barnyard treatment, over half the
streams in Vermont should still show periphyton
growth.
Biological monitoring has been used to determine
changes in stream biocommunities as BMPs are im-
plemented over a 10-year period. When results from
1982 were compared to 1986, biomass and the num-
ber of taxa of invertebrates and periphyton declined
in the streams. However, we could not relate these
changes to water quality. Based on bioindicators,
water quality was deteriorating in those streams, but
the chemistry did not support these changes. Our ex-
perience suggests that water chemistry does not re-
late well to the common bioindicators, at least in
Vermont's agricultural setting.
Nonpoint Source Standards
There are three potential approaches to applying
standards to nonpoint source pollutants. The first in-
cludes chemical-specific standards — the traditional
method applied to point sources. The second ap-
proach is through the use of performance standards,
such as requiring best management practices. The
third approach could be termed discharge stan-
dards, which are not that much different from
NPOES. This third approach could be applied to non-
point sources by establishing loading functions for
different nonpoint source emissions.
Perhaps these approaches should be combined
and applied to different sources. The standard
should be matched with the particular nonpoint
source problem. For example, in agricultural areas,
water quality standards, discharge standards, and
performance standards could work well to protect
against impairment from eutrophication. Biological
indicators may not work as well in this situation.
Biological indicators may be more appropriate for
agriculturally related toxics problems. For lake
eutrophication problems, either biological or chemi-
cal approaches will work since they are highly re-
lated.
In conclusion, there are several new approaches
that must be -evaluated when considering the ap-
plication of water quality standards to nonpoint
source water quality impairment Assuming water
quality standards are used, for nonpoint sources,
there will be difficulty in locating any violators. Perfor-
mance standards that might be applied to every field
would facilitate compliance monitoring.
20
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989: 21-33
Nonpoint Sources and Water Quality
Standards: The Oregon Situation
John E. Jackson
Water Resources Manager, Unified Sewerage Agency, Hillsboro, Oregon
Today I bring you a different perspective in 'water
quality protection: a view of water quality standards
from the regulated community. After serving many
years as a regulator for water quality protection in
Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality's
(DEQ) nonpoint source group, I have recently shifted
over to the other side and am now working for the
Unified Sewerage Agency, an organization regulated
by the same water quality standards that I once was
charged to enforce. Up to this point, the agency has
had to deal with the water quality standards as a
point source discharger; soon it will have to deal with
those same standards as a regional authority for
managing urban runoff.
I worked with the agricultural and forest industries
for almost 14 years while at the DEQ. During this
time, I always believed that a person in a regulatory
capacity should walk at least 10 miles in an industry's
shoes before trying to lay the sometimes heavy hand
of regulation on it Believe me, it gives you an entirely
different perspective on how to go about providing
for water quality protection. 1 am even more con-
vinced that I was right because I now have to wear
those shoes all the time as part of the regulated com-
munity.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying roll over and
play dead because you might put an industry out of
business. Rather, your having walked in their shoes
gives you a better understanding of what the industry
faces in trying to meet the standards you put in place.
it gives you ways of working with the industry to meet
your needs and, at the same time, allows the industry
to feel that it is being dealt with fairly.
As a regulator, I was repeatedly striving for practi-
cal, pragmatic, realistic approaches to protecting
water quality. What I found in the process was that
Oregon's current water quality standards don't work
well in dealing with nonpoint sources of pollution.
Now that I am working to set up a water quality
protection program for an urban area, I find myself
becoming equally frustrated by those same stan-
dards. They don't give me the goals that I need.
Oh yes, I have some numbers to meet I have to
meet coldwater fish temperatures in the summer fora
stream that has historically been a warmwater
fishery. I have numbers for total phosphorus load al-
locations and total maximum daily loads to meet that
people are still arguing over as to the appropriate-
ness of the level when the natural condition is ap-
proximately the same level.
The objective of this presentation is to discuss
Oregon's water quality standards and their effective-
ness in the nonpoint source arena. I will discuss them
from the perspective of one who is charged with
meeting those standards, but first I must describe
three basic premises by which I operate.
• Premise 1: Water quality standards have to be
achieved in the field, not on paper. Standards are set
to protect beneficial uses of water. If the natural river
system could not provide the desired water quality
before humans arrived, then the standards become a
paper exercise in futility if set too strict. This dis-
credits the agency establishing them, thus setting up
an adversarial atmosphere for any negotiations that
take place. The same is true for cleaning up a river
system once it is out of compliance. If the cost to
dean up a river to current standards that a limited
number of people want is extreme, then society must
tell me if it is worth the expense.
• Premise 2: Water quality standards must be re-
lated to what you are trying to protect in a particular
waterbody. A numeric standard that says fish can't
live above a certain temperature is not credible if fish
are found thriving in deep, cool pools when the rest
of the stream is 10 to 20°F over the standard.
• Premise 3: Give the resource manager realistic
goals (water quality standards) that relate to the
" beneficial use, the character of the stream, and the
character of the nonpoint source runoff. Foresters
need sediment standards, not turbidity standards.
Foresters and resource managers know that turbidity
comprised of very small, particle-sized material may
have no effect on biological c-'.inisms other than
humans and their desire for sparkling, crystal-clear
water. But give foresters a cobble imbeddedness
standard that they must meet, then they can relate. If
the research community could give us percent fines
criteria in spawning gravels in real streams rather
than laboratory streams, then we could approach
what is needed for the fish to live and for the forester
to manage.
21
-------
J.E. JACKSON
Oregon's Water Quality Standards
Capabilities in Dealing With
Nonpoint Sources
Oregon's standards were written in an era when
point source control was the total focus. Oregon has
numeric and narrative standards intended to protect
the beneficial uses of water and address the needs of
the consumptive users of water, the in-stream needs
of biological organisms, and the aesthetics needs of
people. They have performed well in the point source
arena as evidenced by the Willamette River cleanup.
However, the standards and their applicability
have not worked well when dealing with nonpoint
sources. They have been misinterpreted as to their
application. A Federal judge oiling on a timber sale in
northeastern Oregon found that the standards did
not apply to nonpoint sources, that applying best
management practices was all that was necessary. It
was his interpretation that the standards applied to
point sources. The ruling was later amended to
recognize the standards after an appeal was upheld.
There are also those in industry who believe that the
current water quality standards do not apply to non-
point sources for the same reasoa
Nonpoint sources also cause temporary changes
in water quality. The discharge that comes and goes
along with the rain, for instance. Oregon's turbidity
standard allows for a temporary disturbance from an
in-stream activity such as construction. However, the
standards do not define 'temporary" for uses when
controlling nonpoint sources. Industry says the in-
creased temperature from removing streamside
vegetation will last only one season for a stretch of
river. But next year arid the year after industry will
remove vegetation again along other stretches of the
same river Now the stream has had warmer
temperatures for two or more years. Best manage-
ment practices were applied in each case to allow
small incremental increases within the standard, but
the cumulative effect of separate land management
actions now has become a serious problem for the
stream and the organisms that need colder water.
BMPs as Technology-Based
Standards
Industry has thought for years that all it had to do to
comply with the Clean Water Act was implement
BMPs. In addition, if a particular BMP was needed to
correct or prevent a problem and was too expensive,
industry didn't have to install the BMR This, in effect,
was a loophole for it to squeeze through. Oregon's
standards first require industry to apply best avail-
able control technology (the BMP) and then comply
with the water quality standards. Why then the prob-
lem in interpretation and the resultant continued
degradation of water quality from nonpoint sources?
First, we must recognize the nature of nonpoint
sources and what happens to a stream and its benefi-
cial uses when nonpoint sources are operating. By
nature the nonpoint discharge is usually diffuse; it
usually doesn't produce the same gross, rapid
change in water quality as a point source. The
change is subtle over time or over some length along
the stream. These subtle minute shifts in quality may
cause a large change in aquatic organisms. An ex-
tended period of warmer water will allow undesirable
fish to compete with the desired game fish, thus
changing the character of the overall fish population
in a stream. It also may cause a shift in food or-
ganisms, thereby putting further strain on the
desirable fish populations.
A technology-based standard works well for the
gross problems. You will see improvement in water
quality when the first BMP is applied. However, a
technology-based approach tends to lull people into
thinking that just to install the BMP is sufficient. Not
so! Subtle cumulative effects can play a major role in
changing a stream's use. A judge in the 9th Circuit
Court, San Francisco, reminded all of us that BMPs
are just a tool to meet water quality standards. We
must still actually meet the water quality standards—
the bottom line.
The Need for Improvement
As we look at the current water quality standards and
try to make them work for us when dealing with non-
point sources, we must keep in mind the kind of
standard (numeric or narrative and chemical, physi-
cal, or biological) that the beneficial use of water
needs. By their nature, most consumptive water
.. users need numeric physical or chemical standards,
and in-stream water users need numeric or narrative
standards based on the biological needs of the use.
Narrative standards leave lots of room for interpreta-
tion, so we must strive for the more objective numeric
standard for the in-stream use. People are comfort-
able using numbers' describe the desired quaL/ of
the water. Why don't we develop numeric standards
that describe the desired quality of the in-stream
use?
Foresters know that past logging can create a
temperature problem in a stream. But, at the same
time, they see fish in the stream that shouldn't be
there according to the temperature standard and the
22
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989: 21-23
philosophy behind the standard, in this case, the
standard should be changed to better reflect reality. If
the goal is to protect the fish, why not have a numeric
standard that describes the desired level of fish
population for that stream? If the forester is a good
manager of the forest and associated resources, like
water quality and fish, this person will also be
monitoring the population of fish. When the forester
sees the population starting to decline, he or she
could modify the BMPs to stop the decline if there
was a standard that stated "Allow no more than a
median 10 percent reduction from baseline popula-
tions in returning spawning adults." In this way, the
manager can focus on the fish population (the
beneficial use in this case), rather than on a physical
parameter than may not accurately describe the
desired condition of the fish population because of
the variations in stream character.
Monitoring of nonpoint source impacts needs to
be improved in Oregon. Most land resource
managers know how well they implement BMPs, but
they don't know how well those BMPs are protecting
water quality. This problem stems from the BMP tech-
nology-based focus over the years. It is also a result
of not letting the manager know what kind of water
quality is needed in the face of temporary distur-
bances and undatable standards, as I discussed
earlier.
Water quality monitoring is a must for land
managers. How else do they know how well the
BMPs are working? Land managers need to do the
monitoring with an occasional check from the
regulatory agency. 1f the standards become percent
reductions from the baseline condition, then the ini-
tial baseline condition must be set by a cooperative
sampling effort of the land manager and the
regulatory .agency. Without the cooperative spirit
here, suspicion of the other side's motive in setting a
certain level of baseline condition will play a large
role in making this approach fail.
In conclusion, I want to put in a strong pitch for the
development of biocriteria. Some of the existing
water quality standards will continue to work to
protect consumptive uses from point and nonpoint
sources, but in-stream uses of water severely lack
criteria from which to develop standards. Cumulative
effects on the uses will always be there and now must
be dealt with within the standard. The standard
should be expressed as a description of the desired
quality of the use for that waterbody. Doing so will
return our focus to the required water quality-based
strategy.
But why two to four years to finalize the criteria as
suggested in the Draft Framework for the Water
Quality Standards Program? We have been talking
about these criteria for years, why must we wait? Re-
search has been done on the critical factors of
habitat for the organisms in streams. The States' non-
point source management planners need the criteria
now as they begin implementation. Resource
managers like me are asking what goal must be at-
tained to maintain a use in a stream. Is it 90 percent of
the baseline population? Or is it a temperature stan-
dard that, when exceeded, doesn't seem to kill fish?
Let's bite the bullet, take the pain, and get on with
the development and publishing of the criteria.
Speaking as a resource manager who now has to
abide by the criteria you develop, just make sure that
you bite the right end of the bullet! Your credibility
and success in the field are at stake.
23
-------
-------
*VAi e« UUAUrY &7ANOAROS FOR THE ai« C2NTURY, 1989: 25-36
Organization and Management of
Environmental Data Sets:
The Ecoregional Perspective
Spencer A. Peterson
Regional Scientist, Office of Research and Development
UJS. Environmental Protection Agency Region X, Seattle, Washington
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and
its 1977 and 1987 amendments state dearly that the
intended purpose of the Act is to restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters. This sounds straightforward, but
in the case of nonpoint sources of pollution both the
degree of restoration and the method of determining
that degree have been disputed.
Generally, the effects of nonpoint source pol-
lutants are more subtle than point sources, recovery
rates resulting from mitigations are not always ob-
vious, and the levels of recovery are less easily
defined. To what level should degraded systems be
restored — to their presettiement state? Should we
maintain degraded systems? Hopefully not in the
deplorable state of waterbodies like the Cuyahoga
River, which used to catch fire periodically.
The chemical integrity of water is not easy to
determine without a good spatial and temporal
monitoring scheme. There has been considerable
discussion over what that should consist of and what
variables should be measured to assure proper as-
sessment of water quality integrity. Another terminol-
ogy enigma of the Clean Water Act is biological
integrity. This term means many different things to
different people; not even a small group of biologists
can agree on it
Given these problems and uncertainties, can we
assess the status and trends of the Nation's waters
relative to nonpoint sources of pollutants? Is it a
hopeless task? I think not However, it will require a
different perspective, including a combination of
scientific logic, common sense, and, above all,
flexibility in our thinking. The latter is not inconsistent
with the concept of water quality standards. Rather, it
means the standards must be developed in light of
environmental reality or relevancy. Water quality of
any region will be determined primarily by the ter-
restrial setting of the region per se and by
anthropogenic.actfvities in the area. Therefore, in my
opinion, a fixed numeric standard applied uniformly
across a broadly diverse landscape is unjust, un-
reasonable, and technically indefensible. A method
of organizing integrated environmental similarities
and anthropogenic effects into their natural spatial
units based on biogeqdimatic similarities will permit
us to better interpret water quality standards in light
of environmental reality.
Organization of nature based on biogeoclimatic
similarities and differences is not new. Any basic
ecology text (Smith, 1966) will show the major
biomes of North America (Rg. 1). However, today we
have few areas remaining where nature alone deter-
mines the units of temporal and spatial extent of
recognizable community structure, and major
biomes are units too large for water quality manage-
ment purposes. Human activities have altered and, in
some instances, completely replaced natural com-
munity identities. Since prairie will never again
replace agricultural fields and cities, one of the major
concerns of water quality managers is to determine
what constitutes reasonable water quality goals for
an area given its natural biogeodimatic setting and
its intended use. How can these areas be defined?
Ecoregions
One way to define these areas is to integrate natural
landscape features such as dimate, soils, vegeta-
tion, and physiography with land use according to
Omemik (1987). This approach hypothesizes that
ecosystems and their components display regional
patterns that are reflected in spatially variable com-
binations of causal and integrative factors. From this
approach emerges a natural ordering of areas or
ecoregions based on their causal factor similarities.
Basically, the approach says that while charac-
teristics may overlap from ecoregion to ecoregion,
more similarity exists within any given ecoregion
than across ecoregions.
Omemik's .ecoregions are established in four
phases. The first evaluates mapped variables
(climate, geology, soil, potential natural vegetation,
25
-------
S.A. PETERSON
Biomw
I I Tundra
Comfermu ton*
fllTTI A»pen parkland
Comfernu fomt — >
graMlaad eeotone
J22J Coniferous — northern hardwood*
( deciduoaa — coniferous «cutou« )
Ec3 Deciduous form
Southern pin*
(deciduous biome)
! GraMland
Sagebrush •
cool desert
I Desert
Chaparral
Tropical form
Figure 1 .—Major btorriM of North America (figure from Ecology and Field Biology by Robert Lao Smith, Ct 96«, 1974. Reprinted by
permission of Harper * Row Publisher*, Inc.).
general land form, and land uses) for patterns. The
second phase delineates regional boundaries such
that each region is relatively homogeneous in terms
of the different variables (Fig. 2). The third phase
compares within ecoregion and across ecoregion
variances by statewide field studies or analyses of
large historical data sets. The fourth phase estab-
lishes reference or background icnditions by as-
sessing variables at a series of minimally impacted
regional reference sites. These reference sites lack
point source or notable nonpoint source pollution
and exemplify the ecoregion's least disturbed condi-
tions given a human presence. Although these refer-
ence sites rarely can be considered pristine, they do
represent the highest quality conditions in the region.
Thus, they are intended to represent the best
reasonably attainable water quality for the ecoregion.
They thereby provide not only an environmentally
realistic spatial framework within which to evaluate
data but also water quality goals toward which to
manage.
Standards Modification
The 1983 revised water quality regulation (U.S. En-
viron, Prot Agency, 1983) recognizes environmental
variability across landscapes and allows States to
adjust their standards to that variability if they choose
to do so. The basic requirement (more or less) for im-
plementing these adjustments is a reliable means of
delineating the environmental boundaries of vari-
26
-------
i
S?8'S3333'SS338S8
[Is 5S-
Iii-Hi
ijSisl1
l^iss
f?£ 3 3-a •= *
*.n*Si* c.«*^e(o*— «w"u
(3o5^u55^O^a5OOzSZi2ZS
•• oi n V «n eb f*'
^ •» ^ ^r * •* *
s
J
^ I.- I * II
in! Sin I P i
Hi! in.i if-« -ss
""""'iiliifliiiijiiii
•5^5,'?.233,8>.9^^,i!
a3«^=£ 5
zsaJI? I
" 5^:0
!3^o;
Figure 2.—Eeoreglonaof th« United States (Omernik, 1987).
27
-------
S.A. PETERSON
ability. Are Omemik ecoregions adequate for this pur-
pose? That question, with some variations, has been
addressed in studies done in Minnesota, Arkansas,
Ohio, and Oregon.
nitration for
Case Examples
• Minnesota. Moyfe (1956) recognized that distinct
regional patterns in lake productivity occurred
across Minnesota. He associated these patterns
generally with variations in geology, vegetation,
hydrology, and land use, and his observations have
helped guide fisheries and wfldllfe management in
Minnesota. More recently, a reassessment of this
concept, using Omemik ecoregions, was conducted
by Heiskary (1985) with data from more than 1,000
lakes (Fig. 3). The study confirmed that distinct
regional similarities in lake water quality can be better
understood and interpreted when the data are or-
ganized according to ecoregions.' For example, a
quantitative analysis of lake water quality patterns by
ecoregion revealed major regional differences in
median epflimnetlc phosphorus concentrations
(Table 1).
NGP
WCP
Hgun x—Distribution of mean total pnaspnoruc eonewitra-
liom by ceoregion in Minnmota (from Keiatory, 1985).
Graphic depiction of the median total phosphorus
concentration by ecoregion provides additional
perspective on the ecoregional water quality differ-
ences in Minnesota (Rg. 4). Bar widths in the figure
provide a relative sense of the number of lakes in-
duded in the analysis.
Ihbto 1.—Median total phosphorus cc
lafcM In four MlnnMota •coragtons (Modlftod from
Hector* «t at 1987). ___^___
ECORBOIOI
MEDIAN TP
CONC.
NUMBER OP
LAKES SAMPLED
MulfisiiiL3kesandrorests
North Central Hardwood
Forests
Western Com Belt Plains
Normem Glaciated Plains
178|*gP/L
623
382
40
17
Heiskary, Wilson, and Larson (1987) drew the fol-
lowing conclusions from the Minnesota Lakes Study:
• Aquatic ecoregions can be used effectively to
identify patterns in lake nutrient status and
associated characteristics.
• Aquatic ecoregions can be used to develop
strategies for water quality management of
lakes on a regional basis, i.e., protection,
restoration, and nutrient level goals.
* No single phosphorus level should be used for
setting in-Jake nutrient standards where
regional characteristics vary considerably.
TP
ug/L
300-
250-
200-
150.
100-
50-
100
M
75
40
n
10
0
NLF
CHF WCP NGP
ECOREGION
Figure 4.—Box plots of Minnesota lakes' total phosphorus
concentration by ecoregion (from Heiskary et al. 1987)..
28
-------
• Standards or criteria by ecoregions might be a
viable management approach.
An excellent report on the Minnesota Lakes Study by
Heiskary and Wilson in 1988 describes in detail a
proposed method for deriving ecoregion specific
phosphorus criteria for lakes.
• Arkansas. The purpose of the Arkansas study was
to evaluate the efficacy of a regional stream clas-
sification system based on the premise that streams
reflect the character of the lands they flow over and
through (Rohm et ai 1987). Since terrestrial features
that form the basis for natural differences or
similarities in streams tend to be spatially associated,
the landscape can be divided into geographic
regions of similar character with respect to chosen
terrestrial features. These geographic regions
(ecoregions) of similar character can then be used as
classification units for the streams. If these
ecoregions successfully integrate major spatial vari-
ables that determine stream water quality, then
limited representative sampling (statistically
designed stratified sampling) in these areas should
permit more general extrapolation of site-specific
sampling across the ecoregions.
The Arkansas study was conducted using Omer-
nik ecoregion classification units for the State (Rg.
5). Basic stream water quality of each ecoregion was
identified by assessing least disturbed stream seg-
ments according to Hughes (1985) and Hughes, Lar-
son and Omemik (1986). The approach was to collect
and analyze data from several relatively unimpacted
streams within each ecoregion and assess how well
that data reflected presumed differences of
ecoregions based on the criteria that went into their
delineation.
Specific objectives of this study were to evaluate
how well the ecoregion classification predicted dif-
ferences among the streams as characterized by fish
assemblages, 13 physical habitat variables, and 12
water chemistry variables. The second objective was
to determine whether the pattern of differences was
relatively similar for ail three types of data. Confirma-
tion of this objective would indicate that the clas-
sification system was addressing fundamental
differences in streams.
Candidate watersheds ranged from 35 to 500 km2.
Stream sizes were from the smallest with permanent
flow to the largest that were not influenced by more
than one ecoregion. Two to five streams were
sampled in each ecoregion and all ecoregions ex-
cept the South Central Plains were sampled during
more than one year (Rg. 5). Rsh sampling was ac-
complished in 100 m stream stretches by using block
nets downstream and applying rotenone upstream.
Bectroshockers were used where rotenone use was
undesirable. Work hours per site ranged from 12 to
24 hours.
Mississippi Floodplain
South Central Plains
Arkansas Vaiiey
Ouacnita Mountains
Boston Mountains
Ozark Highlands
o 1983 watersheds
• 1984 watersheds
a 1985 watersheds
- censused with electrofisher
Figure 5.—Six Omemik aquatic eeoregtons In Arkansas (solid lines). Oottad lines Indicate the major river basins from right to left:
St. Francis, Whlta, Arkansas, Ouachtta, and Red. Inset legend Indicates different sampling dates (from Rohm et al. 1987).
29
-------
Chemical water quality measures included am-
monia, nitrate, nitrite, orthophosphorus, total phos-
phorus, turbidity, sulfate, conductivity, aiakaiinity,
BOD. and dissolved oxygen. Analysis of the fish data
included use of the Jaccard dissimilarity index
(Boesch, 1977). The dissimilarity values for all pos-
sible pairings of sites within an ecoregion and across
ecoregions were calculated. The final calculation
yielded a mean within ecoregion dissimaarity as a
percentage of the mean between ecoregion dls-
simiartty. Also, fish species presence/absence data
were subjected to detrended correspondence
analysis (DCA).
The physical and chemical habitat variables were
subjected to principal components analysts (PGA).
This analysis is designed to evaluate the relationships
among the sites based on the simferity in their physi-
cal and chemical attributes. Principal components
analysis also provides a mathematically dear way of
interpreting the variables responsible for separating
the sites.
Without going into detafl on results of statistical
analyses of the data. I will summarize the major con-
clusions of Rohm, Giese. and Bennett (1987):
• Results show that similarities among sites with
respect to the fish, physical habitat, and water
chemistry variables were spatially related.
• Stream characterization based on these
variables forms regional patterns.
• The regional patterns generally correspond
with Arkansas aquatic ecoregions as mapped
byOmemik(1987).
• The fact that patterns for biological, physical,
and chemical data were similar and that they
corresponded with the ecoregion classification
in ail three instances indicates that ecoregions
incorporate fundamental features that account
for differences in streams.
As a result of these and other findings, the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology has es-
tablished regional temperature turbidity and dis-
solved oxygen standards for the State. Biological
goals have also been developed based on fish as-
semblages.
• Ohio and Oregon. Experience with the ecoregion
classification svstem in Ohio and Oregon has led to
similar conclusions regarding its utility for organizing
and understanding environmental data. This system
was not intended to, nor will it replace water quality
standards per se. On the contrary, it is a system
designed to assist water quality managers to better
interpret standards, both laboratory-derived and
field-developed, in the most realistic manner possibl
relative to environmental variability.
Each of the previous ecoregion evaluations wa
designed to demonstrate a specific potential use <
the ecoregion classification system. In doing so, cor
siderable data were strategically collected an
analyzed for each study. The results of these studie
leave little doubt that ecoregions are logical, techn
caily defensible tools that help water quaiit
managers conduct their work in an environmental!
sound manner.
Ecoregion evaluation projects in Ohio and Arkan
sas have prompted these States to develop quantita
tive biological and modified stream chemical criteria
respectively. These modification plans were sub
mitted to and subsequently approved by EPt
Regions V and VI. While the current ecoregion das
sification appears adequate for a number of manage
merit decisions, some refinements could be made
For example, higher resolution of key environments
variables could be defined through the development
of subregions and determination of uncertainties as
sociated with ecoregion boundaries could be shown
Drafts of these modifications have been completec
by Clarke and White (1988) (Rg. 6).
Available Data*Bases
Considerable environmental monitoring data are col-
lected annually for various purposes and much of the
data is entered into the STORET system. People have
asked if these data can be used in conjunction with
the ecoregion classification system to determine the
general environmental health of ecoregional entities.
In other words, can currently available monitoring
data be extrapolated from their site-specific collec-
tion locations across ecoregions? Researchers at the
Corvallls Environmental Research Laboratory had
the opportunity to explore that question with a
project that focused on available environmental
monitoring data for the State of Colorado. The
analysis and writing for the project are underway and
most of the following is from that report (Gallant et al.
1989).
The approach used STORET data to produce dot
maps of single chemical variables and the
Geographic Information System (GIS) data base ;o
extract values for box plots. (Box plots depict the
spatial ecoregion distribution of chemical values.)
Three variable groups were accessed from STORET:
metals (cadmium, zinc, lead, mercury, and copper);
nutrients (nitrate/nitrite. Kjeldahl-nitrogen, total am-
monia, total phosphorus, and two orthophosphorus
measures);'and miscellaneous (total dissolved solids
30
-------
Based 01 work by Janes Omernik
if Ml Irak tit SiWi
Mr. ttt fin? wtu tlti| IK|
iiMettt Ito rtlilitt mtf tl tit trtmliti »MI ttlttti titr«|itn. It! irt ttl It ttilt
\ Cwit
J CMS! Iwfe Cttflrt ttti
J itttMMc Vtftj Pttin
4 riltMlIc «t*t fttlMi
5 litaMltR follim IMi mi Vrfrjt
I (lMtlfc HttlltiM
7 iiMdtc »«§tn
1 Conta: f Mltn
ICtnrtn: Kf*
19 ftfltrt CocWn'
II («t4tn CacKtc
17 (tilm C»ct«n:
II ««k OtMfl:
14 KfH Dtitil:
I] Knf Unfit: Dry torn Itmt
II Wfk Otttrl: tain "Ik fr.rt Mtr
Itlt IIHM
Itaritn
I/ ColMtit Pttltw B«HH
II ColMM Pltlrtc ItMfM
II CtlwiM NtlMt: OiMtcM
n 8W *•*!«•«- UtMt •
21 Hit KtwItiM- M«-
-------
lw.1989).
32
-------
e:
o
CO
S
-00
E «J
o
s—
en
£
o
Figure 8.—Conductivity from STORET ambient stream stations In Colorado (modified from Whittler, 1989).
33
-------
z
(U
o
o
lalns
Souinwes
Tableland
Rgur« 9.—Regional pattern* o* (qeMeM-nttrogen hi Colorado str
nftrate/nitrite-N, KJeldaM-N, and total phosphorus for
nutrients were proposed to further indicate water
chemistry patterns. However, principal components
analysis cannot be run with data sets having any
missing values. Therefore, Corvallis researchers ex-
amined the STORET nutrient data files, which contain
more than 1,100 stations, for uniform data sets. After
culling data set inconsistencies, only 48 stations
remained for principal components analysis. This ex-
ercise pointed out some of the shortcomings of the
STORET data, They are highly variable in terms of
completeness, consistency, precision, accuracy, -
location, and collection frequency. A scatterplot (Rg.
11) of the first principal components of each analysis
on the48-station set showed regional patterns:
i (fr
rt «t •!. 1 9C9).
Southern Rockies
ooiorado Plateau and
Wyoming Basin
Southwest Tablelands
Arizona/New Mexico
t
Western High Plains
Low ionic strength and low
nutrients
Overlapped, with high ionic
strength and moderately low to
moderately high nutrients
Low to moderate ionic strength
and moderate to high nutrients
Low to moderate ionic and
nutrient levels
Very high ionic and nutrient levels
It can be said from these analyses that STORET data
sets appear to suggest ecoregional differences. I em-
phasize "suggest" because certain aspects of the
STORET data must be kept in mind when making this
assessment They are the following:
• STORET data are skewed toward problem
areas near population centers and major
resource developments, thus they do not
represent regional reference sites.
• Location of sample sites is not always precise.
« Sampling sites are not located on the basis of
any stratified, statistical scheme, thus making
extrapolation across ecoregions problematic.
• Completeness of data is highly van'able and
thus inefficient in its current form, relative to
ecoregional assessment i.e., 21,000 sample
stations reduced to only 48 consistent ones for
principal components analysis.
Because of these limitations, definitive statements
concerning attainable water quality in Colorado can-
not be made. Only rough approximations are pos-
sible. Limitations of STORET data are somewhat
discouraging for ecoregional assessment, but then
34
-------
6500 61000
4000-
3500-
3000-
> 2500-
£
£ 0 2000-
3 3
Q
Z
g 1500-
1000-
500
0
A
•
r
,
A
•• BBB
-
K
VI ^BMM
y'
r
•Bf
10100
'
-r
•
cib
^
i
i
H.
5300
/N
V
1
M
H
Y
Wyoming Colorado Southorn Arizona/ Wesrtrn Souinwesi
Basin Plateaus Rocklas New, Mexico High. Plains Tablelands
Plnioau
Figure 10.—Regional patterns of eonduetfvtty in <
i (from Gallant eft aL 1999).
ecoreglonal assessment was not its intent The very
encouraging aspect of the Colorado study is that
ecoregional dass distinction can still be suggested
from principal components analysis of only 48 sta-
tions out of an original 21,000-station set
In my opinion, the Colorado experience is yet
another, albeit less definitive, verification that
ecoregional classification is a viable 21st century
water quality management tool. An obvious exten-
sion of current monitoring techniques is the redesign
of station locations in a stratified, statistical manner
so that attainable water quality, as well as regional
status and trends, can be established nationwide. In
addition, there should be much stronger emphasis
given to monitoring biological communities since
they tend to integrate all chemical and physical vari-
ables in a system thus rapidly providing an in situ.
chronic bioassay of environmental health.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I warn to thank my colleagues in
the Water Division of Region X Phil Larsen, Corvailis Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, and the anonymous reviewers who of-
fered several helpful suggestions for improving this paper. I am
especially grateful to Gallant et al. for sharing a prepublication
copy of their report and allowing me to cite that work. However, the
conclusions and opinions in the last paragraph of this paper are
my own. Any questions concerning them should be directed to
me.
References
Boesch, O.F. 1977. Application of Numerical Classification in
Ecological Investigations of Water Pollution. EPA-600/3-77-
033. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvailis, OR.
Clarke, S. and 0. White 1988. Draft map of Oregon ecoregions and
subregions (Fig.6). U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. Corvailis. CR.
Gallant, A.L, T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omernik. and R.M.
Hughes. 1989. Regionalization as a Tool for Managing En-
vironmental Resources. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Environ.
• Res. Lab. Corvailis, OR (In Review).
Heiskary, SA 1985. Trophic Status of Minnesota Lakes. Min-
nesota Pollut Control Agency. St. Paul, MN.
35
-------
o
0.
c
9
z
-U
C
3.S
2.9
2.3
1.7
1.1
O.S
-.J
-0.7
-1.3
-J.9
-2.S
-3.S -2.9 -2.3 -1.7 -1.1 -O.S 0.1 0.7 1.3" 1.9 2.5
ionic strength PCA
Ffguren. • Regional pattern* in *tr
G*a*nt*t«Ll989).
jtrtontrteft
d lonie strangth a* Indicated by Principal Components Analysis (from
Heiskwy. SJV. and C.a Wilson. 198& Mtaneeots Lake
Quality Assmsmanf Raport Mlnnaaota Pollut Control Agency,
St Paul, MM.
Haiskaiy, SA. C.a Wilson, and D.P. Laraan. 1987. Analysia of
regional pattanw in lake water quality: using aooragiona for
lak« manaQanwfrt in Mnnaaota. Laic* Raacrv. Manage. 3:337=
Hugtiaa, RM. 1985. UM of wataralMd enaractaristiec to
uoiilrol atraaina for asunnatlnQ affacls of matai mining ¥Mataa
on 0xtansiv«iy disturbad straams. Environ. Manage. 9: 253-62.
Hugnaa, AM.. D.P. Laraan, and J.M. Omamik. 1986. Regional raf.
«ranee sftea: a method for aaaaaafno stream potential*. En-
viron. Manage. 10:829*35.
Miller, D.U et al. 1988. Regional application of an index of btotte
integrity for us* in water reeouree management J. Am. Rsn.
Soc. 13(5): 12-?0. -
Moyfe, J.a I9ikj. Relationships between the chemistry of Min-
nesota surface waters and wildlife management J,. Wild!.
Manage. 20:303-20.
Qmemik. J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United
States. Map (scale 1:7.500,000). Freshw, Ann. Ass. Am. Geogr.
77(1): 118^25.
Rohm, C.M., J.W. Gieee, and C.C. Bennett. 1987. Evaluation of an
Aquatic Ecoregion Classification of Streams in Arkansas. J.
Freshw. Ecol. 4: 127-40.
Smith, R.L, 1968. Ecology and Held Biology. Harper & Row Pub-
lishers, Inc. New YonV.
U.S. environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Environmental
Protection Agency Water Quality Standards Regulation.
Federal Register 48(217): 51400-51413.
Whittier, T.R 1989a, Map of H^eldahl-Nitrogen from STORET Am-
bient Steam Stations in Colorado, la Gallant, et al.
Regionalizatlon asa Tool for Managing Environmental Resour-
ce*. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Environ. Res. Lab. Corvallis.
~— . 1989b. Map of Conductivity from STORET Ambient
Stream Stations in Colorado, la Gallant, et al. Regionalization
as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources. U.S. En-
viron. Prot Agency, Environ. Res. Lab. Corvallis, OR (In
Review).
36
-------
WAI en UUAUI r
it-legist ucNiunr, laoa.
Water Quality Standards for the 20th
Century—The Nonpoint Source Agenda
Paul Thompson
Research Associate, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
Water quality standards are receiving renewed atten-
tion and this is encouraging, especially as this inter-
est also extends to nonpoint source pollution, where
water quality standards and water quality-based con-
trols are the strongest means provided in the Clean
Water Act for controlling diffuse pollution sources.
I have recently completed a study on the manage-
ment principles behind an effective nonpoint source
(NFS) management program. The report, "Poison
Runoff: A Guide to State and Local Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control," will be published soon and dis-
tributed to EPA and State water quality management
officials.
I have chosen to stress the 20th, not the 21 st cen-
tury, in this presentation. Since water quality stand-
ards (especially as applied to nonpoint sources)
have existed for so long in the shadow of the Clean
Water Act's "point source4* programs. I think it is time
we start speaking of their use in the present, not fu-
ture, tense.
The Natural Resources Defense Council study
describes a water quality-based approach to
management on a watershed-by-watershed basis. Its
approach requires-Has water quality standards
reflecting nonpoint source impacts be in place in
each affected watershed^ that an effective water
quality monitoring network be established; and that
strong implementation mechanisms be in place.
Therefore, in each watershed affected by nonpoint
source pollution the following series of actions must
be undertaken to:
1. Measure water quality and compare it to water
quality standards;
2. Calculate total pollution load reductions for
each pollutant needed to meet water quality
standards, taking into account seasonal and
hydrdogic variations;
3. Estimate total bads from each nonpoint
source category or group of nonpoint sources;
4. Estimate load reductions achievable for each
load under various control scenarios;
5. Choose and implement the controls that will
achieve compliance with water quality stand-
ards;
6. Measure water quality periodically to measure
program's success; and
7. Modify controls if necessary.
Water quality standards have not been generally
used to drive nonpoint source programs; therefore
bridging the gap between water quality standards
and nonpoint source management requires a good
deal of effort To accomplish this, we must begin with .
a thorough understanding of the differences in the
role that water quality standards should play in EPA's
point source NPDES program and nonpoint source
319 program. Understanding the proper relationship
between water quality standards and nonpoint
source management can shed light on how our
present level of knowledge can be used to improve
the use of these standards in current nonpoint
source management and to determine where we
should concentrate our research efforts. We can also
learn whether scientific knowledge or other factors—
such as political or administrative decisions—limit
the application of water quality standards to nonpoint
source control.
Besides narrative, numeric, biologic, and habitat
criteria (most directly amenable to scientific inquiry),
State water quality standards also contain desig-
nated uses for all its waters to define the water quality
goals, and an antidegradation statement that re-
quires the maintenance of existing uses of water.
Not attaining beneficial uses in State waters sig-
nals the need for initiating the process for developing
water quality-based nonpoint source controls as re-
quired under the Clean Water Act
In determining these waters, EPA's Water Quality
Standards Handbook indicates that:
State[s] should ensure that . . . water
quality criteria reflect what is needed to
assure protection of beneficial uses ....
there should be flexibility in water quality
standards to address the impact of time
and space components of nonpoint
source as well as naturally occurring
events. This involves the consideration of
the variability of natural conditions, mag-
nitude and frequency of impact, and the
level of acceptable risk.
37
-------
P. THOMPSON
Determining nonattaining waters then triggers a
series of actions that ideally should lead to the
development of a "watershed management plan."
Based on adequate water quality criteria, a Total
Maximum Daily Load should be calculated to deter-
mine the pollution load reduction from both point and
nonpoint sources needed to attain or maintain
beneficial uses. Based on these estimates, nonpoint
source controls should be implemented to achieve
compliance with water quality standards.
The controls should be implemented on a water-
shed-by-watershed basis and be based on site-
specific conditions and water quality protection
needs. EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook
stresses the development of a process by which the
controls are determined, not just the implementation
of best management practices (BMPs). The four
steps to this process as described in the Handbook
consist of designing BMPs based on site-specific
conditions, technical, economic, and institutional
feasibility, and the water quality standards of those
waters potentially impacted; monitoring to ensure
that, practices are correctly designed and applied;
monitoring to determine the effectiveness of prac-
tices in meeting water quality standards and the ap-
propriateness of water quality criteria to reasonably
assure protection of beneficial uses; and adjusting
BMPs when water quality standards are not being
protected to a desired level and/or possibly adjusting
water quality standards.
This last step in the process indicates that, except
in certain sflvteultural and mining situations, com-
pliance with the BMPs required by a State-approved
watershed management plan will normally constitute
compliance with water quality standards for the land-
owner. Therefore, the burden is on the State to en-
sure that the proper level of BMP application is taking
place in a given watershed to maintain or attain
beneficial uses. Therefore, an ongoing monitoring
process to determine progress is needed in each
watershed.
Obviously, this concept of water quality standards
does not require knowledge of each individual non-
point source polluter's discharges to improve con-
trols—only that additional controls in the watershed
are needed to improve water quality and that their
cumulative implementation lead to maintenance or
attainment of beneficial uses. This description helps
to make the obvious evident: without water quality
standards and the watershed management plan
there is no mechanism to provide a minimum level of
control; no goal for water quality protection in a given
watershed; and no State accountability for water
resources protection.
The water quality-based approach merges point
and nonpoint source controls to allow coordination
and optimization of controls. It also brings State
water quality management agencies into a position
of leadership in nonpoint source management,
which, in turn, addresses directly a number of impor-
tant nonpoint source management needs that,
without water quality standards, seem impossible.
These standards give States the legal authority to
control diffuse sources, thereby strengthening the
State water qualify agencies in nonpoint source pol-
lution control. This, in turn, places agricultural and
soil conservation agencies in their most effective
management position—as an integral part, but lead
agency, in an overall nonpoint source program.
Thus, nonpoint source programs (typically carried
out under State soil and water conservation laws that
often do not authorize mandatory requirements can
become incorporated into a State's overall Clean
Water Act program. Once this transfer is achieved,
any undesirable reliance on local voluntary programs
that are not targeted sufficiently to water quality
goals (and brought on by a perceived lack of State
authority) can be improved. Programs and BMPs can
be implemented that are more directly responsive to
actual water quality protection needs and can be
overseen by State and regional water quality officials.
This role of water quality standards contains the
current research and administrative agenda for the
application of these criteria to nonpoint source
management. Identifying waters that are not main-
taining or attaining fishable and swimmable condi-
tions because of nonpoint sources is not a perfect
science, but many States have already developed ex-
tensive lists of such waters. States that have not often
lack sufficient monitoring networks or have not
developed adequate water quality standards (or
have not applied existing ones), which implies that
administrative and political forces may be respon-
sible.
Researchers and State officials should investigate
efforts to define and categorize polluted watersheds
,-. by Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida. If these ap-
proaches are feasible, they should be generalized
into a generic model or set of models.
It is also difficult to estimate pollution load reduc-
tions needed to clean up waters, but progress has
been made in this area as well. Again, States have
used various chemical, biologic, and habitat criteria
to classify a waterbody's potential uses and protec-
tion goals. These goals are often translated into load
reductions through some type of modeling —one of
the most debated areas in nonpoint source manage-
ment
38
-------
run me^ist OCNIUHY, '963: 37-39
The methods to estimate load reductions that
have been developed by various States and re-
searchers should be systematically evaluated, and
the most effective approaches adopted as models.
There is very little action on this at the State level,
which might indicate that there are not only technical
barriers at work.
It may be too early to gauge the success of exist-
ing methods to monitor nonpoint source program ef-
fectiveness. Clearly, progress is being made by some
States, while others have stagnated. Variability can
be accounted for through various statistical techni-
ques and monitoring designs, and a combination of
narrative, chemical, physical, and biologic para-
meters can be used to determine the health of a
stream. However, scientific progress cannot be
counted on if States are not using available infoma-
tion.
Additional technical progress in nonpoint source
programs is always desirable but alone, it is inade-
quate to ensure effective implementation. Progress is
needed in both the scientific and the administrative
aspects of nonpoint source management. Science is
not an "Independent variable" in public policy—with
water quality-based nonpoint source controls a pas-
sive entity that is shaped and molded by develop-
ments in research. If anything, it is the other way
around.
Science cannot serve public policy without a well-
conceived management context to guide research.
In other words, without valid questions that reflect
the legal and administrative needs of nonpoint
source management, any value found in the so-
called answers provided through research is purely
coincidental. This is the real value of understanding
the legal and administrative needs of effective non-
point source management
39
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1988: 41-43
Integrating Fish Habitat Into State Water
Quality Standards
Stephen B.Bauer
Senior Environmental Quality Specialist
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho
It is exciting to note that State and Federal water
quality agencies are questioning the use of point
source concepts that no longer serve the overwhelm-
ing water quality impacts of nonpoint source pollu-
tion. This requires a different mind set-focusing on
areas that are not traditionally regarded as our
domain. Indeed it means rethinking what the term
"water quality" means. It can no longer refer simply to
a cubitainer of water shipped off to the lab if we are to
do our job in protecting and restoring beneficial
uses.
Since we are being futuristic, let's start out by
symbolically giving the EPA Gold Book a drop-kick
into the nearest muddy river. Those standards and
criteria apply to the Pacific Northwest and the north-
em Rocky Mountain ecoregion. In Idaho the non-
point sources of major importance are historical and
current logging, mining, and grazing. Road construc-
tion associated with these activities is the most sig-
nificant source of sediment to streams.
Much of Idaho's national forest lands occur in a
geologic formation called the Idaho Bathdith. When
road construction exposes the parent material to
weathering, it rapidly decomposes to large, sand-
sized particles. This decomposed granite easily
erodes and is transported to stream courses as bed-
load sediment This is "dean" sediment that affects all
the life stages of the valuable fishery in Idaho. The
restoration of Chinook salmon and steelhead trout
runs in the Columbia Basin has been described as
the most comprehensive conservation effort in the
United States. This concern for the fishery resource
is international in scope and includes commercial
fishermen from three States and Canada, sport
fishermen in four States, and four treaty Indian tribes
that use the fish for commercial, subsistence, and
religious purposes.
Desired Future Condition
The first case study is based on a proposal in
progress between the Columbia River Intertribal Fish
Commission and the United States Forest Service
(USFS) to settle appeals on national forest manage-
ment plans. It is based on describing the desired fu-
ture condition (DFC) in forest plans required by the
National Forest Management Act The OFC
describes measurable aquatic habitat characteristics
that represent predisturbance or unmanaged habitat
condition. Since nonpoint source activities, primarily
logging and road building, affect fisheries habitat in
many ways in addition to sediment impacts, OFC in-
cludes elements to describe the optimum habitat
condition.
Draft land management plans used narrative fuzzy
statements to describe OFC, which provides "maxi-
mum management flexibility* to the Forest Service
but little assurance to the public that the fishery will
be adequately protected. The Indian tribes are flexing
their considerable legal muscle with the Forest Ser-
vice to specify quantitative stream quality goals.
OFC is being developed for saimonids in the
Pacific Northwest based on species and channel
type. Table 1 represents the OFC for steelhead parr in
"A" channel types. Other tables, not included here,
show DFC for Chinook salmon and cutthroat trout in
types A, B, and C channels. This procedure recog-
nizes habitat preferences for key indicator species, a
giant step toward site-specific criterion.
The first element in the table is density of parr at
full seeding. Fish density is the end product. The DFC
is based on empirical data collected in this channel
type that Is derived from direct counts in the habitat,
for example, by snorkeling or electrofishing. The next
two parameters are measures of bedload sediment in
fish habitat Cobble embeddedness is directed at
measuring the effect of bedload sediment on winter-
rearing habitat Fish seek shelter in the interstices of
cobble and boulders to avoid the lethal winter condi-
tions of the water column. Fines by depth is a
measure of the sand deposited : fish spawning
gravel. The sand reduces flow through the gravel,
restricting the supply of oxygen to the eggs and
developing fry. In addition, fish that do hatch may be-
come entombed by the excess sediment.
. Pool/riffle ratio provides a diversity of habitat for all
life stage requirements. Optimum ratios produce
more fish in a stream. Temperature is a well under-
stood water quality criteria. Management in the
41
-------
S. a BAUER
Table 1.—Desired future condition of steelhead parr rearing habitat In "A" channel type. "A" channels are charac-
terized by a steep gradient and a boulder substrate. This table Is taken from a proposal developed by a Columbia
River Intertribal Hah Commission/U.S. Forest Service working group.
DPC
(%)
100
90
80
70
60
DPC
(%)
100
90
80
70
60
DENSITY
PER
100m2
30
- 27
24
21
18
ACTING/
POTENTIAL
DEBRIS
(pca/IOOm)
50-60/120
45/90
40/80
35(70
30/60
COBBLE
EMBED-
OEDNESB
(*>
<20
22-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
POOL
QUALITY
INDEX
5
4
3
2
1
FINES
BY
DEPTH
(%>
<19
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
IN»
STREAM
COVER
5
4
3
2
1
POOL
RIPPLE
RATIO
50-50
45:55
4040
30:70
20:80
BANK
COVER
5
4
3
2
1
SUMMER
TEMP
(C)
10-15
16-17
16-17
18-19
<20
BANK
STABILITY
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
0.5
riparian area can influence both summer maximum
and winter minimum temperatures. Large woody
debris or large organic debris is recognized as one of
the most important habitat components in forested
areas of the Pacific Northwest. This element is being
addressed in State Forest Practice Rules and Regula-
tions. Oregon and Washington have recently
adopted leave tree requirements for riparian areas,
and Idaho is in the process of adopting leave tree re-
quirements in the Forest Practices Act Acting debris
is based on actual counts of woody debris in "urv
managed" riparian areas.
The remaining elements are standard habitat
quality descriptors that are readily recognized. Pool
quality rating is an index of length, width, depth, and
cover. In-stream cover is an important security fea-
ture for fish. Fish will not use habitat that doesn't
nave in-stream cover such as logs, rough water.
boulders, shade, and so forth. Bank cover Is an es-
sential habitat element Undercut banks and vegeta-
tion within 10 to 15 feet of the water provide cover for
fish. Bank stability relates both to sediment supply
and bank cover. Stable banks are an indicator of high
quality habitat and watershed health.
State Water Quality Standards
The issues are basically the same for sediment
criteria in Idaho Water Quality Standards. However,
we are far from the 21st century in Idaho and not
ready yet to incorporate a variety of habitat
parameters. The Water Quality Bureau has worked
with a technical advisory committee to develop the
following sediment-related criteria:
• SalmonkJ Spawning Criterion: Nonpoint source
activities may not cause intergravel dissolved
oxygen in spawning gravels to decline below a week-
ly average of 90 percent of saturation or 6 milligrams
per liter, whichever is greater. __
This criterion is based on a comprehensive review
of the literature (Chapman and McLeod, 1987) com-
pleted under contract with EPA. The review found
deficiencies with the connection between many sedi-
ment parameters such as fines by depth and fish im-
pacts. The literature, however, strongly supports a
minimum dissolved oxygen concentration for suc-
cessful incubation of salmonid eggs. This criterion
basically shifts the emphasis of the existing Idaho
oxygen criteria to the sensitive life stages of fish in the
intergravel environment which requires different
monitoring techniques. We have been testing the use
of an intergravel oxygen pipe installed in the spawn-
ing gravel. Water is pumped via a peristaltic pump
across a dissolved oxygen probe. Whether this pro-
cedure can adequately simulate flow characteristics
of a natural redd (fish spawning nest) is a key ques-
tion that should be researched.
• Cold Water Biota-Turbidity Criterion: In sur-
face waters supporting or capable of supporting sal-
monid fisheries, tur, Jity, is ihe result of nonpoint
source activities, may not exceed background tur-
bidity measured at comparable discharge by 50 NTU
instantaneously or 25 NTU (standard unit for tur-
bidity) for 10 days.
* Many States have a turbidity criterion; however,
we were unable to validate the low criteria numbers
used in these standards and also found that most
States do not really apply them. These criteria are
42
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989: 41-43
based on a recent literature review by Lloyd (1987).
The proposed turbidity criterion is based on protec-
tion of sight-feeding for salmonid species. The 25
NTU for 10 days is based on literature documenting
the chronic effect of reduced growth at these tur-
bidity levels.
• Cold Water Biota-Percent Embeddednes*
Criterion: No statistically demonstrable increase, at
the 95 percent confidence interval. In natural
baseline percent embeddedness as the result of non-
point source activities shall be permissible in sal-
monid rearing habitats.
The importance of interstitial spaces in streambed
cobble and gravel as overwintering habitat is well
supported. This habitat is considered the "bot-
tleneck" in survival of salmonids in the Rocky Moun-
tains. However, there is considerable disagreement
regarding the adequacy of the measurement techni-
qua The Division cooperated this past summer with
the USFS Intermountain Research Station to work
out the bugs in this technique related to random sam-
pling and precision. An important aspect of this
criterion is that it establishes a process of arriving at a
number based on comparison to natural conditions,
rather than trying to establish a statewide numeric
criteria. We think that this will be a more sensible ap-
proach to establishing site-specific criteria.
• Domestic Water Supply Criterion-Turbidity:
The watersheds listed are designated as small public
water supplies, which have 25-500 users for over 60
days per year... [in the criterion] Nonpoint source
activities in the listed watersheds may not increase
turbidity at the public water supply intake(s):
a) by more than 5 NTU above natural background
at comparable discharge when background
turbidity is 50 NTU or less; or
b) by more than 10 percent above natural back-
ground at comparable discharge, not to ex-
ceed 25 NTU when turbidity is greater than 50
NTU.
The last sediment criterion relates to protection of
domestic water supplies. Many surface public water
supply systems in Idaho have very high clarity and
utilize minimal treatment Increased turbidity from
nonpoint source activities in the watershed increases
treatment cost To make this criterion workable, we
have restricted it to small public systems dependent
on small watersheds. Small communities lack the
economy of scale to bear the burden of increased
treatment costs. By limiting the criterion to small
drainages, we increase the likelihood of establishing
cause and effect with a nonpoint source activity.
Now if s time to retrieve the Gold Book from the
river, that is if we can see it, because these nonpoint
standards cannot replace existing standards but
rather will complement existing water quality criteria.
. References
Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McLeod. 1987. Development for criteria
for fin* sediment in th« Northern Rockies ecoregion. EPA
910/947-162. U.S. Environ. Prat Agency, Washington, DC.
Lloyd, D.S. 1987. Turbidity aa a water quality standard for sal-
monid habitats in Alaska. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 7(1):34-45.
43
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS & COMMENTS
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. Why aren't we Implementing nonpoint source
controls? EPA should hear about this from the
States.
A. (Garrets) From what I have observed in the
Chesapeake Bay, one reason is the will to implement
controls. The second is the money and the man-
power to do it Money and manpower work In two
ways: you build up State programs to provide resour-
ces for people to make it happen; simultaneously.
you have to give these people something to help
them so they will begin to do these things as an ac-
cepted practice. Maryland has instituted cost sharing
to get the agricultural community receptive, and
farmers that took advantage of this benefit will imple-
ment controls on another part of their farm but not
come back and ask for more money because they
have bought the concept and the approach.
The third reason is the perception, in many cases,
that controls don't matter or that they are already in
placa When we first went into agriculture, farmers
told us "Well, the Soil Conservation Service has had
these programs for years, and they work." But Sol
Conservation is not an enforcement agency. It helps
when asked, but if not asked, it doesn't clobber
people over the head. •
C. (Bauer) I want to focus back on the water
. quality standards issue. We have had a successful
cost-share program for agriculture for many years;
there are 18 cost-share projects that are water
quality-based. For the fast four years, a Forest Prac-
tice Act initiative has been slowly getting the best
management practices implemented. I was a strong
doubter when we started on the Forest Practice Pro-
gram, but I have found that, if these best manage-
ment practices are followed, they work. But the
question is how to link them to water quality stand-
ards. How do we convince people that we are trying
for a particular goal -water quality standards?
Is the nonpoint agenda appropriate for every
State? We should be looking not at a nonpoint agen-
da generated by EPA at the national level but agen-
das like the future of water quality standards as
generated by States and regions and the ecosystems
approach. We should be pu>i ling EPA to stop putting
the burden down from the top level and to think about
it from a State standpoint. Where do the water quality
standards need to be addressed in that particular
ecoregion; where are the beneficial uses being im-
pacted? Write the agenda on a State-by-State basis.
C. (Bohmfalk) Standards that are developed in
Washington and carried down through EPA 'don't
apply to Texas. We have different situations, for in-
stance with the Trinity River where we've had stand-
ards for years. Since 1987, the Texas Water
Commission has fined Dallas, Fort Worth, and the
Trinity River Authority (the major operators in this
area) in excess of $750,000 for not meeting the water
quality standard-based permits.
How do I, as a State manager, enforce these
standards? Water quality standards for nonpoint
sources will have to consider a different philosophy, a
different approach, than the standards established in
the Clean Water Act. That whole program is estab-
lished and aimed at point source on a national basis.
The enforcement part is not the water quality stand-
ards, but the permits based on those standards.
When you say that we are going to look at water
quality standards for nonpoint sources that tells me
we will be setting up a permitting program, and I will
be put in the position of telling Texans what they can
and cannot do with their land.
Before I can adopt those standards as rules for
Texas, I, as a, water quality manager, will have to
demonstrate, in dollar amounts, what the benefit will
be whenever I issue permits based on the new stand-
ards. I don't see how I can do that with the current
standards, much less with nonpoint sources. So I
would ask EPA to reconsider the economic benefits
and the costs that are associated with implementing
some of these programs.
C. (Bamett) The Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum has a program authorized by Con-
gress that allows us to work with the farmers to com-
ply with the removal of salts in the Colorado River
system. We were told very dearly by Congress that
this was to be a voluntary program. We could not
., mandate what the farmers were going to do on their
lands.
We have been very successful with that voluntary
program, but we need a few "carrots." We are remov-
ing, in a nonpoint source way, tons of salt to meet al-
ready established downstream numeric criteria. Our
problem is that we have not *• jnd a carrot for some
Federal agencies. The largest arsa that we cannot
control is managed in the public domain by the
Bureau of Land Management, and we cannot seem
to get their attention or interest. So we surely don't
want Federal mandates for nonpoint source stan-
dards.
44
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1969
C. (Frohardt) It seems to me that part of the
reason there is some difficulty in coming to grips with
whether EPA should do something more on stan-
dards, with respect to nonpoint sources, is that, un-
like point source*, there is no specific
implementation program. Many of today's com-
ments Indicate that part of the reason we don't have a
nonpoint implementation side Is that ft Is a much har-
der problem, scientifically and politically, and more
varied than point source problems, at least in terms
of control. What does EPA do in response? (f you
don't think about nonpoint source standards, how do
you decide what Is important or appropriate in terms
of implementation?. On the other hand, untfl people
have some sense of what sort of implementation you
have in mind, they are very nervous about any sort of
standards. If EPA decides to move forward on non-
point source standards, it should do so extremely
cautiously. Usually when EPA adopts general re-
quirements at an early state, before we know what
they will mean, years later we find they meant surpris-
ing things. EPA has a tendency, once it starts to write
regulations, to get very excited about the process
and to put a lot of things into it that are very specific. I
think that would be a real mistake now.
O, There is a major focus on biocriteria in the
Framework. Is that an appropriate focus for EPA to
take in dealing with nonpoint sources?
A. We need biocriteria when looking at both the
potential influences of nonpoint sources and the
potential benefits of nonpoint source controls. A
simple example Is a stream running into a lake, if the
purpose of designated uses and protecting those
uses is to protect the biological integrity of mat
stream, then indeed biomonitoring and biocriteria
are very relevant to nonpoint or point sources, if the
purpose is to protect a downstream receiving lake
from receiving nutrients and subsequent eutrophtea-
tion, there are other measures, biological or chemi-
cal, that may be more relevant. The use of in-stream
biological criteria is unlikely to catch an effect be-
cause nutrients in general are not going to have an
effect on that small stream.
Biocriteria and biological measures are relevant
particularly for the Midwest, because we are protect-
ing biological integrity in small to intermediate
streams that are influenced by nonpoint sources. In
essence, I would take issue with the use of biological
criteria and biomonitoring in those cases where it is a
direct measure of the designated use that we are
trying to protect
C. Water quality criteria might not be adequate or
suitable for nonpoint sources but in ail cases, the
beneficial uses that are a part of the standard do
reflect nonpoint source management needs. People
are trying to point out that there is really no
mechanism in the Clean Water Act for States to re-
quire land managers to control soil erosion as they
do in parts of Minnesota and Nebraska. It is very easy
to get confused between the scientific issues and the
Clean Water Act issues. However, the Act does give
the State authority to require land managers to
reduce their pollution loads to the water.
C. (Rader) In North Carolina we find dear
evidence that turbidity related to nonpoint sources is
causing most of the degradation of our streams. The
305(b) report states that about 80 percent of our
degraded streams are polluted by nonpoint sources
(agriculture accounts for about 80 percent), and al-
most 100 percent of this pollution is due to sediment
loads. If you look at sensitive taxa. you will find a fairly
good correlation to nonpoint source pollution; there-
fore, biocriteria are pertinent for nonpoint source pol-
lution but this is a site-specific problem.
On the other hand, what we are doing now to deal
with nonpoint source pollution is clearly inadequate.
Eighty percent of our streams are degraded by non-
point source pollution, yet we have no major non-
voluntary program to cope with this problem.
Recently, we presented a solution to the people of
North Carolina for their consideration. We have
changed the turbidity standard wording in our water
quality standards: it no longer says "due to a dis-
. charge." To make this proposal palatable, we linked it
to the existing standard and proposed best manage-
ment practices programs. The ruling now says that
this standard is deemed not to apply or you are ex-
empt from meeting this standard if you are in com-
pliance with an approved best management practice
program. In North Carolina this means that, for con-
struction-related activities, a sediment-related con-
trol program must be filed and approved. If you are in
conformance with that program, you do not violate
the standard.
That leaves us with the problem of agriculture and
silviculture. The Clean Water Act clearly excludes
normal agriculture and silviculture from many of the
Acf s programs. We have to try to redefine what "nor-
mal" means. If normal could include reasonable best
management practices for best manageme ' ac-
tivities and silviculture activities then we might be
able to deal with the process through education and
public funds. There is a real role for water quality
standards on a State-by-State basis, or a region-by-
region basis, especially to deal with nonpoint source
problems in degraded streams.
45
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS & COMMENTS
CLlfwe had good water quality standards to deal
with nonpoint sources, would we tie any better off?
A. (Knox) Louisiana had a violation of water
quality standards (the bacterial standard) in the Tan-
gipahoa River, which is widely used for recreation.
The State's in-stream standard is based basically on
pollution from sewage discharges and the as-
sociated risk for disease. In this case, we applied the
standard to what was viewed as a nonpoint source
discharge from dairy farms because we had already
tightened permits to all point source discharges and
the problem continued. Louisiana's regulations don't
prohibit permitting nonpoint source dischargers;
they don't stipulate point or nonpoint source but "pol-
lutants1' or "substances." So we decided to permit
those discharges: we required a permit unless the
farmer was working with the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice to implement their recommended best manage-
ment practices.
That isa back door approach, but the best one we
have come up with so far. We still have a problem with
that standard; it isn't measuring the dairy farm prob-
lem, but we can fine-tune it by changing our stan-
dard By having the enforcement agency be the bad
guy, you can send them running for help to the agen-
cies that have the voluntary programs.
O. If we start sorting out nonpoint from point
source we are going to have a recurring situation. All
the requirements will be put back on the point
sources and all the voluntary approaches with the
nonpoint sources. Ten years from now we will have
the same problems. EPA has to get out there and do
some enforcement on nonpoint sources. Is redoing
your standards going to be the only thing thai you
are going to need?
A. (Landman) It is true that there is, under the
Clean Water Act requirements, a very dear system to
control point sources. But it is also true that there is a
requirement that the State address nonpoint source
pollution problems that is spelled out in the Act Ad-
mittedly, it is more difficult to pinpoint the legal re-
quirements to control nonpoint source pollution.
Despite this fact nonpoint source pollution is being
dealt with. Many people here have described how
their States are taking the mandate to control non-
point source pollution and, in addition, are trying to
figure out what standards they need to support that
activity.
The question we need to focus on is what criteria
at a national level can EPA develop to help the States
with nonpoint sources. If people are saying that EPA
cannot formulate a national criterion that will cover
any given pollutant then the States are going to have
to do it themselves. Are the States saying that they
don't want EPA to do anything because they are
going to do it themselves, and if so, are they
prepared to take on the responsibility for developing
those standards without criteria documents from
EPA? The need to develop the standards is going to
exist whether or not EPA gives States criteria docu-
ments.
CL (Garrefs) How do you get from voluntary to
mandatory nonpoint source regulation? I would
think you could start with voluntary programs, and
the enthusiasm and public participation that goes
with them, to build a base of public awareness and
support Then? when control of nonpoint sources is
not adequate, there is an awareness that should help
when you move into regulation.
A. (Clausen) We all share the same goal (protect-
ing water resources), but we are not working
together. If I were an EPA or State person, i would be
worried about that because we won't reach our goal
unless we work together. I am surprised at how little
was accomplished in the past three hours. Many
people vented their frustrations, but I don't think we
solved any problems. I'm not sure that the people
here know what to do in the future. My one plea
would be that EPA and the States and others talk
more and get together more. Let's all work together.
46
-------
WATER QUALJTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21* CENTURY, 1989
Diversity and Innovation in
State Standards Programs
47
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21* CENTURY. 1980: 40-53
Idaho's Antidegradation Program: A Model
Gregory W. Forge
Board Member, Northwest Renewable Resources Center
Seattle, Washington
It Is a distinct pleasure to appear before you today on
behalf of the Northwest Renewable Resources* Cen-
ter of Seattle to discuss antldegradation, that thing
few people can spell and fewer can describe. I will
blow my horn loud and long for the Center later In my
presentation because it was principally responsible
for the successful negotiation of an Idaho An-
tidegradation Agreement The agreement is a simple
one, a good one, and one that may serve as a model
for other States that are yet undecided about the
form of their antldegradation program. I hope our ex-
perience in Idaho, and the negotiating approach of
the Center, will also be instructive for regulators, both
State and Federal. I note from the Draft Framework
for the Water Quality Standards Program that one
goal for the 1988-1990 triennium is completion of the
States' antldegradation programs. For those States
that haven't resolved this issue, I extend my heartiest
best wishes.
Let me briefly explain how I came to be involved in
Idaho's antidegradation issue, and what I do for a
living, then we'll get on with it I had been practicing
law in Seattle since 1982 in the areas of general
municipal, environmental, natural resource, and
utilities law when Governor Cecil Andrus called in the
spring of 1987 and asked for my help on a couple of
projects. He didn't mention the antidegradation
project; that was added later. We solved the problem,
and I returned to Seattle in mid-1988, where I am now
vice president of Washington Waste Systems, a dis-
posal company for nonhazardous wastes and a sub-
sidiary of Chicago-based Waste Management Inc.
Antidegradation: History of the
Idaho Dispute
In my mind, antidegradation is one of the most am-
biguous and divisive'issues posed under the Clean
Water Act In Idaho, timber, mining, and agriculture
industries and conservation groups and the tribes
were at each other's throats for nearly five years over
this issue. Industry thought the law required nothing
new, that Idaho's feedback loop (which I will discuss
later) and the continuing planning process for natural
resources satisfied antidegradation requirements.
Conservationists took quite a different view. They ar-
gued that antidegradation required a process of prior
approval of commercial activity project by project —
a prospect that sent industry people running for their
shotguns. State and Federal agencies didn't help
matters; their interpretations of the law can fairly be
described as inconsistent
So we had a mess. Lawyers sifted through all of
this and salivated. With ambiguous statutory lan-
guage, inconsistent guidance from governmental
agencies, and a general dearth of case law on the
subject attorneys could argue just about anything.
And politicians, ever searching for that hallowed mid-
dle ground, ran from the issue like a cat from a bath.
Everyone was confused and angry. No one under-
stood antidegradation. No one could explain it or
define it no one could envision how it might work on
the ground.
Let me give you a brief chronology of events in
Idaho so you have an appreciation for the context in
which we forged a solution. Forall intents and pur-
poses, the controversy began in 1983 with the En-
vironmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) adoption of
regulations that required States to develop an-
tidegradation policies and implementation plans.
Boiling it down to its essence, antidegradation re-
quires a program to fully protect existing beneficial
uses in high quality waters. High quality waters, of
course, being those waters whose quality exceeds
the minimum necessary to support beneficial uses -
the famous "fishable-swimmable" standard.
In 1985, EPA informed Idaho that its water quality
standards did not satisfy antidegradation require-
ments for pollution from nonpoint sources. EPA im-
posed a deadline of May 1986 for compliance, a
deadline that slipped several times.
In early 1986, the Idaho Legislature passed HB
711. an industry-backed measure opposed by en-
vironmentalists. Then-Governor John Evans vetoed it
and directed State resource agencies to form an in-
teragency team on nonpoint source pollution. The
so-called Nonpoint Source Team, or NPSI, was com-
prised of industry, tribal, environmental, and
resource agency representatives. NPSI's major ac-
complishment was formulation of the feedback loop,
which, simply put is a program establishing and
evaluating the efficacy of best management prac-
tices (BMPs) in meeting water quality standards. An-
tidegradation, however, remained unresolved.
49
-------
aw. FOflGE
In early 1987, the legislature asked NPSI to
produce an antidegradation proposal for its con-
sideration during the 1988 session. NPSI did its level
best and moved toward a stream classification sys-
tem to implement antidegradation, but, pardon the
expression, the waters became muddy. From August
19,1987, with EPA's rewrite of SAM-32, through the
end of the year. Idaho received no fewer than eight
separate, formal communications from EPA explain-
ing what antidegradation required. The number of in-
formal communications was untold. It is fair to say
these communications were not internally consis-
tent
Now, before you rush to the conclusion that I am
insulting our host today by suggesting that Idaho's
problem was ail EPA's fault, let me hasten to point out
that conservationists and Industry were looking for a
reason to disagree so they would not have to com-
promise. EPA handed them a reason. All it took was a
hint of ambiguity. Let me also hasten to point out that
there were plenty of Inconsistent interpretations of
the law among State agencies as well.
So, industry retreated to its position that the BMP
feedback loop and the continuing resource planning
process were good enough to satisfy antidegrada-
tion. Conservationists likewise retreated to their posi-
tion that antidegradation required site-by-site prior
approval of commercial activities. NPSI collapsed
after 18 months of work amid bitterness and resent-
ment Industry promised to write its own bill and push
it through the legislature, while conservationists
promised to sue. whether or not the industry bio
passed.
Into this dismal state of affairs on a spirited white
stallion rode Governor Cecil 0. Andrus. Together with
State Senator Laird Noh, the moderate chair of
Idaho's Senate Natural Resources Committee,
Governor Andrus convened a smaller negotiating
group, with me as mediator, to give consensus one
more chance. The Governor and State Senator Noh
agreed that having a Federal judge decide how
Idahoans would use Idaho water was not a happy
prospect Invited to the table were seven parties rep-
resenting timber, mining, agriculture, the Nez Perce
Tribe, the Wilderness Society, sportsmen, and the
Idaho Conservation League.
In preparing this presentation, I reviewed my
notes of our first meeting in October, 1987.1 cannot
overemphasize the bitter, suspicious, and downright
hostile feelings among the negotiators. They
squirmed in their chairs; they avoided eye contact
with their adversaries. One industry negotiator said,
"What are we negotiating? No one knows for sure
what antidegradation is. We're just going to write a
bill and take it to the legislature." A conservationist
replied, "Consensus is a joke. We'll negotiate in good
faith, but industry will just string us along like they did
in NPSI, and they'd do an end run in the legislature.
We're going to court!" Sound familiar?
Nevertheless, with healthy doses of handholding,
cajoling, scolding, and encouragement we began to
make progress. We covered some of the same
ground as NPSI and identified some common objec-
tives. The ember of compromise began to flicker.
Negotiations carried over into 1988 when the legisla-
ture came to town. But time ran out Industry had
drafted HB 652. which spooked the conservationists.
And conservationists moved for summary judgment
in the suit they had filed1 the previous fall and that
spooked industry. Talks ended.
Everyone had thrown in the towel, save Governor
Andrus. He didn't think HB 652 would protect the
water, and he didn't want a Federal judge making
natural resource policy in Idaho. So, we huddled and
devised a strategy. We negotiated a six-month stay of
the conservationists' lawsuit in exchange for a veto of
the bill and reconvened negotiations. The veto was
sustained by one vote in the senate in the face of
tremendous pressure from industry.
This was, and this is an understatement, the vilest
of shotgun weddings as far as industry was con-
cerned. Obviously, the veto precluded me from con-
tinuing as nfediator, so I called the Northwest
Renewable Resources Center. I was aware of the
Center's record of resolving natural resource dis-
putes in Washington, and I thought they could help. I
explained to the Center's Jim Waldo and Frank Gaf-
fney that the lawsuit was on hold, that both sides
would draft regulations reflecting their respective
positions on antidegradation, and if either side left
the table the Governor would direct adoption of the
other side's regulations (hardly a subtle incentive to
stay at the table and talk), and that industry was mad-
der than wet hornets. Undaunted, Waldo and Gaffney
accepted the challenge. We received a generous
grant for which we are grateful, from the Northwest
Area Foundation In Minnesota to fund negotiations,
participants and the Governor chipped in some
money, and we went back to work.
The Idaho Agreement
Let me describe for you the highlights of the Idaho
Antidegradation Agreement Then I want to close by
emphasizing why negotiation is far preferable to
litigation of natural resource disputes.
.As I noted in my introductory remarks, an-
tidegradation essentially requires a program to fully
protect beneficial uses in high quality waters and to
find some economic and social justification if the
50
-------
WATER QUALJTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1969: 49-53
quality of those waters is to be lowered. Idaho's pro-
gram accomplishes these goals with beautiful
simplicity and by utilizing to the fullest extent pos-
sible existing regulations and processes.
At its heart the agreement establishes six biennial
Basin Area Meetings. The purposes of the Basin Area
Meetings are five:
• To assess current water conditions, fish
habitat and trends in water quality;
• To identify and discuss current and projected
commercial activity in the basin;
• To consider the propriety and efficacy of water
quality monitoring in the basin;
• To discuss social and economic
considerations associated with commercial
activities; and
• To identify stream segments of particular
concern.
The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
will produce a Basin Area Summary Report for each
Basin Area Meeting. After the meeting, IDEQ will
produce a draft final report for review by a working
committee comprised of appropriate State and
Federal resource agencies and interest groups. The
working committee will identify stream segments of
concern, or the Governor will select them if the com-
mittee cannot agree. Among other things, the final
report will discuss the social and economic justifica-
tion for permitting the lowering of the quality of high
quality waters.
The agreement also establishes a monitoring pro-
gram to be coordinated between State and Federal
resource agencies and tribes. Another working com-
mittee with similar representation is established to
oversee development and implementation of this
monitoring program.
There are separate and specific provisions for
each of the three major industries: mining, agricul-
ture, and timber. I won't go into the details except to
note a few important provisions for timber that are, in
my view, new and substantial and terribly important
in their bearing on sedimentation of streams and fish
habitat On lands adjacent to stream segments of
concern, landowners and operators must employ
BMPs that exceed those generally prescribed in the
Idaho Forest Practices Act. On these lands, the Idaho
Department of Lands (IDOL). IDEQ, and the Idaho
Department of Fish & Game will convene a local
working committee comprised of interest groups and
stakeholders. The committee will discuss watershed
goals, including fishery objectives; review, at the op-
tion of the landowner, management plans; and iden-
tify, with IDOL, site-specific BMPs for the area
Landowners/operators are expected to enter into
written agreements with IDOL adopting BMPs for tim-
ber operations. In addition, a 10-day notice require-
ment is established for all logging operations. If a
landowner/operator files his 10-day project notice
but refuses to enter into a written BMP agreement,
IDOL will not issue a slash permit and the proposed
logging operation may not proceed.
I cannot overstate the significance of these timber
provisions. When negotiations began, timber inter-
ests would accept new regulations for private lands
only over their dead bodies. Their agreement to
these provisions is a tribute to their willingness to
open their minds, check their guns at the door, and
genuinely pursue consensus. The timber industry
deserves credit and respect for their movement on
this issue.
That's generally how it will work in Idaho. Industry,
conservationists, and tribes are walking shoulder to
shoulder, carrying this agreement to the legislature
for ratification. That alliance is turning some heads in
the Capitol, I can tell you. The agreement has been
translated into appropriate statutes and regulations.
Governor Andrus has included about $250,000 in his
executive budget to initiate the monitoring program.
Memoranda of Understanding will be drafted and ex-
ecuted with Federal agencies, principally the Bureau
of Land Management and the U.ST Forest Service.
For Idaho, the Antldegradation Agreement heralds
the dawning of a new era of cooperation on natural
resource matters. The enthusiasm was reflected in a
newspaper column by Rod Gramer appearing in the
Boise Statesman that hails the agreement as a model
of problemsolving that ought to be applied to crack
other tough nuts like wilderness, forest plans, and
even issues not related to natural resources. The
spirit is infectious. It's been a long time coming, and it
feels great. And the spirit should be nurtured under
the agreement because it establishes a Basin Area
Meeting working committee, a monitoring working
committee, and a stream segment working commit-
tee. These working committees will cement the new
relationships that have been struck between industry,
tribes, and environmentalists. If the committees don't
work together, the Idaho program will fail. I remain
confident the user groups will build on the achieve-
ment the Antidegradation Agreement represents.
The Northwest Renewable
Resources Center
TTjis infectious disease of cooperation actually blew
into Idaho from across the Cascade Mountains in
Washington where its carrier, the Northwest Renew-
51
-------
aw. FORGE
able Resources Center, Is building an impressive
record in natural resource dispute resolution. The
Center was born in 1984 from the vision of Seattle at-
torney Jim Waldo. Waldo had witnessed and par-
ticipated in years of divisive litigation in which
industry, tribes, and environmentalists had beat each
other's brains out over fish and logging. Battles were
won and lost, but the war raged on. There was no
final victor, only increasing numbers of vanquished.
Waldo thought there had to be a better way, and he
was right He convinced others to drop their guns.
take a deep breath, and just talk. Cooperation now
flourishes.
The Center's first project was to help the State of
Washington devise a fisheries management plan fol-
lowing the controversial Boldt Decision, in which a
Federal judge found, and the U.S. Supreme Court
agreed, that certain tribes held treaty rights to half the
harvestabie salmon and steelhead returning to tradi-
tional tribal fishing grounds. The impact of the
Center's work was dramatic. In 1983, more than 60
lawsuits existed between the State of Washington
and tribes over fish. In 1984, there were none. In 1985
there were six, but the number of lawsuits hasn't
reached double digits since the Center became in-
volved.
In 1986, the Center came up to bat again on
another major issue. The Washington Forest Prac-
tices Board was about to adopt new regulations af-
fecting logging along streams with important fish
habitat and none of the stakeholders much liked
them. The Center convened a meeting of 45 in-
dividuals involved in the issue and assessed the
prospects for a negotiated settlement One year later,
the Timber/Fish/Wlldlife Agreement was bom. This
agreement essentially rewrote forest practices in
Washington from top to bottom. At the back of this
text is a copy of the ground rules for the Tim-
ber/Rsn/Wildlife Agreement negotiations, I urge you
to read them carefully; they're a road map for reach-
ing consensus through negotiation.
Jim Waldo and Frank Gaffney wanted to be here
today to meet you all. But I'll deliver their message, to
which I subscribe wholeheartedly, as succinctly as I
can. Adversarial confrontation is the method of least
preference for settling natural resource disputes. We
simply are not at our best in adversarial relationships
before courts, regulators, and legislatures. We spend
too much time creating paper trails and advancing
hardline rhetoric in an effort to sway opinion our way.
Too often, regulators, and especially legislatures,
make decisions based on the caliber of the bullet
fired rather than on the accuracy of the aim, so inter-
est groups spend precious resources buying more
and bigger bullets. Courts aren't much better be-
cause their decisions generally resolve the battle, but
not the overlying war. Soon, the means take on more
importance than the end. We live for the fight, not the
natural resource. Suddenly, we have begun talking at
one another instead of with one another. We certainly
have stopped listening. We've lost our view of the big
picture. And our actions are determined solely by
what we think our adversaries' reaction will be, not by
what is best for the resource.
This is the sort of mindset Idaho user groups had
been in for years. The will of natural resource in-
dustries usually prevailed in the Republican-control-
led legislature in Idaho. Industry therefore preferred
the legislative forum to solve its problems and
thought it generally unnecessary to deal directly with
environmentalists or tribes on natural resource is-
sues primarily under State jurisdiction. Conversely,
environmentalists turned to the courts as their
favorite forum. Thus the two sides were locked in an
adversarial relationship. Their posturing, their
rhetoric, their public relations, their political com-
munications were all geared to confront and combat
their black-hearted adversaries. They rarely talked,
and they rarely listened to each other's real con-
cerns.
Waldo, Gaffney, and I spent months trying to
penetrate this .mindset The reat break came in a
dosed-door, no-holds-barred exchange between
Waldo and Gaffney and the board of directors of the
timber Industry association In the early summer of
1988. What industry really wanted was certainty-
certainty that they could go about their business
without the prospect of a lawsuit on every project
claiming violations of .water quality standards. Waldo
and Gaffney succeeded in convincing the board that
a negotiated agreement could give them that certain-
ty, It was possible because during negotiations the
environmentalists had backed off their hard position
that antldegradation required project-by-project
prior approval. Instead, what environmentalists really
wanted was a comprehensive watershed planning
process in which they had a meaningful role. Industry
had heard this new position stated at the table, but I
guess they weren't really listening, or they didn't
believe it But when they heard it out of Waldo's
mouth instead of an environmentalist's mouth, they
got the message. This marked the first time industry
and environmentalists had departed from their tradi-
tional mindsets and really listened to what the other
side actually wanted out of an antidegradation pro-
gram.
It was almost a religious experience. Industry real-
ized it could negotiate a deal without having to ac-
cept a new and rigid permit process. Environ-
mentalists noticed the industry's more constructive
52
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1988: 49-53
behavior at the table and began to realize they could
negotiate a deal that Included a meaningful role for
themselves in watershed planning without fearing in-
dustry would dump the deal and go back to the legis-
lature with another bOI. There was new energy at the
table. They actually listened to each other's con-
cerns. They had opened their minds to a new ap-
proach. You know now how it all turned out
I've tried to tell you the war story of Idaho, outline
the Idaho agreement, and I've even lectured at you a
little bit (for which I apologize) about the wonders of
negotiation over litigation. I'll resist the urge to dose
with soaring rhetoric about how we must carefully
husband our resources and work together to
manage the growing pressure on our environment
You all know that or you wouldn't be here today. I just
want you to understand how we solved the an-
tidegradation challenge in Idaho in the hope that our
experience and the Center's expertise may help you
resolve the issue in your States.
Winston Churchill once commented about the ap-
parent "wishy-washyness" of American democracy
and foreign policy: "In the end, Americans will always
do the right thing, after exhausting all other alterna-
tives." 1 submit that in environmental policy, we have
exhausted all other alternatives. It Is time to do the
right thing. The right thing is to pursue cooperation
and consensus.
A Better Future in Our Woods and
Streams — Ground Rules for
Tbnber/FishfWildlife Agreement Negotiations
As Promulgated by the Northwest Renewable
Resources Center; Seattle, Washington
Each of the participants in these discussions agrees
to the following ground rules:
1. We will attempt to develop a system which
provides:
a. minimum guarantees for everyone,
b. incentives which maintain and enhance tim-
ber, fisheries and wildlife resources, and
c. future flexibility, accountability, better
management, compliance with regulations
and resource goa.*
2. All participants in the negotiation bring with
them the legitimate purposes and goals of their
organizations. Ail parties recognize the
legitimacy of the goals of others and assume
that their own goals will also be respected.
These negotiations will try as much as possible
to maximize attainment of ail the goals of alt the
parties.
3. This effort will receive priority attention, staffing
and time commitments.
4. The same priority will be given to solving the
problems of others as you would give to solv-
ing your own.
5. A commitment is made to listen carefully: ask
questions to understand and make statements
to explain or educate.
6. All issues identified by any party must be ad-
dressed by the whole group..
7. Needs, problems and opportunities, not posi-
tions will be stated — positive candor is a little
used but effective tool.
8. A commitment is made to attempt to reach
consensus on a plan.
9. A commitment is made to be an advocate for
an agreed-upon plan.
10. Participants will protect each other and the
process politically with their constituencies
and the general public.
11. Weapons of war are to be left at home (or at
least checked at the door)._
12. Anyong may leave the process and disavow
the above ground rules, but only after telling
the entire group why and seeing if the prob-
lem(s) can be addressed by the group.
13. All communications with news media concern-
ing these discussions will be by agreement of
the group. Everyone will be mindful of the im-
pacts their public and private statements will
have on the climate for this effort.
14. No participant will attribute suggestions, com-
ments or ideas of another participant to the
news media or non-participants.
15. In the event this effort is unsuccessful, par-
ticipants are free to pursue their interests in
other dispute resolution forums without
prejudice.
16. Participants are free to, and in fact are en-
couraged to. seek the best advice from people
who are not in the room.
17. AH of the individuals who are participants ac-
cept the responsibility to keep their friends and
associates informed on the progress of the dis-
cussions.
"18. Participants agree to check rumors with
facilitation team prior to acting.
S3
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21» CENTURY. 1969: 55-57
A Strategy for Nutrient-Enriched Waters
in Virginia
Jean W.Gregory
Environmental Program Manager
Virginia Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia
The quality of Virginia's surface waters, particularly
those in the Chesapeake Bay drainage area, is being
affected by the presence of excessive quantities of
nutrients. In recognition of this, the Virginia Water
Control Board has developed a strategy to protect
the surface waters of the Commonwealth of Virginia
from the effects of nutrient enrichment
In the mid-1980s, the State's General Assembly
formed a joint legislative subcommittee to study
these problems in Chesapeake Bay. One of the
recommendations in their final report was to direct
the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) to develop
water quality standards by July 1, 1988, to protect
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from nutrient en-
richment The VWCB decided to expand this stand-
ards-setting activity statewide to include other river
basins and lakes where there were known nutrient
enrichment problems. A second legislative mandate
to develop implementation strategies for carrying out
these water quality standards was made jointly to the
VWCB, which is responsible for point sources, and
the Division of SoB and Water, which is responsible
for nonpoint source controls. As a result VWCB
developed two regulations that became effective on
May 25, 1988. The first established a water quality
standard that designated as "nutrient enriched-
waters" those waters of the Commonwealth that
show evidence of degradation attributable to the
presence of excessive nutrients. A companion policy
regulation was created to control certain point
source discharges of nutrients affecting State waters
designated as "nutrient-enriched waters."
When developing the water quality standard, the
VWCB was fortunate to have as background informa-
tion not only joint State/EPA Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram studies but also a review prepared by the
Washington Council of Governments on the types of
water quality standards that other States were using
to control nutrients. VWCB was also aware of the
classification system for nutrient-sensitive waters
that our neighboring State, North Carolina, had
developed. As VWCB reviewed regulatory ap-
proaches to controlling nutrients, its lack of technical
expertise on nutrient-related issues soon became ap-
parent. To fill this need, they put together a Technical
Advisory Committee comprised of 19 scientists from
east coast universities and the Federal Government.
The.VWCB used a variety of policy analysis techni-
ques to obtain recommendations from the commit-
tee for the best indicators of nutrient enrichment.
First VWCB mailed a series of three delphi question-
naires to the scientists, asking them to identify major
issues and reach some consensus on topics to focus
on. The questionnaire responses were made anony-
mously to allow the scientists an opportunity to
change their minds and not be biased by another in-
dividual on the committee. VWCB followed this
process with a two-day spring workshop run in Wil-
liamsburg by the University of Virginia's Institute of
Environmental Negotiation, which compiled a sum-
mary report.
The Technical Advisory Committee recommended
four parameters that could be used as in-stream in-
dicators of nutrient enrichment Listed in descending
order of importance they are: chlorophyll a, dis-
solved oxygen fluctuations, total phosphorus, and
total nitrogen. Note that the first two parameters are
symptoms of over-enrichment rather than direct
measurements of nutrients.
Taking into consideration the recommendation of
the committee, VWCB decided to base its designa-
tions on the first three parameters. A reference to
these parameters was included in the introduction to
the water quality standard regulation for designating
nutrient enriched waters. VWCB was intentionally
silent on the numeric limits, as the committee had ad-
.. vised, because unacceptable amounts of these
parameters could vary depending on the type of
waterbody, whether it were a lake, free-flowing river,
or tidal estuary. Since every designation would in-
volve an amendment to Virginia's water quality
standards, and since full public participation is re-
quired by the agency and State rules for adopting
regulations, VWCB felt that the public would be
properly notified in every case of the appropriate
scientific and numeric basis for these designations.
. Average seasonal concentrations of chlorophyll a
exceeding 25 pqlL, dissolved oxygen fluctuations,
and high water column concentrations of total phos-
phorus were the indicators used to evaluate the his-
55
-------
J.W. GREGORY
torical data and to identify those waters affected by
excessive nutrients. Chlorophyll a, a pigment found
in all plants, was used as the primary indicator be-
cause it indicates the quantity of plant growth. With
the exception of the mainstem of the Chesapeake
Bay, the waterbodies designated as "nutrient en-
riched" had a historical record of chlorophyll a meas-
urements in the visible range-sufficient to discolor
the water. The Virginia portion of the Chesapeake
Bay mainstem was included because slight to
moderate enrichment was becoming evident and be-
cause it is part of the whole Chesapeake Bay, which
is a nutrient-enriched system. Management pro-
grams are needed to prevent further degradation of
this valuable resource.
Based on a review of historical water quality
records, the board designated as "nutrient enriched
waters" three lakes, one tributary to a lake, nine em-
bayments or tributaries to the Potomac River, the Vir-
ginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay, and a large
portion of the Bay's tributaries. Since this initial round
of designations, VWCB has amended the standard
once to designate the tidal freshwater portion of the
Chowan River Basin in Virginia. VWCB intends to
continue to review these designations and, during
the triennial review of water quality standards, will
consider additions and deletions to the list Presently
VWCB is initiating field studies of a freshwater river
and a lake that may be designated "nutrient enriched"
during the 1990 triennial review.
Since VWCB has authority to issue National Pollu-
tion Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
and thereby control point source discharges of
nutrients, a policy for controlling certain point sour-
ces of nutrients to those waters designated as
"nutrient enriched" was established. (Another agen-
cy, the Division of Soil and Water, has developed
strategies for managing nonpoint sources of
nutrients to "nutrient enriched waters.") The policy re-
quires certain municipal and industrial organizations
that discharge effluents containing phosphorus to
maintain a monthly average total phosphorus con-
centration of 2ftg(L or less. The 2ftg/L limit proposed
is based upon the following criteria: limits that are
readily achievable by chemical addition processes
as demonstrated by experiences in other parts of the
country and suggested achievable limits for biologi-
cal phosphorus removal contained in several reports
as well as in State pilot plant studies. VWCB has
found that this level of phosphorus removal allows it
to meet the 40 percent reduction goal for point
source total phosphorus for Virginia's portion of
Chesapeake Bay.
Municipal and industrial dischargers that release
phosphorus in concentrations above 2,ug/L to these
"nutrient-enriched waters" are subject to this policy if
they have a design flow of 1.0 MGD or greater and a
permit issued on or before July 1, 1988. These dis-
chargers are required to meet the 2 fig/L effluent
limitation as quickly as possible and, in any event
within three years following modification of the
NPDES permit If the discharger voluntarily accepts a
permit to require installation and operation of
nitrogen removal facHities to meet a monthly average
total nitrogen effluent limitation of 10 /*g/L for April
through October, the discharger will be allowed an
additional year to meet the phosphorus effluent
limitation.
All new source dischargers with a permit issued
after July 1,1988, and a design flow greater than or
equal to 0.05 MGD that propose to discharge to
"nutrient-enriched waters" will also be required to
meet a monthly average total phosphorus effluent
limitation of 2 pg/L. All dischargers to "nutrient-en-
riched waters" that at the time of that designation
were subject to effluent limitations more stringent
than the 2 fig/L monthly average total phosphorus,
are required to continue to meet the more stringent
phosphorus limitation.
The initial regulations impacted 20 municipal and
5 industrial dischargers. An additional 10 were al-
ready meeting more stringent total phosphorus
standards. One additional discharger was affected
when this water quality standard was amended to
add the tidal freshwater portion of the Chowan River
to the list of "nutrient-enriched waters."
The estimated cost to the regulated community of
the original regulations ranged from $27.5 million to
$228 million, depending on the type of phosphorus
removal technology selected. Costs of phosphorus
removal were estimated for three treatment tech-
nologies. The least expensive alternative, biological
phosphorus removal, was estimated to cost $16.51
million, plus an additional $6.75 million to $11 million
for royalty fees. Chemical addition with simultaneous
precipitation was estimated to cost about $88.86 mil-
lion. The most expensive of the alternatives explored,
chemical addition with post-precipitation, was es-
timated to cost about $228 million.
The policy regulation also contains language that
allows VWCB to require monitoring of discharges
when the permittee has the potential for discharging
monthly average total phosphorus greater than 2
ftg/L and also allows adjoining States to petition the
Board to consider rule makings to control nutrients
entering tributaries to their nutrient-enriched waters.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989: 55-57
The policy regulation states that after the point chargers of nutrients to control undesirable growths
source controls are implemented and the effects of of aquatic plants. This policy can thus be viewed as
this policy and the nonpoint source control programs the first phase of a strategy to protect Virginia's
are evaluated, WVCB should recognize that it may be waters from the effects of nutrient enrichment
necessary to impose further limitations on dis-
57
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS & COMMENTS
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. Should then be more water quality criteria for
agricultural chemicals that are currently in use now
and, if so, what will be done if we find that the criteria
are exceeded from the labeled uses? What will one
branch of EPA do if it finds that water quality criteria
developed by another branch have been exceeded?
Q. By water quality criteria are you specifically ad-
dressing pesticides?
A. Right
A. I can't answer in detail. We don't have our ex-
pert technical people here on the pesticide issue, but
I can tell you that we are working with the Office of
Pesticides at EPA and that they are very Interested In
the surface water impacts. It's one of the factors they
consider in legislation decisions. The stricter law has
many limitations and is not going to be the salvation
for the water quality program, it's something you
need particularly for newer chemicals. As for the
older chemicals, their legal requirements are very
limited. EPA has an agricultural policy committee that
involves all the other offices that have an interest in
agriculture including the Office of Water and the non-
point source people, the Office of Pesticides'
programs, policy planning and evaluation, and many
others.
C. Some States are working on a pesticide
strategy for the future with very little guidance as to
how to proceed. There's no mandate of there being
any water quality criteria associated with that use, as
far as I know.
Q. When we talk about water quality standards,
we seem to be talking only about surface water.
Groundwater quality standards should also be con-
sidered for nonpoint source control, particularly
when we talk about best management practices
(BMPs). We are focusing on the impacts on surface
water, but actually some BMPs might have direct or
indirect impact on groundwaterand, as a result, they
will be impacting surface water weeks, months, or
years afterward. I don't know if EPA has a plan to in-
tegrate surface water and groundwater quality
standards into a tv>ref quality standards program.
A. No, EPA doesn't have plans to integrate stan-
dards for groundwater and surface water in the next
five years; we do need to extend surface water stan-
dards to groundwater. Groundwater standards are
very hot in the Agency now. The question of whether
or not we could have an integrated program is
primarily a political one, and it doesn't appear to be
likely. We are, however, trying to integrate concerns
about groundwater and our nonpoint source efforts.
Our nonpoint source programs do have to take that
into consideration in the way that they're imple-
mented. They will be limited, though, by not having
water quality standards derived in groundwater ef-
forts.
Q. Are there any management practices where
the payoff is so high in terms of pollutant load reduc-
tions that they might be looked at as minimum prac-
tices required for all activities? The kinds of things
I'm thinking of are common buffer requirements for
all agricultural activities such as a strict prohibition
against cultivating right up to the side of the stream.
That could be integrated into any State's program.
Another one is certain minimum street-sweeping
practices for urban areas. I've heard the director of
the publicly owned treatment works in a major city
say that he could achieve far more reduction in cer-
tain toxic pollutants by sweeping the streets on a cer-
tain schedule than he could in meeting any
additional controls on metals or other pollutants at
the end of the pipe.
A. I can handle that for the Telemark situation,
where there was no real storage, no real control over
the manure as it was accumulating around the
facilities. The BMP that is now being applied across
the State is controlling manure: keeping it away from
the streams, keeping water away from the manure
pile, and so forth. In a lot of cases you come back to
low-cost, logical processes-just get the doggone
manure pile away from the stream or away from the
ditch. I've had people call me at work, they are hear-
ing about these new requirements, all about the dol-
lars if s going to cost to put in some sort of facility. In
this particular situation, we just covered the pile up,
and the farmer distributes it in the summer.
Setbacks are an excellent, low-cost procedure,
but you will not get to zero discharge. To do that, you
have to use very expensive processes. If we don't
need zero discharge, but we do need some level of
control where we can still use this stream and are will-
ing to accept a little bit of risk, then fine, but the
theorists insist that we should go with the Clean
Water Act and take that bottom line zero discharge. I
don't see it happening.
C. This may seem like blasphemy coming from a
"research-type," but it almost sounds like what's
needed is a common sense guide to pollution control
from a nonpoint source perspective. We did this sort
of thing in Michigan for lake problems.
58
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1988
C. (Bauer) We've been working on the Forest
Practice Rules for almost four years, slowly nibbling
away at revising those practices. Some are only
specific to forestry, but there others that are more
general. There are some places where we should be
looking, for example, road construction practices,
which are the primary source of nonpoint source pol-
lutants in Idaho's mountainous areas. Another com-
mon area would be around a stream channel that
would apply in an agricultural or forested area or for a
mine site use.
GL What is the desired level of use that the Forest
Service is trying to get at-is it what we're trying ac-
complish with the use, and what the bottom line is?
A. (Bauer) The Columbia River Intertribe is really
pushing with the use. The Forest Service is just like a
State being sued for not following through on an-
tldegradation for water quality standards. Maybe we
should define goals, rather than think about stan-
dards, because with standards we have such a
specific requirement that, to be able to enforce and
monitor it, we spend a lot of time arguing about
specifics and numbers. The goal really drives the sys-
tem. If we start setting goals for certain ecoregions,
they might be more acceptable to the regulating in-
dustry and, as we apply a goal to sites in a specific
area, we can determine if it makes sense through
monitoring.
C. That's essentially what I was trying to get at:
what you want for a beneficial use. I know what my
management Is doing to that stream, and I can
manage accordingly to protect that use. I don't want
to sit for two hours arguing the appropriateness of a
total phosphorus load or something else that will
supposedly take care of the aesthetics and then have
to justify an increased rate to the public.
C. I spend hours arguing about appropriate cob-
ble embeddedness level. Well, does it matter? It's
somewhere in there and that*s the goal—to get close
to what it used to be in unmanaged condition.
C. For nonpoint source criteria, the only thing we
have to go by is what it was before we messed it up.
Now we're going to get back toward that direction or
some percentage of it.
C. (Dawson) Wisconsin has goals, and they're not
being met and that's the reason we have standards.
For groundwater, we had goals in nondegradatlon,
no detrimental effect, clean water, and water was get-
ting polluted. No one was willing to admit that the
water was contaminated because we didn't have a
definition. We finally came up with a definition:
numeric standards. We have defined contamination,
and when it occurs, so we have a trigger mechanism
to make somebody do something. Now we can talk
about goals and flexibility, which sometimes is a
code word for allowing bureaucrats to test the politi-
cal winds.
In Wisconsin, it is standards that are bringing ac-
tion. We have goals, the dean Water Act sets goals,
our groundwater laws set goals, our Air Act sets
goals, but they're not being met We need interim
standards to raise expectations and trigger action. I
disagree, quite respectfully, with the idea that all we
have to do is set goals, then give us flexibility, and
we'll go out and do it I believe in performance stand-
ards, but in the absence of action to achieve perfor-
mance standards, on an interim basis, we're going to
need water quality standards. Then, if they're not
being met the public has a route to ask for account-
ability from not just regulators, but politicians, also.
Q. Are the standards you're talking about relative
to nonpoint sources?
A. (Dawson) The groundwater standards are with
regard to pesticide use. For example, in Wisconsin
we've had administrative orders .issued by the
Department of Agriculture against the pesticide al-
dicarb. We have developed standards for other pes-
ticides (common ones like atrazine and alachlor),
and, as a result of monitoring, the department is re-
quired to develop rules and regulations that are
reasonably related to achieving the groundwater
standards. We have other goals and policies, so we
can be stricter in achieving those numeric standards,
but if s the standards'that are enforcement triggers
that raise an agency's nondiscretionary duty to
achieve groundwater quality.
Q. Who do you go after in face of violation?
A. (Dawson) In this case, it would be either the
manufacturer and/or certain practices. For example,
the Department of Agriculture imposed management
practices and use practices for aldicarb. In other
cases where it was found that best management
practices were not adequate, the chemical was
banned in certain groundwater susceptible areas. In
Wisconsin we had plenty of flexibility, but we weren't
achieving groundwater quality. Now that we have
these numeric triggers for action, we are starting to
achieve it
C. I totally agree with you on the groundwater
side, but surface water, where you really have to
protect biological systems that's where it gets real
screwy.
59
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS & COMMENTS
C. (Dawson) I agree that beneficial use is one way
of measuring the standard. But seeing the fish does
not tell you what kind of condition the fish are in. In
Green Bay, Wisconsin, you can't consume them be-
cause they're full of PCBs and other chemicals. The
great irony of the Fox River is that we cleaned it up in
terms of dissolved oxygen so that the fish can actual-
ly migrate to a point where they're now getting toxics
into their systems. The ecosystem is now
demonstrating that we've got cross-baled' cor-'
morantsand other deformities and fertility problems,
which are moving up into the human food chain.
Beneficial use is a loaded term, and I think we have to
be careful with the kinds of definitions we make for it
Q. Should the EPA modify its regulations for water
quality standards to account for nonpoint sources?
Should there be changes in 40 CFR part 131?
A. I think there are two parts to the solution here.
One is standards: they should focus on the desig-
nated beneficial uses and that applies to whether the
pollutant source is point or nonpoint Where I think
we've fallen down is taking those standards and
translating them to a particular waterbody. Often we
focus on the standard; then we focus on programs,
but we never get to that translation that says for that
waterbody these actions should be taken to fully im-
plement that designated beneficial use. When you
get to that level and try to make that translation of
standards to whaf s happening on that water, then
you can begin to see what actions you need from the
nonpoint source people and the point source control
people. That's where I would propose that we em-
phasize getting a better definition of the actual
problems and the actions that need to be taken, and
an emphasis on tracking to see if, in fact we are get-
ting those actions taken.
C. (Knox) I see the permitting as telling managers
specifically what it is they need to do to address
water quality problems. In some cases, the stan-
dards people are giving us some definite numeric
criteria to work with, but the missing piece in
Louisiana is how do we get from standards to permit-
ting? In an attempt to address that we're looking at a
stream classification project and considering the
ecosystem or ecoregion approach.
Also, on filter strips from milking parlors-their ef-
fectiveness in removing some of the wastes and
keeping them from getting in the waterways-were
those treated wastes that were being removed?
A. (Clausen) This is raw miikhouse from a
stanchion barn, so it's a pipeline system.
Q. (Knox) Is there a point source?
A. (Clausen) we made it a point source.
Q. (Knox) Is it being regulated as a point source?
A. (Clausen) No, miikhouse wastes are not regu-
lated as point sources.
A. (Knox) In Louisiana, they are now.
Q. (Clausen) Is there a size limitation, a certain
number of animals?
A. (Knox) The permit has not been written yet, but
I'm working on it; that*s why I was curious as to how if
that was a point source you were getting that kind of
reduction through.
C. (Clausen) It ends up being a point source just
because we made sure it would end up staying in the
pipe until it got to the filter strip.
C. Some of you brought up the buffer strip con-
cept as being a bottomline issue, or a best manage-
ment practice that you can apply uniformly. From
what I'm hearing about Chesapeake Bay, that is cer-
tainly not the case. For many years we thought buffer
strips did great things but some findings are surfac-
ing that are casting doubts; in fact, they treat sedi-
ments somewhat but they're not-treating the soluble
stuff at all. For us to say that farmers should take
acres out of production and create greenways along
waterways would probably not go very far.
Q. How about wooded or grass bumper strips?
A. I think primarily the grass, the managed, hay-
cropped strips would be effective.
C. (Garreis) I'm from the Department of Environ-
ment in Maryland and am involved with the
Chesapeake Bay Program. We certainly would not
concede that implementing things like bumper strips
has no value or even littie value. Those are fighting
words in my State, and in Virginia, also. Bumper
.. strips do have value. It Is true they don't do all of the
things that they were originally thought to do, but
they stop a lot of sediments and erosion control, and
many of your toxic substances and other things that
move when dirt moves.
We do think it's a very simple science. Everything
you do to keep dirt from moving has a lot to do v :..i
downstream water quality and has a profound effect
on fisheries habitat fisheries, fish, oysters, and
clams. If your oysters are buried in silt because of
erosion, they're going to die, so this method does
have value and we're definitely supporting that pro-
gram. There are manuals on best management prac-
-------
tices for soil erosion control but, unfortunately, most
of them haven't been implemented. Our program in
the Chesapeake Bay operates through cost sharing
of agricultural practices where we'll put up nearly 50
percent of the cost In some cases, it's 100 percent of
the cost to implement best management practices
on farms; that includes everything from building
manure sheds for poultry farms to keep manure from
washing into waters, to fencing cattle back out of
streams to control erosion and to protect stream
banks and habitat, to putting in those grassy buffer
strips. Instead of getting hung up entirely on the use
of numeric criteria, perhaps a better approach would
be to take those practices that are In use and do
some good In sediment and erosion control, and im-
plement them. They've been on the books for a long
time but very few of them have been put into practice.
Q. An all those policies promulgated by your
agency?
A. (Garrets) I mentioned a standard and a policy,
which are both promulgated through our State
regulatory or adoption process and are legally en-
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21* CENTURY, 1989
forceable regulations. They both went together in a
parallel fashion through the public participation route
and are in the process now of receiving a certification
letter from our attorney general so we can send them
to EPA for review.
Q. Why did you decide not to have nitrogen in
your standard?
A. (Garreis) There were several reasons for that
One was that some scientists on our committee said
that algae could find nitrogen sources in the atmos-
phere, and so nitrogen was not always the best
measure. Also, as part of the Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment, we are obligated to remove 90 percent of the
nitrogen in the Bay. This, however, is the first phase;
we may very well find we have to go back and add
nitrogen removal. We thought the best first step was
to have it voluntary, and that if someone agreed in
their discharge to remove nitrogen by 10 milligrams
per liter, we would give them that incentive by giving
them an extra year. In the future, we will have to give
additional weight to the nitrogen issue.
61
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21 «t CENTURY. 1989: 63
Identification and Control of
Toxic Pollutants
Kenneth L. Dickson (Moderator)
Director, Institute of Applied Sciences
North Texas State University, Denton, Texas
The development of numeric standards for toxic
chemicals is an issue that many States have been
struggling with for several years. It is a problem that
we have to deal with now and in the future as the
triennial reviews come up. So it is not a topic that has
been totally addressed, and it is not a topic that will
go away.
One of the major objectives of this conference is
to examine the Framework that EPA has developed
to make sure that the Agency addresses the issues
and the problems that States are encountering as
they develop numeric toxic standards and whole ef-
fluent toxicity testings. What are the major problems
encountered by State agencies in trying to develop
toxic standards? Some States have felt that it is not
possible to devise numeric standards; other States
have tackled the problem with a variety of different
approaches.
Should EPA expand the list of priority pollutants?
States' standards have developed numeric stan-
dards for nonpriority pollutants. How does whole ef-
fluent toxicity testing relate to establishing numeric
standards? What can be done if a toxic is Identified
but no criteria or advisories exist? What is the role of
advisories in establishing toxic standards? How do
States identify chemicals of concern? How do we
identify those emerging toxic problems? Lastly, how
does a State prioritize chemicals found In toxic
waters so that important ones are addressed?
Two out of the six objectives in the Framework ad-
dress this topic. One of them is a mandate: to adopt
numeric criteria for pollutants. There are some
proposed activities tc . ard this end in the document,
of which a few have already been accomplished.
Another objective is to adopt toxicity-based criteria
and whole effluent bioassays and to develop techni-
cal procedures-the other control strategy beyond
numeric toxic standards.
What are these proposed activities directed
toward; do they offer solutions to the problems and
issues States face for developing numeric toxic
standards? This linkage is really critical. How impor-
tant are these activities in relation to other issues
such as advisories, sediment criteria, and protection
of wetlands and estuaries? .
A variety of activities related toioxics are identified
in this Framework, of which many have already been
accomplished to varying degrees. For example, Ac-
tivity 2-A: conduct additional research for develop-
ment of numeric criteria—in other words, on new
chemicals. The question is, on which new chemicals
do we need criteria developed? We cannot develop
criteria for all of them. -
A second example: adopt toxicity-based criteria
and develop the implementation procedures. This in-
volves a variety of interesting activities, and those
with the 9/88 designator have already been done.
Not all of those deadlines have been met, but at least
draft documents are out
A very important activity that I would like people to
consider because of its role in the control of toxic
chemicals is Number A-4-3: assist in the develop-
ment of guidance on the bioaccumulative potential of
complex effluents. This area is not addressed in
many of the States' approaches.
The meaning of the last activity, develop proce-
dures to be used in biocriteria assessment of toxicity
activities, should be amplified and clarified by EPA.
63
-------
-------
Looking Backwards and Forward at the
Water Quality Programs
Richard A. Kimerle, Senior Fellow (Presenter)
Donald R. Grothe, Senior Specialist (Coauthor)
William J. Adams, Fellow (Coauthor)
Monsanto Company St. Louis, Missouri
For 20 years! have been working in the chemical in-
dustry on water quality issues of one kind or another
toxicity and ecological hazard assessment of priority
pollutants, individual chemicals, whole effluents, and
hazardous wastes. I have also been involved in ac-
tivities in the scientific and regulatory communities
and, most recently, as a member of the EPA Science
Advisory Board Committee on Environmental Pate.
Transport, and Effects. I therefore bring the biases of
my experience to this conference—along with a few
visions. One of my visions is that regulations will have
a sound foundation in good science. It is in this spirit
that we at Monsanto reviewed the water quality
standards programs of the 21 st century.
Prior to reviewing the programs, we would like to
discuss Figure 1, which shows the general relation-
ship of the three essential parts of solving any en-
vironmental issue: identify, assess, and control, in
that order. If we allow ourselves to only identify and
assess environmental problems, we create a situa-
tion where we are doing nothing but trying to satisfy
an endless curiosity. Appropriate corrective environ-
mental controls are never implemented. When we get
into the mode of identifying and controlling per-
ceived environmental problems without the proper
assessments, that places us in a position of unknown
cost/benefits that frequently is a waste of money.
Endless Curiosity
Waste Of
Money
.Waste Of Money
Be Mo-!*3ring
Figure 1.—Hazard managwnwrt modal to Idantffy, aaaaaa,
and control •nvironmantal proMama,
The Ideal situation is to include all three com-
ponents operating on all environmental problems.
Wise use of this Nation's limited resources suggests
this paradigm be considered in EPA's water quality
standard programs. Has the EPA considered the
concepts shown in this figure in their water quality
programs of the past, present, and future? As we
reviewed the Framework, we have kept these three
aspects of environmental problem solving in mind.
Another important concept we wanted to explore
is shown in Figures 2 and 3, the aquatic hazard as-
sessment model that has become so important to
our science and that needs to be a bigger part of our
regulations. These are plots of chemical concentra-
tion on the horizontal axis and frequency of occur-
rence on the vertical axis for acute toxicity, chronic
toxicity, ecosystem toxicity, and exposure. If you
were to collect hundreds of acute toxicity numbers
on ail different species and plot the values, there
would be some sort of central tendency with a few
values on the very sensitive side and a few values at
the other end of the scale demonstrating great
tolerance. Of course we never collect this much
acute toxicity data, thus we never know with a limited
data base whether it -represents the most sensitive,
the least sensitive, or, in fact, that the selected data
represent the mean toxic response. Logically think-
ing, the fewer the data points obtained the greater the
uncertainty of our estimate. Recognizing this as a
real problem, lexicologists have come to rely on
species that tend to fall on the more sensitive side of
the acute toxicity sensitivity range.
Chronic toxicity data also follow the same prin-
ciples of variation as shown in the acute toxicity data.
with the values somewhat lower. The water quality
criterion concept and the method used to derive the
criterion has provisions built into it to address the
problems stated. Numerous species are required;
several of the required species are generally thought
of as "sensitive"; and the calculated "safe" concentra-
tion is conservative. One of the greatest assumptions
of the water quality approach to regulating chemicals
is that the calculated water quality criterion, if not ex-
ceeded, will protect a majority of the species in na-
ture.
65
-------
a A. KJMERUE, aaoflOTHe. AND w.x ADAMS
o>
o
o
o
O
o
o
3
CT
k.
UL
Acute
Chronic
Exposure
Ecosystem
101
102 103 104
Chemical Concentration
10s
Figure 2*—AqueUe heard
certainty end the margin of aefety o
Y-«de to frequency of oosurrame.
This brings in the third curve for the response of
the ecosystems. We could only expect that if we had
lots of data on many ecosystems we would see a dif-
ference in their responses. Some would be more sen-
sitive than others. A few studies nave shown that the
calculated water quality criterion is conservative
enough that it provides adequate protection for
ecosystems. There do not seem to be any data to
date that prove otherwise.
The last curve in Figure 2 adds an important part
of the hazard assessment model: exposure. Ex-
posure data, just as the tcodcfty data, if collected in
great quantities from all over the country would show
some sites with very tow concentrations and some
sites with higher concentrations, and aU the data
could be represented by some sort of central tenden-
cy curve. Unlike the tcodcity data where we are look-
ing for the more sensitive sr^^ies resronse, in the
exposure data we are looking for highest numbers to
better understand worst case exposures. Also impor-
tant are the exposure concentrations that are en-
countered with a high degree of frequency, for
instance, 50 percent, 90 percent, 95 percent of the
time.
model demomOreting principle* of acute, chrdnle, eeocyetem, and*ixpoeure data baM un-
apt tar compering expoeure end toxfeity date. The X-axte to chemical concentration and the
Most important in Rgure 2 is the relationship be-
tween exposure and effects data, and what the un-
certainty is of making decisions with less than a
complete data base. When there is a wide margin be-
tween the exposure concentrations and the
laboratory-derived toxicologicai "safe" concentra-
tion, the situation can be judged safer than when the
margin of safety is much smaller or nonexistent as is
shown in Rgure 3. The water quality criterion con-
cept as it has evolved in this country under the direc-
tion of EPA relies totally upon the hazard assessment
model in that it conceptually states that exposure
concentrations should not exceed the calculated
water quality criterion. That means that the margin of
safety must be greater than 1, Of course a margin of
safety of 10 to 100 Is easier to judge as acceptable
than is one of just 2 to 5. However, superimposed on
any decision must be some understanding of the un-
certainty of the data base. With a large toxicity data
base, as is required to calculate a water quality
criterion, and a large exposure data base, less uncer-
tainty exists, thus a narrower margin of safety can be
accepted compared to when the opposite is true.
The concepts presented in Figures 2 and 3 pro-
vide the tools for identifying and assessing environ-
66
-------
Acute
FIgura &—Aquatic hazard
10* 103 104 10s
Chemical Concentration
idol demonstrating th« ooneapt of no margin of safety compared to the water quality
mental problems In Figure 1. The water quality stand-
ard programs can now be reviewed In light of these
Important concepts.
The water quality assessment and engineering
control programs ot the past 20 years and for the
next 3 triennial periods are dlagrammaticalty sum-
marized In the time lines of Figure 4. The lower half
shows the point source control programs in the
1970s and earlier as water quality-driven. Waste
treatment was implemented to reduce suspended
solids, biochemical oxygen demand, and bacteria to
make the receiving waters safer for humans and to
improve the oxygen content for aquatic life. By the
1970s it was realized that even though surface water
quality had greatly improved, further reductions in
pollutants were needed because adverse Impacts
were still occurring In some waters.
Thus, the technology approach was introduced.
However, for situations this resulted in treatment' y
treatment's sake, which was noted in one of the over-
sight hearings by Congress. A need still existed in
some cases to improve water quality by not allowing
"the discharge of toxic chemicals in toxic amounts."
Note the wisdom in this water quality goal, which es-
sentially stated in a very simplistic way the hazard as-
sessment paradigm. First, you must know the toxicity
of the discharge, i.e., 'toxic," and second, you must
know if the concentration of the effluent is of a suffi-
ciently high concentration to cause a toxic response,
La,, toxic amount" This water quality goal does not
eliminate toxic chemicals. What Congress was func-
tionally saying in the Clean Water Act was to manage
exposure of the chemicals so the concentrations are
below the known effect concentration. This approach
is consistent with the hazard assessment model and
the water quality criteria concept of maintaining a
margin of safety of at least 1.
Because the technology-based approach did not
include the important concept of toxicity, the water
.-• quality-based approach was reinstituted by EPA in
their water quality standards programs of the 1980s.
Over the next three triennial periods. States will con-
tinue to use the water quality and technology ap-
proach to make incremental improvements in water
quality from point source discharges. Are these addi-
tional costs.for more point source controls justified
based upon proper identification and assessment as
presented in Figure!?
The upper half of Rgure 4 shows time lines for the
various water quality assessment programs from
1970 to the mid-1990s. The specific programs of the
next three triennial periods, as they were outlined by
-------
H.A. KlMfcrCLe. UFLGHOThe. AND W. X AOM4S
Water
Quality
Assessment
Regulations
1970*
1980*
1988 - 1990
1991 • 1993
1994
Engineering
Controls
Water Quality + Technology
Non Point Source
Control
1970s
1980s
1988 • 1990 •
•nwofth*21atoe*riury.
1991 • 1993
1994
EPA In the preconference material, are also shown.
Prior to the early 1970s, the primary approach to
water quality assessment was founded in field sur-
veys of ecosystem health. Reid biologists ("stone
kickers") went out and made the evaluations. Also, in
the 1970s, the chemteal-spetiflc water quality
criterion approach gained new support with the
development of a method to calculate water quality
criteria and the subsequent Issuance of draft criteria
fores, and later 129, priority pollutants.
Recognizing that environmental problems existed
that were not necessarly related to the 129 priority
pollutants, EPA initiated the whole effluent toxidty
testing program, which had several advantages over
the chemical-by-chemicaJ approach. It also has had
some disadvantages, which are nr'' being corrected
in a new version of the technical support document
In the late 1980s, the water quality advisory concept
came into being with the realization that the rate of
publishing criteria could be accelerated if less data
would be required to derive an estimate of the water
quality criterion. States can misuse water quality ad-
visories if they are adopted as standards and not ad-
justed over time as new data become available. In
their current form, they are more conservative than
water quality criteria-derived standards, following the
published 1978 EPA methodology.
The water quality criteria and whole effluent
toxidty programs provide a reasonable set of tools to
identify and assess water quality if they are used
property. The additional programs proposed for the
following triennial periods are shown in Rgure 4.
Some of these programs are consistent with the prin-
doles of environmental problem solving in Figure 1
and the hazard assessment concepts of Rgures 2
and 3, and some of them are not appropriate in their
timing.
Rgure 5 shows a more realistic and appropriate
ordering of the programs. Consisten. with the prin-
ciples presented earlier, the programs to identify and
take an "Inventory of the health of the Nation's
waters are contained in the impacted waters and
biocriteria/ecosystems programs. These two
programs need to receive a higher priority because
the results can help guide use of limited resources to
continue into the assessment and control phases of
68
-------
Wawr
Quality
Regulations
Numerics
Antidegradation
Bioaccumulation
Sediments
Marine
Non Point
Wildlife
1970S
1980S
19M - 1990
1991 • 1993
1994
Engineering
Controls
Water Quality * Technology
Technology
1970s 1980s ' ' 1988 • 1990 ' ^ 1991 - 1993 ' 1994
Hgure 5. neordsrhiq of the watsr quality standarda programs to mafca them more consistent wfth the hazard management modi f.
environmental problem solving. The btocriteria pro-
gram appears to be an extension of the old field
ecosystem survey approach, in that we are returning
to the environment itself to evaluate its actual health
and well being.
The other programs in the Framework are listed in
the upper half of Figure 5. Numerics, antidegrada-
tion, bioaccumulation, sediments, marine, non-
points, and wildlife should receive a lower priority
until the water quality criteria, whole effluent toxfcity.
and btocriteria programs mature and the results are
used to guide where emphasis should be placed.
This is not to say that the listed programs of the future
should be ignored, only that they should be
evaluated for appropriateness. For instance, the
sediment program, as it could come to be applied to
NPOES permits, may not be needed except in rela-
tively few cases because the existing effluent permit
system will much improve effluent quality. Or the im-
plementation of a chronic toxicity program for ef-
fluents may not be needed with the improvements
that are taking place in effluent quality because of the
existing effluent acute programs. The application of
more numerics could lead to overly restrictive and
unjustified controls being implemented, thus wasting
more of our limited resources.
In summary, we have developed many useful tools
to identify and assess the health of our waters. Before
we jump into new restrictive and very costly control
programs, we should be sure that the cost can be
justified based upon a needed improvement in water
quality. We need to use the existing capabilities to
Identify and assess the status of our environment.
One problem In guidance documents and other
preliminary methods and numbers is misuse. Once
new idea* are out there, they are picked up and used
with little regard for whether or not they are technical-
ly sound.
69
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21 st CENTURY. 1989: 71-72
Developments in Sediment Criteria
Nelson Thomas
Senior Advisor for National Programs, Environmental Research Laboratory
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota
About four years ago, EPA began to develop numeric
criteria. Prior to that Research and Development,
had a program; however, it concentrated on the
generic sense of sediments (sludge) and was aban-
doned when we started this new effort This is strictly
numeric criteria, as opposed to assessment tech-
niques one might get with sediment testing, and they
are for in-place pollutants residing in a harbor or bay,
not projected impacts that might occur after the pol-
lutants are moved on to a site, because exposure is
quite a bit different.
Back in 1984 when EPA started this effort there
was a search to see what was in the sediment—an
analysis of 48 chemicals. This Initial survey found
sediment ranges in large concentrations spread all
over the country in different types of environments
that would present problems for criteria develop-
ment In some areas sediments are localized, in other
areas they spread over a whole waterbody, so it will
be a challenge to bring all these factors together.
At the root of all of this is bioavai/abilfty, the two
routes of exposure a key issue. When EPA tried to put
an overall program together, It had to assess sedi-
ments for the effects, then it had to formulate a
mitigation program and a monitoring program. There
have been a few studies on carcinogens, some large
sampling of fish populations (tumors on fish usually
result from exposure to contaminated sediment),
various chemical contamination studies, and some
that addressed tissue residue formation. Various
physical parameters are required to do an overall
characterization of the site.
We see two types of mitigation prevention. One is
in source limitation: this eventually might be through
the permits program, but you need to know the sedi-
ment capacity of the stream, how it flows, and the ab-
sorption resuspension chemical fate. To handle an
existing historical problem, you must know what the
removal option is, what the rate of deprivation is if the
sediment is left alone, and finally what the degrada-
tion process is and how long it will take. The three
categories-biological, chemical, and physical -
also apply to monitoring; therefore, for a well-
rounded program, all aspects must be addressed.
Currently, eight techniques are
being investigated:
• The reference approach, where a frequency dis-
tribution Is taken of the chemical characteristics of a
contaminated area and compared to that of an un-
contaminated area;
• The equilibrium partitioning approach, where
the interstitial water of the individual chemicals on the
sediments are predicted from partitioning theory and
then compared to water quality criteria;
• The interstitial water method where water is col-
lected, a chemical analysis is made, and the result is
compared to the water quality criteria (or waters are
poured off the interstitial water, a toxicity test similar
to the whole effluent test Is run, and then toxicity is
identified);
• The sediment toxicity test, where the safe sedi-
ment concentration of a particular chemical is deter-
mined by running a common dose response
experiment (e.g., take a contaminated sediment,
dilute it with a similar dean sediment, and try to get a
dose response to find a safe concentration);
• The apparent threshold method, where field
data are taken on biological effects (usually distribu-
tions of benthic populations) and compared to sedi-
ment concentration of individual chemicals (the
apparent effects threshold is defined as the con-
centration above which biological effects are always
observed that can sometimes be coupled with a par-
., tlcular compound to determine a safe concentration
in the effects that is somewhere in between);
• The screening level concentration, which is
based strictly on field data of individual chemicals
that are related to the presence and absence of ben-
t!,.» animals (this method has been used to try to
verify some of the other techniques);
• The sediment quality triad technique, a com-
bination of sediment chemistry, toxicity, and biologi-
cal effects that, when all are considered, may provide
major biological effects; and
71
-------
N. THOMAS
m The tissue residue approach, which tries to es-
tablish a safe sediment concentration based on
back-calculating from an acceptable residue to a
resulting sediment concentration. (Basically, this
technique looks at the bioaccumulation factor by
relating it to the sediments.)
Of the eight techniques, the greatest efforts are
being given to equilibrium partitioning,; the parent ef-
fects threshold, and. probably, the technique using
tissue residues that has been used heavBy to study
the dloxin problem in Lake Ontario.
For the long-term. EPA has committed to develop
over-all sediment quality criteria Several things must
be done to implement these standards, including
classification using toxicity data from either the
laboratory or field observation. For In-place pol-
lutants, particle deposition and resuspension are
very important when examining long-term impact
We must be able to predict whether pollutants will be
buried naturally in the few centimeters laid on every
year, or if a storm will suspend and transport them to
a different site. This is a very difficult problem to solve
and extremely important for modeling the long-term.
Studies on sediment bioaccumulation have in-
creased over the past few years, but the sediments
under study may not be related to the sediments
where fish were collected, so it may be impossible to
determine whether the compounds observed in the
fish came from the sediments. More work must be
done on developing test methods, particularly for
bulk sediments and toxicity.
There are a myriad of problems to be solved. We
are just starting to do carcinogenicity tests with sedi-
ments and fish. For sediment quality criteria, the
whole issue of the minimum data set is the same
problem we faced In water quality criteria. If we want
to limit accumulation of pollutants, we will have to
know how to do waste load allocations.
How do we perform ecological assessment of ex-
posure? There are marry sites where option analysis
for the no-action program is a viable alternative, but
we don't have the techniques to analyze them. We
need more methods to help determine the causes of
sediment toxicity.. Pilot studies are needed—on Su-
perfund sites, for instance. Of course they would be
very expensive, but perhaps they are our only option.
Finally, we need models for sediment particle deposi-
tion and resuspension for the modeling techniques.
EPA has spent approximately $2 million on sedi-
ment criteria and estimates that another $4 million
will be needed to complete the standards.
72
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21«t CENTURY. 1989: 73-74
Identification and Control of Toxic Pollutants
Jessica C. Landman
Senior Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
The Problems and Successes
States are Having in Adopting
Numeric Criteria for Toxics
Inconsistent Records Among Regions
EPA's most recant update on State adoption of
numeric standards, dated August 1988, suggested
that there were significant differences among regions
in the number of criteria that had been adopted. The
summary does not indicate whether the variations
are due to differences in pollutants expected to be
present in the regions or some other unidentified fac-
tor (e.g., ail of Region IV shows 40 or fewer human
health criteria and no new ones planned, for all
States; Region IX shows nearly all States with
numeric criteria to protect human health for over 100
pollutants).
EPA Headquarters should be deeply concerned
about the disparities among the regions. The Agency
needs to determine the reasons for these regional dif-
ferences, and if certain regions are not disapproving
State triennial review results as they should, then
steps should be taken to improve the situation.
The Framework's agenda should include an as-
sessment of this problem and a commitment of
resources to deal with it
Inadequate Monitoring Programs
One problem that may be causing delays in State
numeric standards adoption for toxics is the lack of
State monitoring data (a problem for standard set-
ting, permit writing and NFS program purposes).
EPA's "Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for
Change" indicates that many of the States' monitor-
ing networks still are geared towards conventional
pollutants, or metals with only a smattering of toxics
being tested (and without appropriate protocols for
assessing contaminated runoff problems).
The 304(1) program provides a good model for
EPA action. Using the same approaches it used to
identify potential 304(1) hotspots -Form 2Cdata, ITD
data on toxics discharged by a given industry, and so
forth- EPA should be prepared to present each State
with its own assessment of which toxic 307(a) pol-
lutants need to be covered by State numeric stand-
ards. EPA then could allow the States to rebut its
assessments, as was done with the 304(1) "candidate
lists."
EPA also needs to make improved monitoring re-
quirements and data review a part of the Water
Quality Standards Framework. Where State monitor-
ing networks are inadequate to support decisions to
adopt or not adopt numeric water quality standards,
then EPA has to take action.
EPA also needs to establish some minimum
criteria for acceptable 305(b) monitoring and report-
ing. The findings of the monitoring Framework are an
important guide: more uniformity in reporting format,
compatibility of States' data bases, and other like
changes are needed to promote comprehensibility of
the information.
EPA as Promulgating Authority
Will the task of adopting numeric criteria be com-
pleted by the end of 1990 as contemplated in the
draft framework? It will if EPA takes steps to see that it
is. EPA and the States are facing-and must meet—a
statutory deadline.
At the end of the current triennial review period,
EPA regional offices and Headquarters must be
ready to disapprove inadequate State Water Quality
Standards and to publish proposed and final numeric
water quality standards for toxics of concern for each
State that fails to carry out the law's requirements.
Headquarters should be thinking ahead to its
strategy for action. One option is to conduct a mass
promulgation for all States that have not acted,
adopting all 304(a) criteria as State standards or all
304(a) criteria for toxics expected to be present. The
States could revise their standards to account for
site- or State-specific differences.
EPA's Responsibility to Set
Health-Based Standards
Where EPA is the standard-setting entity (i.e., when
the States fail to act), it also will be necessary for EPA
to take a position on what level of health risk is ac-
ceptable. Any federally promulgated State standards
should allow no more than a 1 in 1 million additional
cancer risk for any human health criterion promul-
gated. That is consistent with what many of the
States are doing and what several regional offices al-
ready have done in the absence of an articulated na-
73
-------
J.C. LANOMAN
tional position. If EPA sets a lower level of protection,
it wil send a signal to the States and regions that
could undercut their efforts to protect public health.
How Does Whole Effluent Toxfcity
Testing Relate to 303(c)(2)(B)?
Section 303 (c) (2) (B) requires that States adopt
criteria "based on biological monitoring or assess-
ment methods consistent with information published
pursuant to section 304(a)(8)." Section 304(a)(S), in
turn, requires that EPA publish, by February 4,1989,
"information on methods for establishing and
measuring water quality criteria for toxic pollutants
on other bases than pollutant-by-pollutant criteria, in-
cluding biological monitoring and assessment
methods.*
These provisions collectively mean that EPA must
do for toxicity what it has done for certain individual
toxicants: develop toxic effects "criteria" that set min-
imum standards as to, for example, species survival.
EPA should establish "acute and chronic effluent
toxicity criteria." with appropriately protective tests.
What Framework Amendments Are
Needed for This Topic?
The Framework Is not specific enough about
monitoring needs and the problems of inconsisten-
cies and inadequacies in State monitoring programs.
Monitoring is one of those areas that straddles
NPOES permitting and standard-setting activities. As
a result, it can fall between the cracks even though it
is essential to both programs. Assessment of the
States' data-gathering capabilities to identify gaps
and deal with monitoring deficiencies should be part
of the water quality standards process in the triennial
review.
The Framework does not address the need for in-
novative monitoring approaches adequately. In par-
ticular, how wil! EPA test for impacts from bio-
accumulative contaminants (like dioxin) that are
below detectable levels in the water column but that
result in contamination of fish flesh? The Framework
should make development of new testing tech-
niques, such as caged fish studies, a priority for the
upcoming triennial cyde.
The Framework does not say anything about
EPA's plans for adopting numeric standards in States
that fail to act by the statutory deadline.
Additional toxics control actions that are needed
include water quality standard rules that prohibit
mixing zones for toxics, and water quality standards
rules that establish a 1 in 1 million cancer risk as the
minimum acceptable level of protection to be af-
forded by human health-based numeric or narrative
criteria.
The Framework should call for nationwide,
Federal guidance on the minimum elements of a
State antidegradation implementation strategy.
rather than simply the reviews of existing State ac-
tions that ft presently lists. Without Federal EPA
guidance, there will continue to be inconsistencies
and a nearly total lack of field level enforcement Anti-
degradation must be integrated-into water quality
standards and permitting, and particularly into non-
point source management plans.
Finally, the Framework, and EPA generally, should
address the overall need for increased resources.
Rather than focus exclusively on dividing up the
pieces of an inadequate pie (robbing Peter to pay
Paul), efforts should be made to obtain a bigger pie.
74
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1969: 75-78
Tackling Toxics Through the
Chesapeake Bay Program
B.J.Caton
Deputy Executive Director for Policy
Virginia Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia
The Chesapeake Bay Program represents a prece-
dent-setting regional approach to the restoration of
an invaluable national resource. The Federal and
State partners in the Bay Program have acknowl-
edged that restoration and protection of the
Chesapeake Bay require an aggressive, cooperative
program that identifies and controls toxics entering
the Bay basin. Accordingly, the Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy was recently designed to guide
and coordinate toxics research, monitoring, and
control activities. To develop the Strategy, the Bay
partners had to consider many of the same questions
being addressed at this meeting, including
• What is currently being done to identify and
control toxics in the Bay?
• What are the priority needs for toxics
identification and control?
• How can these critical needs be met?
• What are the roles and responsibilities of the
principal parties?
This paper provides a brief overview of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement and highlights key com-
mitments under the Toxics Reduction Strategy that
were crafted in response to these questions.
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
On December 15,1987, Governor Baliles of Virginia,
Governor Schaefer of Maryland, Governor Casey of
Pennsylvania, Mayor Barry of the District of Colum-
bia. Kenneth Cole, chairman of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and EPA Administrator Lee Thomas,
representing the Federal Government, signed the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement
reaffirms the need for the ambitious interstate-
Federal Chesapeake Bay restoration effort that was
formally initiated with the 1983 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement The 1987 Agreement contains the follow-
ing commitment: "Recognizing that the Chesapeake
Bay's importance transcends regional boundaries,
we commit to managing the Chesapeake Bay as an
integrated ecosystem and pledge our best efforts to
achieve the goals in this Agreement."
Then the 1987 Agreement goes far beyond the
general coordination commitments of the original
Agreement It identifies goals and objectives in six
areas Giving resources; water quality; population
growth and development; public information, educa-
tion, and participation; public access; and gover-
nance) and supports them with 29 specific
commitments. These commitments and associated
deadlines signal an acceleration of collaborative res-
toration efforts under the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Toxics Reduction Strategy
The partners in the Chesapeake Bay Program recog-
nize that a more unified, basinwide approach is
needed to address the increasing.threat of toxic pol-
lution in the Bay. The water quality goal of the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to:
Reduce and control point and nonpoint
sources of pollution to attain the water
quality condition necessary to support the
living resources of the Bay.
One commitment/under this goal calls for the
preparation of a strategy to reduce the input of toxics
to the Bay:
To achieve this goal we agree ... By
December 1988, to develop, adopt, and
begin implementation of a basin-wide
strategy to achieve a reduction of toxics
consistent with the Water Quality Act of
1987 which will ensure protection of
human health and living resources. The
strategy will cover both point and non-
point sources, monitoring protocols, en-
forcement of pretreatment regulations,
and methods for dealing with in-piace
toxic sediments where necessary.
In response to this commitment, the Chesapeake
Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy was ap-
proved by the Bay State Governors and the EPA Ad-
ministrator at the annual meeting in January 1989.
This Strategy is designed to guide the Chesapeake
Bay toxics programs in the coming years. It addres-
ses two questions: what is being done now and what
75
-------
should be done in the future to reduce toxic inputs to
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries? The Strategy
also establishes a long-term toxics goal for the
Chesapeake Bay Program:
The long term goal of this Strategy is to
work towards a toxics free Bay by
eliminating the discharge of toxic substan-
ces from all controllable sources. By the
year 2000, the input of toxic substances
from all controllable sources to the .
Ch<*sap*glfg Bay will be reduced to levels
that result in no toxic or bioaccnmulative
impacts on the Irving resources that in-
habit the Bay or on human health.
To reach this ambitious goal, the Strategy identifies a
number of specific commitments and milestones. It
uses the statutory and regulatory requirements of the
1987 Clean Water Act as a foundation for action but
moves beyond the Act by establishing additional
commitments. The Strategy also identifies key
linkages between the commitments to ensure that
the toxics research, monitoring, and control activities
in the Chesapeake Bay basin are mutually suppor-
tive. EPA has committed to a number of actions in the
Strategy that are supported, in part, by objectives
identified in the Draft Framework for the Water
Quality Standards Program, which is a topic of dis-
cussion at this meeting. The initial emphases of the
Strategy are further identification and assessment of
the toxics problem in the Bay basin and control of
known toxics problems.
Identification and Assessment
of Toxics
A major problem facing Chesapeake Bay managers
is insufficient information on the sources, loads, and
effects of toxics in the Bay. An assessment of the
problems caused by toxics was included in a series
of reports published by EPA in 1983 that detail the
findings of a seven-year study of the Bay. Re-
searchers identified a number of toxic "hot spots,"
primarily in highly industrialized areas with high con-
centrations of metals and organic compounds. Out-
side of these hot spots, however, the data are
inadequate to determine whether other areas of the
Bay are affected by toxics. In response to this critical
need, the Bay partners formulated an integrated
series of assessment activities. These efforts should
lead to more effective targeting of resources for
toxics management and control.
To better establish loadings of toxics to the Bay,
the Strategy calls for the development of a Toxics
Loading Inventory (TU). The TLJ will address both
point sources, including municipal, industrial, and
Federal facilities, and nonpoint sources, including1
agriculture, urban, shipping, groundwater, and at-
mospheric deposition. The TLJ is intended to provide
a meaningful measure of progress in reducing toxic
inputs and to help establish priorities for toxics
management. Because of the relatively local impacts
of many toxics, the inventory should be most useful
at the river basin, subbasin, or segment levels. The
initial TU, to be developed by December 1990, will be
based primaiiy on the States' lists of point sources
prepared to meet the requirements of section 304(1)
of the Clean Water Act The TU will be expanded and
updated biennially to include other point and non-
point sources as data become available. Develop-
ment of a comprehensive TU will require an ongoing
commitment to nonpoint source research and
monitoring programs.
A process that identifies priority chemicals for
regulatory action was developed to address the need
for water quality management beyond priority pol-
lutants. The approach adopted under the Toxics
Strategy is to generate a toxics of concern list to
identify toxics that are causing, or have the potential
to cause, problems for the living resources of the
Bay. The purposes of list should be threefold: It will
include a matrix of supporting-data on sources,
toxicity, criteria, and geographical distribution; it will
represent a baywide consensus of key toxics to tar-
get for regulatory and management action, including
the adoption of water quality standards; and it will
help establish priorities for research and monitoring.
The Strategy includes a commitment by EPA to place
priority on developing criteria and advisories for
compounds identified through the toxics of concern
list The initial list is scheduled for completion by
March 1990, with biennial updates.
Extensive water quality monitoring has been on-
going in Chesapeake Bay and its major tributaries
since 1984. but the focus has not been on the detec-
tion of toxics and additional work is needed to deter-
( mine their distribution and concentration. To address
toxics in a more comprehensive manner, monitoring
programs will be expanded to support the develop-
ment of both the TLJ and the toxics of concern list.
The Strategy includes commitments for ambient
chemical and biological monitoring; sediment
i,«jnitoring to identify the location and extent of con-
taminated sediments; monitoring of emissions and
ambient air to identify cross-media impacts and to
measure long-term trends in atmospheric deposition
of toxics; and the completion of a pesticide-use sur-
vey.
Two ultimate measures of the Chesapeake Bay
Program's success will be the recovery of declining
76
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21«t CENTURY, 1989: 75-78
species and the reestabJishment of a balanced
ecosystem. Consequently, the Strategy calls for
building on the process that has been initiated to
define habitat requirements for the Bay's living
resources (see Habitat Requirements for Chesa-
peake Bay Living Resources, August 1987). The Bay
partners have pledged to use the habitat requirement
data as guidance in developing and enforcing toxics
standards. A related commitment calls for an am-
bient toxicity assessment workshop to be held this
year to identify protocols for biological assessment
of toxicity in estuarine waters.
Because of the diversity and complexity of the
Chesapeake Bay system, data management is a key
concern. The Toxics Strategy includes development
and maintenance of a baywide toxics data base to
support management and policy decisions. The data
base will be an invaluable resource for the estab-
lishment of water quality standards for toxics.
Finally, a toxics research plan accompanying the
Strategy identifies key research areas including the
development of source measurement protocols;
modeling of fate and transport processes; and
studies to increase our understanding of the origir
and magnitude of toxic effects. Findings from these
studies should support formulation of a risk assess-
ment framework for future decision making,
Control of Toxics
The control approach adopted by the Toxics Reduc-
tion Strategy is to control known toxic problems in
the short term, with additional control actions an-
ticipated as new information becomes available from
the monitoring and research efforts. The Strategy af-
firms the importance of standards for water quality
protection. The initial toxics control activities are
designed to meet the requirements of the 1987 Clean
Water Act The Strategy also recognizes the need to
deal more effectively with the full range of toxic sub-
stances.
To control point sources of toxics, the States and
EPA will enforce compliance of publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs) with their pretreatment
programs and will investigate the need for pretreat-
ment programs at additional POTWs. Each State also
commits to have toxics management programs in
place by December 1989; chemical and biological
toxics monitoring programs included in permits for
priority discharges by July 1991; and full compliance
of all 304(1) list discharges with their individual control
strategies for toxics by June 1992. EPA will provide
guidance on including control of bioaccumulative
compounds and addressing nonpoint sources of
toxics in toxics management programs.
Commitments to control nonpoint sources of
toxics are also included in the Strategy. The States
will develop programs to regulate urban stormwater
discharges after EPA promulgates stormwater
regulations. A consistent methodology wilt be
developed and implemented to quantify and charac-
terize nonpoint source toxic loads from urban areas
and to measure progress to reduce these loads. The
States wfll develop alternatives to increase the use of
integrated pest management and sustainable
agriculture programs within the Bay basin. Solid and
hazardous waste site cleanups will be prioritized
where there is evidence of, or likelihood of, an impact
on living resources. The States will try to minimize
hazardous waste through information exchange and
public education. EPA will work with the States to
develop a Chesapeake Bay sediment quality evalua-
tion protocol by December 1991 that can be incor-
porated into the States' toxics management
programs.
Sa Point Source Toxics
'nitiatives.
In addition to commitments that require a collabora-
tive effort of the partners in the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram, each State Is implementing its own toxics
reduction programs to support the Strategy. Virginia
has a number of initiatives targeted to both point and
nonpoint sources of toxics. Three point sources ini-
tiatives of particular'significance are highlighted
here.
The Virginia Water Control Board recently
adopted a Toxics Management Regulation (effective
November 1, 1988) to support the ongoing Virginia
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES)
toxics management program. The regulation iden-
tifies the discharges subject to the regulation and the
process to address the discharge of toxic pollutants.
The dischargers are required to conduct both acute
and chronic effluent toxicity tests and chemical
analysis. The regulation sets forth the criteria by
which the results of the toxics testing will be judged.
Low intensity compliance monitoring is required for
sites that pass the criteria. For sites that iaii the.
criteria, the procedures are outlined for the toxicity
reduction evaluation and for the inclusion of water
quality-based limitations in the VPDES, as ap-
propriate. A lawsuit filed by the Virginia Manufac-
turers Association and several industries to
challenge this regulation is pending.
77
-------
aj.CATON
During the 1970s, Virginia suffered one of its worst
environmental disasters-the contamination of the
James River estuary by the insecticide kepone. To
formulate a method for finding toxic substances of
concern before a major problem develops, Virginia
funded a pilot toxics initiative in 1985. Under this ini-
tiative, effluent sediment and tissue samples were
chemically "fingerprinted* at a number of sites to
determine the impact of the discharges on sediment
and tissue contamination. A toxics data base- has
been established and is a major part of the toxics
management program A new class of toxic com-
pounds (polychlorinated terphenyis) was identified in
several locations in the Bay through this initiative,
and extensive monitoring is currently underway at
those locations. A need for regulation of bioac-
cumulative compounds was also Identified because
a large number of discharges failed the bioaccumula-
tive screening. To follow up on this finding, the Vir-
ginia Water Control Board is Implementing an
Initiative to screen discharges for btoaccumulative
compounds.
The Virginia Water Control Board has acquired a
mobile bioassay laboratory, which is used for chemi-
cal and biological toxicity testing of effluents at in-
dustrial and municipal facilities in the Bay drainage
basin. The testing identifies toxic compounds In ef-
fluents, reveals potential water quality criteria viola-
tions, and analyzes ambient water quality. All the data
are incorporated into the agency's toxics data base.
The mobile lab is currently working in the Elizabeth
River Basin. The Elizabeth River is a major deep-
water port that is suffering from serious pollution
problems; testing has identified a number of either
acutely or chronically toxic discharges. These find-
ings have been the basis of a Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation for three discharges at one facility and the
withdrawal of a permit to discharge from oil/we
separators at another site. Because of the success
this program, a second mobile lab has been func
for use outside of the Bay drainage basin.
Other Elizabeth River restoration projects inclu
comprehensive long-term monitoring for conv
tional pollutants, metals, and toxic organics; creat
of a permit and inspection team to speed per
modifications and provide rapid response to per
violations; a toxics search and identification progn
to identify and rank toxic compounds as Candida
for water quality standards; the development of
oily waste management plan to regulate hand!!
and treatment of petroleum-contaminated was
water and special short-term studies (an invest!;
tion of pollution sources is currently underway
area shipyards).
In conclusion, Virginia realizes that achieving t
goal of a toxics-free Bay wfll be an incredible ch
lenga Success of the Toxics Reduction Strate
hinges on the continued commitment of all the
volved individuals and organizations. A blue ribb
panel of agency managers, researchers, envirc
mentalists, citizens, and industry representatives v
be developing an action plan over the next f<
months to ensure coordinated implementation. T
costs of toxicsJdentification and control for both tl
public and private industry will be high, but the cos
of inaction would be even higher.
Public involvement has been, and will remain,
key component of the Basinwide Toxics Reductic
Strategy. As more information becomes availafc
from research and monitoring, the Strategy will t
refined. A complete revaluation is scheduled f
1992 to assess our initial efforts and refine tf
strategy where needed.
78
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. How do you (KImerie) see implementation of
numeric criteria for toxic pollutants and the whole ef-
fluent approach from your perspective as an in-
dustrial representative on the panel?
A. (KJmerle) I certainly have some appreciation for
the general scientific bases of the program as they
are outlined in the Framework. As a user of some of
those technologies, I don't completely agree with the
way they are implemented. Use isn't consistent
across the States or regions. Monsanto has plants all
around North America, and we support an involve-
ment in the Federal guidance document, but it is
being implemented in a lot of different ways. Some
States recognize the concept of receiving waters. For
this reason, Monsanto is involved in the program of
toxic reductions to benefit receiving waters, yet too
often we run into permits: if s flshable, swtmmable,
and nobody seems to care much about whether the
kinds of programs in place are justifiable in terms of
the receiving water. If you read the policy documents
. it is dear that the emphasis is on receiving waters.
Some of the State people should respond to that;
how do you use the guidance that comes out of the
technical support document? There was a meeting
last December to revise the technical support docu-
ment, if necessary, and a lot of issues were identified
that related to mixing zones. Minimum data bases
were discussed. So the technology of the whole ef-
fluent approach is being worked on as time goes on,
and we really do need to see it implemented properly.
Q. (Van Putten) Ifs essential for EPA to say how
the water quality standards program, in its applica-
tion to all these different sources, will be integrated
with other programs like those for Great Lakes or
Chesapeake Bay. Who in EPA is going to be held ac-
countable for seeing that these fine agreements mat-
ter in practice?
A. (Caton) The issues you have brought up are the
ones we've gone over for the past few years. How do
you make sure that all this assessment and identifica-
tion are really going to amount to anything? One
thing we have incorporated into the various docu-
ments is a commitment to enforcement What we've
worked toward in the Chesapeake Bay Program is
not so much to have EPA beat the State over the
head but to have EPA and the State agree on how to
address these problems.
Q. (Dickson) Is it your (Van Putten's) recommen-
dation that the Framework include some activities
and plans to put enforcement into these large sys-
tem studies?
A. (Van Putten) We would like to do this in the
Framework when talking about different areas where
it is pertinent We specifically reference the Great
Lakes, where there are 42 action plans that either
have been developed or are under development
Some of them involve plans for cleaning up sedi-
ments, some involve point sources, some involve
nonpoint sources, but the points we feel strongly
about in this Framework and in the standards pro-
gram need to be integrated with the implementation
of those plans that are already underway.
C. (To Landman) In New Mexico we nave about a
million and a half people. You're advocating a cancer
risk of 10"^. This means that you think we can
measure an effect on one and a half persons relative
to a given substance. I don't believe that Also, anti-
degradation still does not enjoy statutory authority
under section 303; if you really want it to become a
reality, you had better get Congress to amend sec-
tion 303.
A. (Landman) When I spoke about the 10"6 cancer
risk, I was talking about situations when States adopt
water quality standards, selecting options from the
criteria document They have developed numeric
criteria for a 10"5. 10?, and 10!7 level of risk. When
EPA adopts water quality standards for States, it
should not select the numeric water quality standard
for those 307A toxics—that presents a greater risk to
the residents of that State than 1CT6. That issue of
what is an acceptable level of risk should be opened
up through the rule-making process so the States,
environmental community, and everybody else can
have a say about what kind of risks will be considered
acceptable in the water quality standard setting
process.
As for the fact that the word "antidegradation"
does not appear in section 303,1 have to agree with
you, but I have to disagree that antidegradation is not
mandated by the Clean Wats. /-
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS & COMMENTS
C. (Perseil) The talk about papers and what's writ-
ten on them and their value certainly brings to mind
some treaties. One of the things that was brought up
in the opening session was the use of some research
materials regarding phosphorus. It is very important
to look at your particular watershed when calculating
phosphorus, and I would urge managers who are
going to evaluate the use of these particular formulas
for watershed usage and phosphorus export ta con-
sider your watershed. We've found them to be, at
best 30 percent for our dean part of the world, so
they would permit substantial loading.
Another thing is atmospheric loading: it is a major
form of phosphorus. In northern Minnesota we've
been dealing with unimpacted ecosystems, except
for atmospheric loading, for the past 10 years. If we
reduced the phosphorus imports from atmospheric
loading, we could protect many ecosystems and
maintain and improve other ecosystems. That means
we have to deal with acid precipitation at the same
time. From the tribal perspective, we see a grave
need to coordinate Federal and State pollution con-
trol activities and to coordinate, within the Federal
Government and State governments, activities that
deal with the environment
I would like to offer one example: dealing with haz-
ardous and nuclear depositories. In the past 8 to 10
years, the Department of Energy has wanted to lo-
cate depositories in northern Minnesota's bedrock
We ask where is the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy In protecting the dean waters—protecting the
three major northern American watersheds—if
others are going to bury toxic wastes in the ground?
My point is that we need to coordinate these ac-
tivities. We fully support raising the EPA administrator
to a cabinet-level position, and we would urge the
rest of you to support that as well.
C. (Smith) By the way the law and Framework are
written, we're going to be using numeric criteria; cer-
tainly it is the simplest way for the Natural Resources
Defense Council to become involved in the State's
programs. But Connecticut's experience, based on
whole effluent testing, has cast doubt on the efficacy
of numeric criteria We screened industrial discharg-
es using priority pollutants, came up with 75 that
could violate the Gold Book criteria in streams, and
looked at in-stream, not end-of-the-pipe, effects.
Subsequently, we screened those pollutants using
whole effluent testing; half of them tested nontoxic
because of the chemistry, the mix of chemicals in-
volved, and so forth. (The real world does not parallel
the data for a single toxicant in pure water.) We
ended up with 30 pollutants that would have been
submitted if we had gone strictly by the 304L proce-
dure using numeric criteria We did something >
however; we passed regulations requiring everyt
to do effluent testing by the end .of 1988, whicl
percent of the industries and municipalities mana
to accomplish. We now have a companion list e
to the one of discharges that do not have priority
lutants but are toxic.
Whole effluent testing is showing us a great <
that numeric standards do not reveal. The I
science to telling us to use whole effluent testing f
then use data to develop numeric criteria and be \
judicious in what you adopt EPA is pushing
States in a very different direction, probably beca
of the ease of enforcement, but it may not be prod
tfve in the long run. Connecticut at least is goint
have trouble producing enough numeric criteria
will try to do this based on scientific data, but w<
not going to take Gold Book criteria and apply th
to Connecticut's streams on an ambient basis
doesn't mean anything. I encourage us all to redir
away from some of the numeric emphasis £
toward good science.
C. (Garreis) Maryland is also struggling with t
question. Perhaps a three-tiered approach would
better (1) Test for whole effluent toxicity; (2) get c
there and see what is actually happening in the <
vironment; (3) Tall back on numeric criteria We
finding that the numeric criteria do not reflect what
happening in the stream, and, in many cases, wh
we go back to look at the numeric criteria that ha
been developed, their validity is questionab
Everybody has problems with copper. The copp
criterion for marine catena, however, is the same.
the copper constituency for seawater. Does tr
mean that natural seawater is toxic? I don't believ
the fish have been told this.
C. (Knox) From the Louisiana perspective, there
merit in both the numeric criteria and the whole e
fluent toxicity testing. In some applications, such a
the Mississippi River where dilutions are tremendous
' I find whole effluent testing useless, but numeri
criteria useful to protect human health especiall
since the river is a highly polluted drinking wate
source. In other applications, such as smalle
streams that are receiving effluents, whole effluen
toxicity testing h~i value in identifying effects tha
can't be found by chemical scans. Numeric criteru
have merit in that they can be used immediately. As i
scientist, I fully endorse the three-tiered approach -
in an ideal world that is the method we would use. Ir
Louisiana, however, we don't have the luxury ot
going through that approach because we have
bioaccumulation occurring; we have advisories
against fishing and consumption of fish in some
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989
areas; and we have problems with drinking water
contamination.
I would ask EPA to consider the following in their
standards Framework: let States that are willing to
accept numeric criteria go forward with control
strategies based on that method if they can reassess
criteria based on a three-tiered scientific and logical
approach. The problem Is, if we accept these num-
bers and start with control strategies based on them,
and if we find this method is a waste of effort and
money, will we still have to live with it? If there could
be ways to go back and look at these standards in
the future and reassess the validity of the standards,
perhaps both of these approaches would prove use-
ful and could be maintained.
C. It is important to point out that the debate about
whether or not numeric criteria are desirable really is
sort of past us. There's a statutory requirement for it
as most of you are well aware, and if s not a question
of whether EPA thinks if s appropriate any more, if s a
question of meeting the legal requirement and, if the
States don't do it that EPA can potentially promul-
gate for States. We have to consider possibly
promulgating national standards. The debate should
focus on where numeric criteria are necessary. The
statute does provide that criteria must be adopted
where reasonably necessary: what does that mean,
how are we going to interpret that? Secondly, to the
extent that States have some flexibility in adjusting
the criteria using different risk levels or doing site-
specific exposure assessments, how is that going to
be done?
The sense of Congress is that the time for criteria
is long since past When we were debating this
revision of the Clean Water Act there were only 16
States that had any numeric criteria for toxic pol-
lutants. Most States had none. There were only a
handful of permits for whole effluent toxicity limits.
Most States had none. That is the reason why we are
working on this and why we're facing tight time
frames. It might be more productive to focus on the
issues that we still have some flexibility on, rather
than worrying about spilt milk—or spilt toxics.
C. (Palachek) Texas has adopted nearly 30
numeric criteria To address the question of copper in
marine situations, we set up an advisory panel with
representatives from industries and environmental
dubs and calculated from the national criteria for a
regional number for the Southwest But you have to
consider speciation of copper when adopting
numeric criteria for marine situations. A lot of the
numbers for marine criteria will be exceeded in nor-
mal freshwater, so you have to consider specifica-
tion—total versus dissolved numbers and issues. All
those factors should be considered when developing
and Implementing criteria Some EPA people in
'Washington may not agree, but from the State
standpoint and from the standpoint of all the com-
ments heard today about the realons and reluctance
for adopting numeric criteria, there's got to be some
flexibility built into that method and into examining
implementation procedures.
81
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21* CENTURY. 1969: 83
Developments in Sediment
Criteria
Howard Zar (Moderator)
Chairman, In-Place Pollutant Task Force,
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Region If Chicago, Illinois
Contaminated sediments are now in vogue. We are
familiar with well-known contamination sites such as
Waukegan, Illinois; New Bedford, Massachusetts;
and the Hudson River. Many of us have decided that,
with point sources under substantial control, con-
taminated sediments are the main remaining reason
for aquatic degradation.
Sediment criteria are the most Important tool we
can use to deal with sediment contamination. How-
ever, are we overestimating sediment problems?
Among other things, are our views colored by just a
few sites? The locations I have mentioned, for ex-
ample, are contaminated by just one pollutant, RGBs,
and probably will be handled with case-by-case
evaluations in which sediment criteria would play no
appreciable part Are sediment criteria needed for
and applicable to water quality control programs?
For sediment criteria development to be worth the
trouble, the problems must be widespread and multi-
pollutant: Are they?
I am a true believer in sediment contamination and
therefore not a good person to answer this question.
Fortunately, today I can leave this controversy, in the
experienced hands of the panel.-
83
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989: 8W6
Identification and Control of Toxic Pollutants
Nelson Thomas
Senior Advisor for National Programs, Environmental Research Laboratory
U,S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota
It took 20 years to develop numeric criteria, and al-
though whole effluent criteria were established 10
years ago, they came to the fore only 4 years ago,
after a lawsuit There is something to be learned from
looking at how criteria become standards. There are
certain conditions that must be fulfilled: we must be
sued by both industry and an environmental group to
know that we're somewhere in the middle; if we are
sued by one side only, we know that we have not
reached a protective value. There are some basic
elements: where do the criteria fit into the water
quality-based approach? When we developed
numeric criteria, they were intended for use in any ex-
posure medium (it just depended on how they were
implemented), and if use attainments are to be used
in that context, then they must be linked to a cause
and effect If we have assessment but a link to cause
and effect is missing, the circles are disconnected.
The criteria for source control, nonpoint or point—
how do they all fit together?
Then we must consider what we are trying to
protect is it the single organism, the population of or-
ganisms, the whole ecosystem, or some use that is
related to a particular item, for example, fish con-
sumption. Currently, the criteria are calculated to
protect 95 percent of the species most of the time.
How sensitive are the measures that we are trying to
develop? Do we have to lose part of the ecosystem
before we know we have an impact? There's a need
to develop a set of methods or criteria to use in the
standard development process.
Other problems are lack of criteria for bioac-
cumulation and carcinogens, wildlife criteria, and the
biological criteria. When developing both numeric
and whole effluent criteria, we have to structure --
standards to answer basic questions. We must as-
sess these problems because, in the eight field
studies that we undertook to validate the whole ef-
fluent to some ecosystem response, we often found
that toxics constituted only 20 percent of the prob-
lem. We have two tools to look at toxics but none to
look at sediments and wildlife effects.
We have recognized bioaccumulation for a num-
ber of years but, whenever we ran a scan, it would
look like a snowstorm, peak upon peak. Since we
knew which compounds were likely to end up in fish,
we used high pressure liquid chromatography
analyses to eliminate compounds with low lipophiiic
levels that don't accumulate in fish, and digestion
techniques to get rid of other compounds that are
relatively nonpersistent Detection limits are always a
problem because when you are trying to run an ef-
fluent sample and the biomagnrfication is a million,
detection is difficult Therefore, we've tried to build all
of this into a protocol to actually measure an effluent
that will be verified by field studies. We go to sites,
obtain effluent samples, and then, over 30 days, ex-
pose selected tissues to see whether they accumu-
late the chemicals in the effluent or whether any were
missed. Field verification is always a critical part of
the process.
There must be a way to get at land use. We've
looked at phosphorus criteria twice. I don't believe
that EPA can come up with a numeric phosphorus
criteria for flowing waters-they're too highly vari-
able, and we don't understand Jhe bioavailability of
them that mych. About half the States have imple-
mented the criteria, but others are having problems
doing so. When EPA first came out with ammonia
criteria, it received a number of calls, particularly on
the subject of chronic value at lower temperatures
because that drove a lot of the winter conditions in
the design flow. To redo the ammonia document
would be very costly because there are so much
data. An advisory costs approximately S10,000, and
a water quality criteria document often runs a quarter
of a million dollars. These are not trivial procedures -
it usually costs millions of dollars to establish the
scientific proof behind these criteria so they will
stand up in litigation.
Most of the calls to the laboratory concerning
water quality criteria involve copper. States should
remember that the values presented in criteria docu-
ments are the lexicologically relevant concentra-
tions; some States are using different techniques to
adjust from those concentrations to their chemically
different waters, while other States are developing
their own criteria. We have compiled a very large data
base (AQUIRE), which is available to the States.
Some States have specific techniques that they use
to do a calculation. The whole effluent was brought in
because we may have been missing some of the
compounds in an analysis. In implementing whole ef-
fluent criteria, we didn't realize at first that the impor-
85
-------
N, THOMAS
tant connection was that you ended up with numeric
criteria because whole effluent itself is an impact as-
sessment
I can remember one conference at which States
reported that they had investigated municipal plant
wastes and had found that many were toxic-and
wondered what should they do. That's when EFA got
into toxicity identification, which has great relevance
to case studies the Agency has performed to develop
numeric criteria. We're getting a great deal of infor-
mation now on types of chemicals through the na-
tional survey for dioxins that also analyzes
phenobiotics, and it's surprising, but we aren't dis-
covering too many new chemicals.
To illustrate toxicity reduction: the first step is a
biomonrtoring requirement which gives you an idea
of the toxicity, which then leads into more testing to
make sure that the numbers are consistent Then you
move into a toxicity reduction evaluation plan that
can result in either a treatability approach or a
toxicity identification approach. Next you go to some
corrective treatment such as source control substitu-
tion, and then on to compliance monitoring.
There are four major parts to monitoring: charac-
terization, where we treat the toxicity to simplify and
concentrate it; chelation for heavy metals fol
then C-1S absorption, and. lastly, volatizatior
break down every step that is identified as toxit
20 portions and check the toxicity on just a coui
drops of that fraction. Then we go through an in
tant elaborate confirmation stage because
toxicant present may vary. Three protocols hav
tually been developed: characterization, idem
tlon, and confirmation.
To illustrate toxic effects: when we performed
of the protocols, completely analyzing 16 effiui
we successfully identified the cause of the toxici
15 of them. The industrial effluents contained
and several pesticides. EPA has issued criteria di
merits for zinc, chlorine, and malathion (current
revision); we have no criteria for manganese
phenols.
in conclusion, EPA is encountering a finite nurr
of chemicals, only one or up to three of which
found in any one effluent We have the tools to <
with toxics. We must implement test methods to
sess the problem toxics, however, and, when
develop new criteria, we must have substantial fir
cial support to ensure their proper implementatioi
86
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989: 87-88
Developments in Sediment Criteria:
Sullivan's Ledge Superfund Site
Jane Downing
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, Massachusetts
As a site manager, I can state that sediment criteria
are most definitely needed. In particular, they are
needed to answer some questions on given con-
taminants of concern: what are the risks, and what
are appropriate remedial actions based on those
risks.
The saga of SulHvan's Ledge began in the 1940s
when local industries used it as an industrial waste
disposal site. The 12-acre area is composed of four
quarry pits, where most of the dumping occurred. In
the eastern portion there is an unnamed stream, a
golf course area with a forested wetlands (the Middle
Marsh), and golf course water hazards that are con-
taminated with PCBs. The remedial investigation
revealed three sources of contamination including
the on-site soils and, because of erosion, the off-site
sediments (ail contaminated with PCBs and PAHs). A
biological investigation was done on the unnamed
stream, where we found areas that are impacted from
the site.
Finally, we looked at the habitat. The Middle
Marsh, which is a large portion of the golf course, is a
productive, forested wetland. The trail of PCBs starts
with on-site soils where the maximum concentration
is 2,500 parts per mflHon. The unnamed stream, with
maximum concentration of PCBs at 118 parts per
million, starts at the site and continues on through
the golf water hazards where the maximum con-
centration of PCBs is 16 parts per million. North of
the Sullivan's Ledge disposal site, the maximum con-
centration is 60 parts per million within Middle Marsh
and 19 parts per million within the Apponagansett
Swamp.
As a site manager, I had to answer some tough
questions—what did the levels of contaminants
mean in terms of environmental risks, and what
would be the appropriate remedial actions—so I
turned to EPA's criteria standards division for
guidance. Wedsckfed to use the interim set of sedi-
ment quality criteria, based on the equilibrium ap-
proach, which generated a range of numbers. I
particularly liked this approach because it gave some
flexibility and defined some options for the risk
management decision. The sediment quality criteria
values were calculated on a 95 percent confidence
interval of the log KOC.
We ended up with three different values. The lower
value Is the value that represents the concentration
that, with a 97.5 percent certainty, will result in
protection of aquatic life or its uses. As with all
criteria, the numbers depend upon the respective
ambient water quality criteria determined to be ap-
propriate for the contaminants of concern and uses
of the waterbody. The upper value is almost the op-
posite; it represents the concentration that, with 97.5
percent certainty, will not result in the protection of
aquatic life or its uses.
We decided to use the sediment quality criteria in
three different ways. The first was for the screening of
contaminants, the second one was in evaluation of
the risk, and the last was development of target
levels. When screening contaminants of concern, we
took the most conservative approach. We looked at
the lower value sediment quality criteria and coupled
that with the lowest total organic carbon measured in
the sediment to develop a screening level sediment
quality criteria.
Just to go over that again, the lower limit criteria
were calculated using the lowest detectable amount
of organic carbon in the sediments. The calculated
criteria were then compared to the respected maxi-
mum detected concentration of the chemical in the
impacted sediment Given that fairly conservative
number, we compared the maximum PCB level orthe
maximum PAH value that was measured in any of the
sediments to see if we had a greater or lesser level or
value.
The table that was derived from the screening for
the PCBs indicated that the maximum amount, at 118
parts per million, was in the unnamed stream. The
lowest TOC valur measured was .2 percent and,
given that TOC and using the lower value sediment
quality criteria, the lower limit criteria for screening
purposes turned out to be .008 parts per million. Ob-
viously, we have a problem with PCBs.
We do not have as critical a problem with the
FAHs; some of the maximum values are only slightly
greater than the lower limit screening values for sedi-
87
-------
J. DOWNING
merit quality criteria. Once we looked at the chemi-
cals of concern, we picked the PCBs and also looked
at the PAHs, Phenanthrene being the most critical.
We wanted to a look at what that meant in terms of
risk-how far above the criteria-and we did this by
calculating location-specific sediment quality
criteria. We went out to every sampling station and
used the organic carbon measured there to calculate
specific sediment quality criteria for that sampling
location. Since there are about 30 sampling stations
in Middle Marsh, we calculated 30 different sediment
quality criteria for an individual comparison.
The sediment quality criteria calculations were
based upon the percent of TOO measured at that sta-
tion, and sediment contaminant levels were com-
pared with the location-specific sediment quality
criteria to evaluate risk. With the lower value sedi-
ment quality criteria, we had a great deal of ex-
ceedences, and, in fact, basically all of Middle Marsh,
the swamp, and the unnamed stream exceeded the
lower limit, which is the most conservative number.
With the mean sediment quality criteria we- had a
smaller area of exceedenee-only 9.5 acres of the
Middle Marsh area were greater than the mean
criteria. Using the upper limit of the sediment quality
criteria, which is the least conservative, only 3.7
acres of Middle Marsh exceeded the upper value. To
develop target cleanup levels, we went back to the
unnamed stream and decided to use the mean sedi-
ment quality criteria. One reason for this was that the
detection limit was a problem if the lower limit was
used, so there was no choice. The TOO ranged be-
tween 2 and 20, so the target levels ranged betw
.2, where .2 was determined to be the detection ii
and .4 parts per million in the unnamed stream.
As for the Middle Marsh area, because of the
ture of the wetlands and some grave concerns
pressed by wetlands scientists on the app
priateness of knocking down trees for the sake of
sediment, we have decided to defer this decision <
may have to go back to do some biological monf
ing. The options given us include using the la
limit, which would mean excavation of almost al
that 12-acre area. On the other hand, if we just w
for the hot spots, we would be excavating only
acres, but there still could be some long-te
degradation.
In summary, we used the sediment quality crite
to screen the PCBs and PAHs, so we knew w
chemicals were of concern; we also used them a
yardstick to ted us how much of a concern we r
and to set target levels (basically the one in the i
named stream).
I would recommend careful interpretation of 1
sediment criteria on a site-by-site case. Since ea
site is unique, there are many factors and parameti
to consider. For example, if you have some sensit
organisms, you may want to look at a particular pa
way and tailorJhe sediment quality criteria to refit
it Sediment quality criteria should not be used or
universal level; but rather as a tool for an individt
risk management decision on the appropric
remedial action.
-------
WATS! QUALITY STANDARDS FOfl THE21«t CENTURY. 1960: 80-91
Developments in Sediment Criteria
Arthur J. Newell
Principal Fish A. Wildlife Ecologfst. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Environmental Protection, Albany, New York
In New York, as in other States, we have a need for
sediment criteria at hazardous waste sites and at
dredging project sites. In addition. New York and
other Northeast States share a need tar sediment
criteria to address problems in some Impaired sur-
face waters known as "areas of concent1 that have
been identified by the U.S. and Canadian Internation-
al Joint Commission and targeted for cleanup
through remedial action plans. New York State has
six such areas, all of whose major impairments relate
to contaminated sediments.
Whle the involvement with hazardous waste sites
and areas of concern is relatively recent New York
has had a long involvement with decision making at
dredging projects. Unfortunately, the approach to as-
sessing risk from contaminants in sediments has
been very inconsistent, ranging from application of
almost arbitrary criteria for specific contaminants to
the requirement of intensive tadcity and bioac-
cumulation testing. The test results have also been
used inconsistently.
In the frantic search for a way to assess risk from
sediments, the Bureau of Environmental Protection
has become aware of the various approaches that
-EPA has been studying. At this time, the Bureau is
currently recommending for use, at least for screen-
ing, the equilibrium partitioning approach for deriving
sediment criteria for nonpdar (or nonionic) organics.
Criteria derived by this method are calculated by
multiplying a water quality standard or criterion by
the Kow for the chemical, resulting in a value with the
units/jg/gOC (organic carbon).
Table 1 contains equilibrium partitioning sediment
criteria for PCS and 2.3,7,8-TCOO, derived with a
variety of environmental protection objectives in
mind. The aquatic tooddty basis criteria are based on
Tkbto 1.—Equilibrium partitioning of Mdlnwnt
criteria,
Aquatic Toxicity Basis
Human Health Basis
(10~* cancer risk from fish
consumption)
Wildlife Risk Basis (NYS)
Wildlife Risk Basis (EPA)
PCS
<276
0.008
1.4
19.5
&3.7.S.TCOO
2 x 10-*
0.0002
—
water quality criteria to protect aquatic life from the
toxic effects of the chemicals. The human health
basis criteria are based on water quality criteria
designed to prevent bioaccumulation to the 1O"6 can-
cer risk fish flesh concentrations. The wildlife risk
basis criteria are based on water quality criteria
designed to ensure that wildlife food does not ac-
cumulate chemicals to levels that are hazardous. The
New York criterion of 1.4 /
-------
A.J. NEWBJ.
Table fc--S«dlm«nt criteria derived by the a«dlm«nt-to-fl«rt btoaccumulatkxi imthod.
MSN
CfVTEfMON"
cftrreraoir
IbtaranceorAdvisory
@V4
ption
shF
Criterion
2000
0.6
100
2000-200
0.6-0.06
100-10
0.01
1.4X10-*
0.003
a 1-0.01
1.4x10-»-1.4x10r
0.03-0.003
uMtanla
rof 1-10 and 0.1-1. rwp«ctivi
calculated from flsh residue levels of concern. Table 2
presents some of these criteria.
Table 3 compares equilibrium partitioning sedi-
ment criteria with criteria derived by the sediment-to-
fish approach. All of the equilibrium partitioning
criteria fall within the ranges of the sediment-to-flsh
criteria,- The good agreement between these two
methods seems to support the validity of the resul-
tant criteria, at least for highly bteaeeumulable
chemicals such as PCS and 2,3,7,8-TCOO. Having
gone through this exerdse and arriving at this eon-
dusion, the Bureau wll feel better about using such
bioaecumulation-based criteria,
Until sediment criteria, by whatever method, be-
come well accepted, the Bureau wfll need, waiting in
the wings, a standardized battery of laboratory and in
situ tests that essentially back up the sediment
criteria. It wll need a variety of tests with end points
that accurately reflect the environmental objective*
of concern; e.g., sediment criteria based on toxidty
will need backup with sediment toxicity tests, Toxidty'
and bioaccumulation tests may also be used to site-
specifically calibrate sediment criteria. Implementa-
tion guidance for both criteria and tests wfll be
necessary.
A useful auxiliary to such implementation
guidance would be Information on persistence of
toxics in sediment Questions to answer indude: If in-
puts of toxics to sediments cease, will the problem
go away by itself, either by burying in the sediment or
some other loss mechanism and will the time frames
for self-deansing be acceptable?
There will be much discussion about selecting a
particular environmental objective for a sediment
criterion at a particular site, and, under the heac
risk management, whether sediment at any give
should be cleaned up to the criterion. As a fin
dredge and disposal decisions or remedial!
sediment should be pursued to the extent nece
to ensure compliance with the narrative water q
standard of "no toxics in toxic amounts." Hov
New York standards allow for consideration of!
and economic factors in meeting standards,
these rules wffl undoubtedly apply to sedl
decisions as well
To briefly address some other questions, first
sediment criteria be incorporated into the St
standards? Perhaps, but is thatjiecessary? Ins
can sedimenrcriteria be considered an extensu
water quality standards?
How can sediment criteria best be used in the
miffing process? For State pollution disch
elimination system permits. I would argue tha
fluent limits should take into account in-stream fa
contaminants to ensure that sediment criteria are
exceeded. For remediation of hazardous waste s
I would like to see sediment criteria receive starx
as applicable or relevant and appropriate reqi
merits. For dredging projects, I believe then
enough flexibility in the stream protection pei
process (which Includes 401 Certification) and sta
ards within regulations to use the criteria. If I
wrong. I would then argue for amending either N
York's stream protection regulations or the wz
quality standards to Indude sediment criteria.
How would sediment criteria best be used
monitoring activities? The New York Department
Environmental Conservation indudes sediments
Tabfa 3.—Comparison of s
-------
WATHH QUALITY STANOAflOS FOR TH6 21* Ca
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21it CENTURY, 1988: 93-94
Developments in Sediment Criteria
James M. Conlon
Deputy Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
We have before us a formidable task of dimbjng a
mountain of technical and policy Issues related to the
problem of toxic contamination in the sediments of
waters of the United States. This dimb will include
identifying the extent of the problem, establishing
regulatory mechanisms that will trigger appropriate
responses, and developing, understanding, and im-
proving remedial technologies. One need only look
at a handful of the contaminated sediment sites cur-
rently under investigation by Superfund and others to
get an appreciation of the physical, chemical, and
biological diversity of these sites as well as the broad
spectrum of issues associated with their assessment
and deanup. If we are to maintain the environmental
trust and make any significant progress, we must be
innovative, resourceful, and effective. We do not
have the time or the resources to charge down the
wrong path or grab the wrong tool. We must take full
advantage of every possible foothold. We also must
be cautious enough to ensure that we do not venture
out in areas that are not adequately supported.
Each of the other people on this panel has men-
tioned or has at least Implied, serious technical or
policy and procedural questions that must be
resolved before EPA can formally assess impacts of
in-place pollutants, let alone devise a consistent set
of regulatory or programmatic approaches. I intend
to add a few of my own questions to that list I also
want to solicit your opinions as to whether the in-
place contaminated sediment problem is truly sig-
nificant enough to warrant the development of
criteria. If it is, then I need to know which impedi-
ments are hindering the practicable use of criteria. As
you heard from Nelson Thomas, there are a number
of methods being applied that have potential ap-~-<
plicability to an even larger number of unresolved en-
vironmental decisions. And note that these are
biological as well as chemical methods.
Today I want you to focus on in-place con-
taminated sediments in the context r* ->oint and non-
point source control, not the disposal of dredged
spoils. It does not appear that any single assessment
or numeric method is going to give us all the answers
we need to act responsibly. In fact, very shortly we
will be using combinations of chemical-specific num-
bers and biological test methods in many of our sedi-
ment judgments. In some cases the process will be
quite similar to what we do now In the permit pro-
gram, where there is a mix of chemical-specific and
whole effluent toxicity considerations.
To get a better handle on which methods should
be used for particular situations, we are approaching
the technical issues on several avenues. First, we
have sent two of the more recently developed
methods for establishing numbers-the equilibrium
partitioning and apparent effects threshold ap-
proaches-to the Science Advisory Board for review
and critique. We will also brief the Board on a number
of additional methods for assessing risks associated
with toxics in sediments. An essential part of that
briefing will Indude not only a description of each
method, but our evaluation of its strengths and weak-
nesses. We will then add the Board's assessments to
our own and publish a draft compendium for addi-
tional comment later this year. We intend to rely
heavily on the Board's findingsJo identify the most
appropriate uses of each method from a technical
perspecth/erin addition, we will be looking closely at
each method from an operational perspective to as-
sess how and to what extent it can and should be in-
corporated into specific regulatory decisions.
As people in the water regulation business know
all too well, the development and implementation of
water quality criteria are ongoing processes: proce-
dures and practices for developing and implement-
ing criteria have been continuously evolving since
early 1960.1 expect and plan on a similar evolution-
ary process in the development and use of sediment
criteria and sediment assessment methods. Initially.
this process is likely to proceed rapidly; therefore, it
is important to ensure that guidance on the develop-
ment and use of criteria and assessment methods
keeps in step. We wili be doing a disservice to our-
selves and the country if the fruits of our efforts can-
not be promptly and effectively translated into usable
tools.
EPA is developing a three-year plan that will ad-
dress the more significant technical and policy gaps.
(Emphasis will be put on doing most of the work in
the next two years.) This three-year plan, along with
the compendium, is being drafted by a sediment
technical oversight committee, which is staffed by
people from the Offices of Research and Develop-
ment, Superfund, and Federal Activities, plus repre-
93
-------
J. M. CONLON
sentatives* from the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act (RCRA) Enforcement Division and
EPA's regional offices.
This group is also developing what we refer to as
program summaries: descriptions of each program
office's work on contaminated sediments. The sum-
maries start from a list of statutory provisions and
specific kinds of decisions that must be made to use
the laws effectively. This analysis should minimize the
all-too-common gap that often occurs between the
time we begin to get answers to technical questions.
and the time those answers are used for control ac-
tivity. All too often we fail to adequately characterize
the strengths and weaknesses of the science and
tend to treat scientific results as absolutes rather than
conclusions that have some inherent uncertainty. A
key to overcoming this problem is the development
of specific implementation guidance in the regulatory
program, rather than new technical tods. In the sedi-
ments area we are trying to keep the science and im-
plementation guide together. I expect the first
versions of the program summaries this spring, along
with a list of issues, problems, and pitfalls associated
with each, and hope to involve some of you in as-
sessing the results. If we identify even 50 percent of
the major difficulties, we will be ahead in the long run.
Numeric criteria are not going to obviate the n
for site-by-site assessment or eliminate the need
biological testing, at least not in the foreseeable
ture. But having numeric criteria and a better vie\
other methods' strengths can help us evaluate u
and where to worry about first This procedure is
going to be quick, easy, or simple (or a repeat of
experiences with water column criteria) in spiti
what the Framework document implies. But we c
not develop chemical-specific criteria and then
on, as we have with water column criteria, to ci
plex mixtures testing and biocriteria Instead,
must (and can) develop these principles in tander
a concept that is not in the Framework. (Also lack
is a forecast of what kinds of documents, guidar
and policy decisions are needed.) I would apprec
your views, not only on documents or decisions,
also on what needs should come first.
Finally, I need your input to make a realistic s<
ment section for the 1991-93 triennium. A good s
could be made if you will share your estimates of
major impediments and of what you need to IT
mize these hurdles.
94
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989
Questions, Answers, and Comments
C. (Peterson) I have been asked to speak about
the apparent effects threshold (AET) approach that
Region X and particularly the State of Washington
have been pursuing. Washington has been spending
approximately $1.2 million a year for the last two
years to develop this approach. A draft document on
AET sediment criteria is expected in January of 1990
with a final document in July I990. AET values have
been established on approximately 70 chemicals (in-
cluding high and low molecular weight potycydic
aromatic hydrocarbons, poiychlorinated biphenyls,
chlorinated organic compounds, phenols, and me-
tals) by the State, using amphipods, oyster larvae,
microtox tests, and benthic community abundances.
The reliability of these tests has been about 85 to 96
percent in terms of their ability to detect problems
where one can actually assess them in the field. This
approach has been subjected to Science Advisory
Board review; a report is expected soon.
The perspective from Region X is that AET is not
.necessarily the only answer. However, we hope that
the equilibrium partitioning (EP) coefficient ap-
proach, by virtue of its support by the Office of Water,
does not become the standard either, since both AET
and EP have applications under various conditions.
Region X also hopes that eventually alternate ap-
proaches could be taken under the sediment criteria
method.
Q. On the application of the AET, does the sig-
nificance of the contamination appear to be a large
problem in Washington State?
A. (Peterson) Most of the emphasis for this is com-
ing from a Puget Sound study that has been directed
toward marine sediment criteria Researchers think
that there is significant cause for concern about con-
taminants in Puget Sound, and Washington has pick-
ed that up (the State's Department of Ecology has a
very large investment in these tests). We think that
AET will eventually be extended into freshwater*
areas.
C. (Zarba) The Science Advisory Board Is review-
ing the AET method, so their findings have not come
out It seems that the State has alreadv decided the
method is something they want to pursue, even
though they have not gotten peer review.
A. (Peterson) My understanding from sitting in on
a portion of the Science Advisory Board review was
that there were no major problems found but I have
not seen the report.
C. (Zarba) The Board's review mentioned
problems of causality. It boils down to what you in-
tend to do with the criteria If you want to use them for
a screening tool to identify impacted areas, that's
one thing. But if you want to use the criteria to identify
a chemical that is causing problems and should be
cleaned up, that Is quite a different situation.
C. (Peterson) Region X's perspective is that
criteria will be used to determine a threshold, in this
case for contamination problems. It's the assess-
ment of being generally right relative to a contamina-
tion problem rather than specifically wrong relative to
a particular chemical.
C. Rather than speculate over what the Science
Advisory Board might or might not say about AET
(and I do think that opinion is going to be very impor-
tant to any agency's ability to approve or disapprove
a particular standards proposal), I think we should
wait to hear the Board's evaluation.
C. (Newell) Although the equilibrium partitioning
test is the current front-runner, I don't think that any
method will be accepted until it-has been used and
has survived challenges.
C. If anybody believes that one method versus the
other is so well documented and so well defined that
it provides all the answers, I think they're bound to
make mistakes. I'm not prepared to recommend a
suite of methods to /ny management, let alone a
single method, unless I know its exact use.
Q. (Oawson) In some cases, we will have to
decide whether to clean up contaminated sediments
or leave them in place, but at least we must develop
a methodology to determine the risks currently
posed to the environment and human health. In Wis-
consin, we have a more immediate problem with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging to keep
navigational channels open. We have been involved
in issues relating to what is clean sediment for either
disposal in a confined disposal facility or open water
dumping, and standards for disposing of con-
taminated material. The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources just developed rules and regula-
tions for disposal of contaminated sediments, as
well as standards for open water disposal of sedi-
ments. They include such issues as what clean sedi-
ment is for the purposes of open water disposal;
what is contaminated for the purposes of confined
disposal; and what kinds of standards should be im-
95
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS. & COMMENTS
posed for both performance and/or designed stan-
dards for the disposal of contaminated sediments.
How do the criteria affect open water disposal and
requirements for other kinds of disposal?
A. (Zar) Our approach so far has been to focus on
in-place contaminants with an eye toward putting
some additional control in place that would stop con-
tamination.
A. (Newell) In New York, one of the objectives is to
have a tool for making dredging decisions, and I have
great hopes that either the equilibrium partitioning
method, or whatever method we decide on, will help
us make these decisions.
C. In the development of the equilibrium partition-
ing approach, nothing has come up that would
preclude the use of that method for determining the
effects of sediments if they were moved. So if you
wanted to determine what type of effects you would
get if you moved the sediment to another location, as
long as if s submerged and aquatic life are exposed
to it, then there's no reason why those criteria
wouldn't apply.
C. (Dawson) Wisconsin has an ad hoc legislative
committee that is taking a look at this issue. Industry
wants to use the 1978 Federal standards for defining
dean sediments and is arguing that Wisconsin has
no business developing and promulgating a stricter
set of standards.
A. (Zar) I can say that EPA is not using the 1978
numbers exclusively but together with other tests
and bioassays unto we have something better
C. Sooner or later, somebody will have to focus on
the relationship of Corps of Engineers' dredge
projects to cleanup.
C. (Dawson) Wisconsin has to face those project
problems. I understand you may not have all the
answers, but we sure could use some help.
C. (Dom) I'm with Shell Development in Houston. I-"
would recommend that you emphasize technology
transfer when developing sediment criteria How
these criteria are going to be used, and then, ob-
viously, the consequences when they are. As far as
technology transfer, don't second-guess the experts
o>i the Science Advisory " ^ard, They not only are the
best to evaluate methods, but the Board acts as a
forum for industry. Lastly, you can't just develop the
number and say, "Go with it," because the States are
going to need a lot of assistance.
Q. (to Dom) Do you know of any work going
sediment criteria and whole effluents by industr
A. (Dom) Industries are participating in this
ference and also will probably research am
sediment concentration and biochemicals. M\
vocacy is that guidance should be developed <
the options from removal to capping to the
destruction to nothing.
C. People seem to feel much more comfor
with the idea of sediment criteria as a method fc
sessing risk when these criteria tell you what bio
cal effects you will see and use to make decisic
see the decision tree for sediment criteria very sii
to what Superfund does, in a general sense. E
site is unique; you have to weigh lots of factors
judgment plays an important role. With water qu
criteria, they tend to adopt a number as more c
absolute and require that number to be met aci
the State, but sediment criteria are more for risk
sessment
C. There's risk assessment and then there's
risk management process. I don't know what w
going to do when we get to the risk managen
process, but I want to make sure that we know ex
ly what we're^talking about as far as the input of
risk assessment. I want to be able to say with sc
confidence that this is what will happen if we m;
this risk management decision.
0= You're talking about trying to answer the "h
clean is clean" question as a first step?
*A. Yes. For instance, if the sediment exceeds t
concentration, it will cause toxicity to aquatic life, a
I'm confident of that. If we all agree on that, then
can decide whether we can live with certain cc
centrations in fish and therefore, if you want to cle
up to this number, it will cost this much, and w<
have this much contamination left over. That's t
risk management decision but at least we're starti
off knowing what the numbers mean.
CL Is there anyone in this room that doesn't thit
that "how clean is clean?" or "how dirty is dirty?"
the first priority? What is its purpose?
A. First its purpose is as a rank order that taki
me either to "how dirty is dirty?" or "how clean
dean?" The second purpose is to help determir
how to spend money for remediation. To do any
that, I've got to have some yardstick to use to judc
whether this problem is worse in site A or site B.
96
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989
C. (Oom) You may have contaminated sediment
that is buried in three feet of dean sediment; it's the
exposure factor that is the key question on "how
dean Is dean?" in terms of prioritizing what is going
to be done. I don't suggest that we dredge up all
these sites, and in fact I think if s better (in at least a
priority base) to leave certain sediments alone. How-
ever, we do not have the choice of even deciding to
leave sediments in a navigational channel where the
Army Corps is going to dredge. That limits options.
and it does raise serious concerns not only about dis-
posal, but about reintroducing materials back into
the ecosystem. We do not have any regulation (I'll
say that categorically) on the actual dredging techni-
ques. We've got damsrtell dredges in Green Bay
reintroducing this stuff back Into the ecosystem.
What you're talking about here should relate to that
situation as much as the issue down the road of
whether we leave certain things, and whether we
prioritize certain hotspots and then decide what to
do.
C. (Schuettpelz) I'm disappointed that the Army
Corps of Engineers is not an integral part of this dis-
cussion. If we don't get the Corps involved, they're
never going to understand, and they're never going
to buy into the process.
C. There are a number of Corps people that have
been brought into the process right from the begin-
ning and have been following it They have been ac-
tually helping to guide us in selecting and developing
the method and continue to be involved. They are
well aware of what we're doing.
C. (Knox) Sediment criteria are needed for and ap-
plicable to water quality control programs. I have
done research on the fate of pollutants in sediment-
plant interaction. I was amazed that the water pollu-
tion control agencies just segregated out the water
column like it was an isolated issue and regulated
that aspect only. In the Framework there is an activity
for States to incorporate toxic criteria into their water
quality standards. I would hope that, in the next,..
Framework, there would be an activity to have States
incorporate sediment criteria into their standards.
Q. Are these sediment criteria applicable from a
nonpoint source aspect? If they are, how do they
treat sediment itself as a pollutant and not as a car-
rier of some other toxicant?
A. These criteria will be applied to sediment, but
they're chemical specific. There is a need to come up
with what amounts to a dean sediment standard for
runoff situations.
Q. And once we attach pesticides to them, then
do they become subject to these criteria ?
A. The pesticide would be the limited contamina-
tion value. You might have a situation where, on the
one hand, we developed a noncontaminated sedi-
ment criteria and we have a chemical specific
criteria; when those two come together you can end
up having to look at both situations.
Q. Is there a proposal for a nonchemical sediment
criteria?
A. Yes. there will be very shortly. Criteria take
about three years to develop. There's been a great in-
terest in straight sediment criteria, but currently no
work underway to develop them. That would be one
thing that could come out of this group and be fac-
tored into the planning process, particularly as the in-
terest in nonpoint sources seems, to be increasing.
C. How many of you are aware of sediment traps?
In their research effort, the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources has tried to define this sediment
load in trout streams, particularly. This is a moving
load very similar to a glacier; by just digging a sand
trap or a void in a river with a backhoe and reducing
the velocity, the river drops its sediment load. I know
that they have documented that this load has now
built up to four to six feet over the original river bed in
several of the trout streams in Michigan. By digging
these traps over a period of time, depending how
dose you put them, you can get that stream to dig
back to the original bed. As a result of this, you get in-
creased flows, you get increased productivity, more
fish, and you're able to get this sediment back out
away from the floodplain.
97
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TH621* CENTURY. 1989; 99
Water Quality Standards and
Indian Tribes
Kathleen Sisneros (Moderator)
Chief, Surface Water Quality Bureau
New Mexico Health and Environment Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico
In enacting the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water
A.ct Congress established a new section, 518. which
authorizes EPA to treat Indian tribes as States for the
purposes of the following sections in the statute: sec-
tion 106, grants for pollution control programs; sec-
tion 303, water quality standards; section 305(b),
reports on water quality; section 308, inspections;
section 309, enforcement; section 314, clean lakes;
section 319, nonpoint source management pro-
grams; and section 401, certification of NPOES per-
mits as well as certification of 404 permits. The tribes
could also be treated as States for the purposes of
administering the NPOES program as well as section
404, dredge and fill permit programs.
New Mexico has been involved with section 518
since its inception because 9.4 percent of land in our
State is under Indian ownership or control. There are
19 Pueblo reservations, part of the Navajo reserva-
tion, 3 separate and distinct Navajo chapter reserva-
tions, the Jicarilla Apache reservation, the Mescalero
reservation, and part of the Southern Ute reservation.
Some folks have told me that New Mexico doesn't
have a lot of water. We are a water-poor State, but we
certainly have many tribes.
Under New Mexico's water pollution control pro-
gram, by statute a nine-member water quality control
commission-eight representatives of State agen-
cies that deal in some respect with water and one
member who represents the public—is responsible
for adopting water quality standards for the State.
Anyone can propose those standards, which then go
through a series of hearings and promulgations
before being submitted to EPA for review and ap-
proval.
New Mexico has an unfortunate history of litiga-
tion with the tribes on water rights. Therefore, the
Commission immediately decided to work in a
cooperative agreement program with tribes to try to
adopt mutually acceptable standards even if they
decided to take status as States. We met with the
tribes all over the State, and we told them, come with
us on water quality monitoring surveys-we will
show you how to collect samples; we will provide
training in how to treat the samples, how to preserve
them; we will submit samples to our scientific
laboratory division and pay for the analysis; and we
will give you the data and provide the report. It is a
win/win situation in which the tribes get training and
information, and the State, in turn, receives informa-
tion from the tribes. So far, the tribes have been very
cooperative: they have given us access to their
lands, and members have come along on intensive
river surveys. I think we are all finally starting off on
the right foot
99
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY, 1989: 101-103
Water Quality Standards and Indian Tribes
Richard Du Bey, Attorney
The Du Bey Law Finn, Seattle, Washington
\ came to this conference to share some perceptions
and concerns as well as to bring recommendations
for fine-tuning the Framework document so. that it
might better address the concerns of Indian tribal
governments. I do not represent any one tribe but a
number of tribes, and I have had the privilege of
learning about their values and concerns from the
tribal leadership. I will do my best to describe these
beliefs, realizing that I will never be able to express
them as the tribal members would.
Probably no group in this country has paid more
dearly for clean water than Indian tribes. The lands
that the reservation environment comprises are the
permanent home and abiding place for those people.
The quality of that environment is something they
have an interest in, from the standpoint of regulating
this environment and protecting it as well as living in
it Environmental quality is not a program to be
viewed through a microscope. From the tribal
perspective, it is a way of life and a way to protect the
options for the Indian people, to insure that Indians
have the quality of life they are entitled to.
My role as an attorney is to try to translate for EPA
what I understand to be the tribe's concerns. You all
know that if you don't understand how to communi-
cate with EPA, you may have a very interesting story
to tell but you won't necessarily have a willing ear to
tell it to. This advocative role is a little different from
one a consultant or attorney would play for a client
who has been part of the environmental scheme for
the last 24 years. Indian tribes have not had that op-
portunity; they are just beginning to learn how to par-
ticipate in the process.
First I want to tell you a couple things about the
way Indian law is created in this country. I want to talk
about where we should go from here, both by looking..
at the Framework document and trying to make'
some constructive suggestions as to how these
relationships can be enhanced. Let me begin by
saying that there are too few Indians at this con-
ference, and if this is about Indians-and this part of
the conference is about tribal governments par-
ticipating in the protection of their lands-then we
need them. Although Councilman Tahkael is here
from the Yakima Nation and another representative,
John Persell, from the Minnesota Chippewa tribes,
there aren't enough tribal representatives here so
that there can be the type of coffee-break time com-
munication that allows the Indians, EPA, and the
States to all learn something about each other as
people.
Rather than talk of technical water quality stan-
dards, what is coming through in this conference is
protection of the resource base, wetlands, the habitat
of streamways, the in-stream values, protection of
the environment as a whole. And a new term is being
used that I am hearing for the first time: ecoregions.
That Is a concept that, in my experience with the In-
dian people, is the way they live their lives. They don't
see any water quality standards versus NPDES per-
mits versus 404 permits. They see it as a whole. And
perhaps that is something that we are beginning to
appreciate. You can number people to death, but you
can't implant a desire to comply with the law be-
cause, after all, this is water that we all need if we
want to survive. In terms of what is of concern to the
tribes, I think that is really where the water quality
program is going now.
I believe deeply that there is*wisdom in the ways
Indian people look at the environment. Why should
tribes worry about the environment? After all, for us
environmental cops it's been a headache for the last
20 years or so. You're not liked by the environmental
community because you're not doing enough; you're
not liked by business because you're doing too
much; and then there's paperwork and all those
problems. Why do it? I think the answers lie in the dif-
ferent interests that tribes have as they stand today at
a crossroads within our society. The Federal Indian
law evolves on a day-to-day basis. There is some-
thing called the Federal Common Law. Indian tribes
are in a uniquely disadvantageous position of having
their capability as a government being changed be-
cause of Supreme Court decisions on the actions of
one Indian tribe. No State bears that burden.
Interest and participation in environmental
programs come from a set of realizations that have
evolved over time. On the one hand, it's clear that
..ibal participation in Federal environmental
programs tends to strengthen the very infrastructure
of tribal government. It has that impact because, up
until now, believe it or not, tribal environmental
programs have existed on one-time administration of
Native Americans grants, or one-time Bureau of In-
dian Affairs grants, so the program began, went for
12 months, and disappeared-all the people who
101
-------
RDUBEY
gained the skils went away. There was nothing, no
opportunity to institutionalize within tribal govern-
ment a program, no opportunity to educate tribal
• children to protect their lands. These are very impor-
tant things—things that are just now happening. The
EPA programs provide annual funding and add some
permanency to a program that has been basically put
together with grants here and grants there and
whatever money that could be found. Self-govern*
merit and self-determination for Indians are concepts
that can be fleshed out further by an environmental
program on Indian reservations.
One of the biggest problems that has hampered
environmentally safe development is conflict be-
tween the State, the tribe, and sometimes the Feds
about who has regulatory jurisdiction. There have
been suggestions that what industry wants and what
the environmental community wants Is certainty. You
don't get certainty In an environment of Inconsistent
statements on who has the law and who has the last
word. The banks tend to be conservative entities by
their nature, and, except for those Savings and Loans
that have provided rather creative financing
mechanisms, funding and the economic develop-
ment opportunities must have a more fertile environ-
ment if the regulatory program is to be a known
entity. That*s not magic, that's something that you
can comply with.
Indian and nonlndian social and economical
preferences are often at odds. Developers' values
are not necessarfly consistent with tribal values. The
tribe should decide what type of license and what
type of permit Is issued, in conjunction with the
Federal Government, so that the project will meet its
needs. This can't really be done by anyone else. In-
dian participation in environmental programs will
define and encourage effective business ventures,
and business entities can go to tribal governments to
cooperatively determine the requirements. Tribal par-
ticipation in Federal programs allows Indians to
develop the necessary skills to Implement these
programs and assist their (usually) rural neighbors in
assessing environmental consequences. Often it's'"
not just the Incite* reservation that is impacted by
some type of development project, it's also the ad-
jacent county.
One example is the Coivilie Confederated Tribes in
eastern Washington, which were always "wing
some problems with the local farmers. Then
Washington Water Power decided to build a coal-
fired power plant that presented potential environ-
mental problems, including possible impacts on the
wheat crops. Although most of the farmers had al-
ways felt that their Government would protect them,
that wasn't necessarily how it was going to turn out;
the State had decided to license the project. Th
farmers met with the Indian tribe. For many,
years they both had been fighting over water
and everything else, yet now the farmers were:
down and saying, "We need your help, Indian
because you have authority, you have powei
have protected rights on your reservation. I
protect the impact of this flume on your reserv
then our wheat will not be diminished and we wil
as well."
This cooperative effort worked; that projeci
never built, and the relationship between the far
and the tribe has continued to be positive. Pern;
is one of the reasons for the successful fish-wi
agreement that recently was completed by W
ington's Indian tribes and the timber industry.
I think there is a climate for cooperation out tl
but there have to be some rules of the road. The I
government is entitled to be recognized as one c
three sovereign governments in our country,
tribal leaders are entitled to respect and to be a
of the process. Nobody likes surprises. The wa
surprises to go away is to have people be a pa
the process.
Water is one of the things that Indian tribes
particulariy sensitive about Not only for ceremoi
or for drinking purposes, but also-because water
tains the land, the wildlife, and the habitat A prog
that will protect groundwater, and surface water,
will preclude off-reservation insults from diffe
types of projects that are visited upon Indian rese
lions, benefits everybody.
A classic example of this is the problems the
Regis Mohawk Tribe* in New York had with
General Motors Superfund site on the border of
reservation. The sediments of the St. Lawrence R
were being polluted with PCBs that were bioaccui
lated by the fish. A Federal flash goes out to 4,i
Mohawk Indians: 'Thou shall not eat fish more tl
once a week." Well, that*s great if you have an al
native protein source, but they don't They
people who must be sustained by the land and,
fortunately, some actions of our society have visil
consequences upon the reservations that we rr
never be able to undo. The existence of an envin
menta! program allows a tribe to protect their res
vation environment for everybody, whether they <
living on or coming to do business on that resen
tion. That's why, from a tribal perspective, I am a v«
strong advocate of tribal environmental protectic
And water quality is the fundamental baseline of a
environmental protection program.
. There is a need for a more open dialogue but n
necessarily one where a certain high level of undc
standing of laws and regulations is expected. That
102
-------
WATER OUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21 st CENTURY, 1989: 101-103
an unfair burden—you people have been doing this
for a long time, and tribal staff have not had the op-
portunity to get up to speed. On the other hand, the
States have a tremendous wealth of knowledge they
can share through a cooperative agreement
mechanism. Many Indians want to protect the en-
vironment Why turn your backs on them-they1 re
the ones that can augment at a very limited cost to
the Government, the capability of each of you in im-
plementing your environmental programs.
In developing the Framework document, one
thing should be spelled out EPA's goal to work with
tribal governments in a vigorous and assertive way.
There are enough people willing to work with tribes
both within industry and within government to make
this a reality. Perhaps there's a way to allow tribes to
come into the system and share some of the scien-
tific benefits right now, rather than going through and
implementing just a numeric standard and five years
from now looking for an total effluent Whatever that
watercourse could naturally sustain as a habitat,
that's what the goal should be. Let's find a science
and a technology to allow that to take place. Tribes
are really entitled to nothing less.
For the Framework document to be a success,
there should be a solid Federai/tribal/State partner-
ship. The Framework provides an opportunity, a set
of goals and achievements that are rather ambitious.
I believe that the goals will be made achievable by
participation of tribal governments, and I think it's our
charge to make that happen.
103
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21*1 CENTURY, 1989: 105-107
For Water Quality Act Administration,
The Federal Government Will Treat Indian
THbes as They Do States
A Dumb Idea That Has Come of Age
. JackBarnett
Executive Director Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Bountiful, Utah
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (RL 100-4) requires
that EPA promulgate regulations to allow Indian
tribes to be treated as States for various provisions of
the Act I have titled my presentation "A Dumb Idea
That Has Come of Age." It represents my personal
point of view after a limited Involvement with the
dean Water Act, as a person who has worked in
detail with the Act in a limited geography, the
Colorado River Basin.
One's views can be strongly influenced by Inter-
ests, exposure, and experience. From where I'm
coming from, the notion that Indian tribes should be
treated as States under certain provisions of the Act
is a dumb idea, perhaps promoted by officials within
EPA who have had little or no hands-on experience
with implementations of certain aspects of the Act
and, more importantly, very limited experience with
the needs or problems of the tribes. Several ad-
ministrators in the EPA Washington staff assigned to
this task have told me that, before being assigned to
their particular lead role in this effort, they did not
know the number of tribes nor their location. They
had never talked to an Indian, and they had never
been on a reservation, yet these administrators are
now advocating implementation of section 518.
Let me be more specific with respect to my ex-
perience and my point of view. I am the executive
director of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum. The Forum Is an organization created by the
Governors of the seven Colorado River Basin States
to work out a cooperative effort to control the salinity"'
of the Colorado River in dose cooperation and con-
sultation with Federal agencies. The Forum's involve-
ment is with setting water quality standards and then
implementing programs that ensure that those
standards are met
An understanding of the history of the relationship
between each of the seven Colorado River Basin
States and the relationship between the Basin States.
the Federal agencies, and the Republic of Mexico is
important as one analyzes the potential impact of
treating Indian tribes as States with respect to water
quality standards and programs such as National
Point Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
nonpoint source efforts.
The right to use the waters of the Colorado River
has been contested for more than three-quarters of a
century. In 1922, a compact between the Lower
Colorado River Basin States (California, Arizona, and
Nevada) and the Upper Colorado River Basin States
(New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming) was
entered into after long and difficult negotiations. That
compact ultimately ratified by each of the States'
legislatures and by the Congress, provided for an
agreement on how the waters of the Colorado River
would be divided between the two divisions (the
Upper Colorado River and the Lower Colorado
River). More than two decades later, the Upper
Colorado River Basin States determined how they
would divide their compact-apportioned water sup-
ply among the four Upper Basin States. Agreement
was not forthcoming in the Lower Colorado and ulti-
mately, in a very long and expensive lawsuit, the U. S.
Supreme Court decreed how the waters were to be
divided among the Lptoer Basin States.
With all of the waters allocated, the United States
then entered into a treaty with Mexico, providing that
a certain amount of additional waters would be
delivered on an annual basis to the Republic of
Mexico. How, you might ask, can all of the waters be
divided among the States and additional waters go to
Mexico? The answer from Congress was that once all
of the waters had been placed in use by the States as
provided for by compact and decree, then the
Department of the Interior will augment the flow of
the Colorado River to an extent that additional flows
are available to satisfy the Mexican commitment.
Some of the Basin States are currently using all of
their entitlement (or soon will be), while other States
are proceeding with developments that will not be
fully implemented until sometime in the next century.
Hence, the problem of an augmented flow of the
Colorado River to meet the Mexican commitment has
not yet become an issue. I think it is important to un-
derstand the sensitive and complex nature of the
water rights in the Colorado River when one looks at
105
-------
J. BARNETT
the Impact of overtying water quality standard re-
quirements.
In the early 1970s, the salinity of the Colorado
River was increasing, and users in the Lower Basin
were suffering from poor quality waters, in addition.
the Mexican Government was complaining about the
quality of the water that it was receiving. There were,
however, no provisions in the treaty with Mexico as to
water quality requirements of these waters. These is-
sues, if not complicated by the Clean Water Act, were
at least brought Into sharper focus when the Act was
enacted. The Act required that each of the States es-
tablish water quality standards to prevent pollution of
the streams, in this case to prevent increased salt
loading in the Colorado River System.
One might imagine that given the history of com-
petition and conflict for the limited water supplies in
the Colorado River, it would be almost impossible to
reach a negotiated agreement on how to proceed
with water quality control measures so that all seven
Basin States, the Federal agencies (Including EPA,
the Department of the Interior, and the State Depart-
ment), and the Republic of Mexico could agree on an
approach. However, with a spirit of cooperation and
after many compromises, an accord was reached. In
1974 the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
was passed by the Congress.
The Act has two titles. The first deals with
deliveries of water to Mexico. The last diversion of
water for use in the United States Is at Imperial Dam,
near Yuma, Arizona, not far from the Mexican border.
Title I deals with the water qualities that are delivered
past Imperial Dam and allowed to flow south, in ac-
cordance with the treaty with Mexico. A large
desalinization plant Is being built in the Yuma area by
the Bureau of Reclamation to assure that the United
States can meet its water quality commitment to
Mexico.
Title II of the Act identifies s. basinwide program to
remove salts above Imperial Dam, where it can be
done most effectively. This will ensure that the salinity
levels in the river system, as measured at three .,
downstream measuring points, do not exceed the*
1972 levels while the Basin States continue develop-
ing their compact-apportioned water.
This basinwide approach does not require that in-
dividual States adopt State standards. Title II states
that the Secretary of the Interior will take the lead in
identifying and implementing a program that wfll en-
sure that water quality standards are met The Basin
States, working through the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, will adopt policies that help to
ensure that additional salt loading does not occur in
the Colorado River System. The Basin States are also
required to reimburse the Federal Government for a
portion of the costs associated with the Salinity <
trol Program.
Through the first decade of involvement
authorized by the 1974 Act), the Department o
Interior primarily studied the most cost-effa
ways that salt could be removed from the river
tem. In very round numbers, the Department 01
Interior determined that 9 million tons of salt e
Lake Mead each year. For the standards to be
while the Basin States developed their compact
portioned water supplies, 1 million tons of salt r
be removed annually by the turn of the century.
Initially, it appeared that, although most of the
could be removed cost-effectively, removing the
of the million tons would be very expensive, poss
requiring brines to be exported from the Basin.
ther study, however, identified some very cost-ef
tive, on-farm strategies. In modifications to the A<
1984 sponsored by the Colorado River Basin Sfc
and their representatives in Congress, the Dep
merit of Agriculture was given new authorities to
plement, on a voluntary basis with Basin farm
these cost-effective, on-farm strategies. The prog
as now envisioned will probably cost only 25 perc
of the earlier estimates, but ultimately, early in
21st century, somewhere between $550 million
$600 million .will have to be spent to maintain th
water quality standards.
Every three years the Colorado River Bi
Salinity Control Forum prepares a triennial rev
report that examines whether or not the stands
established at the beginning of the program are
appropriate. The report also describes the progi
necessary to meet those standards. Each State
mally adopts the report as a part of its triennial rev
process and then submits it to EPA. Three E
regions (Dallas, Denver, and San Francisco) split
responsibility of the Colorado River, so in those th
regions, one or more of the individual State's subr
tals is approved triennially.
These triennial reviews have been accepted c
approved by EPA through the most recent submi
in 1987. The standards approved by EPA are baj
wide, with no areas excluded. This basinwide <
proach was once contested in the courts by
environmental group. The courts ruled that t
cooperative, seven-State approach to maintain!
wr3r quality was in keeping with the mandates of 1
dean Water Act
When the States get together to consider t
many-faceted Issues bearing on water quality cc
trol, each State is prepared to discuss the progran
local impacts. Since the Forum has no authority
mandate to each of the States the program that v
be adopted, a strong spirit of cooperation is needc
106
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21tt CENTURY. 1989: 105-107
Thus far, 15 years into the program, the States have
been unanimous in their positions. This has been ac-
complished by a very concerted effort. Issues are
discussed by a work group, then reviewed by many
Federal agencies. Long and serious negotiations that
result in, at times, major compromises take place
before decisions are reached.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Pro-
gram is in good shape-it is not broken; it doesn't
need to be fixed. To impose new provisions that allow
the potential involvement of all the Indian tribes
within the Colorado River drainage area could be
very disruptive. The Basin States are concerned that
some interpretations might disallow certain stan-
dards throughout the Colorado River Basin; that by
some interpretation of law, there are "windows" on In-
dian Reservations where no standards exist The
Basin States could envision, to take the worst
. scenario, areas where industry could proceed with
development and where there would be discharges
of wastes without the current stringent constraints for
discharge that now exist throughout the Basin.
For instance, it could be determined that until an
Indian tribe or the EPA proceeded with the adoption
of standards that no standards existed. If a tribe
chose not to become involved in the program, then
areas of Indian reservations would not be subject to
standards until EPA acted to adopt them. The
Forum's experience with EPA is that given its limited
resources and occasional lack of initiative, it could
take an indeterminable amount of time to put stan-
dards in place.-The Basin States have been assured
by EPA that this will not be the case.
After receiving oral commitments from high-rank-
ing EPA officials in Washington, the Basin States
finally, for the first time, received some written con-
solation when, on Septembers, 1988, General Coun-
sel Larry J. Jensen wrote to David Frohnmayer, the
attorney general of Oregon, and said (and I'm
paraphrasing), that EPA will presume (without decid-
ing) that water quality standards previously adopted
will remain in place until new standards are adopted
to replace them. The States have further been as---*
sured that this language will be incorporated into the
preamble of the rules and regulations now being
promulgated by EPA taut have yet to see that lan-
guage in draft documents. This evasive language
would, however, be better than nothing at all.
On a somewhat rdated issue, EPA had initially in-
dicated that section 510 of the Clean Water Act would
not apply to the implementation of section 518, be-
cause section 510 was not mentioned in the amend-
ments brought about by section 518. Obviously, if
Congress had intended for section 510 to apply to
section 518, Congress would have so declared. How-
ever, more recently EPA has Indicated to the States
that, as one reads the Act it is apparent that section
510 must apply. Section 510 potentially would allow
Indian tribes to move in and set more stringent stan-
dards than have been adopted throughout the Basin.
The States are concerned about the potential impact
of that action. The States are also concerned that
tribes might try to establish less stringent standards.
These actions have the potential of disrupting the on-
going Salinity Control Program.
The States within the Colorado River Basin do not
perceive a need for amendments to the Act to define
the role of Indian tribes in the program. The 17 tribes
in the Basin do not speak, by any means, with one
voice. The complexities that seven States, various
agencies of the Federal Government, and the
Republic of Mexico have in coming together to dis-
cuss common water quantity and water quality is-
sues could be greatly compounded by the
involvement of 17 Indian tribes.
I am not aware of initiatives by the tribes within the
Colorado River Basin to seek amendments to the
Clean Water Act My understanding is that to a large
degree, section 518 was drafted and promoted by
EPA in Washington. The initiative was based on legal
theories and not upon in-the-field needs. Now we
have laws on the books that EPA-Washington
promoted and feels obligated to implement. Indian
tribes may Be enticed into contemplating involve-
ment in various aspects of the Clean Water Act,
believing that it might bring to their governments
large Federal grants to implement the program. Per-
haps they will believe that tribal technical capabilities
would be enhanced. Perhaps they will think that op-
portunities for self-determination concerning the en-
vironment of their reservations will increase. A review
of the history of the long relationship of the States
and EPA and a more recent and objective look at the
funds that Congress might make available to imple-
ment the Clean Water Act could lead one to conclude
that little opportunity exists for the tribes to benefit
from Federal grants or other Federal funding assis-
tance.
In summary, from my perspective, a major and
very important water quality program now exists in
the Colorado River Basin. It has been agreed upon by
consensus of many governmental bodies. It has
been moving ahead in an exemplary way, without
significant controversy. 1. ie amendments to section
518, particularly with respect to water quality stan-
dards, provide very little, if any, promise of improve-
ments to the program. Instead, the amendments
offer the potential for, at the least more complex in-
tergovernmental discussion, and, at the worst, sig-
nificant disruptions to the program and the harmony
that now pervades the Basin.
107
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21 Jt CENTURY. 1989: 109-110
Environmental Protection and the
Rights of Indians
DonTahkaei
Tribal Councilman,Yakima Indian Nation, Toppenish, Washington
I am a member of the Yakima Indian Nation Tribal
Council; a member of our land irrigation and roads
committee; a member of our timber overall economic
development and grazing committee; chairman of
our nudear waste, toxic waste committee; and I am
chairman of our timber, fish, and wildlife committee.
My background is geology, which Is why I attend
these off-the-wall water meetings throughout the
country where 1 attempt to bring out a little bit of truth
and get back to the basics.
I would like to start off today's discussion with a
quote: "Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the
shifts from fresh air to poison gas in our political at-
mosphere. Our treatment of Indians even more than
the treatment of other minorities reflects the rise and
fall of our political faith." It has been proven that as
early as 25.000 years ago there were Indian people
traversing the land, which gives credence to the
legends, to the stories of my people that have been
handed down through time, to the very institution of
our social structure of protection of the environment,
protection of the water, protection of a way of life.
The first Congress spent much time in 1789 and
1790 enacting legislation relating to the Indian
people. During that Congress, the War Department
was established and given substantial responsibility
over Indian affairs. The Northwest Ordinance was
enacted with the famous pledge, 'that the utmost
good faith shall always be observed toward Indians."
The first of several trade and intercourse acts were
enacted to prohibit the acquisition of Indian lands by
non-Indians without Federal approval. During this
same period, Secretary of War Henry Knox advised
President Washington on the military necessity for,..
negotiating treaties with the Indian people who pos-
sessed the territory that today comprises the United
States. Secretary Knox also believed that this policy
was necessary to distinguish the national character
of the new American Government from that of the
British Colonial Government and its conduct toward
the Indian people. So Indian policy is derived from
the very weUsprings of the development of this
country.
The Constitution of the United States is the
cornerstone of your liberty, and the cornerstone of
the democratic process. How does this cornerstone
relate to an Indian's environmental rights? I'd like to
answer with a story. After a hard day at the office, a
young husband goes home, opens the door, looks
around, and says, "Where's my favorite seat?" He lies
down on the couch, looks up at the ceiling and says,
"Oh, I'm gettin" my Mac attack now." So he goes in to
the refrigerator, but it's not in its usual spot. "Now
where's the refrigerator?" He walks back into the
living room. "Where's the TV, where's the stereo?" His
wife is standing there beaming, smiling. "You notice
anything, dear?" What she wants, of course, is a little
recognition that she has changed a few things in the
house.
This is the situation that Indian people find them-
selves in today. The house has been rearranged, and
the Indian people are sitting there saying, "Hey, what
happened to the fine clean water we used to have?
What happened to the clean air that we used to
breathe? What happened to our poor lakes and
ponds thatfiven the cows and the deer and elk and
the antelope don't even want to be near. There must
be something wrong." And so the Indian people
begin to look around, and then they come to my of-
fice, look me square in my eyeballs and say, "What
have you allowed to happen out there?" I don't know
what happened. They begin to relate a chronological
order of events that have taken place within the last
couple of years. Grandma's going tell me that she's
got no more roots out there. She's got no more
medicine, she's got no more herbs. These plants
have all disappeared because the white man is out
there, and he has changed it
Indians have not had the luxury of a Safeway on
every other comer, which means their subsistence
came from the land, from the streams, and from the
lakes. Because this subsistence pattern withstood
the test of time, it gave credence to the social struc-
ture, to the religious belief that was formed and car-
ries on even today, which r" elates back to the giver
of life-water. EPA is one of the few Federal agencies
that have come out with a proclaimed Indian posi-
tion, but fine words upon a piece of paper do not help
to clean this water. And so, the good businessman,
the good bureaucrat, the fine mouthpiece, and you, a
worker out in the field, must sit down at the table and
discuss the environment with the Indian tribes of your
109
-------
OLTAHKAEL
area who are involved, affected, impacted by your
decisions.
Let* s get back to reality. I would like to read from a
letter that was sent to me. It said, "What are the ap-
propriate roles for various groups involved that are
partly or half-heartedly represented or even opposed
by the State or the Federal Government?" It was pre-
dictable that none of Reagan's officials would be
committed to the Indian cause, but yet in 19138 the
head of EPA, Lee Thomas, did take time from a meet-
ing with the States and EPA to sit with the Indian
people and ask their concerns, because there is
something owed to the Indian people, based upon
the Constitution that we all abide by. There should
have been 319 tribes sitting in that room; instead,
there were « few tribes represented from each
region. As I said, the first Congress spent many hours
discussing the Indian people, and the negotiation
process ended in 1871 with Congress' decision that
whie there would be no more treaties with the In-
dians, every previous treaty would be upheld. How-
ever, in 1904 the Yaklma Indian Nation took its case
to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the United
States gave nothing to the Indian people, but rather, it
was the Indian people that gave something to the
United States—in something called a treaty. Anything
not specifically enumerated within that treaty, the In-
dians could retaia
Protection of the water, protection of the air, and
protection of the environment are not listed within the
treaty, so that means we stffl own those rights.
Whether there are exploiters of the environment,
businesses with permits from EPA or from the States
acting arbitrarily and capriciously on the environ-
ment, the Indians still retain the right to protect that
environment The Supreme Court further determined
that whether a State or its grantee owns a piece of
land, or the Federal Government or its grantee owns
a piece of land, there is still an encumbrance upon
that property today—the treaty right of the Indian
people. And so because of these chronological lists
of historical events, the United States is playing the
lead if not always noble role because the treaties and '"
theagreementsand
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1989
Questions, Answers, and Comments
d (Slsneros) / would like to echo Richard Du
Bey's dtsappointmentthat we don't have more tribes
here, and I do have a question for EPA: how many
tribes were invited to the meeting?
A. Forty.
C. (Freeman) What 1 was hoping to get out this
session was an identification of ways we can work
with water quality standards on Indian lands. I don't
think it's an issue of whether Tribe 18 should be there
or shouldn't be there, Tribe 18 Is there. I was hoping
to get more in terms of how we can work with those
tribes and our States In the definition of water quality
standards.
C. (Bamett) I agree with you that if s not a ques-
tion of whether Tribe 18 is or is not there. Ifs the
tribes that have the choice as to whether or not they
decide to apply to have certain authorities given to
them under section 546. (I used the term "authorities"
wrongly. EPA attorneys say that they have no
authorities to give.) if the States do not have the
authority, then the tribe doesn't have the authority
and cannot become eligible for the program. So, if s
a question of whether States conclude that they have
the authority or want to clarify further, through their
own legislative process, the laws that qualify them for
EPA programs. What I think fs lacking in your com-
ment is the basic He that came forward, that we're
going to do something good for the tribes. There's no
money to do that, there's no personnel to do that I
meet with EPA Washington and they say, "Oh, we've
written a letter to the regions and asked them to be-
come proactive." 1 meet with the regional ad-
ministrators and they say, "We wrote a letter back to
EPA and said. 'Forget it We have no resources. Why
don't the States become proactive? *
So, I'm frustrated for the Indians. What do they
really expect out of this? If Washington doesn't have
the wherewithal, the regions don't have the
wherewithal, and the States aren't the ones who in-''
itiated the effort All the Indians can hope for is that
they might become eligible for a grant program
sometime, and I'm not sure that*s a favor to them. So,
you say, how are we going to get involved, and I'm
saying I think it's a frustrating issue because there are
no resources to go wrtfi that promise.
C. (Ou Bey) I've tried hard to be objective in this
process, and I guess 1 just can't listen to the concern
for tribal governments being expressed by someone
who has not pointed out a problem. Whenever
there's a change in the status quo, there are going to
be those who are threatened by it I would suggest
that if there is a problem in how the Colorado River
Salinity group is functioning, that we should hear
about the problem and not the potential for a parade
of horribles, which always seems to be a justification
for doing nothing. The focus was to address the
Framework and to talk about that as a way of plan-
ning in the future from a rather broad policy directive.
If it would be helpful to discuss what programs are
out there, how they are put in place, what the
governmental structure would be, and if that would
be of interest to everybody here, then we can discuss
that
C. (Sisneros) I'm not only disappointed that we
don't have more tribes here, I'm really disappointed
we don't have more States present in the audience,
which seems to be made up primarily of EPA people.
I also was hoping to be able to come up with some
point of discussion of where we go from here, how do
we get together and make this thing work. Certainly,
in New Mexico we have recognized section 518 as
the law, and where we're at right now is let's make
this work and lef s work together. EPA sponsored two
meetings back in June 1988 In" Denver a one-day
session for (he States and a one-day session for the
tribes. At that meeting, EPA committed to hold a fu-
ture meeting with tribes and the States together. I
think that Is needed, and several of the western
States have urged EPA to hold this meeting. Get us in
the same room and let us start talking to each other.
We need to do it at the State level and at the national
level, as well. I'd like some feedback from you EPA
folks as to whether you think it's doable and if there
are plans to do that
C. (Persell) If Indians are given the hope of a pro-
gram to protect the environment then this is for Con-
gress to appropriate money on. We realize that
States are in trouble, that EPA funding for States is
going up. Weil, States are feeling threatened by the
300 tribes that are after money. States think they are
going to lose money. That's their perception of our
saying we don't want to pay for what the States al-
ready have. States have a tough job in front of them.
Indians should.go get their own money.
I believe that efforts such as Mr. Bamett's are com-
mendable. They're going to try to clean up the water,
and we Chippewas support that However, if we
could get support from groups such as yours to go to
Congress, then let's all go battle at the same time.
This is what is needed, not to fight over whether
tribes are going to impinge upon existing water
111
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS. & COMMENTS
quality agreements. Lef s have recognition that tribes
are governments, that tribes have authorities for
water quality control, and let's proceed to get dollars
from the Federal Government
C. (SIsneros) I'H give you some feedback from
New Mexico. One of the recommendations that our
water quality control commission made in its 305(b)
report to Congress was that Congress should come
up with money for tribes. We recognize there isn't
enough money available to do everything the States
or the tribes are going to be required to do under this
statute, and we feel that the tribes shouldn't have to
compete with the States for the monies, and the
States shouldn't be penalized by specific set-asides.
C. (Bamett) Despite your good idea that the
States and tribes ought to meet together, any long
discussion and meetings really tax tribal resources, if
EPA really wants to get dialogue going with the
States, they've got to figure out a way to finance that
involvement Trips to Denver for 40 or 50 tribes are
expensive. And secondly, EPA's got to get enough
people funded to really get involved in the program.
This passing the buck back and forth between Head-
quarters and the regions and saying what are. we
going to do, we don't have enough resources, but we
have entered into a noble cause—that doesn't help
promote the program at ail. If there are no dollars to
promote the program, then if s all just wishful think-
ing.
C. I couldn't agree more. If 275 tribes could attend
this conference on Federal Government per diem or
private per diem from 106 money, you'd probably see
275 tribes here.
C. There was a discussion about the fact that
somehow States and the Federal Government find
the money whenever they are in litigation with tribes.
Where is that money? Perhaps this would be a good
first challenge for the new EPA Department of Pollu-
tion Control. On many Indian reservations there Is the
opportunity for EPA to start a preventative program'
against pollution. For much less expenditure, we can
stop the problem at the outset Why not allocate
funding and the mandate to have a series of
workshops to the Department of Pollution Control?
We as the Indian work group charged with meet-
ing the Indian coordinator's concerns from Region V
should come up with a set of recommendations for
how we would deal constructively with this issue.
Then these solutions would be reported back at a
plenary session, after which we would begin im-
plementation. We ail go to lots of conferences, and
then we go away. Why not have the conference be an
opportunity to create an action plan that we will t
work together to implement?
C. (Wilson) I would like to make one proposal.
foremost standard framework is a vision of sev
years because it is difficult for the States to maki
these changes. This is an opportunity, perhaps,
the tribes to take the lead in showing how to effect
ly provide good protection programs. In Regioi
the tribes have excellent fisheries files; they h
been leaders in resource protection. It would s<
useful to provide a little bit of seed money to fi
some of their time to try to come up with some g<
biological wetlands-type of criteria language '
would provide the basis in the standards for resoi
protection that could then serve as information ;
guidance to other tribes.
C. There are two ways of doing that: F
programs that would serve within Indian country
microcosms of what could be expected in lar
areas within States. They would be a teaming
perience and also an opportunity for tribal staf
develop expertise. And secondly, agreements
the one for implementation of the Resource Con;
vation Recovery Act for hazardous waste mana
merit on the Puyaflup Indian Reservation
Washington "between the Department of Ecolc
EPA, and the State. This tribe had a similar probl
with funding: they were unable to fully participati
this negotiation, so EPA's administrator for Regio
elected to fund a consultant to be the facilitator
the agreement so that no one party was in contra
the negotiations, and then let a sole source contr
to the tribe to fund Tfe participation in the proce
There are a number of creative mechanisms <
there, through cooperative agreements, sole soui
contracts, or other resource uses, that if we were
put our collective energy into those issues, we cot
use to come up with a feasible program.
C. (Pollock) Who were the tribes involved in t
compacts and agreements that were cited over t
Colorado River Basin? At some point tribes we
brought in, and they are part of it today. Water qual
standards, as new as they are for us are just as n<
for tribes. EPA has striven recently to find ways
communicate with the tribes. We are all searching f
ways to communicate Tectfvely with the tribe
Don't look at the lack of tribal participation he
today as a lack of tribal interest The tribes are very i
terested. They want to tap the machinery here to I
able to produce some of these programs.
Q. How best can we help to develop the wat
quality standards program for the tribes? We see
112
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21* CENTURY. 1989
as a tribal responsibility. Is communicating with the
tribes best done through letters and telephone calls
or through conferences? Can the best help be
provided by standards based on some of the
ecoregion concepts? We need to hear from tribal
representatives; what do they think would be the
most useful kind of assistance?
A. (Pollock) To go back again to funding, I would
start with tribes or suggest that EPA start with tribes
or with States, and put out a large sum of money (if
106 were involved in planning things, it would be a
start). Communication is needed, and I assure you
that communication abflities wil increase.
C. There are those in Washington that are trying to
find out how to proceed, but they talk about the tribes
as if they are all the same. You have to spend the time
and the resources to go out and communicate initial-
ly with Indian governments to find out what their
needs are, and how they want to communicate. How
are they organized? There is a belief that there is
some generic body out there that*s an Indian tribe,
and that they all can be categorized as the same, but
they are very different You have to give EPA the
resources so the Agency can understand and assist
with tribal problems and then treat each tribe in-
dividually.
CL Do you have multi-tribe meetings or Indian or-
ganization meetings where it would be appropriate
to invite SPA people or others to start the basic
educational process? (What the standards program
is about, who we are, what the documents are.)
A. (Tahkael) There are numerous intertribal or-
ganizations. EPA is busy making memorandums of
understanding, memorandums of agreement, with (it
seems) everyone in the world except tribes, in
Washington State there is a tri-party agreement over
Hartford. Where was the tribe? You guys are talking
about my land, my rights, and you are out there
spending multi-billions of dollars on what you call
cleanup. So there Is a serious breakdown In com-
munication.
The Yakima Nation is fortunate, or unfortunate, to
have developed a fine staff. My grandfather had the
right to brag, "I could walk across the river on the
backs of salmon." Today I look around and all I see
are biologists, hydrologists, geologists, technicians,
and it seems like everyone else beneath the sun. I
guess I have to line them up in the river so I can walk
across their backs to get to the other side. But that's
not doing my people any good because they need to
fish, and they need the water to be dean enough for
the fish to return. As a tribe that is struggling in times
of austerity, we are attempting to make sure to get
our penny's worth for a better future for our
grandchildren. But because we are talking in a linear
fashion—a, b, c, then we expect that to happen. You
and I are in that process, we hope that everything
comes in order, but the reality of the environment is
that this guy is talking about "z," and this guy is talk-
ing about "a," so w» get the alphabet all gummed up
and blame it oh communication. Pace-to-face com-
munication, I believe. Is best for Indians because they
are a traditional people. In forums such as this if I'm
going to lie, you'll know that I'm lying because you
can see me and you will also see that I'm telling the
truth.
The I ndian people as a group, on the whole, desire
the truth because we have seen the formation of the
United States of America, and we see a better future
for this country. We would hope that through your ef-
forts and combined work with Indians that it will be-
come a reality. As do-gooders who flit in and out of
Indian country you perceive that you can't communi-
cate with anybody, so there is a breakdown. I hope
that there are going to be more meetings, that we will
be able to sit down face-to-face and I believe that the
communication effort that has gone forward so far
has been adequate. I would hope that the regional
concept becomes more of a reality. There is room for
improvement in EPA, and there js room for improve-
ment in the tribes. Yet I think we can do more improv-
ing if we get together. I would also advocate more
work sessions, more communal efforts where we
would get back to the basics.
Q. To the tribal representatives here: do you think
there should be a role for the States to play in your
water quality standards setting and, if you do, what
should that role be, and how should the States
proceed?
Q. / would ask you a question: were the tribes in-
volved In setting the State water quality standards?
Ac (Sisneros) Only very recently, within the last five
years in New Mexico.
A. My reply then would be, initially, I don't think
States have much of a role to play. I know that I ndians
are going to draw on the scientific data produced by
the States, by EPA, or by the universities, as well as
developing our own standards.
C. (Tahkael) i hope the tribes have the opportunity
to set their own standards. The State programs that
exist are inadequate, and they are also erroneous in
some of their assumptions. They include geographic
locations on the amount of acres of a reservation and
the populations as statistics but yet do not address
the actual situations upon reservations.
113
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS. & COMMENTS
My particular reservation is on midstream of a
river, the longest tributary to the Columbia in the
Northwest and every inch was ceded by the Yakirna
Nation. So the tribe gets into discussions of ceded
land areas and traditional land areas, as well as usual
and custom land areas. If EPA were going to come up
with some type of clarification, not restricting Indians
just to today's reservation land area, that would cor-
rect errors that the State has made as assumptions,
and then the tribes would be pleased with the State's
performance. The tribes should be afforded the
luxury to develop their own reports because the
baseline data for each reservation and each Indian
tribe have not yet been developed.
C. (Pollock) I don't know what the role of the State
is in establishing tribal water quality standards. Our
concerns are mutual. I believe, between the States
and the tribes, and I would hope that with this role of
involvement and friendship that we could avoid ever
presenting a window of invisibility to the State or to
any other interested parties.
C. (Sisneros) The tribes should nave the oppor-
tunity to make use of the information that we have;
the data for tribal waters are very limited; however, in
terms of getting through the EPA bureaucracy, we
can suggest a format, protocol procedures, that sort
of thing. I would hope that the States are providing
opportunities for tribes to use the experience and the
expertise that States have in setting water quality
standards, and I would hope the tribes would make
use of the opportunity.
C. (Du Bey) Having been involved in several of
these cooperative agreements in Montana,
Washington, and other States, I think that, among the
program people, there is little disagreement that
there is a desire to have as much input to the process
as possible. It Is for the tribes, however, to define
what role they wish to have the States play. That is a
key component I know of no situation where a tribe
would not be willing to circulate its rules for comment
to improve them because, in fact that serves the*
tribe's purposes as long as there is not undo delay in
that process.
The focus seems to be between the tribe and EPA;
the unknown entity is what the State may or may not
do. Why doesn't EPA as a matter of policy decide that
States that have Indian reservations within their
boundaries have a burden to contact those tribes this
fiscal year and to meet with them. States were«
cated on Federal tax dollars for the last 20 years, \
not make it pay off? Another suggestion: for I
regions to feel that this is important and a priority,
transition of commitment to the tribal govemmc
must make its way down into the managerr
scheme. You have to know that as a part of y
responsibilities, "beans" are going to get counted
regional administrators or, for water program divis
directors, contacts with Indian tribes—whether'
have been successful in putting in place a coop<
tive agreement how far you have gone in 106 fu
ing. Rather than make it an add-on when everyc
has a full plate to begin with, make it a part of the v
they are required to do business. Then the normal!
tfon of relationships between tribes, States, and
Federal Government can begin to take place. It is
going to be considered a unique, freakish event
will be the way that business gets done.
Dave Sabock deserves a tremendous amount
credit in the work that he has done with Indian trit
because back eight or nine years ago, when
Covflle Tribe first knocked on his door to talk ab<
water quality standards, he was a little bit resistant
first But he listened to what the tribe's concei
were, and to his great credit and to the benefit to I
Coville tribe and other tribes, be is a person w
once convinced of the appropriateness of an acti
will follow up on it
C. (Sisneros) To sum up, I think we all recogm
the tribal respect for water. It has been in place sin
Day 1. We have an opportunity for the tribes to
leaders in water quality standards setting and wa
quality protection. However, we need resources i
the tribes. I would hope that the States, the trib<
and EPA could join to try to come up with tho
resources. EPA needs to develop some knowledc
recognition, some sensitivity concerning the tribes
does appear that EPA has proceeded on the z
sumption that all the tribes are the same. They a
not The States and the tribes have a real challenge
come together on standards.
I would like to hope that the State of New Mexit
and the tribes of New Mexico can put an effect!1
program together. At this conference we have tak<
a step in improving State and tribal communicatio
and certainly today was a part of that, but it is on
one step. We have a long way to go, but certainly it
progress.
114
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY, 1988: 115
Lake Protection Through
Standards
Douglas Holy (Moderator)
Qean Lakes Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VI, Dallas, Texas
We are here to discuss lake protection through
standards. First. I would like to review what the
Framework said concerning lakes. Having done that,
. . . wen. I did see one mention of lakes in the
Framework. It states that EPA wffl be conducting
some target monitoring efforts In selected nonpoint
source high priority watersheds to evaluate the utility
of lake, biological, marine, wetland, and estuarine
criteria for assessing the impacts of nonpoint source
implementation activities.
As you can see. the priority that has been placed
upon lakes in this standards meeting is not great In
fact, we were not even on the program three weeks
ago. The present Framework does not address
standards to protect lakes. If we decide these criteria
are necessary, we have the opportunity to influence
statutory revisions that will be made to the Clean
Water Act Indeed, this session might have the most
impact as far as potential revisions to the Framework.
115
-------
-------
WATER QUALJTY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1989: 117-121
Lake Protection Through Standards
A State's Viewpoint
Steven A. Heiskaiy
Research Scientist, Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency St. Paul, Minnesota
To appreciate Minnesota's view on this Issue-1 think it
is necessary to take a brief look at the resources the
State is charged with managing. Minnesota has over
12.000 lakes; therefore, the determination of lake
management strategies, such as carrying capacities.
restoration goals, and lake protective standards can-
not be made readly on a lake-by-lake basis. In light of
this and the wide spectrum in trophic state, ranging
from ollgotrophic to hypereutrophic, Minnesota
employed a regional approach to examine spatial
patterns In lake water quality, lake morphometry, and
lake uses and. ultimately, to develop regional phos-
phorus criteria for protecting water quality.
Ecoregions provided the framework for evaluating
these regional patterns. Ecoregions are areas of rela-
tive homogeneity that were developed from mapped
information by US. EPA Corvallls-ERL (Omemik.
1987). The seven ecoregions defined for Minnesota
are based on land use, soils, land and surface form.
and potential natural vegetation (Fig. 1). They pro-
vide a means to group various land and surface water
characteristics. Ninety-eight percent of Minnesota's
12,034 lakes occur in four of the seven ecoregions:
Northern Lakes and Forests, North Central
Hardwood Forests, Northern Glaciated Plains, and
Western Com Beit Rains. Land use varies regionally:
the Northern Lakes and Forests ecoregion is
dominated by forests with some water and marsh,
whie the Northern Glaciated Plains and Western
Com Belt Plains are primarty cultivated with some
pasture and open land. The North Central Hardwood
Forest ecoregion consists of a mixture of various
land uses.
To understand the wide spectrum in trophic status
in Minnesota's lakes, let us take a quick look at the
quality of lakes in two contrasting ecoregions. The
Northern Lakes and Forests ecoregion contains ap-
proximately 5.500 lakes (about 46 percent of those in
Minnesota). These lakes are generally small and
deep: surface areas are typically 100 to 550 acres,
while max|mum depths are typically from 20 to 60
feet The trophic status of lakes in this ecoregion
range from oiigotrophic to hypereutrophic (Rg. 2).
The vast majority (92 percent) of the 800 assessed
lakes fully support swimmable use. while less than 2
percent do not (Minn: Pollut Control Agency, 1988)
(Fig. 3).
In contrast the Western Com Beit Plains
ecoregion contains approximately 600 lakes or
about 5 percent of the lakes in Minnesota. In general,
they are quite shallow and have larger surface areas
than the ones In the Northern Lakes and Forests and
North Central Hardwood Forests ecoregions. Typi-
cally, surface areas are between 250 and 1,000 acres
and maximum depths are between 5 and 20 feet.
Based on the lakes we have assessed (n -60) in this
ecoregion, all are either eutrophic or hypereutrophic
and less than 10 percent support swimmable use
(Minn. Pollut Control Agency, 1988).
OnltltM »'««
Figure 1.—MniMcotc't MVWI •eercglom.
Developing Criteria
I may use the words "standards" or "criteria" inter-
changeably. When I refer to Minnesota's approach, I
.am speaking of criteria. These criteria are intended
as quantitative estimates of the concentration of a
117
-------
S.A. HSSJOWY
I
3
H
Figure 2.—Distribution of lake trophic statue by «eoregton.
118
-------
alANUAHQS FOR 21st CENTURY. 1988: 117-121
Figure 3.—Distribution of lakss supporting swimirabl* use by ceor«gJon.
119
-------
S.A HBSKAHY
constituent (phosphorus) that represents a quality of
water that supports a particular use. They are not f or-
mal rules or laws, Le., true standards.
A variety of approaches have been taken to
develop standards or criteria for protection of lake
water quality. A review of State water quality stan-
dards specific to nutrient enrichment (Metro. Wash.
Counc. Gov. 1982) revealed a wide range in phos-
phorus concentrations used by various States (7 to
200 ppb). This rangt reflects variations in water-use
classifications, lake types, natural background phos-
phorus concentrations, economic factors, and th»
expectations and tolerances of lake- users. Because
of regional diversity in lake and watershed charac-
teristics, it Is unlikely that a single total phosphorus
value could be adopted as a statewide criterion for
lake protection in Minnesota (Hetekary et aL 1967).
Rather, a methodology is needed for developing lake
water quality criteria on a regional or lake-specific
basis (Heiskary and Walker, 1988).
The methodology for establishing lake water
quality criteria in Minnesota considers the following:
« Phosphorus impacts on lake condition (as
measured by chlorophyll a. transparency, and
hypoiimnetic oxygen depletion);
• Impacts on lake uses (aesthetics, recreation,
fisheries, drinking water supply, etc.); and
• Achievabfllty (as related to watershed
characteristics, regional phosphorus export
values, lake morphometry. eta).
In this respect, we have used the ecoregion
framework as a means for gaining a regional
perspective on these issues. Table 1 summarizes the
most sensitive uses of lakes by ecoregion. "Most sen-
sitive use" is that use(s) that may be impact!
as a result of increased trophic status in a I
corresponding phosphorus criteria are intc
protect those uses, taking into account diffei
attainable levels and user perception beta
regions. The emphasis, here, is on protectic
ever possible. For restoration purposes
criteria can serve as goals. The criteria in
reflect over three years' worth of samplir
analysis, and literature review.
Role of Criteria
Phosphorus criteria win play an important rol
protection and restoration of lake water qt
Minnesota. The criteria can be used as re
management guidelines with existing reg
management and educational programs. Sc
ampJes of uses and application of the criteria
follows:
• As an element in prioritizing and selectim
projects to be funded through Minnesota
nonpoint source program, the Clean Wat
Partnership Program (Minn. Stat section
115.091 to 115.103. Supp. 1987), and the
federally funded section 314 Clean Lakes
section 319 Nonpoint Source Manageme
Programs authorized by the Clean Water
• For use by resource managers in develop
water quality management plans. For exa
over 80 water management organizations
Minnesota are now preparing comprehert
local water management plans required oi
authorized under Minn. Stat section 473.£
or Minn. Stat chapter 1108.
Titotet—M
pho«phoTU« ertt»rto (Hrtatary and Wllaon, 1988%
i by ccoraglon and corresponding
w uses
—primary contact
15*104.
Northom Central Hadwood
pply
Northern Glactatod Plain*
— pnmafy contact
recreation and Matfwtics
(full support)
(partial support)
- raersatton and aestrwtfcs
(partial support)
• As an educational tool for
communicating what can
reasonably be expected in ten
of lake quality. In the case of
degraded fakes (e.g.t lake
restoration projects), the enter
can serve as reasonable target
goals.
• As a guide for enforcement
decisions. Particularly importer
for protecting the quality of lake
currently at or below the enteric
level.
« As a guide to interpret
nondegradatlon requirements.
120
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY. 1989: 117-121
EPA's Role in the Development of
Lake Water Quality Standards
(Criteria)
Minnesota's (phosphorus) criteria should not be con-
sidered final. The State expects that the criteria will
evolve with additional data and a better under-
standing of lake resources. What role then can EPA
play in this process (criteria or standards setting), not
only for Minnesota but for States nationwide that may
be interested in improving the management of their
lake resources by establishing lake standards
(criteria)? In this vein, we offer the following recom-
mendations:
• Provisions for States to develop and Implement
lake water quality standards (criteria). In these
provisions it will be important however, to keep
flexibility in the process so that States can meet their
individual needs.
• Financial assistance to the State* seeking to
develop lake water quality standards (criteria). This
assistance would allow for the development of ap-
propriate monitoring programs to evaluate the condi-
tion of the resource and dedicate time to analyze the
data. Also, financial assistance could be provided to
environmental research laboratories, such as Corval-
lis, to allow them to interact more directly with the
States in developing these programs and analyzing
data.
• Technical assistance to the States would also be
valuable. One avenue might be a joint project with
the North American Lake Management Society to
develop a guidance document for the States in which
alternative approaches to standards (criteria)
development could be presented, such as para-
meters to consider, numeric versus narrative ap-
proaches, and sampling programs for assessing the
State's lake resources could be presented.
These are a few examples of how EPA could
(should) play a role in the development of lake water
quality standards. However, actions that are not
needed include: development of lake water quality
standards that apply across the United States, or a
mandate that every State have the same type of
standards. While numeric standards (criteria) may be
essential In some States, a narrative standard may be
adequate in others. In States with very few lakes,
standards may not be necessary, as problems can be
dealt with on a lake-by-lake basis.
Summary
Minnesota has developed regional phosphorus
criteria for lakes that will be used as resource
management guidelines in conjunction with existing
regulatory, management and educational programs.
These criteria will evolve as new information is ob-
tained. EPA can assist Statesin- developing lake
standards through provisions and financial assis-
tance, and technical assistance. These efforts will go
a long way towards protecting the quality of lakes
nationwide and helping achieve the goals of the
Clean Water Act
References .
Heiatauy, SA. C.B. Wilson, and D.P. Larsen. 1907. Analysis of
regional patterns in lake water quality: using ecoregions for
lake management in Minnesota. Lake Reserv. Manage. 3:337-
44.
Heiskary. SA and W.W. Walker. Jr.. 1988. Developing phos-
phorus criteria for Minnesota lakes. Lake Reserv. Manage. 4:1 •
9.
Heiskary, SA and C.B. Wilson. 1988. Minnesota Lake Water
Quality Assessment Report. Minn. Pollut Control Agency, St.
Paul.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Government. 1982. A review
of stew water quality standards which pertain to nutrient en-
richment Pep. Environ. Prog., Washington, DC.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1988. Minnesota Water
Quality-Water Years 1988-1987: The 1968 Report to tn« Con-
gress of the United States. St Paul.
Omemik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United
States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geogr. 77(1):118-25.
121
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY, 1989: 123-128
Water Quality Standards for Lakes
Robert J.Johnson
Manager, Environmental Performance Department, Environmental Quality Staff
Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee
In 1972. after six years of trying, the U.S. Congress
passed the National dean Lakes Act as section 314
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amend-
ments of 1972. Section 314 was a direct response to
the public, which had sought governmental interven-
tion, guidance, and support to reverse the downward
trend in the quality of the Nation's lakes.
The Water Pollution Control Act required for the
first time both minimum end-of-pipe, technology-
based discharge limits and minimum in-stream,
water quality standards. Where water quality stand-
ards could not be achieved, wasteload allocation
studies would be performed and more stringent
waste controls imposed.
incredibly, EPA chose not to implement section
314 in the belief that the process otherwise outlined
in the Water Pollution Control-Act, when combined
with a strong program of discharge permits and en-
forcement oversight, would correct the problems
facing lakes and impoundments. In effect EPA said
the Clean Lakes Act incorporated in section 314 was
unnecessary.
By the mid-1970s, however, the public had be-
come disenchanted with this approach and com-
pelled the appropriation of Federal funds to initiate a
National Clean Lakes Program. Funding was
provided to the States to assess the quality of their
lakes and to prioritize remedial actions on problem
lakes. Lake demonstrations for protective and res-
torative purposes were supported. At about the same
time, the National Eutrophication Survey (1971-77)
found that 68 percent of the 800 lakes surveyed were
eutrophic.
In 1977. the Water Pollution Control Act was
amended to strengthen section 314. once again'-'
recognizing the public's concern about lake water
quality.
I was involved with a lot of people in these
developments, and I can tell you honestly that there
was little faith at this point In the Federal Govern-
ment's attention span or its accountability for respon-
sible lake management. Because someone had to
develop and disseminate state-of-the-art information
on lake protection and enhancement, concerned
citizens established the North American Lake
Management Society (NALMS) in 1980.
In 1983, NALMS solicited information from the
States about the extent and severity of their lake
quality problems and the institutional constraints
they faced in restoring and protecting lake quality.
Thirty-eight States completed and returned the 37-
question form. Significant findings included the fol-
lowing: almost 9,300 lakes had excessive levels of
nutrients; about 12,000 lakes had noxious growths of
weeds and algae; and more than 120 lakes were con-
taminated by toxic substances. About 4,200 lakes
and reservoirs were identified as having impaired
use.
These findings contrasted greatly with the lack of
information in the 1984 EPA water quality report to
Congress that made only passing reference to pollu-
tion problems in lakes. But even more significant, the
numbers were greater by orders of magnitude than
those in a 1971 survey sponsored by EPA.
As you can see by Table 1, which looks at just nine
of the reporting States, the number of problem lakes
increased from 156 in 1971 to 3,329 in 1983. with
more than 875,000 hectares of lake water impaired.
That's more than a 20-fold increase. .
As you can see from Figure 1,26 of the 38 report-
ing States indicated that at least half of their lakes
were adversely affected by nonpoint sources, and 15
States indicated that more than 75 percent of their
combined 24,000 lakes were being hurt by nonpoint
sources.
In 1985, EPA released "The Clean Lakes Program:
A Review of the First Decade." This report docu-
mented an impressive record of accomplishment,
notably the successes of whole watershed and in-
lake demonstrations that showed that lake protection
and restoration can be achieved cost effectively. It
reported that public interest and understanding of
lake quality issues had increased manyfold; that
scientific assessment and modeling techniques were
improving; and that local and State lake associa-
tions, formed to improve and protect lake Duality,
were mushrooming.
However, page 16 of the report revealed a dismal
bottom line. It quoted the 1984 report, "America's
Clean Water," published by the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministrators: "An estimated four times more fake
123
-------
a j. JOHNSON
Tabl» 1.—Comparison ot lake quality pfobtom* reported by «!•*• agenda* In 1971 and In 1963.
1M3 SURVEY RESULTS
STATE
Arkansas
Florida
Illinois
Massachusetts
Michigan
Oregon
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Utah
Total
19TI-SURVEY*
NUMBER OP
PROBLEM LAKES
1
49
8
23
24
3
10
34
4
ise
NUMBER OF
LAKES WITH
IMPAIRED USC
11
202
201 • •
1.050
173
15
350
1.300
27
3.329
NUMBER OP
EXTENT OP LAKES WITH NUMBER OP LAKES
IMPAIRED USE EXCESSIVE ALGAE/ WITH TOXICS
(tUB.) WEEOS/NUTRIEKTS CONTAMINATION
4.59S
292,520
52.900
21.255
43.036
32.591
184,208
202.429
54,044
887.576
11
150
126
1.050
138
50
590
5.000
20
7.135
3
10
5
?
7
3
7
7
24
45
• From ttw Ww *uiv«y oonducwd tor EPA by K«WI« and Unormarti.4
acreage had deteriorated in quality (1.7 million acres)
than had improved between 1972 and 1982."
In 1985. the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators disclosed that
4.4 million lake and reservoir surface acres were im-
paired by nonpoint source pollution, and another 3.7
million acres were threatened: 53 percent of as-
sessed U.S. lakes were adversely affected by non-
point sources of pollution.
These reports, incomplete as they were, spurred
MALMS to evaluate the adequacy of existing institu-
tional and regulatory programs for protecting lake
water quality. In 1986, NALMS devoted its annual
conference to water quality standards and their
specific application to lakes and Impoundments.
A paper of which i was co-author (Ouda et al.
1987) that reviewed water quality standards was
presented at the conference. This paper suggested
six categories of lake management approaches that.
in all likelihood, should be integrated to achieve
Clean Water Act goals. These approaches Included
the application of technology-based point and non-
point source controls, lake inflow criteria. Intake
water quality standards, use classifications, and In-
novative approaches such as point/nonpoint pollu* .
tlon trading.
The paper pointed out that Intake numerical or
ecologically based standards can serve as the
cornerstone for an integrated, basinwide approach.
The standards would act as & trigger for more strin-
gent water quality management programs where
warranted. They would establish definable, enforce-
able goals and provide a means of measuring
progress and assuring accountability of new
programs.
The paper went on to note that sufficient legisla-
tive and regulatory authority existed to implement
this approach. Leadership on the part of EPA and the
States was needed to establish lakes and impour
merits as priority water bodies deserving special
tention in State water management programs.
This paper was debated, sometimes heatedly,
the opening plenary of the 1986 NALMS symposh
by a panel of experts drawn from a variety of intere:
and professional backgrounds and the conferen
audience. No consensus on the need for lake star
ards was reached but support for the approach w
obvious, partlcolarly it is noteworthy to mention, frc
the soap and detergent industry, the National A
sodation of Conservation Districts, and the Stat
represented there.
The 1986 debate ted NALMS to undertake anoth
survey to gather the opinions of State water pollutic
control administrators on the subject of water quali
standards for lakes. This is the survey I was invited t
discuss at this conference.
This survey was conducted in 1987-88 and tr
results presented by NALMS in a November 196
preliminary report. It consisted of 46 questions In tti
following four broad categories:
• Are lake water quality standards needed?
• How are such standards used now or how
would they be used if adopted?
• What are the data needs for lake standards
development and use?
« Should there be lake standards for toxic
substances?
The survey form was developed by a 16-membe
task force established by the NALMS board and com
posed predominantly of State lake progran
managers, with ASIWPCA and EPA also represented
The task force agreed not to develop or promott
policy positions in the report but only to summarize
the data from the questionnaires.
124
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR ZMt CENTURY. 1969: 123-1!
O
2*
UJ
O
UJ
Iff
# 1" &
A K3 V
O
C0
LU
©
Figure 1 .—Proportion of lakes Mid r«»«rvolr» Mrloutly arr«ctMl by nonpolnl •ourece of pollution ee reported by State weter polli
lion control administrators in th« 1983 NALMS Stale Lake Survey (Dude and Johnson, 19C4).
125
-------
R J. JOHNSON
From my point of view, the following were the bot-
tom lines of the survey:
1.
3.
4.
7.
Because 47 States responded to the question-
naire, the States are dearly interested in the
issue of lake water quality standards.
Twenty-two States do not have specific stan-
dards for eutrophicatlon; 24 do.
Eighteen States have numerical eutrophica-
tion standards; 24 narrative, generally with no
end points.
Twelve States believe numerical lake stan-
dards could encourage environmental
degradation; 11 do not
Twenty-two States Indicate they have never at-
tempted to develop or promulgate lake stan-
dards and dearly Indicate that State
legislatures would not support the attempt, al-
though the State agencies would
Eghteen States indicate that lake water quality
standards could promote or enhance shore-
land regulation In the State; 20 say they would
not
The survey asked, "Do you see a need for
developing lake-specific standards, criteria, or
policy in your State?", with the following
results: (Note: For the purpose of this question,
standards are plans that Include water use
dassiflcations, criteria. Implementation, and
enforcement; criteria are legally enforceable
limits not to be violated; and policy may in-
clude discharge bans or other management
tools.)
STANDARDS CRITERIA POLICY
27 yes
17no
22 yes
21 no
34 yes
9 no
Tabte 2.—Survey conclusion*.
DOESYOUR
STATE ALLOW:
ROUTINCLy OCCASIONALLY
a) Direct discharges
containing any Phosphorus
tolakes 16
b) Other direct NPOES
discharges 17
c) Point discharges with any
Phosphorus upstream of
L -s 25
d) Other upstream NPDES
discharges 29
e) Naw storm water
discharges to lakes 17
f) Herbicide use in lakes 20
9
12
14
10
10
17
Compare this response with the response to I
Survey's first question where 32 States believe tti
existing standards protect lakes, and 13 do not.
8. The reason for this contrast might be the pla<
ment of the questions in the survey or from t
response we got to the next question, "Do y
feel EPA should require States to adopt la
trophic standards?", to which 35 States si
no, one even said, PLEASE NO, and 11 s<
yes.
9. States are more amenable, however, to rece
ing EPA assistance to help States adopt la
water quality standards: 22 say they would li
assistance; 24 say no.
10. States were asked about permissible dischi
ges to lakes; the results are summarized
Table 2.
This table dearly shows that lakes are usi
routinely or frequently for receiving discharges in t!
majority of responding States.
11. Table 3 summarizes how States would u
standards if they had them.
I'm particularly Impressed with the number
States supporting potential uses for setting prior it ie
establishing water quality goals, managing cumul
tfve impacts, doing watershed planning, and esta
fishing nonpoint source regulatory controls (;
States Indicate this is a potential use). But isn't tti
exactly what water quality standards are for?
12. Regarding data needs, the following poin
can be drawn:
*
• For those States with lake standards, total
phosphorous is most frequently addressed;
however, chlorophyll a and Secchi
transparency are commonly cited as well.
» Professional judgment and
• literature values are most
frequently used to derive
these standards.
e A vast majority of the State:
feel that special use clas-
sifications are a valid
means for developing
categories for la^ stand-
ards. Morpho-metric and
ecoregion considerations
are also frequently cited.
» Chemical constituents, in
particular total phosphorus
- and total nitrogen, are most
frequently cited as the basis
for State standards.
RAMCUT
NOT AT ALL.
11
8
S
5
7
6
8
7
1
1
4
2
126
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21 tt CENTURY. 1989: 123-128
lUM* 3.—Survey conclusion*.
FOR WHAT PUM»OS«
-------
R.J. JOHNSON
I «wMr quality concarra and impalnmnts In th« T<
Vcltoy Region, 19M (leeattom and •ftoett
128
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21 ft CENTURY, 1989: 129-130
Lake Protection Through Standards
Donald B. For cella
Project Manager, Ecological Studies Program, Electric Power Research Institute,
Palo Alto, California
\ was very pleased to hear the results of the MALMS
survey that were presented by Bob Johnson. His
conclusions support the thesis of the conference that
what we are really after is a means to maintain and re-
store water quality in aquatic surface waters. That ob-
jective presupposes a management approach for
lakes. The issue is not whether we manage by objec-
tive; that is a necessary part of how our society
should function. The issue is the scope of the objec-
tives: should every lake be identical to others or can
we set objectives to meet certain uses in one lake,
county, State, or region that are different from
another area This issue is particularly relevant to
States where reservoirs are the sole lake-type en-
vironment.
Lakes constitute a unique resource because of
their relatively short lifetime compared to other
geologic entities. Lakes start out at some point in
time; they last for anywhere from a few to hundreds
to thousands to perhaps a few million years—and
then they are gone. Art Hasler wrote an interesting ar-
ticle on eutrophication a few decades ago that
described lakes as having a definable lifetime (1947,
Ecology, 28:383). When people begin to affect lakes.
this lifetime is shortened.
Lake management must be directed at least to
minimize this lifetime shortening. Lake Tahoe is an
example. This lake is about 2 million years old. and
over those years sediments have collected (some as
a result of human activity) that now ffll about half of its
basin. The lake still remains at an average depth of
about 900 feet, with a maximum depth of 1,600 feet
Compare that with a shallow lake in the prairie that
may have a lifetime of a few decades or so. In the
case of Lake Tahoe, water quality is deteriorating
from human activity, and though its remaining life is
somewhat snorter, Tahoe's major tailing is that it is
losing some aesthetic value. The changing aesthetic
value will minimize what most people consider its
most important beneficial use. In the case of th« shal-
low lake, sedimentation and water quality deteriora-
tion as a result of human activity may occur so
rapidly that its shortened life span will be the most im-
portant beneficial use lost
All of the uses associated with lakes and reser-
voirs are, in part, a reflection of the background in
which you find them. You cannot consider a lake out-
side of its watershed and really understand how it
functions. In addition to watersheds, reservoirs have
other purposes that define their uses. Reservoirs are
designed for particular and multiple uses, such as
drinking water, flood control, power generation and
coding, navigation, and recreational and aesthetic
uses. The natural quality of a lake, and perhaps a
reservoir, depends oq climatic, geologic, and
topographic factors that set a baseline for what we
would expect to see in the absence of humans. When
humans get involved, then you begin to talk about
some ofthe management options that would relate to
standards. Standards should be set to protect
desirable uses. Sometimes it is necessary to change
how a reservoir operates to provide for particular
uses. Sometimes we interfere with natural proces-
ses; most lakes slowly fBI in naturally with sediment,
so we dredge them and extend their lifetime.
In the original Clean Lakes Program (PL92-500),
almost all the attention of that work was directed at
restoration of uses, leading to actions like dredging,
nonpoint source controls in the watershed, and
precipitation of nutrients within the system. None of
the original Clean Lakes activities were directed at
point source reductions because the NPDES permit
system was supposed to account for them. However,
you have to take into account point source reduc-
tions as well as nonpoint sources to provide for the
most effective controls that enable most uses.
I am going to try to relate all these kinds of con-
siderations to numerical standards because they in-
clude some of the concerns that were voiced in
earlier sessions of this meeting. Standards are often
very difficult to change; they quickly become set in
concrete. The reason people object to standards for
lakes is because of the customary rigidity of the
standards and a concern that the standards do not
reflect that lakes are rapidly changing ecosystems,
especially if they have a short lifetime for natural
reasons. For example, dissolved oxygen is an impor-
tant standard for streams, but it may be difficult to
apply to lakes because, under natural conditions,
lakes may become anoxic in the hypolimnion during
the summer or throughout the water column in the
wintertime during ice cover. For toxicants, I see a
need for research to establish whether existing water
quality criteria will work or whether additional criteria
129
-------
specifically for lakes are needed. The key question is
whether anyone has any evidence that these criteria
will protect the uses that are desired.
The use of standards makes sense in a manage-
ment framework. If you decide to do nothing with a
lake, that is a management decision; if you dedde to
control inputs to the lake, that is another manage-
ment decision. A standard is a good reference for
how well your action is done, how to prioritize ac-
tions, and so forth. Within a region, ecological or
regional bases for setting these standards have been
shown feasible. Also, it is important to recognize that
there are individual phosphorus objectives for each
of the Great Lakes. I think that reflects some realities;
that there are natural sources for phosphorus, and
there are different activities in the watersheds of the
individual lakes, so it is entirely appropriate that ob-
jectives vary among the different lakes.
To quickly summarize: it seems very logical for
States to set standards, but these standards should,
even within a State, have the capacity for either site-
specific or regional application. Some States'
geologic and climatic variations may allow you to set
very broad regional objectives for particular con-
stituents. In other States, you might set very stringent
criteria for particular cases (good examples are the
Great Lakes and Lake Tahoe).
Finally, I think that a management perspective is
required, one that is based on the control of receiving
water quality to guarantee specific uses. Without this
perspective the establishment of standards for the
sake of standards could lead to very little protection
of our lake resources.
130
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21 «t CENTURY. 1989
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. The Great Lakes an dosed systems; there-
fore, are total mass loading concentrations needed?
A. (Porcella) In the Great Lakes, there is a lack of
understanding of toxics. EPA's role should be to
supply funds for research. All metals data reported in
the water column are an order of magnitude too nigh
in concentration due to bad sampling techniques.
This means that we dont know the concentration of
metals in the Great Lakes; therefore, no standards
will have any meaning.
Q. A letter was written to EPA about trie standards
issue for lakes; has there been any response yet?
A. (Sabock) EPA intends to re-draft the
Framework and the cost estimates: a copy of the
meeting proceedings will be sent to all attendees.
C. Mississippi's standards for lakes make more
sense than the standards for nonpoint sources. State
criteria are written for fish and wildlife lakes are
covered by default, since, unless a lake is classified
for recreation, it is classified for fish and wfldlife use.
Criteria specific to lakes could be more protective.
Q. Are Mississippi's standards adequately
protecting lakes?
A. Mississippi does not have enough data to
determine that
Q. Are citizens getting what they want from lakes?
A. In Mississippi, yes, but there is a general feeling
that the lakes' quality has deteriorated.
Q. Does Mississippi depend on user comments?
A. Yes, but we don't have the resources to monitor
Jakes.
C. The Tennessee Valley Authority has a mature
reservoir system that is about 50 years old. Over the
last 15-20 years, reservoirs have shown signs of
eutrophication. especially of dissolved oxygen tower-
ing; 15 of TVA's 50 lakes are affected. Low dissolved
oxygen water is drawn through turbines and dis-
charged downstream, causing major problems to
aquatic life. TVA's board set up a major research ?- -I
development program to improve the situation; this
led to a program with the States involved, which em-
phasized the need to go to a phased implementation
program.
This program includes the following: TVA will ad-
dress low dissolved oxygen by aeration; minimum
flow win be provided; States will take watershed ac-
tions and will also use their regulatory authority to
minimize inputs to lake systems; and watershed and
reservoir management programs will be developed.
Tennessee Is developing standards to protect lake
water quality to be used as a prototype by TVA. TVA,
the Bureau of Land Management, and the Corps of
Engineers are working together to assess the
program's effectiveness.
C. Kentucky's water quality standards are ap-
plicable to lakes but traditional use of water quality
standards may not be applicable to lakes in every
situation. How far into the watershed do you have to
apply controls to meet standards? It is too expensive
to apply controls for nonpoint sources and point
sources on a statewide basis. Kentucky would like
more emphasis on lakes in EPA's standards pro-
gram.
C. States have to consider multiple uses protec-
tion. For example, in lakes there might be epilimnetic
and hypollmnetic differences in water quality as well
as changes throughout the year. Also, I question
whether water quality should be controlled by one
agency and water quantity controlled by another.
C. The Framework needs to address lake issues.
"Sort of capturing" lakes by overlap, and so forth, is
not sufficient considering the variation and unique-
ness of lake systems. Priorities drive what is going
on. EPA needs to make lakes a priority for the States
to do so (as far as resources are concerned). The
Gold Book doesn't sufficiently address lake protec-
tion; numeric and narrative criteria are needed.
C. I would like to see EPA extend biocri-
teria/ecocriteria to lakes and reservoirs and think the
Agency should work more closely with other agen-
cies.
C. I would like EPA to develop bioaccumulation,
site-specific, and toxic substances guidance for
States.
C. The ecoregion concept may not be applicable
to every lake/reservoir since there can be variation
within a particular lake system (e.g., epilimnion and
hypolimnion water quality difference).
C. Each State has a specific need for standards
that should be reflected in the guidance document
Guidance should be site-specific, and EPA should
take the lead role.
131
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS & COMMENTS
C. EPA should provide a model standard using a C. First, EPA might review Gold Book values and
"weight of evidence" approach (this procedure is existing standards for deficiencies in protecting lake
being developed In some States). water quality and then determine what steps need to
be taken for any "new criteria development
132
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21« CENTURY. 19B9: 133
Development of Biocriteria
Donald Steffeck (Moderator)
Fish and WildBf* Biologist. US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Criteria an defined a* conditions presumed to sup-
port and protect the designated use of a watarbody.
Bioassessment to composed of a number of methods
that are used to develop biocriteria and is the assess-
ment of the condition of a waterbody, using any aval-
able biological method. The panel presentations and
discussion wB focus on one type of totoassassment.
the evaluation of tn-stream aquatic communities.
Biocriteria is defined as the numerical or narrative
expressions of the biological characteristics of am-
bient aquatic communities (often structural mea-
sures such as spedes composition, organism
abundance, and diversity). Biocriteria. as generally
applied In State .programs, are designed to reflect at-
tainable characteristics under minimally impacted
conditions. As such, biocriteria describe the ecologi-
cal potential for aquatic community health in a given
watershed, drainage basin, or ecological region.
In-stream community evaluation can be viewed as
a validating mechanism for many of the numeric
criteria or other ways of evaluating biology. When
you look at the existing community that is living in
water affected by point and nonpoint sources, that
community Is, in effect giving you valuable informa-
tion on water quality.
Coordination is a very valuable way of getting and
sharing more current information for each individual
program without necessarily increasing budgets.
This coordination can be between Federal, State,
and local agencies, or with university or environmen-
tal groups. One thing we have discussed is the need
for funding for additional criteria assessment I think
coordination is the one way that we can get a piece of
the pie without additional funding.
133
-------
-------
WATS* QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1980: 135-138
Implementation of Biocriteria in the Water
Quality Standards Program
David L. Courtemanch
Director Division of Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies
Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta, Maine
Development of ambient biological criteria has been
identified as an important objective to be integrated
into the water quality standards program (US En-
viron. Prat Agency, 1987,1988). Sections 303(c) and
304(a) of the Water Quality Act expressly provide for
biocriteria development, and the need for biological
Information is dearly expressed in other sections of
the Act such as 305,307,314,319, and 320.
The design and purpose of a policy for using
biological criteria are more ambiguous. By their na-
ture, biological criteria are unique and offer certain
specific advantages and disadvantages in a water
quality standards program (Courtemanch et al.
1989). The other commonly applied criteria (chemi-
cal-specific and effluent toxidty criteria) are most
valuable in designing and enforcing point source dis-
charge permits. These criteria, however, are notably
inefficient at dealing with compound and complex ef-
fluents, fate of pollutants, and other environmental in-
teractions that may affect an ecosystem. Depending
on the approach taken to the design of a policy for
biological criteria, certain deficiencies In the stan-
dards program can be corrected.
One important deficiency of the standards pro-
gram has been the evaluation of goals. In classical
policy design, goals are defined in a policy statement
(definition of uses), objectives are implemented to
achieve those goals (performance criteria), and an
evaluation is made of the attainment of the goals (im-
pact criteria). The value of ambient biocriteria relative
to existing chemical-specific and effluent toxfcfty
criteria has been subject to considerable debate. The
value of ambient biocriteria lies In their use as impact
criteria.
This value is particularly relevant as a conse-
quence of changes enacted in 1987 to the Water
Quality A" The Act now stresses the importance of
assessments in the overall water quality manage-
ment program. Impact standards must be relied
upon to assess multidimensional problems such as
nonpoint sources or coastal water quality, which in-
clude not just water chemistry but sediments and
overall habitat availability. This information also be-
comes invaluable in implementing other policies, in-
cluding antJdegradation, use attainability analysis,
and so forth.
Goals
The Water Quality Acf s goals are expressed in sec-
tion 101. Appropriate goals for the aquatic biota are
found in section 101 (a), which requires the restora-
tion and maintenance of biological integrity, and sec-
tion I01(a)(2), which sets an interim goal for
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife. It should be EPA's responsibility to succinctly
define these goals for the States. Terms such as
"biological integrity are very ambiguous. All waters
have biological Integrity. It is assumed that this defini-
tion should approximate integrity equivalent to a
natural system. Likewise, does the term "propagation
of fish" mean all species or just certain ones? If goals
are adequately defined based on accepted ecologi-
cal principles, then the development and implemen-
tation of biocriteria can be relatively straightforward
(Courtemanch and Davies, 1989).
As an example, the State of Maine's water clas-
sification statute establishes specific narrative stand-
ards that may be interpreted as encompassing the
bounds of these goals. Standards for dass AA
(fresh), dass A (fresh and salt), and GPA (lakes and
ponds), which are the highest quality waters, require
the aquatic communities to be "as naturally occurs"
and therefore equivalent In integrity to natural sys-
tems. Standards for dass C water (fresh and salt),
which are the lowest quality allowed, specify "sup-
port of all indigenous fish species" and "maintenance
of structure and function" of the aquatic community.
While these definitions satisfy the water quality
management needs of the State of Maine, other inter-
pretations may be appropriate in other States or
regions (Rg. 1).
135
-------
Goals of
Water Quality Act
Restore and
maintain biological
integrity
Hypothetical
biocriteria
Ecological
equivalency
Unimpaired
Some impairment
Maine's
interpretation
Claw AA» A, GPA-
ecological equivalency
(as naturally occurs)
Class B » unimpaired
Class C-
Protection and propagation
of all indigenous fish
species
Maintenance of community
structure and function
\ t
Protection and
propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife
Protection and
propagation of at
least one fish species
Figure 1
Implementation
If one takes the impact standard as a model for
development of btocrtterta men certain constraints
are relaxed that are required In a regulatory dominant
role. The development of numerical and descriptive
criteria to Interpret the narrative standards can in-
dude a greater breadth of parameters. Many of these
parameters might not be defensible in a legal setting
but are relevant in ecological interpretations such as
the audit function described by Schaeffer et al.
(1984). Efficiencies in monitoring also become allow-
able, which lets the biologist use appropriate judg-
ment (Jackson and Rash. 1988). The impact; model
also accommodates the use of professional judg-
ment since the primary product is evaluation and
remedial planning and not the imposition of legal
sanctions. Legal sanctions or other program
modifications become the product of planning. Once
consensus has been achieved about the boundaries
of biological integrity, States and regions can imple-
ment appropriate numerical and descriptive criteria.
The State of Maine proposes a hierarchical test of
numerical and descriptive parameters that are uni-
quely fitted to the specific narrative standard (Table
1). Parameters are based on their specific interpre-
tive value and a pass/fail/no decision test is made
(Courtemanch and Davies, 1989) rather than an at-
tempt to scale or index values into arbitrary ranks of
good-fair-poor.
136
-------
WATER CWAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21«t CENTURY. 19efc 135*138
1.—SW»Ofl
BOOUPOICAi
NATURAL
UNIMPAIRED
PRESERVE STRUCTURE
AND FUNCTION
Unonontic •quality
Nunaric aQualtty
i of hnoMrant twn
RatandonofiajcA
EnafQytrafiafar
Raprodurton
%SimNaittyi abundant*, diversity, aquitabtty
EPT, indicator taw. bwttaindtaas
Community ton. richnaaa
Abaanoaof hypaRfcNrinanea
•of InloiafvnttBxa
tochanga
BI* i.
taxa. biodc indioaa
Functional faading group, communrty loss,
Ttapnlc group, community loss, ncnnass,
no*
NIK colonization rata. r/k ratio
Evaluation
Debate has recently arisen concerning the value of
biocriteria and conflicts of Interpretation with chemi-
cal-specific and effluent tcadcity criteria. This debate
is largely irrelevant since each criterion measures a
set of conditions under widely differing variables.
Chemical-specific criteria are laboratory-derived
values applied to low flow estimates in-stream. The
list is quite limited given the potential list of toxic
materials and is based on exposures to a limited
number of organisms In prepared water Effluent
tooddty tests use ambient water at predicted tow flow
concentrations In a short-term laboratory exposure
to one or a few species. Ambient biocriteria are
based on exposure to afl potential species under
variable flow and operating conditions and in com-
bination with all other intrusions. It is not un-
reasonable to expect low correlations between the
criteria, given the limited chemical list, problems as-
sociated with single species testing (Calms. 1980).
and the highly variable conditions associated with
ambient biocriteria monitoring.
Within the textfie industry, Maine has found
numerous conflicts where reliance on onry one or
two of the criteria would have incorrectly indicated
compliance with classifications. Substances (e.g>.
trls 1.3 dfcrdoroisopropyl phosphate) have been
identified that are toxic yet not on the priority pol-
lutant list Impacts to the resident community have
been found (up to 80 percent decline in invertebrate
richness) where chemical-specific and effluent
toxidty criteria were in compliance. To effectively
evaluate water quality, one must rely on all available
measures. Chemical-specific criteria and effluent
toxidty criteria provide the most effective evaluation
of treatment while ambient biocriteria provide the
most realistic evaluation of attainment of use.
Summary
Maine's water quality standards program has ex-
panded in recent years to include three classes of
standards: Effluent performance standards applied
in the traditional sense to wastewater permits that in-
dude chemical-specific and effluent toxicity criteria
(generic and site-specific), human health criteria that
are both effluent criteria and ambient criteria (e.g.,
enteric bacteria. ,PC8, dicodn); and ambient
biocriteria that establish the overall community im-
pact from all sources. A fourth dass of standards for
aesthetic quality is presently under review by the
legislature.
It is important In designing biocriteria to create
something new that complements existing stan-
dards. This can be achieved if biocriteria are
designed for their value in program evaluation.
Recent debate concerning the weight to be given to
each type of standard is unnecessary. Correlations
between the criteria, while interesting, are not critical
since each focuses on water quality from a different
perspective. Each piece of information is useful to
the water quality mana'"—. The warning by Sinder-
mann (1988) should be heeded: To limit biological
indicators of pollution as mere monitoring devices is
to diminish their real significance as overt signs of
disabilities and potential mortalities in resource
populations.''
137
-------
D.L COURTEMANCH
References
Cairns. J. Jr. 1980. Beyond stogie spades toxtetty testing. Mv.
Environ. Res. 3:157-9.
Courtemancn, O.U and S.P. Davlea. 1988. Implementation at
biological standards and criteria in Malm's watsr dassifiea-
von taw* Prec. NnofMl ImtfMiTi utocritiwist Woricsbop. Un»
coinwood. U. Ose. 2-«. 1987.
Courtamaneh. O.L. S.P. Oavias, and Ea Lavarty. 1989. Inoer-
poratton of biological information in watsr quality planning.
Environ. Manage. 1335-41.
Sehaaftor. OJ. at al. 1984. The environmental audit 1. Concepts.
Environ. Manage. 9:191-8.
Sindermann, CJ. 1988. Biological indicators and biological ef-
fects of estuarine/coastal pollution. Water Res. Bull. 24:931-9.
Jackson, J.K.. and V.H. Resh. 1988. Sequential decision plans in
monitoring benthte mmcroinvertebrates: cost savings, clas-
sification accuracy and development of plans. Can. J. Rsh.
ApuatSd. 45:2804.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 1987 Surface water
monitoring: a framework for change. Washington. DC.
. 1988. Draft framework for the water quality standards pro-
gram.
DC.
138
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21«t CENTURY. 1989: 139-14C
The Development and Use of Biological
Criteria for Ohio Surface Waters
Chris O. Yoder
Assistant Manager, Surface Water Section, Division of Water Quality Monitoring, and Assessment
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio
Although the principal goal of the Water Quality Act is
to restore and maintain chemical, physical, and
biological integrity, the methods attempted by
regulatory agencies are primarily chemical and
lexicological. Difficulties with defining an ecological
approach to assessing blotic integrity have probably
led to a reliance on these surrogate measures.
Biotic integrity has recently been defined as "the
ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and main-
tain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of
organisms having a species composition, diversity,
and functional organization comparable to that of the
natural habitats within a region" (Karr and Dudley
1981). This is a workable, practical definition based
on measurable characteristics of aquatic com-
munities that also provides an underlying concept for
objective biological criteria using a regional refer-
ence site approach. Thus, compliance with a major
directive of the Water Quality Act can now be
measured directly.
The use of biological communities offers a holistic
systems approach to surface water quality assess-
ment and management Aquatic organisms not only
integrate a variety of environmental influences
(chemical, physical, and biological), but complete
their life cycles in the waterbody and. as such, are
continuous monitors of environmental quality.
Focusing on major organism groups (such as fish
and macroim/ertebrates In flowing waters) repre-
sents biological evaluation at the sub-community
level. This differs from past biological monitoring
protocols that advocated simultaneous resource In-
tensive monitoring of a variety of different organism
groups. Also, sampling need not be conducted
under absolute worst case or critical conditions (le.,
Q7.10 flow) to determine attainment/nonattainment
of aquatic life uses. This method Is a more powerful
assessment tool than the steady state approaches
inherent to some of the usual chemical-specific and
toxicity methods. If this type of biological field as-
sessment is included along with traditional chemical
and toxicity tools it can significantly enhance
decisionmaking and regulatory resource allocation,
particularly for complex issues.
Why Biocriteria?
Biological communities are accurate indicators of
overall environmental conditions because they in-
habit receiving waters continuously and are subject
to a variety of long-term chemical and physical in-
fluences. Chemical data, on the other hand, are
biased toward short-term conditions that exist when
a sample is collected. (This is also generally true of
bioassay tests.) Thus, the observed performance of
the biological system that we are attempting to
protect should influence how chemical and bioassay
techniques are used in a regulatory program. This
would apply to both site-specific observations and
broader, regional applications.
Some specific reasons for including biocriteria in
surface water programs are:
• A direct measure of goal attainment is
provided.
• The ability to discover and characterize
problems is enhanced.
• Habitat effects and limitations can be
considered.
• Impairment from nontoxic influences (e.g.,
sediment) can be measured.
• Consistent and ecologically meaningful water
quality standards can be derived.
• General types of impairments can be
characterized.
Serious consideration of in situ biological assess-
ment is made possible by recent advances in
laboratory and field methods; development of stan-
dard assessment techniques; a oractical and imple-
mentable definition of biological integrity; and the
regional reference site concept Together these ad-
vances have provided a framework from which
biocriteria can be "institutionalized" in surface water
quality management programs.
139
-------
CO. YOOER
Factors that Affect Biological
Integrity
Karr at aL (1986) discussed environmental factors
that affect most aquatic ecosystems and grouped
them into five major classes. Figure 1 illustrates that
these factors act together to determine the Integrity
of water resources which, in turn, is reflected by the
resident aquatic life. Alterations to the physical.
chemical, or biological processes associated with
these factors can adversely affect the aquatic biota
and. therefore, the biological Integrity of the water-
body. Efforts to protect and restore water resource
integrity that focus on only one or two of these major
factors wil likely fal if other factors are wholly or par-
tially responsible for the observed impairment (Karr
et at. 1986).
Thus, efforts to maintain and improve the quality
of surface water resources in general and aquatic life
in particular need to be guided by methods and
monitoring that identify perturbations associated
with factors in all five classes in an integrated manner.
Broad-based approaches to water resource
management are not only more Hkely to provide solu-
tions with real results, they are also likely to be cost
o.o.
Chemical
Variables
(-Coi
Blotic
Interactions
Feeding^
impetltlon
edatlon
Chemical _
Solubilities
Watershed
Characteristics
Velocity
^Runoff J High-Low
Flow
Regime
Extremes
Precipitation
Volume
Nutrient
Availability
RESULTANT BIOLOGICAL
COMMUNITY PERFORMANCE
•Principal Goal of the
Water Quality Act"
VjSround
Water
• Organic Matter
Inputs
Bank
Stability
Canopy
Sinuosity
Habitat
Structure)
Current
Channel
Width/Depth
ChanneO
Morphology
Riparian
Vegetation//
(-Substrate
Instream
•'Cover
•adient
Flgura 1 .—Some of the Important chemical, physical, and biological factors that Influence and determine biological community
performance In surface waters (modified from Karr etaL 19M).
140
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1989: 139-149
effective because the development of abatement
measures is guided by a directly measured response
Instead of indirect, surrogate measures that substan-
tially rely on "rule of thumb" assumptions.
Development of Biological Criteria
The tendency in water quality management has been
to make biological measurements "flt" the percep-
tions and use of surrogate chemical criteria. This is
dearly enigmatic because the health and well-being
of indigenous aquatic biota embodies the temporal
and spatial chemical, physical, and biological
dynamics of an aquatic environment (Fig. 1).
Biologists' indecision about an empirical mea-
surement of biological integrity may have produced
this situation (Karr et al. 1986). One solution is to
have in situ biological criteria that can Indicate quan-
titatively whether biological integrity is being
achieved. Chemical criteria and bioassay application
techniques wfll always play an important role in sur-
face water quality regulation. The accuracy of their
application, however, would be greatly enhanced if
used in combination with holistic assessments of the
resident biota.
Derivation of Ecoregional
Biocrfterfa
Biological criteria for Ohio surface waters is essen-
tially based on the biological community perfor-
mance that can be attained at regional reference
sites. This is consistent with the definition of btotic in-
tegrity as discussed by Karr and Dudley (1981).
Hughes et aJ. (1982). and Kan* et al. (1986). The
biological criteria represent the ecological structure
and function that can be reasonably attained given
present-day background conditions (Whittier et al.
1987). Thus, these criteria are not an attempt to
define pristine. pre-Columbian conditions (Hughes et
al. 1982). *
Three biological indices, the Index of Weil-Being
Iwb (Gammon 1976; Gammon et al. 1981), the Index
of Blotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr 1981; Fausch et al. 1984).
both of which are based on fish, and the Invertebrate
Community Index (1C!) (Ohio Environ. Prot Agency,
1987) which is based on macroinvertebrates, are
used by Ohio EPA. Criteria for each index are defined
by organism group, biological index, site type (fish),
ecoregion, and aquatic life use designation. The
geographic organization of the Ohio biocriteria uses
concepts from the Ohio Stream Regionalization
Project (SRP) and the ecoregion/regional reference
site approach (Omemik 1987; Hughes et al. 1986;
Whlttier et al. 1987). Modified Iwb and IBI criteria were
defined for each of the five Ohio ecoregions for three
site types headwaters (drainage area <20 sq. mi.).
wading sites (streams sampled with wading
methods, usually 20-300 sq. mi.), and boat sites
(streams and rivers sampled with boat methods.
usually 200-6.000 sq. mi.). ICl criteria are based
primarily on an artificial substrate sampling method.
The calibration of the indices and the resultant
biocriteria consider the effect of stream and river size
and sampling gear selectivity.
In establishing biological criteria that are consis-
tent with the legislative goal of attaining biological in-
tegrity in surface waters, a calibration of the methods
is necessary. The practical definition of biological in-
tegrity as the biological performance exhibited by
natural or least impacted" habitats of a particular
region provides the underlying basis for such infor-
mation from a sampling design. Minimum expecta-
tions of how a biological community should perform
are determined by conditions at least impacted" ref-
erence sites within a particular biogeographical
region. Such sites can serve as references for a
larger number of streams if they typify the range of
physical characteristics within a particular
geographical region (Hughes et al. 1986).
While individual waterbodies differ to some de-
gree, the basis Tor having regional reference sites is
the simiarity of watersheds within defined geograph-
ical regions. Generally, less variability is expected
among surface waters within a particular region than
between regions. We selected more than 300 refer-
ence sites from Omemik's (1987) ecoregions to ac-
complish this organization (Fig. 2). This does not
mean that the attainable conditions within an
ecoregion cannot improve over time with changes in
population, land use. and/or progress with activities
like nonpoint: pollution abatement.
However, it does reflect what is currently and
reasonably attainable, given present-day socio-
economic activities. No sites in direct proximity to
point sources, obvious nonpoint source degrada-
tion, or within impounded or extensively modified
areas were used to derive biocriteria for uses consis-
tent with the fishable/swimmable goal of the Water
Quality Act
Biological data from the reference sites were used
to calibrate the biological indices and establish
ecoregional biocriteria for the IBI. modified Iwb. and
ICl. Both the IBI and ICl first require a calibration of
the individual metric scores. Sampling results from
the reference sites (Fig. 2) were pooled on a
statewide basis to derive metric scores generally fol-
lowing procedures described by Fausch et al. (1984)
141
-------
CO. YOOER
ECBP-
-COLP
VEE&3D
A Boat
• Hading
A Headwater
SOME
•UN
t ? «« •?
O3tn .Belt Plains
HEIP Huron/Erie lake Plain
B3LP Erie/Ontario Lake Plain
WVP Western Allegheny Plateau
IP Interior' Plateau
»for(ten
•Mhofitwf
id I
landrtvvrsiZM
•coraglofl boundiftaa»
•) to Indicated by dMarant •ymbote; dMlwd UIM* and eluding Indicate
and Karr at aJ. (1986). Several of the IBI and Id
metrics are related to stream size. Drainage area (sq.
mi.) was used to reflect this relationship. Rgure 3
shows the relationship of drainage area wtth the
number of native fish speties and how the IBI scoring
ranges were determined. A similar procedure was
used for the remaining metrics where this relation-
ship was demonstrated.
Once, the biological index scores for each site
were calculated, a notched box-and-whisker plot
method was used to portray the results for each
biological index by ecoregion (Fig. 4). These plots
contain sample size, media"*, ranges with outliers.
and 25th and 75th percentttes. Box plots have one
important advantage over the use of means and
standard deviations Because they do not assume a
particular distribution of the data. Furthermore, out-
liers (defined as points that lie two interquartile
ranges beyond the 25th or 75th percentOes) do not
exert as much influence as they do with means and
142
-------
WATER OUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY, 1989: 139-146
a
CO 80
a>
.a
3 to
WADING/HEADWATER SITES
1O 1OO
Drainage Area (Sq. MI.)
1OOO
Hgura X—Numbw of i
forttwIndM of BMfe Integrity (IBI) «ra Indicated.
(•q. fflL) for ONe wadtag Md hMdwatws sit* type ratarwic* •«•*.
standard errors. Ecoragianal criteria for Ohio's
warmwater habitat us* designation are established
as the 25th percentle value of the biological index
scores recorded at the reference sites by ecoregton.
Ohio also has ar exceptional warmwater habitat use
designation for wtJch biocriteria are based on the
combined statewide reference site data set (by
method). Index criteria are set at the 75th percentile
value to reflect the definition of this particular use
designation.
Both warmwater and exceptional warmwater
habitats are defined in narrative terms In the Ohio
Water Quality Standards and reflect attainment of the
•fishable/swimmable" goals of the Water Quality Act
in addition, a modified warmwater habitat use desig-
nation is being proposed because certain water-
bodies have been physically modified to the point
where the warmwater habitat use is unattainable.
These biocriteria were determined from a separate
set of modified reference sites. The format of the
biocriteria proposed in the Ohio water quality stand-
ards appears in Table 1. Choosing the 25th percentile
as the minimum water quality standard warmwater
habitat criterion is environmentally conservative and
virtually eliminates any bias induced by including
marginal sites or samples.
Examples of Uses for Biocriteria
The longitudinal study design fundamental to Ohio
EPA's biological monitoring approach is an impor-
tant factor in determining waterbody and entity-
spedflc regulatory options. The results can also be
used to document Improvements emanating from
pollution abatement efforts over a period of time. Fig-
ure 5 shows the summarized results of the IBI based
on two years of monitoring the Scioto River
downstream from Columbus, Ohio. The general im-
provement In the IBI between 1979 and 1987 cor-
responds to overall reductions in wastewater
treatment plan discharged loadings of suspended
solids, NH3-N, and biochemical oxygen demand. The
effluent loading reductions were more consistent at
the most downstream wastewater treatment plant,
particularly at the plant bypass.
Historical loading reductions at t** upstream was-
tewater treatment plant have occurred but ha<« not
been entirely consistent, with substantial increases
noted during 1984 to 1987. This corresponds to a
continued significant impairment of the warmwater
habitat use for several miles downstream from this
discharge. Neither wastewater treatment plant had
what is considered as advanced treatment technol-
143
-------
C.O. YODSI
BO
90
r-i—iTSXIle
Medlan
~ , Ronoo
WADING SITES
16
23
J_
57
79
I
102
HSU.P
ZP EOI.P
Eeoregion
MAP
ECSP
Hour*'
081) i
litalMC plot of OMo fofofowoo otto fMMJtB (WNMUOQ Mid nooowNMOfs slto typoo) fot*tfio Indox of Blotio
mi, mMmuM, madlan, and uppar (75% parcontMa) and, towar (25% pwMntll*) qiwrtl* rang** by
IBI
SO
40
M
20
50
40
30
20
C90
H ...... i
EWH
....T.T...T -SL._
II I WWHyA
1987
Flow
ogy during the 1987 sampling. Other evidence that
biological stress remained in 1987 was indicated by
an elevated percentage of external deformities:
eroded fins, lesions, and tumors on individual fish.
Foflow-up sampling continued in 1988 to assess fur-
ther anticipated loading reductions. This type of
analysis, which compares in-stream response with
effluent loadings over a period of time, is what a
recent US. General Accounting Office report (1986)
pointed out was lacking in State and Federal
strategies to assess the direct benefits of improved
wastewater treatment
135 130 129 120 115 110 105 100
River Mile
Wouro &—Longitudinal trand o» tfw Indn of Btotfe Integrity
(IBI) forth* Sdoto IMvar to and downstream from the Ca4un»>
bus, Ohio, metropolitan arac In 197t and 19*T. Major watar
quality Impacts arw Indicated (vortical arrow*) and flow dlrae-
tton to front laft to rtglit (daacanding rtvac inlla ordar).
General Observations
Ohio EPA's experiences demonstrate that aquatic life
impacts appear in places other than point source ef-
fluent . and in modes other than toxidty to bioassay
test organisms or as numet *aJ violations of effluent
or ambient chemical criteria. A broad-based assess-
ment tod such as in situ biological assessment is
needed to ensure that environmental problems are
adequately detected and understood. The aquatic
biota can accurately indicate and quantify environ-
mental impairments because they are continuously
144
-------
WATBt QUAUTY STAfOARDS WR 21* CENTURY. IflMfc 13».14e
1—
tar the Me* of Btatfc Integrity (IBI) and the wading an* type for fish (WWH-
HAM1XT(MWH)
L M« of State Inttgrxy
A. Watfng
Huron/Et
ErWOnttnoLafcePWn
W.
ComBattPttn
32
36
38
42
40
SO
so
so
so
so
subject to aO poflutton episodes. Biological com*
murtty response can also be used as a prioritizing
mechanism for deciding where to conduct more
detaied, site-specific analyses such as btoassay or
chemical specific characterizations. This seems pru-
dent from an environmental cost-effectiveness
standpoint because limited regulatory resources can
be focused on problems that are having the greatest
realized impairments-and, hence, the most potential
for environmental benefit when they are corrected.
This approach has been used In Ohio to develop the
annual list of priority water quality areas for construc-
tion grants and the State revolving loan program. It
also was a key component of the 1988 effort to
develop lists of toxic (section 304(0) and nonpoint
source (section 319) impaired waters.
Biocriteria alone cannot perform every task in a
surface water quality management program. Dis-
ciplines related to effluent characterization, cherri-
cal-spetific assessment, bioassay testing, and
wasteioad allocation are ail essential. The need is for
all of these disciplines to be truly integrated in an
analytical (as opposed to rigidly mechanistic)
framework in their application to water quality-based
surface water regulation. Although biological field
evaluations can be used to characterize general
degradation types, a precise definition of cause
usually requires the Inclusion of these other toots
(I-e., chemical, bioassay). However; In situ btoassess-
ment can provide Insights into the site-specific ap-
plication of those tools and suggest possible cause
and effect relationships. End-of-pipe wastewater
regulation is and wB continue to be primarly a
numerical system; therefore, the use of chemical and
bioassay techniques for establisUig discharge
limitations will likely remain an important part of the
process. This is best accomplished when the results
are interpreted by a trained biologist aided by ex-
amples of community response under a wide range
of perturbations.
A systems approach
to surface water assess-
ment and regulation is
needed to complement,
the traditional regulatory
approach. Although the
latter employs specific
methods that identify and
quantify specific chemi-
cals and levels of toxteity
to aquatic organisms, ex-
trapolating these results
to an assumed level of in-
stream impairment still
depends on making assumptions about exposure
periods and exceedence frequencies. Determining
how much is too much is usually made on an indirect
best professional judgment basis. When biocriteria
based on the functional and structural attributes of
resident biological communities are included, the
result is a more direct, holistic, and accurate assess-
ment Such Information can be used to determine the
degree to which a waterbody is or is not attaining its
designated use and to characterize any nonattain-
ment This type of assessment is further streng-
thened when the overall biocriteria approach has
been calibrated by information about the biological
performance level that can be attained by the natural
habitats withjn an biogeographical region.
Finally, a biocriteria approach further fills some im-
portant gaps in surface water resource management
Blosurveys and biocriteria provide a reality check on
regulatory actions. This is a. significant enhancement
because traditional crjemical/toxicity tods can result
in regulatory strategies that may be under- or over-
protective. A direct measure of use attainment is
provided that portrays the resultant efforts to reduce
water pollution in tangible terms that can be used in a
feedback loop type of management Quantifying
conditions for the application of antidegradation to
the highest quality resources is another important
function of biocriteria. These two functions will be
particularly useful in several emerging abatement
programs including nonpoint source management
and habitat evaluation.
References
Fausch. O.O..J.R Karr. and P.R Yam. 1984. Regional application
of eVi inot)x of DIODC intQQfity DAMG on strt«vn fish coni*
munitiM. Trans. Am. Rah. Soe. 113:39-55.
Gammon. J.R 1978. Tha fiah population* of the middle 3*0 km of
the Wabaah Hver. Purdue U. Watar Rasour. Res. Center. Taeh.
Bap. 86.
Gammon. J.R.. A. Spade, XL Hamelink, and RL Kaatlar. 1981.
Rale of alectiofiahliig in attesting anviroranantal quality of
145
-------
CO. YOOER
the Wabaah Fiver. Pagea 307-24 ja J. M. Bates and C L Weber.
eds. Ecological Assseamente of Effluent Impacts on Gom-
munMee of Wlgenous Aquatic Organisms. Am. See. Test
Meter. STP703, Philadelphia. PA.
Hughes, RM.. O.P. Lanen. and J.M. Omemik. 1988. Regional ref-
erence sites? a inalhod for assessing straam pollution, en*
viron. Managa. 10(9): 629^5.
Hughaa. R.M., J.H. Qakstattar, MA Shirati. and J.M. Omamik.
1982. An approach for datarmining bkXogical integrity in flow-
Ing waters. Pagaa 87748 laT.8. Braun, ad. hiplaoa Rasouroa
Soo. Afiwr.
Karr. J.A 1981. Aisasamant of btotfc imagrily using fWi com-
munWaa. Ftohartaa 8 (8)41-7.
Karr. J.R. and D.R Oudtoy. 1981. Eooteghal parspacttya on water
quality goals. Environ. Managa. 5(1): SMB.
Karr, J.R, at al. 1988. Aaastrtnq btotogteaJ fntagrity in running
waters: a method and its rationale. Ul. Nat Hist Sutv. Spec.
PubJ.S.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Users Manual for
Biological Held Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. Vol. II g
Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Ov. Water
Quality Monitor, and Assess. Surface Water Section. Colum-
bus.
Omemitc, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United
States. Am. Asecc. Am. Geog. 77 (1): 118-25.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. The nation's water key un-
answered questions about the quality of rivers and streams.
QAO Progr. EveJ. Methods Oiv. Washington. DC. GACVPEMD-
am
WhrBJar, T.R etaL 1987. The Onto str
. naiixation project
a compendium of results. U.S. Environ. Prat Agency Res. Lab,
CorvaiH*,OR
146
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21« CENTURY, 1989: 147-151
Ecoregional Biological Criteria
Robert M. Hughes
Aquatic Ecologist, NSI Technology Services Corp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory Corvallls, Oregon
Blocrfteria Needs
For the purposes of this paper, biocrtteria are defined
as numerical values that describe the biological
health of aquatic communities for a designated
aquatic life use. Regardless of whether they are im-
plemented regionally or site specifically, biocrtteria
(ambient, community-based) have the following ad-
vantages compared to chemical and lexicological
criteria: biocrtteria facflitate direct assessment of
designated aquatic life uses, are applicable to a wide
range of stressors (physical, chemical, biological.
point nonpoint, toxic, nontoxic), and provide a firm
basis for regulating nonchemical degradation and
antidegradation. They offer a mechanism for evaluat-
ing long-term effects of spills, process changes, and
illegal dumping; for assessing cumulative effects of
multiple dischargers and stressors; and for estimat-
ing bioaccumuJatlon and indirect effects (food chain,
competition, predation. migration, life history).
Blocriteria and biomonitoring integrate effects
over a variety of spatial and temporal scales. At least
for freshwaters, biocrtteria and biomonitoring are
often less expensive and yield more rapid and direct-
ly interpretable evaluations of the biological integrity
goals of the dean Water Act than bioassays and
chemical analysis. Thus, they offer a useful screening
or problem detection tool.
Biological criteria are extremely effective for repre-
senting the impact of permit and chemical violations
during litigation and for showing progress when pol-
lution is controlled; they also offer a means of validat-
ing and refining wasteload allocation models.
in other words, numerical measures of ambient
biological communities show the ecological results
of management actions on pollution discharges.
Also, biological communities are generally of greater
concern than physicochemfcal conditions alone (Le..
the public is often more interested in protecting
biological species than water quality per se). Finally.
the development of numerical btocriterta institution-
alizes biomonitoring and bioassessment, bringing a
key tool into the regulatory process. Recently EPA
(U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, 1987; Whittier, 1988;
Plafkin et al. 1989) has shown increased interest in
biological monitoring.
Because biological monitoring and analysis tools
have been greatly improved over the past 10 years
and are readly avalable, they should be considered
along with chemical and whole effluent criteria
Management of aquatic ecosystems could be en-
hanced by ecologically meaningful biological use
designations (Le., more specific goals than "aquatic
life" or "warmwater fish"); ecologically meaningful
biological criteria (preferably numerical); direct
measures of biological Integrity and environmental
results; increased attention to nonpoint source pollu-
tion; and statistically designed monitoring programs.
However, biological criteria would augment chemical
and whole effluent criteria; they should not be con-
sidered as replacements.
An Ecoregion Framework
It is useful to ask the following three basic questions
in setting wate> resource (aquatic ecosystem) stan-
dards and monitoring water resource quality. First,
how can States assess the hearth of an aquatic
ecosystem in an ecologically meaningful and
economically efficient way? Second, what is the
status of the entire population of lakes and streams
and the extent and* character of the problems
detected? Third, how can States extrapolate from a
limited number of sites to that entire population?
Natural ecological variability hinders answering
these questions.
To limit natural variability, managers have taken a
largely inductive approach to assessment and
prediction. Such work Is based on laboratory re-
search or intensive, site-specific field studies that are
often followed by process or wasteload allocation
models. However, both approaches result in data
that are difficult to extrapolate accurately because
the representativeness of the site is frequently un-
determined; natural systems necessarily are more
complex and behave differently than laboratory sys-
tems; and all the key variables cannot be measured
practicably. In addition, such research is often ex-
tremely expensive.
An alternative ecoregion approach (Omemik,
1987; Hughes and Larsen, 1988) is a more deductive
147
-------
R.M. HUGHES
technique based on the natural spatial organization
of ecosystems. In this approach, the natural spatial
patterns of ecosystem regions are evaluated through
analysis of available maps, and ecoregion boun-
daries are delineated by overlaying and integrating
the maps. In turn, these regions are evaluated by field
surveys of minimally impacted, but typical reference
sites. Finally, quantitative or qualitative reference
conditions are established for the regions. The basis
for this approach is the fact that the character of a
waterbody (ag., its water quality, flow regime, habitat
structure, energy base, and migration barriers)
reflects the dimate, topography, geology, soil,
vegetation, and land use of its drainage basin.
A Blocriterton Example
An example of a biocriterion Is the Index of Biotte In-
tegrity (IBI) (Karr eta). 1986). which is a quantification
of a fish ecdogisf s judgment of the relative quality of
a fish community. The IBI is composed of the follow-
ing 12 metrics, each of which measures a different
aspect of fish community health:
• Number of native fish species
• Number of darter/benthic species
• Number of sunfish/midwater species
• Number of sucker/long-lived species
• Number of intolerant Individuals
• Percent of piscivorous/top carnivorous
individuals
• Percent of green sunflsh/tolerant species
• Percent of omnivorous individuals
• Percent of insectivorous individuals
• Total number of Individuals
• Percent of exotics/hybrids/simple lithophls
• Percent of diseased/anomalies
Metric values approximating, deviating slightly from,
or deviating greatly from expected ecoregional refer-
ence site values are scored 5, 3, or 1. respectively.
The scores are added to give an IBI score of 60 (ex-
cellent) to 12 (very poor). Quantitative indices like the
IBI or individual IBI metrics (Lenat. 1988; Plafkin etal.
1989) offer direct objective, repeatable measures of
aquatic ecosystem health (Karr et al. 1986; Lenat,
1988; Ohio Environ. Prot Agency, I988a).
Implications of State Application
of Ambient Biocriteria in an
Ecoregion Framework
Site-Specific Criteria
There are two major approaches to developing
biocriteria for lakes and streams-site-specific (or
upstream/downstream) and regional—and each has
advantages and disadvantages. Site-specific biologi-
cal criteria can provide accurate assessments of cur-
rent conditions at a site and are relatively
inexpensive-if the total number of sites is small.
They are extremely expensive to develop for a large
number of sites because a minimum of three refer-
ence or "control" sites is needed to assess natural
variability adequately at each site in question. A State
soon has to deal with many assessments, especially
if nonpoint source pollution is a major problem or if
there are many point sources of concern.
There is a tendency to focus site-specific biologi-
cal criteria on point source stressors and inadequate-
ly assess nonpoint sources, particularly physical
habitat degradation. Ignoring these stressors at the
upstream control site and the suspected chemically
impacted site results in the appearance of com-
pliance (Le.. attainment of chemical criteria) when, in
fact, biological and physical integrity may not be at-
tained (Plafkin et al. 1989).
Regional Biocriteria
Regional biocriteria also have advantages and disad-
vantages. Regional biocriteria facSitate definition and
conceptualization of biological integrity, Le.. "the
ability to support and maintain a balanced, in-
tegrated, adaptive community of organisms having a
species composition, diversity, and functional or-
ganization comparable to that of natural habitat of
the region" (Karr and Dudley, 1981). They may be
less expensive to develop on a statewide basis if
States have numerous environmental problems and
can set benchmarks based on the highest quality
conditions attainable across a region. Also, regional
biocriteria are particularly well suited for wetland and
nonpoint source assessments. They are more ap-
propriate than site-specific criteria for elating
regional recovery potential and the regional results of
compliance, including interstate comparisons of
States sharing the same ecoregion.
148
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1988: 147-131
Regional biocriteria offer a meaningful method of
reporting status and trends to the public Ecoregions
reflect landscape differences far better than river
basins (which typically cross ecoregions and thereby
include markedly different ecosystems such as
mountains and plains). To date, Omemik's
ecoregions have successfully stratified the biotlc
characteristics of streams in Arkansas (Rohm et al.
1987), Ohio (Larsen et al. 1986). Oregon (Hughes et
al. 1987; Whittier et al. 1988), and Wisconsin (Lyons.
in press).
Regional biocriteria attainment or nonattainrnent
can be used to help decide where and how to invest
limited pollution control resources in a more cost-ef-
fective manner than site-specific criteria. Therefore.
the public and decision makers are helped to under-
stand that the natural capacity of waters for support-
ing biota differs regionally to a considerable degree.
The disadvantages of regional biocriteria include a
sizable initial investment in the assessment of
regional reference conditions. Spatially extensive
biological data of appropriate quality are lacking
nationwide, so it is unwise to rely entirely on them in
developing biocriteria. The ecoregion/biocriteria ap-
proach depends neaviy on how reference sites are
selected and how regional standards are deter-
mined. Standards wffl be deficient if reference sites
are naturally different (Le., not representative of at-
tainable conditions) from most other sites in the
region; if the reference sites are overiy impacted or
inadequately sampled; tf the biological groups
chosen are insensitive to key stressors or too vari-
able; or if the criteria developed are not sufficiently
stringent Problems of'interpretation occur where
streams cross ecoregion boundaries because boun-
daries represent transition areas with characteristics
of both regions. Also, large rivers are influenced by
the upstream region for some distance downstream
of the boundary. These potential problems are
manageable, as demonstrated by the States im-
plementing the approach.
The ecoregions do not eliminate natural
variability; they simply stratify it Many ecoregions
stOI contain considerable variability and further
refinement or stratification of ecoregions is needed,
especially in mountainous regions. Although it is
being considered by a majority of States in one way
or another (Piafkin, pent com., 1988), the eco-
region/biocriteria approach has been or is being
evaluated in only seven states: Arkansas, Nebraska,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Wiscon-
sin (Whittier, 1988). Thus, this approach may create a
research and regulatory burden for States even if it
results in more accurate assessments and more ap-
propriate and protective management of lands and
waters. A national assessment of regional reference
sites would offer considerable efficiencies of scale
because States generally share ecoregions.
Biocriteria Application
In general, biocriteria are more of a reactive than a
proactive tod. That is, they are most useful for
screening effects, discovering problems, and
developing hypotheses regarding probable causes;
chemical and physical criteria and assessments are
needed to limit stressors and refine diagnoses of
specific causes. Polluters and land managers cannot
directly control the ambient biota: chemical and
physical stressors must still be regulated. Where
evaluated to date (Ohio. Oregon, and Montana field
studies), ecoregional ambient biocriteria have
revealed many more noncompiying sites than are
suggested by State chemical or whole effluent
criteria. EPA is developing guidance to handle these
biocriteria limitations so that resources can be
protected from further damage and polluters
protected from arbitrary actions.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, wise use of
biocriteria requires well-trained, experienced, and in-
telligent staff in State and EPA regional offices -as is
true of any scientific discipline. Reassignments of
poorly prepared staff wil result in major problems be-
cause of tiie need for educated judgment and quality
control in biological assessments (including use
designation, criteria, monitoring, and data interpreta-
tion). Clearly, use of the ecoregion/biocriteria ap-
proach requires careful thought and competent
technical assistance, rather than the mechanical ap-
plication of numbers.
Examples of an Ecoregional
Approach for Developing Refined
Biological-Use Designations and
Biological Criteria
Arkansas and Ohio use an ecoregion/biocriteria ap-
proach in their standards programs (Arkansas Dep.
PolluL Control Ecol.. 1988; Ohio Environ. Prat Agen-
cy, 1988a). Arkansas developed refined biological
use designations based on regional indicator
species. This resulted in separate species expecta-
tions for warmwater streams for each of the six
ecoregions in the State. For example, minimally im-
pacted Boston Mountain streams are characterized
by the wedgespot shiner, shadow bass, longnose
darter, and fantail darter. Reference streams of the
Mississippi Alluvial Plain are characterized by the
149
-------
RM. HUGHES
pugnose minnow, mosquitoflsh, pirate perch, tad-
pole madtom, and banded pygmy sunfish. Relatively
undisturbed streams of the Arkansas River Valley
(which is ecologically intermediate between the
mountain and lowland regions) are characterized
by the orangespotted sunfish and the blacicside
darter.
Ohio developed quantitative biological criteria for
different-sized streams in each of the State's five
ecorogions. Ecoregtonal reference sites 'were
sampled several times for fish and macroinvertebrate
community structure. Criteria values based on the
25th percentle of two fish community indices and
one macroinvertebrate index are used to determine
whether use designations are attained.
Several other States are evaluating, the. ad-
vantages and limitations of ecoregional btocriteria.
Generally, conducting such baseline studies requires
an investment on the order of $100.000 per year for
four to five years, as estimated by the seven test
States. This may appear expensive, but where
ecoregional biological criteria and use designations
have been tested, they have proven a cost-effective
and protective tool.
Biocriteria are applicable to several other topics
discussed at this conference: nonpoint source pollu-
tion standards, toxics identification, lake standards,
sediment criteria, wetland standards, antkJegrada-
tion, and water quantity conservation. Ecoregional
biocriteria give States an Improved framework for
monitoring and regulating nonpoint source pollution
(U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, 1989). Improved
management of diffuse sources is possible because
regional reference sites provide realistic benchmarks
for attainable water resource quality, even in exten-
sively disturbed areas (Hughes. 1985; Ohio Environ.
Prot Agency. I988b). Stream biocriteria are effective
measures of the impacts of sfltation (Berkman and
Rabeni, 1987), channelization (KarretaJ. 1986). mine
drainage (Hughes. 1985; Leonard and Orth. 1986).
nutrient runoff (Rske, 1988), and agricultural runoff
(Steedman, 1988).
Further, the relative environmental impact of toxic
point sources has been successfully evaluated by
ambient biocriteria (Karr et aL 1985; Hughes and
Gammon, 1987; Ohio Environ. Prot Agency. 1988b;
Penrose and Overton. 1988). Algal biomass and
communities have long been used to assess lake
eutrophication (Stephenson and Lowe. 1986; Moore
and Thornton. 1988). The presence of toxic sedi-
ments is typically first suggested by fish tumors and
other anomalies, by especially low IBI scores, and by
distinctive assemblages of species.
Biocriteria are used to assess compliance with the
antidegradation clause (Bauer, pers. com., 1989).
Biocriteria are being used in Oregon to protect in-
stream water rights for fisheries (MacOonnell, pers.
com., 1989). Finally, recent work with wetland
biocriteria, particulariy vegetation and vertebrate as-
semblages, also appears to hold considerable
promise (Brooks and Hughes, 1988).
Biocriteria can add an additional but essential
layer of protection when used together with whole ef-
fluent and chemical criteria. This wide suitabflity to
most of the major standards issues of the conference
make biocriteria a critical area for increased support
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This paper w*. support* by
U.S.Env
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY. 1988: 147-151
Leonard, P.M. and DJ. Orth. 1986. Application and testing of an
Index of bfotie integrity in small coorwater streams. Trana. Am.
Rsh. Soc. 115:401-15.
Lyons, J. In press. Correspondence between the distribution of
fish assemblages in Wisconsin straams and Omemik's
ecoregins. Am. MWIand Nat
MacDonnall. L March 3.1989. Paraonal communication. Water
Quality Standards Conference. Dallas, TX
Moon), l_ And K. Thornton, AdA. 1968* LJ»kA And RtMsMVOir RAAtOfA*
tion Guidance Manual. U.S. Environ. Prat Agancy.
Washington, DC.
Ohio Environmental Protection Ag*ney. 1988a. Btotogteal criteria
for tht pfOtMDon of AQUAM Uiv. Onto Environ*
Columbus.
-^—•. I988b. A comparison of chemical specific, whoto affluant
toxJcrty. and btaaurvay baaad •valuations of watar quality.
Onto Environ. Prot Agancy. Columbus.
Omamik, J.M. 1987. Ecoragions of tha contarminous Unttad
Statas. Ann. Aaaoe. Am. Gaogr. 77:118-25.
Panroaa, D.L and J.R Cvaeton. 1988. Samiqualitatrva collaction
tachniquaa for banthtc macroinvartabrataa; uaas in watar po<-
lutton in North Carolina. Pagaa 77-88 iaT.P. Simon. LL Hoist.
mttft I I Ch*n*rrl --«— Hayin <•* tllmttrmml \Airxtiaii_rLrt ^»M
•no t_tf, onvp«vu« vja** riuu* ••• nmonw notHWiup on
Oocmaria. EPA 905/949/003. U.S. Environ. Prot Agancy.
Chicago, IL
PlafMn. J. L Daoambar 1,1988. Paraonal commun. US. Environ.
Prot Agancy, Washington, DC.
PlafMn. J. L. at si. 1989. Rapid btoassassmant protocols tar usa in
streams and rivars: banthic macreinvartabratas and fish.
EPA/444/4-89/001. U.S. Environ. Prot Agancy. Washington.
DC.
Rohm. C.M., J.W. Glass, and C.C. Bannatt 1987. Evaluation of an
aquatic acoragion classification of straams in Arkansas. J.
P/ashw.Ecol. 4:127-40.
Staadman, RJ. 1988. Modification and assassmant of an indax of
blotto intagrity to quantify straam quality in southam Ontario.
Can. J. Rsh. Aquat Sd. 45:492-501.
Staphanaon, FU.. and RL Low*. 1988. Sampling and interpreta-
tion of algal patterns for watar quality assessments. Pages
118-49 in B.G. laom, ad. Rational* for .Sampling and Inter-
pfVtattlOn Of FOtftOpteati Oltal In ttW ASflaMaWMnt Of FfStltV
Ecosystems. ASTM STP 894. Am. Soc. Test Mater. Philadel-
phia. PA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agancy. 1987. Surface watar
monitoring: a framework for change. U.S. Environ. Prot Agen-
cy. Washington, DC.
. 1989. Nonpoint source agenda for tha future. U.S. En-
viron. Prot Agency. Washington, DC.
Whittier. T. R. ed. 1988. Report of the national workshop on in-
straam biological monitoring and criteria. U.S. Environ. Prot
Agancy. Washington, DC.
Whrttier, T.R. RM. Hughes, and O.P. Larsan. 1988. Comnpon-
dence batw**n eooregions and spatial .patterns in stream
ecosystems in Oregon. Can. J. Rsh. Aquat Sd. 45:1264-78.
151
-------
-------
WKnRQUMJTY STANDARDS FOR aiatCENTURr. istfc 153-15B
Development of Biological Criteria
Suzanne K. Macy Marcy
Bioiopst, Criteria andStandardsDivision, Office of Wattr Regulations and Standards
US. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C.
Biological criteria are unique In the watar quality
criteria program. Whle chemical criteria and'waa-
tetoad allocation methods focus on the cause of
potential impact, biological criteria focus on tha ef-
fecta of Impact Aa such, biological criteria develop-
ment serves aa a natural progression In the watar
quality standards program; ft furnishes a mechanism
ng program success hi protecting bic4og>
cal integrity and provWaa a systamatlc approach for
evaluating ecosystem change. T?ib la important both
for problem discovery and watar quality Improve-
ment
Umtted avalatte data on biological Integrity affect
tha current program. For example, In an effort to flnaJ-
tze a watar quality criteria document for a pollutant In
salt watar tha Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
arda (OWRS) looked for documented examples
where tha poflutant was adversely affecting es-
tuaries; few were found. OWRS does not believe this
la due to low impact; rather, data are not available for
two reasons: current watar quality criteria rely on
laboratory testing and. since criteria do not exist for
tha pollutant, site-specific impacts are not measured.
Biological criteria can fffl these data needs be-
cause biological criteria rely on field assessment of
actual ecosystems and specific chemical criteria are
not required to discover existing problems.
STATES INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING BIOCRITERIA
(As Decision Criteria or State Standards)
System in Place (8)
Active Interest (16)
1777* Some Interest (23)
Minimal Interest (4)
153
-------
S.K.M.MARCV
State Interest
Recognition that biological criteria serve as a logical
next step in the water quality standards program is
exemplified by current State interest in developing
criteria and establishing standards. Based on current
surveys, 8 States have biological criteria in place. 16
are demonstrating active interest, and 23 are ex-
pressing interest; only 4 States show minimal inter-
est Many Slates are seeking guidance for
developing criteria and establishing standards.
Because of the wide natural variability hi ecosys-
tems, one national biological criterion cannot be es-
tablished. Each State wfl be required to develop
biological criteria for waters within its borders. The
purpose for establishing a national initiative and
developing basic methodology is to
• Provide more consistency in the development
of biological criteria, both to encourage its
development and to minimize incompatible
Interpretations of biological criteria between
States;
• Provide States with guidance for research
efforts and application of biological criteria;
and
• Reduce costs: a unified research effort for
methods development will decrease total
investment dramatically.
The potential for Incorporating biological criteria int
State standards is increased by the lead taken !
several States. These States demonstrate thi
biological criteria can be developed and effective!
Implemented. Often data already collected by thea
States hi biosurvey work formed the foundation fc
biological criteria development, an important cor
skJeratfon for States, the majority of which hav
biosurvey monitoring approaches established and;
significant data base in place.
National Biological Criteria
Program
OWRS plans three key elements to help establish;
national program and encourage State implements
BIOSURVEY MONITORING APPROACHES
I I NO BIOSURVEYS (9)
&Z2 SPECIAL STUDIES (16)
FIXED STATION NETWORK (6)
SPECIAL STUDIES
AND FIXED STATION NETWORK (22)
154
-------
WATER OUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY, 1988:153-155
tion of biological criteria OWRS Is developing the fol-
lowing:
• A biological criteria policy statement to
establish biological criteria as a viable water
quality program (Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division);
• A program guidance document (Criteria and
Standards Division); and
• A technical guidance document (Criteria and
Standards Division).
This presentation focuses on efforts by the Criteria
and Standards Division to develop program and
technical guidance.
Program Guidance Document
Targeted toward managers and their staff, the pro-
gram guidance document wil define biological
criteria, explain how It is used in the water quality
criteria program, and provide insights on how it has
been established in some States. The document will
include discussion on using the scientific framework
of biological criteria to systematically evaluate
biosurvey. data currently collected by the State.
OWRS plans to publish the first draft program
guidance document in July 1989. The draft will be
revised in the future, based on feedback from States
and EPA regions using the document
Technical Guidance Document
The technical guidance document, which wSI be tar-
geted toward staff who collect biological data, wiO
contain four sections. The first wil be a detailed dis-
cussion of the scientific method applied to bioas-
sessment methodologies for biological criteria
development It wflf be followed by descriptions of
different available approaches for bioassessment
(e.Q., rapid bioassessment, keystone spedes, bio-in-
dicators). The third section wil describe habitat
types, how they differ, and which approaches appear
to work best for each surface water type. Finally, a
procedures section wtt provide annotated refer-
ences for specifics on data collection techniques.
Throughout, an effort will be made to describe the
advantages and disadvantages of each technique for
specific conditions to provide States with options to
determine which approaches may best fit their
programs. This document will be a working draft.
available in September 1989. Significant research
work is stOI required because of incomplete develop-
ment of assessment methodologies for all surface
waters.
To maximize theirvalue, OWRS wfll continue to im-
prove these guidance documents over the next five
years by evaluating methodologies for surface
waters without accepted bioassessment tools, in-
cluding each major type of surface water (e.g.,
streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries).
OWRS wiO also continue to develop program
guidance based on State implementation of biologi-
cal criteria into standards.
Conclusions
Biological criteria are designed to discover the ef-
fects of impacts in surface waters and therefore are a
supplement to the current water quality standards
program. When water quality problems are dis-
covered, traditional methods are used to determine
the cause.
Most States already collect biomonitoring and
biosurvey data that can be used to develop biologi-
cal criteria. Initial Investments wil, as a result, be
lower than those often required for new initiatives.
This wn be of particular Importance to States trying
to develop methods for wetlands and estuaries
where significant effort and resources will be re-
quired to produce bioassessment tools.
A natural progression in the water quality stand-
ards program, the development of biological criteria
will help integrate OWRS' programs (nonpoint
source pollution, monitoring, standards) and other
EPA programs (hazardous waste, air quality). In addi-
tion, biological criteria wfll be useful to other agen-
cies, such as the Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Fish and WDdlife Service.
155
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
Questions, Answers, and Comments
a I'd like to know if biocriteria indices have been
set up for lakes in Maine or Ohio.
A. (Courtemanch, Maine) We have impact stan-
dards: the lakes cannot be increasing in trophic
state, and they cannot support the culturally induced
algae bloom. We also have the trophic state Index
and chironomid type index, which we use as quantifi-
able criteria indices.
Q. You're not using other measures, such as the
benthic one?
A. (Courtemanch) We are, but we also use the
trophic state index, which Is one of our regulations.
We also use benthic organisms as a long-range level
trend indicator.
A. (Voder) In Ohio, we've pretty much set the
standard at eutrophic state. A staff member has
developed what he cans a lake condition index,
which is a multiple of different things important to
lake recreation.
Q. In Ohio, how many reference sites can a region
have? How do you continually monitor and use these
sites? I'm trying to understand the rationale for using
a pristine land use to apply to, perhaps, lefs say,
agricultural use; for Instance, an unimpaired
forested system that is used as some sort of refer-
ence for a standard.
A. I'd like to answer the second question first
When we talk about minimally impacted reference
sites, we're not talking about pristine sites. I think
there are no pristine sites in this world because of at-
mospheric deposition. There are some sites that are
better than others - those that just suffer from atmos-
pheric pollution-and there are some agricultural
areas like the com desert studied a few years back.
Those are sites that give you some idea of what you
can attain. The reason that we use ecoregion for the
concept is that you break large areas out so that
they're mostly agricultural. I'm not comparing them
with a forested area that's going to have higher
gradients, different kinds of substrate, different kinds
of validation. You don't mix them; you break them up.
Even within the Rocky Mountain area you see
tremendous eJevational differences. You have to kind
of "step down" depending on the variety of, or the
heterogeneity of, the region.
That gets into your first questioa If you're talking
about how many sites you need, it depends on how
variable your area is. We've gotten by with as few as a
half dozen sites in some States with very
heterogeneous areas. You improve predictability as
you increase the numbers, as you would in any kind
of evaluation.
C. I'm not comfortable with that
A. (Voder) In Ohio there's a link between the
ecoregion and the type of land disturbance. For in-
stance, our Huron area lakellne is a flat bold lake bed
that is 99 percent agricultural and, to make it produc-
tive, we had to dig ail the streams down about:15 feet
to get top drainage. It was massive change. There
are unmodified streams toward west Ohio; in
southeast Ohio, which is ungladated, the
predominant disturbance to the land is coal mining
and surface mining, but those areas' specific at-
tributes vary widely. Within its boundaries, however.
each region is fairly homogeneous.
Ohio also has the Eastern Com Belt which within
itself, has more heterogeneity, but we take care of
this within regions in a multiple tier use system. There
are different levels of the index of biotte integrity OBI)
for exceptionally warm water versus warm water ver-
sus a couple lower levels. Once you establish a set of
reference sites in a regional framework, you can go
back and continually monitor them over long
periods,
Q. How complicated do these techniques have to
be? Can you keep a simplistic diversion where you
use fish and use a relatively small number of IBI
things rather than making it more complicated by
using converge/Ms and more complicated matrix?
My own prejudice is that it might be better to use
something simple and cover more State waters than
use something complicated and run out of time and
money and cover fewer waters. Karr, in some of his
original work, basically said, "Well, you don't need to
do rivers at all times because, after all, they're harder
to define efficiently.''
A. If s very attractive to say that we can go and
spend a half an hour at each site and get an answer at
less cost but is it equity for what we're doing? The
permit folks would like us to go out and look at every
permit they issue. We can't do that so we prioritize. I
thini. uiat we don't use enough fish invertebrates
every place, every time. In eight different classes of
complexities we may only use fish; we may only use
invertebrates and we think we must use one or the
other or both. I think the fewer things you use. the
less likely you will detect finer and finer problems.
That's a dilemma.
156
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1988
C. Sometimes you don't have to use either. If you
really are concerned about certain very subtle types
of Impacts, you're going to need more. In our work
with add deposition we think two are not enough
when monitoring lakes. We need to look at several of
these trophically. It depends on the Impact that
you're trying to evaluate and how certain you want to
be.
C. We're looking at permitting a discharge of
secondary effluent to a wed. We have asked the
people proposing this project to do some baseline
studies as weP, but they dkJnt want to do fish, and
they didn't want to do invertebrates. We told them we
needed these studies and they objected, noting that
every time the water quality changes, the whole
structure of the community changes. And, of course,
that's why we want them to do baseline studies.
C When measuring for the studies, doesn't It mat-
ter which group of organisms or what framers you
use? I think the first thing you should do Is express
what you're looking for, otherwise you will never find
it Once you've done that, you can make some
decisions.
Q. I can see that btocritaria would be very useful
for picking up new Impacts from nutrient loading,
high turbidity, and sedimentation, but It's /ess clear
to me whether may would be sensitive to stresses
from toxics. Has than bean much work in carrying
out pollution tasting results to biocritaria working in
the environment?
A. By looking at the different dimensions of the
response, you can get an Indication of the impact
You can certainly separate them from those of other
types of impacts. Often you can get a toddty In an
area where bio results are affected by channeling a
stream site. I'm not sure there's a tradeoff there, but
often you get non-toxic Impacts layered on top of
toxic impacts in the same receiving strain. That may
determine different approaches to how you manage
that water:
C. A measure like the IBI. which looks at a number
of different matrixes, is composed of a dozen dif-
ferent measures of health. In one site, we caught 15
species of fish we had one site drop off to 2 species
(about 20 percent had external diseases). Any one of
those measures were clear. That was a very, very
troubled site that no one except the DER or the
Department of Environmental Quality thought of as
having a problem. It was a site that produces craw-
fish for the State. They did a study and tried to control
the problem. In a site higher up, we had high species
richness and all those matrixes scored very high but
the anomaly was that a number of fish had only one
eye or were missing fins that sort of thing that to us
says PCS.
Q. What is the relationship between the evolution
of the btocrtteria in EPA's Framework and the evolu-
tion of bloassay and effluent testing, toxfcity testing,
and numeric standards development? Do you think
that one is more evolved than the others?
A. We pulled together Information on our in-
stream bioassessments and effluent toxlcity tests. In
approximately 8 percent of the cases there seemed
to be no problem in-stream. We have found a prob-
lem with effluent toxicity, which suggested that
there's actually a very gopd correlation between ef-
fluent toxicity problems and what we're finding.
There was a broader range of overlap where we
found problems in-stream, but we hadn't picked up
anything in the effluent To me that suggests that we
have to do more in those situations. Weil, how do we
identify the situations where we need to be looking
for the additional controls? Maybe It's not a permit
that needs to be fixed, maybe if s a nonpoint source
problem in the area, but at least it gives you a handle
on the area that needs more work.
C. Before modifying the permit you have to do ef-
fluent and toxicity testing and btoassays. The
biocriteria would be more of a microtargeting tool to
evaluate the problems. From there you need a more
standard regulatory means to determine the permits.
C. Exactly. All the different ways of evaluating
water quality aren't individual. You need all your dif-
ferent types of information to get an accurate picture
of what*s actually going on.
Q. Will biocriteria stand up in court as it evolves to
a permanent limit?
A. If you want to make biocriteria stand up. you've
got to have a theoretical basis and system that will
stand up to challenge, because when you start
saying that you've got a problem with your dis-
charge, you had better have something behind it In
almost all cases documented biocriteria alone is not
sufficient; you must have additional data from the ef-
fluent even if If s just the monthly agar report data. I
would never go to court «nh only biological criteria
information data.
If s a good tool for screening, and the process is
evolving, as are the tools, to a point where we can
identify tendencies in the data. We have so many dif-
ferent ways to identify these tendencies that help us
identify the problem. Any biologist who goes out and
157
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
looks at the system can, just by being there, give you
an idea of what caused the impact
Q. Have you used the IBI to establish a stream
classification?
A. (Courtemanch) Maine doesn't use the fish IBI.
although weVe tested it We're using invertebrate
populations. We have a very depauperate fish
population; there arent many spedes. The IBI js not
a sensitive tool.
aOoyoonaveac/ass/ffcatfonsystem?
A. (Courtemanch) Yes. We're using invertebrate
populations for that purpose.
Q. How do you take biological criteria and imple-
ment them into water quality-based effluent limita-
tions? How do you get from these IBIs to numbers in
the permits?
A. Ifs a difference between cause and effect
Blocriteria measures an effect you then need to drop
down to a lower organizational level, like numeric
criteria, or look at your effluent, at nonpoint sources,
or at agricultural runoff, to identify what is causing
that effect.
C. You dont know what chemical is causing the
problem, but a law involves regulation of chemicals.
It's important to know that there's a problem in the
community.
C. Ifs the same problem with effluent tests. They
can ted you there's a problem, but not the cause.
You've got to go find them.
C. Why do we spend a lot of time and money
doing effluent evaluations? Because we're trying to
characterize the effluent so we got something to
regulate. The whole thing's tied together.
C. We've have chosen the system that measures
performance at the end of the pipe. I'm not sure there
is another system. You can monitor the streams to
see their performance and get a relationship there,
but as far as what you do legally to regulate that per-
mit toxic units is one approach and there are chemi-
cal numbers with that as weU. If you've got an
impairment, you've got the characteristics of the im-
pairment that are related to the processes in that ef-
fluent and your only choice in protecting the
environment is to meet your water quality-based
numbers.
C. I don't think we have the answer, but that's not a
reason not to test This is kind of where we were on
effluent toxicity. In the beginning we thought it would
just be a way of evaluating effluents, that we'd be put-
ting effluent toxicity limitations in permits. Ultimately,
we were able to show that you can find correlations,
you can justify printed toxicity limits requirements.
The tests are repeatabie, you've got variability under
control. Maybe well be able to do that with biocriteria
for in-stream effects, too.
We did not embark upon this primarily for point
sources. One of the main values that we saw was for
nonpoint sources and for trying to target areas where
we need to do nonpoint source work. Because pes-
ticides aside, the chemical specific approach doesn't
work very weB In most streams tor nonpoint sources.
We may find better applications for it there than in
point sources in the near term.
C. Blocriteria can be also used to judge if
programs are working. The biocriteria are a way of
measuring to see if other things that you're doing for
point or nonpoint sources are. or have been, an im-
provement on the system.
C. We have blocriteria that are criteria in the same
sense that they are measurable types of things that
we expect space or dischargers to be.
Q. Do you allow them into permits?
A. Not in the permits, but in the ambient condition.
C. YouVe got to get back to your use of the impair-
ment You're impairing irrigation, drinking water, so
what about biocriteria? Lef s get something going
thafs going to ted me, the manager, that IVe got
some fish to protect what level of fish do I need to
protect to? That s where I think biocriteria is going to
work very wed: so I don't think it's point or nonpoint
If s back to use that you're going to defend.
Q. Connecticut is real high on biological monitor-
ing, both full effluent testing and in-stream monitor-
ing as well. We used to do long-term chemical
monitoring and short-term, intensified biological
monitoring. Maybe we should do short-term chemi-
cal, long-term biological monitoring. We are spend-
ing a lot of our limited resources on ambient
chemical stations. How do you see the chemical
monitoring fitting in with the biological monitoring?
A. We have abandoned most of our chemical
monitorinr etworic; we don't have resources to do
enough.
Q. When you find an impact, and you're trying to
locate the cause, are you then going back and doing
intensive chemical monitoring as a tool to find out
what the problem is?
158
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21* CENTURY, 1989
A. There isnt gong to be any kind of fixed totem
pole that to open up a whole new arena for how you
manage licensing. There is no fixed pattern. If s not
going to make it easy.
We had licensed one of our textfle industries
based on chemical criteria. We had done absolute
screening and found no toxidty. A year later, we went
into the stream and found the population literally
obliterated. So we went back personally to see If
they'd had spBIs or anything, but there were none
from a municipal treatment plant So we started a
progression back through a wooflen mffl using ethyl
toxidty testing on different process lines to identify
where we had done a long-term ethyl toxidty testing
rather than screening and found, indeed, that there
were sporadic events going on from this mffl causing
episodes in-steam that were wiping out the or-
ganisms in-stream; so we had a long-term effect that
couldn't be monitored by a short-term. Instan-
taneous-type measure.
When we went back and started doing extended
effluent toxidty testing and found there were
sporadic events occurring, we found eventually that
it was.a combination of certain detergents and wool
oDs used In processing that were creating the prob-
lem, which resulted In a shift of the use of products.
We think it resolved the water problem. Biocriteria are
not going to tell you whaf s going on in that building
because If s a very extremely complex effluent
C. I think it Is Important to emphasize that events
can occm; and that you may never measure that
chemical in the stream. So if you chose doing short-
term chemical testing over long-term monitoring you
might never find it
Q. We can develop this guidance, but there are a
million different ways the States can develop and im-
plement biocriteria. As the States implement
biocriteria, how much capability does EPA have to
have in both the program offices and In research to
track what the States are doing?
C. There is a spectrum of what integrity Is. I would
like EPA to define that spectrum.
C. (Courtemanch) I think it should be in the State's
discretion to work within those boundaries. Aside
from that, we look forward to technical support from
EPA in developing methodologies.
C. EPA needs to actively review the State's par-
ticular program from the ground up, and it also needs
to make sure that the structure of the water quality
standards that contain these criteria is set up proper-
ly. There are two areas to look at: the monitoring folks
In the region's headquarters need to keep an eye on
methods; the criteria and standards folks need to
keep an eye on the system in place. Let1 s get some
unity, at least in the design of the system.
Q. (Hughes) Do you need help? If so, what kind of
help do you need?
A, (Marcy) What EPA ends up doing in technical
guidance documents wfll depend on what we hear
from States as to what they have done, because the
techniques they are developing will aid us in develop-
ing the technical guidance. Much of what we put in
there wfll be what States have already done, but will
also be what researchers are doing to assess these
surface waters. We wBI require help from you, not
only the technical things you've done, but also what
States need.
Q. The historical standards program which sort
of began with narrative standards and then moved
into more numeric criteria—do you see a role here or
a narrative biological criteria that would play the
same type of a role?
A.(Courtemanch) Thafs what we've done In
Maine, we have there a standard in our law that's
pretty explicit It leads us right into Identifying what
our numeric criteria could be to be the descriptor of
that standard.
«
C. Actually Arkansas doesn't call it a numeric
criteria, but a refinement or a reuse destination.
Rather than saying "warmwater fish," they say, "We
expect these key and characteristic species to be
there in these abundances in these different regions."
Thafs so broad for biologists they don't know
whether they've got it or not-Hwarmwater fish" is
much better. Most of the States doing this kind of
work have refined their use designation so they have
some idea how to break those apart
C. I guess we've always had narratives for dif-
ferent uses that were really the basis for having
longer lists of chemicals behind them. We cut that
narrative and then we build a biocriteria system
around it to settle in the chemical. So, in effect, the
use is really the narrative and then how you measure
the achievement of that use becomes the criteria,
C. You have to know what use you're trying to
protect you have to make sure that use is reasonably
well defined; and you have to take one step further
and develop the criteria to do that I wouldn't stop at
just refining the use, otherwise you'd be where the
program was when there were chemical criteria.
159
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS.* COMMENTS
Q. But you dont go back to see whether you've
got them or not?
A. It's just that when you have them there. It gives
you something to fall back on. You have to have them
to get to the btocnteria.
Our lab has been pushing this and working on it
for years now, but we've only been able to do this
with cooperative work with the States. Our program
is funded at about $100.000 a year, which supports
approximately two people In our lab. The work that's
been developed is mostly State drtven-we offer
some guidance framework- but we have had several
inquiries from States about how to develop the same
sort of program. Our laboratory to pretty limited, so if
you want a coherent national program, you wOl have
to have national support and guidance.
C. What we're trying to do is meet the States
needs for guidance. The guidance that we will come
out with this year, the program in May and the techni-
cal In September, are definitely preliminary. We will
continue to develop them; hopefully we can get a
dear Initiative in the Framework and funding to start
working on some of the techniques that need to be
developed to make it a viable project
I'm really encouraged to see the Framework of
btocriteria being developed in a timely fashion. For
those States that arent as advanced as some, where
suddenly this new imposition of btocriteria may cre-
ate some kind of tension, remember that if s got
enormous advantages and is well worth investiga-
tion.
160
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1968: 161-162
Criteria and Advisory
Development by EPA: Their
Derivation and Applications
Rolf Hartung (Moderator)
Professor of Environmental Toxicology
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
I am going to take an academic point of view on
criteria and advisory development to give some of
the science background, with relatively little distinc-
tion between the terms "criteria" and "advisories." In
my way of thinking, they are more or less a question
of degree rather than of substance. When you strive
to develop criteria, you are trying to develop a sum-
mary of the knowledge of exposure in relationship to
the biological effect, which has certain basic proper-
ties that are repeated again and again, regardless of
the organisms. One can always find dose levels for
any compound that are so low that one cannot
measure any adverse effect or any effect of any kind.
This does not necessarily mean there are no effects,
but it may mean that the experimental conditions
cannot resolve an effect Then, as one increases the
exposure, eventually some of the most sensitive in-
dividuals among the most sensitive species may start
to show some very subtle effects that may not have
great influence on their abfllty to function as mem-
bers of a population or community but often give rise
to scientific arguments as to whether these effects
are harmful.
As the concentration and duration of the exposure
parameters increase, more and more individuals
among the sensitive species start to become in-
volved. When many begin to show-effects, it is ar-
gued, the species wfll be harmed. Some of the more
resistant species wfll even start to show adverse ef-
fects. As the exposure is increased, eventually mem-
bers of many different kinds of species wfll start to
experience adverse effects. Eventually, one reaches
concentrations where the majority are either dead or
nearly dead. This is a standard lexicological
scenario.
The kinds of responses we are talking about can
range from simple lesions to physiological respon-
ses, pathological responses, effects on growth and
reproduction, or cancer.
These types of responses form a continuum; we
start from nothing with some questions about
measurabOIty and move into something, that is clear-
ly adverse, with a zone of uncertainty in between.
That Is the natural state of affairs. However, if one at-
tempts to administer a pollution control program in
that kind of uncertain environment, then the regulator
finds the task difficult. Therefore, we set up a
methodology by which we derive a single hard point
to use as a yardstick. That point is not natural, it is
designed for administrative convenience. It is the
criteria number that is the point we wfll eventually
convert into a standard, and it is very dependent both
on the data and on the assumptions used in the algo-
rithm. (In the past, that number was not derived by al-
gorithms but was picked by consensus.)
These are the data that we have to work with; how
are we going to use them to protect? Once we have
sorted and aligned all of the existing data, we must
again question what we are trying to protect In the
case of humans, we tend to protect the individual
against all effects with a significant margin of safety.
In the case of the environment, protection of the
ecosystem is the goal, but we do not quite know how
to do that What we do instead is try to protect the
population on the basis of laboratory studies on in-
dividuals. Next we must determine which aspects of
the population we are trying to support and protect
EPA's regulations about these aspects are not al-
ways very dear. Sometimes it is a question of popula-
tion numbers, sometimes it is a question of fishable
waters.
The next point is the criteria. At this state, criteria
are the Cadillacs of the scientific knowledge bases.
The agency has also tried to develop advisories be-
161
-------
HARTUNG
causa they require less effort, less information, but
larger safety margins. On a scientific basis, alone.
one could set up advisories on anything-there is
enough information on structural activity relation*
ships to make a reasonably informed calculation to
derive an advisory concentration, but there wffl be
many errors. With more information, the degree of
uncertainty is less. There is resistance to use data
that will result in numeric standards when the infor-
mation base is small There are no dear statements
of error about these data: there can be conflict with
antldegradation and antibackslldlng regulations.
We are developing a number of additional stand-
ards that I would like to make a few remarks on. One
group is the sediment criteria. This case represents a
more complex situation In that there are a series of
logical steps to get from the concentration in the
sediment to the actual exposure of bottom-dwelling
organisms and the subsequent ecosystem effects.
Thus there are additional steps to be considered
when compared to the normal process in the
development of water quality criteria. Again, this
gives rise to error and more variability in the system.
Another area that I would like to caution the Agen
cy on is the development of criteria for wildlife. EPl
appears to be misnamed; it is acting as if it were s
water and air protection agency, not an environmen-
tal protection agency in the broadest sense
Development of wildlife criteria would be an impor-
tant step in the protection of terrestrial ecosystems
EPA should not tie these criteria exclusively to watei
or use human health standards to develop mam-
malian data. The Agency cannot hybridize methods
developed for the creation of diverse criteria and ex-
pect this approach to work. The methodology should
be developed uniquely to protect terrestrial ecosys-
tems or else there wil be major problems.
EPA should take advantage of the time needed to
develop substantial criteria for the protection of ter-
restrial ecosystems. The Agency could start funding
this effort now and continue over the next five years,
at (east This continuous expenditure of both funds
and effort should result in more dependable, much-
needed criteria.
162
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY, 1
163-169
Status of the Development of Water Quality
Criteria and Advisories
David J.Hansen
Aquatic Biologist, Environmental Research Laboratory
US. Environmental Protection Agency Namgansett, Rhode Island
Water Quality Criteria and
Advisory Status
For over 30 years, scientists have recommended the
use of data from laboratory tooddty tests to produce
chemical concentrations that would protect aquatic
life. Several publications from the 1950s through the
1970s list water quality criteria concentrations for
metals, organic chemicals, and other substances or
conditions (McKee and Wolf, 1952,1963; Fed. Water
Podut Control Admin. 1968 ("Green Book"]; Nati.
Acad. ScL/Nati. Acad. Eng.. 1973 ["Blue Book1]; US.
Enviroa Prot Agency. 1976 ["R«d Book"]). Proce-
dures used to derive criteria in these publications
varied, as did the quality or quantity of data.
Criteria documents published in 1980 in response
to the legal requirements of the "Consent Decree"
(U.S. Enviroa Prot Agency. 1980) mark the first time
criteria concentrations were derived using standard
guidelines (Stephen et al. 1985). Criteria documents
published since (U.S. Enviroa Prot Agency. 1985a,
1986. I987a. 1988) have also used these national
guidelines. Between 1980 and 1988. chemicals for
criteria derivation were selected by using legal re-
quirements, EPA's Criteria and Standards Division's
hazard-ranking methodology, and input from States.
A total of 73 aquatic We criteria documents for in-
dividual substances were published in the 1980s. Of
these, criteria concentrations to protect freshwater
aquatic life and their uses are recommended for 27
substances and for 21 substances to protect
saltwater aquatic life (Table 1). Criteria concentra-
tions for nine metals, cyanide, and toxaphene. pub-
lished in 1985. 1986. and 1987 supercede those
published in 1980. In addition, criteria concentrations
published between 1980 and 1988 supercede those
previously issued.
Draft criteria documents for 11 substances are
being reviewed by EPA or have been released for
public comment (Table 1). Toxicity tests are being
conducted and literature assembled for 14 additional
substances, several of which were selected because
they are likely candidates for sediment quality criteria
"ablet—Statue of ambient water quality criteria docu-
inents tor aquatic life* Published documents listed
uaed the national guidelines to derive numeric criteria
concentrations for both freshwater (FW) or saltwater
(SW) aquatic life unless'noted.
PUBLICATION
o*ni
1990
PubiiahadDo
1988
1987
1988
Cadmium, Chtordana. Chromium VI, Coppar.
Cyartda(FW), DDT. DMdrin. Endoauifan. Endrin,
Hap>>cMocHa«achlorocyclohaxana(FW).
LMd (FW). Marcury. Ntekal, PCBa. Saianium.
•R*aphana(FW).2nc
Ammonia (FW).Ar»anic III. Cadmium. Chtorina.
Chromium VI. Chromium III (FW). Coppw,
Cyarida. LMd. Mercury
CMorpyittM. Disaotvwj Oxygan (FW). Ntekal,
PMhton (FW). Pantachtorophenol. Ibxaphana
SajariumZInc
Aluminum (FW). Chtorida (FW)
AcroWn (FW). Ammonia (SW). Anttna.
Antimony III. OEHP. Z4-OMP. HC8.
Phananmrona. SUw.TBT, 2.4.STCP
Atrazvw, CeVtwyf , DMtibnon,
^Qxw*(SW. ^
«VittMfw, Mrtrthioo, Mttlhyl PcWhion,
derivation. Others were selected because toxicity
identification evaluations (Mount and Anderson-Car-
nahaa 1988) have confirmed their presence in ef-
fluents in acutely lethal amounts.
EPA has prepared draft guidelines for deriving
water quality advisories (US. Environ. Prot Agency.
1987D) and drafted advisory documents for 18 sub-
stances. The Science Advisory Board reviewed the
advisory guidelines and. to improve tr; nical
credibflity. recommended certain data syntheses that
EPA is completing. Draft advisory documents are
being reviewed by EPA and the public. Following
successful completion of these activities. EPA can
recommend advisory concentrations for substances
in a more cost-effective and conservative fashion
than that required for criteria derivation.
163
-------
0. J. HANSEN
Observations of a Water Quality Criteria
Document Coordinator
Individuals who use numeric water quality criteria
concentrations should be familiar with the national
and site-specific guidelines (Stephen et al. 1985; U.S.
Enviroa Prot Agency, 1982); the data and narrative
contained in the water quality criteria documents;
and the technical support document that guides im-
plementation of water quality-based toxics control
(U.S. Environ. Prot Agency. 1985b). These guide-
lines and documents provide insights into data base
requirements for criteria derivation and relevant
laboratory and field data as wefl as the toxlcologisal
and ecological significance of a substance. In addi-
tion, they discuss strengths and limitations of criteria
and guidance on their implementation.
The criteria statement contains a criteria maxi-
mum concentration (CMC) and a criteria continuous
concentration (CCC). The CCC is the highest con-
centration that can be maintained Indefinitely In a
waterbody without unacceptably affecting aquatic
organisms or their uses. Organisms can tolerate
higher concentrations (the CMC) and aquatic com-
munities can recover from limited Impacts If the mag-
nitude, duration, and frequency of exposure are
limited. Therefore, in addition to the CMC and CCC.
the criteria statement also contains averaging
periods delimiting exposure duration and return fre-
quencies that Indicate how often water quality criteria
concentrations can be exceeded.
Derivation of Criteria Concentrations
The criteria maximum concentration is derived from
data on the acute toxidty of the substance to fresh-
water and saltwater aquatic life, based on a minimum
number of tests with specific families of organisms
(Stephen et al. 1985). The statistical methodology
contained in the national guidelines uses the rank
order of the acute sensitivity of genera, the acute
values for the four most sensitive genera, and the
total number of genera tested to calculate, by
modified regression analysis, the final acute value
(FAV). This value represents that concentration
above which 95 percent of the average acute values
(LCSOs or ECSOs) for genera occur. Results of this
procedure are illustrated for copper where the FAV is
18 /ug/L (hardness - 50 mg/L) for freshwater aquatic
life and 5.8//g/L for saltwater aquatic life (Fig. 1). The
CMC is derived by dividing the FAV by 2. a factor that
is the average ratio of LCSOs to LCDs.
Criteria maximum concentrations can vary as a
function of a water quality characteristic If the water
quality-toxidty relationship is consistent for most
sensitive species. For example, CMCs for freshwater
10,000-
SALTWATER (n=20)
5 20 40 60 80 100
PERCENTAGE RANK OF SPECIES
Table 3 r
Moan Acute Vaiuoe tor freshwater (shaded
id saltwater (open symbols) aquatic Bfe from
the 1 MS water quality criteria document for eop-
tobratoa by square*; and fishes by drelea. The final acute
value at the 8 pereentBe rank for freshwater genera la 11.5
/*9/L and for saltwater gene
aquatic life areTiardness dependent for cadmium,
chromium III, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc; pH de-
pendent for .pentachlorophenoi; and pH and
temperature dependent for ammonia. The criteria
continuous concentration is the lower of either the
final chronic value (FCV) or the final residue value
(FRV). The final chronic value is derived from data on
the chronic toxidty of a substance and is the con-
centration that protects the long-term presence of
aquatic life. The FCV is most commonly derived by
dividing the final acute value by the average acute-
chronic ratio from life-cycle or early life-stage tests
(Table 2). This has been done for 8 freshwater and 13
saltwater CCC concentrations. In contrast, copper
and cyanide acute-chronic ratios are available only
for acutely insensitive spedes. Larval mollusks or
crustaceans were acutely most sensitive; it is likely
that concentrations that do not cause acute lethality
to the life stages of these species will not cause
chronic toxidty, either. Therefore, the criteria maxi-
mum concentration is the C"C. The freshwater
CCCs are hardness dependent for six metals; pH de-
pendent for pentachlorophenoi, and pH and
temperature dependent for ammonia. Freshwater
criteria were derived for aluminum and dissolved
oxygen using data on sensitive commercially and
recreationally important species. The selenium
criterion is based on field-effects data.
164
-------
WATS* QUALITY STANDARDS FOR «1et CBOURf. 1
183-180
The criteria continuous concentration can also be
based on the final residue value, which is derived
from data on the bioaccumuiatton of substances by
aquatic organisms and is the concentration that
protects uses of aquatic organisms such as
marketabllty and as prey for widltfe spedes. The
FDA action level for seafood or fish ol divided by
Dioconcentratfon factors (BCF) or bioaccumulatfon
factors (BAF) were used to derive final residue values
for four pesticides (dieidrin, endrin. heptachlor, and
toxaphene) and mercury (Table 2). The results of
monitoring the chemical concentrations in edible
portions of commerdafly important species with the
highest lipid concentrations and limited home ranges
can determine 9 exceeding the FHV at a spedflc site
results In concentrations exceeding FDA action
levels that affect marketability. Final residue values
were derived from dietary dose response data in
mink for PCBs and In brown pelicans for DOT.
The variety of procedures for deriving the CCC
from chronic tooddtyand btoaccumutattan data. FDA
action levels, and widllfe feeding studies illustrates
the complexity of these data and the flexibility of na-
tional guidelines-and underscores the need for
criteria users to be famBlar with them both.
Need for Separate Freshwater and
Saltwater Criteria
Is it necessary to derive criteria concentrations for
both fresh- and saltwater aquatic life? Could a single
criterion apply to both? Thirty-three percent of the
present CMCs for freshwater and saltwater aquatic
life are within a factor of 2. FHly-eignt percent of the
CCCs are also within a factor of 2. However, 48 per-
cent of the CMCs and 35 percent of the CCCs for
freshwater and saltwater species differ by greater
than a factor of 5. Of these, the saltwater CMC was
lowest for 85 percent of the substances and the
saltwater CCC was lowest for 67 percent Therefore. I
conclude that for some substances,. acute and
chronic sensitivities to, or magnitude of accumula-
tion in, freshwater and saltwater species are suffi-
ciently similar to derive one criterion. For others,
separate criteria remain necessary.
TeMe Z—Procedure* used to derive criteria continuous concentration* (CCC) from final chronic values or final
residue values Tor 27 substances in freshwater end 21 substance* In saHwetercrHafla documents published between
1980 end 1988. Pr
fraalmatar only or (SW) for saltwater only.
id for both fresh and saltwater criteria derivation unless Indicated by (FW) for
PflOCEDUAC USBD
Fine) «cuM vahM +
Aeut»
-------
J. HANSEN
Applicability of National Water
Quality Criteria to Specific Sites
National Criteria versus Site-Specific
Criteria
The stte-spedflc guidelines provide a means of
modifying national criteria based on unique sen-
sitMttes of species at specific sites (resident spedes
recalculation procedure); water quality differences
(Indicator spades procedure); and both spades'
sensitivity and water quality dfferencas (resident
spedes procedure). For resident spedea recalcula-
tion procedure, data from nonresident genera are
deleted from the national water quality criteria docu-
ment and a stte-spedflc criterion Is calculated using
remaining data on resident spedes. This procedure
was applied using six saltwater sites (GaJveston Bay,
Tex Pensacoia Bay, Ra; Indian River, Fta; Upper and
Lower Chesapeake Bay, Md.; and Narragansett Bay.
R.I. [Hansen et ai 1985]).
Acute toxidty data from water quaJfty criteria
documents for 18 substances published in 1980 and
1985 (US. Environ. Prot Agency, 1980.1985a) were
used to calculate stte-spedflc final acute values. A.
total of 108 site-spedfic final acute values were pos-
sible from the combination of 8 saltwater sites and 18
substances. Minimum data base requirements were
not met: therefore, 8 percent of the possfele site-
specific firtaJ acute values «uld net be calculated. In
14 percent of the cases the final acute value, did not
change; 62 percent of the site-specific FAVs were
lower than the national FAVs by factors 20.4. Seven
percent of the site-specific FAVs were greater than
the national FAVs; of these, 7 percent were 1.0 to
2.4X. Only 4 percent (heptachlor and lindane in
Chesapeake and Narragansett Bays) were 29X the
national FAV. This large difference could be the result
of an absence of acute toxftity data on the effects of
insecticides on sensitive crustaceans from these
bays, rather than an insensttvity of resident fauna.
These analyses suggest that species from different
saltwater sites are not uniquely sensitive and that,
from a spedes sensitivity perspective, national
saltwater water quality criteria may be applicable to
most sites.
The indicator species approach uses the mean
ratio of the acute or chronic toxidty of a substance to
two or more spedes In laboratory and site water to
calculate a site-specific criterion to account for the
effect of site water quality on the toxidty of a sub-
stance (Table 3). This approach has been used most
frequently for ammonia (Alexander et al. 1986; EA
Eng. 1986; Ntonmo et al. In press; WBIIngham, 1989).
Water effect ratios for ammonia are available for nine
freshwater and one saltwater (Baltimore Harbor. Md.)
location. Ratios range from 0.7 to 2.0; average-1.1.
Site-spedfic criteria for ammonia may not be needed
because wataY quality adjustments for pH and
temperature in the national criteria document ac-
count for the dominant water quality characteristics
that affect the toxidty of ammonia. The water effect
Table 3.— Results of the use of the "Ine
Motor Spades Procedure" for modifying national water quality criteria for
•cute or chronic values In site and laboratory water for all spades expoead to tha substance.
SUBSTANCE
AMMVMMMA
Afrimonsel
Cadmium
Otlonfie)
f^nnneif
•**•»•*•*»
LOCATION
South Plane RJver. CO
SL Vratt River. CO
Banknote Harbor. MO
Ttttabawaaee Hfcer, Ml
THtabaweaee River. Ml
OarttFonxMT
East Gaksttn River. MT
Herd River, NO
Lake Mead, NV
Jordan River. UT
M» Creek, UT
SL Louis River. MN
SL Louis Avar. MN
Mill Raca Creek. UT
Naugatuck River. CN
Naugatuck River. CN
WATCH EPPBCT
RATIO
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.4~
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
3.9
0.5*~
T.O
0.5 to 1.2
4.1 to 8.5
SPECIES IESIEU*
Cap.. FHM
FHM, JO
M.S
DJTI.. FHM. BG, W
DJTI.. FHM
Cjp.. RBT. FHM
DJTI., BT
PWM
C.ap.. FHM
RBT. FHM
RBT. FHM
&&. RBT. FHM
C/.. FHM
C.sp.. FHM
c.a.. s.sp.. FHM
C.d.. S.sp.. FHM
MEPEflENCE
Wliiingnam. 1989
Ninvno *t si.. In Press
EA Eng.. Sot., and Tech. Inc.. 1986
Alexander et ml.. 1988
Alexander et al.. 1986
Alexander et si.. 1986
WilHngnam. 1989
WilHngnam. 1989
Williognam. 1989
Nimmo. 1989
Nimmo. 1989
Soehar and Carlson. 1984
WilHngnam. 1989
Carlson et al.. 1986
Carlson et ai.. 1986
•SMOM WMd: BG - bkMg*: BT ~ brawn (roue C.A - CcnoMpmw duttc GJ. • C. rMeu(«K C^p. • CWMCUO/ITM sp.: FHM - tamcad mnnow:
JO • Jormny darar M • my«d: H8T • ramoow muc S • MhwiwMi: S.ap- • Seap/nMO«is »p.; S-». • SnwMp/Mfe* Mmutut: W • *alt«y«.
~Wattr •Met mo from enrene ttaerty Mttt wm Qtphnm m«on« and laowad.nwwwws.
•~RaW of tM spwadc erMna oandnuaiN conotmnton (CCQ dwwad u*ng in* im moflc acuw-enronic raw of SO dwidM by tnt national (CCC).
166
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21« CENTURY, 1088: 163-109
ratio for chlorine at MO Race Creek. Utah, was 1.0
(WDIIngham. 1989).
In contrast, water effect ratios for copper In the
Naugatuck River. Conn. (Carlson et al. 1986) and for
cadmium In the SL Louis River, Minn. (Spehar and
Carlson! 1984) show that site water quality did
reduce the acute toxidty of these metals. The water
effect ratio for copper in Naugatuck River appears to
be related to the discharge of a sewage treatment
plant Above the plant, the water effect ratio ranged
from 0.5 to 1.2; below, from 4.1 to 8.5.
The water effect ratio from acute tooddty tests with
cadmium In SL Louis River water was 3.9. Indicating
that the cadmium acute criterion could be increased.
However, use of the acute-chronic ratio of 50 for cad-
mium in site.water resulted in a chronic criteria con-
centration one-half of the national criteria value. A
site-specific criterion also was derived for cadmium
in the SL Louis River using the resident species ap-
proach (Spehar and Carlson, 1984). This site-specific
acute criterion was 0.9/jg/L and the chronic criterion
was 0.05 ftqlL-two concentrations that were less
than the national values.
For afl substances, these results support the con-
clusion that site-specific criteria frequently do not dif-
fer significantly from national criteria concentrations.
When they do differ, site-specific criteria can be
higher or lower than national criteria concentrations.
National Water Quality Criteria versus
Field/Microcosm Studies
Controlled, replicated experiments In engineered
field ecosystems or laboratory mesocosm/micro-
cosms provide a method to establish applicability
limits of laboratory-derived criteria for protecting
aquatic life. Slight exceedence of criteria concentra-
tions for short durations could produce nearly un-
detectable effects in routine field btosurveys.
The EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in
Ouluth has tested laboratory-derived criteria at Its
field station near Monticeflo. Minnesota, since 1976.
The site has eight 520-meter outdoor experimental
freshwater streams consisting of nine pools and
eight riffles (Arthur, 1988) that contain natural as-
semblages and introduced species. Between 1976
and 1984, the effects of acidification, ammonia,
chlorpyrifos, dlazinon, pentachlorophenol, and
temperature on community structure, diversity,
ecosystem function and survival, growth, behavior,
reproduction, and emergence of individual species
were investigated. Test durations were from 12 to 75
weeks and consisted of 2 to 4 treatments.
The results of these studies as summarized by Ar-
thur (1988) and detailed in other publications indi-
cate that Impacts of each of these substances on
stream populations differed. Concentrations affect-
ing stream populations were at or above water
quality criteria concentrations in all cases. No margin
of safety was evident for ammonia or pen-
tachlorophenol. Arthur (1988) concluded that
laboratory-derived water quality criteria and results
from single species tests predicted effects on
populations in these experimental streams.
A laboratory test that assesses impacts of sub-
stances on developing communities of benthic es-
tuarine organisms may also be used to examine the
applicability of water quality criteria derived from
toxteity tests on individual species (Hansen and
Tagatz, 1980). The results could be compared with
water quality criteria because sensitive early life-
stages of a diverse group of taxa are exposed chroni-
cally.
Communities that develop from pianktonic larvae
in the sand-filled aquaria typically consist of about
4,000 Individuals that represent 50 species and 7
phyla One control and 3 treatments receive the test
substance; each treatment consists of 8 to 10 repli-
cates. Results with Aroclor 1254, chlorpyrifos, fen-
valerate, pentachlorophenol, and toxaphene are
reported (Table 4) because final chronic values for
the chemicals are available from water quality criteria
documents or can be estimated from available data.
If water quality criteria concentrations provide a
reasonable level of protection, and this test is a good
surrogate for the sensitivity of communities in nature,
observed effect concentrations should be above,
and no-observed-effect concentrations below es-
timated or actual final chronic values (Table 4). In ad-
dition, taxa most sensitive in single species tests
should also be sensitive in community tests. For the
five substances in Table 4, the concentrations affect-
ing colonization were always above final chronic
values. The no-observed-effect concentration
(NOEC) from the colonization experiment for Aroclor
1254 and pentachlorophenol were below final
chronic value and, for toxaphene, above. The NOEC
was not determined for chlorpyrifos or fenvalerate.
Some, but not all, of the taxa affected in the
colonization experiment were also the most sensitive
in single-species tests. These results support the
conclusion that laboratory-derived water quality
criteria are protective of estuarine organism com-
munities, and that exceeding water quality criteria al-
most always results in measurable impacts.
167
-------
0. J. HANSON
(OEC) and net affecting (NOEO benthte eolonteaMen.
(WQC) fbMl Ghran
(FCV) and eonewitratkMM «f»Ktlng
COCOMgATIOH
vwauawoc
Areotor12S4
Chtorpyrtba
Cotoniatttiftoo (OEC)
WQC(FCV)
Colortz*tan(OeC)
WQC(E«kraMPCV)
Cotonttabon(NOEC)
Cotontta*on(OE€)
WOC(FCV)
CotontoattonfNOEQ
nr»*»r>» —w
BA cngiriMnnQi ocwnoM, wia ivcnnoiOQy, vie. 1900* rropOMG
modiflad affluant Hmrtatton* for ammonia. EA. Rap. BET54&
Praparad for Bathtoham Staa« Corp.. Sparrow* Point MO. ,
Fadaral Watar Pollution Control Adminittration. 1968. Watar
Quality Critaria: Raport of tha National Technical Adviaory
168
-------
WATER OUALJTY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1980: 183-189
Committee to ttw Secretary of the Interior. U.S. Dip. Inter.
Washington. DC
OJ. 1974. Aroetor 1254: effect on composition of.
developing estuarine animal communities in the laboratory.
Contrib. Mar. Sd. 18:19-33.
Heflaen.D.J. and M.ETagatz.198a A laboratory teat tor asaass-
Ing Impacts of subatanoaa on developing communities of ban-
thte estuarine organisms. Am. Sec. Taat Matar. Spec. Tech.
Pub*. 707.
Hanaan. OJ.. J. CsrcSn. LR Goodman, and Q.M. Cripa. 1985. Ap-
pllcabilHy of site apeeffle water quality criteria obtained using
the resident species recalculation procedure, bit rap. US. En-
viron. Prat Agency. Washington. DC
McKee. J.E and HJ. Wolf. eds. 1982. Water Quality Criteria, 1st
ad. CaUf. State Watar Oual. Control Board, Saoramamo.
- i-. 1983. Water Ouattty Criteria. 2nd edition. California State
Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento.
Mount. D.L and L Anderson-Camahan. 1988. Methods for aquatic
toxtotty identification evaluations. Phaae I toxldty eharac-
tarizaten procedures. EPA 800/3-88/034. US. Environ. Prat
National Academy of
March 1973. Wa
emy of Engineering.
OuaBty Criteria 1972. EPAJQ.73-003. US.
^^M^^H^M ^b«^ 4 • mmwm i UJ^«tklM««4MM
crnnron. noi. agency* waarangHn*
Mmmo, aR et al. Compariaon of orMtte and laboratory toxidty
teata: derivation of trte^petiflc crUarla tor untenlxed ammonia
hi a Colorado tranaWonal itream. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. hi
Speher. RJ_ and A.A Carlaon. 1984. Derivation of tita*pecMe
water quality criteria for cadmium In the St UJUM RKwr baain,
Ouluth, MM. Environ. Toxicol. Cham. 3(4):851-88.
Stepnan, CE etaL 1985. Guideiinea tor deriving numerical na-
tional water quality criteria tor the protection of'aquatic or-
ganiama and their ueaa. PB85-227049. US. Environ. Prot
Agency. Nafl. Tech. Information Serv. SpringfleM, VA.
T«gatz.M.E 1977. Effecta of pentachlorophenol on the develop
ment of eatuarine communitiea. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health
3:501-08.
Tagatx, M.E and JJUL Ivey. 1981. Bfaeta of fenvalerate on fleld-
anoMaboratorydeveloped eetuarine bentWc oommunittea.
BuU. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 27:256-87.
Tagatz. M.E. N.R Gregory, and G.R Plaia. 1982. Eftacts of ehlor-
pyritoa on fielo>and-laboratory-develoe«d ectuarine benthic
communitiea. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 411-21.
Tagatz. M.E. C.H. Oeana. Q.R Plaia. and J.O. Pool. 1983. Impact
on and recovery of experimental macrobenthic communities
exposed to pentachlorophenol. Norths** Gulf Set. 6(2):131-
38.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Quality Criteria tor
Water. EPA-44Q/9-78423. Washington. DC
. 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria tor Acsnaphthsne-
2nc. EPA 440/5-80415 to EPA 440/5-80KJ79. Washington, DC.
. 1982. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Off. Water
Reg. Standards. Washington. DC
.198Sa. Ambient Water Quality Criteria tor Ammonia-Mer.
eury. EPA 440/544426 to EPA 440/5-84-033 snd EPA 440/5-
85-001. Washington, DC
. 198S0. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Baaed Toxics Control. Off. Water Enforce. Permits, Off. Water
Rag. Standards. Waahington,.DC.
. 1986. Ambient Watar Quality Criteria tor Chtorpyrifos-
Toxaphene. EPA 440/5-89-003 to EPA 440/5-86-009.
IV
, Uw»
ality Criteria tor Selenium and
2nc. EPA 440947408: EPA 440/5^7-003. Washington, DC
. 1987b. Guidelines tor Deriving Ambient Aquatic Life Ad-
viaory Coneenttattona. Off. Water Standards. June 1987. Draft.
ality Criteria tor Aluminum and
Chloride. EPA 440/5-88-008; EPA 440/S-88401. Washington,
DC
. April 1989. Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory
Board on the Equilibrium Partitioning Approach to Generating
Sediment Quality Criteria. Off. Water Rag. Standards.
Washington. DC
Wllflngham, T. 1989. Personal communication. Selected results of
acute and short-term chronic toxicrty tests: water effect ratio
test results. Region VUI Water Manage. Div. Denver, CO.
169
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21 «t CENTURY. 1989: 171-173
Water Quality Criteria - the Good, the Bad,
and the Ugly (a Matter of Perspective)
James T. Ulanoski
Chief, Standards Unit, Bureau of Water Quality Management
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Hanisburg, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has had some type of water pollution
control program since 1905. The State's first com-
prehensive pollution control legislation, the dean
Streams Law, was enacted in 1937. This law has been
strengthened by amendments a number of times.
most recently in 1980. It provides the State with an
excellent legal framework for managing water quality.
Chapter 93 of Pennsylvania's Department of En-
vironmental Resources' rules and regulations, en-
titled "Water Quality Standards.* .is the basic
regulatory mechanism for managing the quality of
the State's waters. Water quality standards are an Im-
portant element of Pennsylvania's water quality
management program in that they set general and
specific goals for the quality of the streams. From
1966 through 1973, specific water quality standards
were developed for all surface waters in the State.
These water quality standards were designed to
protect existing water uses and uses that would be
possible if there were no pollution. Specific numeric
criteria were developed (uses plus criteria equal
standards). The statewide water uses listed in chap-
ter 93 are aquatic life, potable water supply, livestock
water supply, irrigation, boating, fishing, water con-
tact sports, and aesthetics.
Since ail waters in Pennsylvania are protected for
all uses, whether actual or potential, the water quality
criterion set for any specific parameter is that which
is required to protect the most critical use. For ex-
ample, benzene is a far greater concern for human
health than for aquatic life, so the criterion that
governs it is based on a human health consideration.
This, of course, provides for protection of aquatic life
and all other designated uses. The converse is true
for zinc.
Sources of Criteria
Pennsylvania's water quality criteria are contained in
the following two documents:
• Chapter 93, "Water Quality Standards," lists
conventional parameters (e.g., bacteria,
dissolved oxygen, iron, ammonia,
temperature).
• The "Water Quality Toxics Strategy" is a
supplemental policy document in support of
the toxics regulation that lists the EPA priority
pollutants and other toxic pollutants of
concern to the State.
These criteria are used to develop appropriate ef-
fluent limitations for NPOES permits for protection of
designated water uses. These criteria are derived
from the following sources:
Aquatic Life
• US. EPA 1986 Quality Criteria for Water (Gold
Book)
• U.S. EPA Quality Criteria for Water 1976 (Red
Book)
• Water Quality Criteria 1972 (Blue Book)
• dean Water Act 304(a) aquatic life criteria
• US. EPA ambient water quality criteria
development documents
• OER criteria based on toxicity data available in
the published scientific literature and from
EPA's computerized toxicity data base AQUIRE
Human Health
• dean Water Act 304(a) human health criteria
• Verified reference doses in EPA's Integrated
Risk Information Systems (IRIS)
• Finalized drinking water health values J.e..
Maximum Contaminant Levels Goals (MCLGs)
• Drinking water health advisories
• Ambient water quality advisories
Criteria Conflicts
The Bureau believes that the use of these water
quality criteria has generally resulted in an effective
171
-------
J.T. ULANOSM
water quality control program In Pennsylvania, as at-
tested to by the improvement in water quality over
the last two decades. However, implementation of
these criteria has not been without problem or con-
troversy. As would be expected, wastewater dis-
chargers often question the stringency of the criteria
whle, at the same time, environmental groups advo-
cate more restrictions. In addition, several largely un-
resolved areas of conflict and concern remain with
EPA. Specifically, these controversial issues include
the following:
• Discrepancies between drinking water stan-
dards and 304(a) ambient water quality criteria.
The longest running controversy award goes to the
discrepancy between drinking water standards and
the 304(a) criteria for ambient waters. The classic ex-
ample is chloroform. Chloroform is usually the major
component of trihalomethanes, for which the maxi-
mum contaminant level (MCL) or drinking water
standard is iOO/«g/L By. contest, the 304(a) health-
based criterion for protection from carcinogenic ef-
fects at a i-in-1-mBllon risk level Is 0.19/ig/U Water
suppliers have commented that they can sell or drink
their effluents but not discharge them because of this
discrepancy.
• Discrepancies between IRIS information and
304(a) ambient water quality criteria Recently
more problems arose after the introduction of IRIS,
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. The new,
improved risk assessment Information avalabto to
the world on IRIS presents the rationale for calculat-
ing "new* water quality criteria, arguably more scien-
tifically correct than the 1980 304(a) criteria because
they are based on more recent and more defensible
toxicology interpretation. To continue the {lustration
of problems with chloroform, the data on IRIS pro-
vide for a health-based criterion of 6/«g/Lata 1 x 10*
cancer risk. EPA agrees IRIS data are superior to
those upon which the 304(a) criteria are based but
have been reluctant to promulgate new criteria to
reflect these changes. At the same time, EPA
promotes IRIS and encourages States to revise their
criteria based on that Information. Pennsylvania has
not however, been able to secure a specific EPA-
written endorsement or defense of criteria based on
this informatioa
• Discrepancies in derivation of criteria for Class
C carcinogens. Class C or "possible human" car-
cinogens are controlled in 304(a) criteria as non-
threshold carcinogens. However, more recently the
EPA Office of Drinking Water (ODW) and the Office of
Research and Development have treated such
chemicals individually. They use a wekjht-of-
evidence approach to control some "Cs" using
threshold level toxidty conventions (i.e., use of un-
certainty factors) to derive regulatory levels. This can
result, and in fact has resulted, in large discrepancies
between 304(a) criteria and these derived levels. For
example, for 1,1-dichloroethylene, the 1 x 10* 304(a)
criterion is 0.033 ^g/L; the MCLG is 7/ig/L
• Discrepancies in application of relative source
contribution. Recently EPA's Office of Water Re-
search and Standards has been saying (although not
changing any criteria) that if ODW has promulgated
an MCL for a chemical, that MCL can be used as the
health criterion. MCLs for threshold toxics incor-
porate a relative source contribution (RSC) that dif-
ferentiates them from 304(a) criteria even if they are
based on the same toxidty data. Since there is little
chemical specific data, the default RSC for organics
is 20 percent The 304(a) criteria assume 100 percent
of the level of the toxic can be attributed to the water
exposure via drinking water and eating fish. There-
fore, it is likely that an MCL and 304(a) criterion will
differ by a factor of 5. If EPA ascribes to the relative
source contribution, then all 304(a) criteria should be
adjusted to reflect that
• Criteria based on structure activity relation-
ships. Several .groups of chemicals have 304(a)
criteria based upon structure activity relationships,
with the criteria derived based upon toxicity data for
one chemical, and then, because of chemical family
simlarities, the criterion was applied to the other
chemicals. This is the case for benzo(a)pyrene and
the other poiyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and
chloroform and other haJomethanes. Particularly
since there is more evidence to suggest that some of
these chemicals are not carcinogens than to assume
that they are, we at the Bureau believe, and EPA
health effects staff have expressed agreement that
for regulatory purposes criteria should be developed
only if chemical-specific—not generic—data support
that development
• Legal status of ambient water quality ad-
visories. EPA has recently started to issue ambient
water quality advisories for selected chemical
parameters. EPA has apparently decided to go with
advisories because of the lack of data to fit national
guidelines for criteria development and because
promulgation of criteria is extremely resource inten-
sive and time-consuming. We make use of such ad-
visories and have in cases considered them as best
available scientific information tor development of
permit effluent limitations. We are concerned, how-
ever, as to their defensibfllty in a court of law, if and
when challenged. We assume that EPA will provide
that defense.
172
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY. 1969: 171-173
• Chemicals without criteria/advisories. EPA has
not developed criteria or issued advisories for many
chemicals. In these cases a State has several op-
tions: develop criteria using the available scientific
data base; impose technology-based controls, which
are equally hard to define; or don't regulate.
Pennsylvania uses the first two options. It
develops criteria when data are available and im-
poses technology-based limits when data are not
available. This approach, whle providing for control
within the State for specific parameters, does not
promote consistency on the national level. In this
regard. EPA and the States need to develop a proce-
dure for prioritizing chemical criteria/advisory needs.
EPA can then assign resources for their develop-
ment
Conclusions
Pennsylvania recognizes that water quality criteria
development is a dynamic process that is also
resource intensive, costly, and controversial. It
should be apparent, however, from the preceding in-
formation that one of the adverse results of criteria
conflicts Is the real potential for inconsistent, inequi-
table water quality management programs between
States. It is important that EPA take the lead to
resolve these issues in the interest of consistent, ef-
fective, and equitable national water quality stan-
dards and water quality management programs.
173
-------
-------
WATS) QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21 tt CENTURY. 1968: 175-177
Issues in Applying Water Quality Criteria
Mark Van Putten
Director, Great Lakes Natural Resource Center
National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, Michigan
\ want to address water quality criteria application or
Implementation Issues that we have encountered In
our work in the Great Lakes region: what we have
proposed (in certain situations) to resolve these is-
sues; and how the EPA, in the context of this
framework, might assist in the process.
The first Issue I want to touch on Is wildlife criteria.
We view the development and implementation of
wildlife criteria as very important for at least two
reasons: First, we have several Important wildlife
species that are at the top of the food chain in the
Great Lakes region, and, according to avaBable infor-
mation, they are suffering some severe impacts from
consuming contaminated fish. Recent reports indi-
cate that bald eagle reproductive success is sig-
nificantly less along the shores of the Great Lakes
than inland. Also, populations of mink and otter IMng
near the mouths of Great Lakes tributaries appear to
be less healthy. Finally, there is new information
about deformities in cormorants and other
shorebirds in certain areas of the Great Lakes. We
believe these effects are related to toxic pollution,
and we think ft is important to develop and apply
criteria to protect wldlife.
The second reason why wldlife criteria are impor-
tant relates more to the role of water quality criteria
and standards as goals-goals that the public can
understand and that the public can support If you
have a regulatory system that can be justified In
terms of protecting highly visible species like eagles,
and you can identify the goals of water pollution con-
trol programs around positive themes like that, there
will be a great deal more public support. Moreover,
the development and application of wldlife criteria is
likely to take some of the pressure off the estab-
lishment of human health criteria. Information from
recent observations Indicates that, tf you develop
wildlife criteria by looking at the higher metabolism.
the greater rate of fish consumption, and so forth.
and adjust the data base for those factors Qust as the
data base is adjusted for those factors to develop
human criteria), in many instances the wildlife criteria
will drive pollution control limits beyond the human
health limits. In a sense, it can be a double-barreled
legal and scientific support for requiring the neces-
sary controls.
A second issue is the inconsistencies between the
approaches used in criteria development and ap-
plication for human health and those used for
development of consumption advisories on sport
fish. What we have in the Great Lakes basin, in some
instances, is a statement to the public that the waters
of the Great Lakes meet the dean Water Act's fish-
able, swimmabie goals; on the other hand, the public
is advised not to eat the fish. This contradiction
results In a confused public and, therefore, a lack of
support for pollution control programs. The regional
public health agencies use a different methodology
to develop fish consumption advisories than that
used by the pollution control agencies and EPA for
developing criteria to protect human health from
consumption of contaminated fish. There needs to
be a methodological convergence so that we are
using consistent methods in both applications.
Another issue we have seen coming up time and
time again has been characterized as "relative source
contribution." The National Wildlife Federation (NWF)
has promoted the use of an "exposure adjustment
factor1' In criteria or criteria application procedures.
This Is a default factor to use in situations where there
are no data to determine what the other roots of ex-
posure to a toxicant might be; a default factor that is
applied to reduce the amount of the criteria, in effect,
that can be allocated to a point source. Wisconsin
recently adopted this approach, and we are currently
promoting a similar concept In Michigan's triennial
standards review.
Another Issue that Is coming up frequently is
"ZIDs," zones of initial dilution, as EPA calls it; zones
of immediate death, as we like to call it The issue
here is very disturbing on both technical and
phiosophicaf grounds. Let me take the philosophical
grounds first In our experience,.this.issue arises
when a State articulates its criteria in terms of
protecting certain species in those areas of a lake or
stream that are inhat —We by the organisms. Well,
clever dischargers and their attorneys soon seize
upon this language to argue that there are charac-
teristics of their discharge that make part of the river
uninhabitable. Then, since the aquatic organisms
can't inhabit that part of the public waters, why
should they be protected from pollution effects? This
occurs most often with acute criteria.
175
-------
M.VANPUTTB4
We think that approach to backwards. As far as
we're concerned, if there to something about the
characteristics of a pollution source that prevents
aquatic organisms from inhabiting all of the public
waters, we ought to regulate and change those char*
acteristics so organisms can inhabit all of the waters
and then the final acute value can be applied
everywhere. Therefore, we are involved in a number
of situations in fighting proposals In State standards
or their application rules that would allow these
zones of initial dflutkjrt In terms of the technical argu-
ment we are concerned about the way that many
States, like Michigan, calculate the final acute value
to protect 95 percent of the species In the data base.
instead of 95 percent of the species in the actual en-
vironment Given this technical shortcoming, zones
of initial dlutlon should not be applied to weaken fur-
ther protection of aquatic We.
This is an issue that EPA to going to have to pay
more attention to and address explicitly In revising
the technical support document The existing docu-
ment has somewhat cryptic references to 20s, and
those references have been used by States to justify
Incorporating them into their rules. If there to to be
any use of 20s. EPA must provide firm guidance,
restricting when and how they are used.
Another Issue In the application of criteria to the
adequacy of the State's data base. In some situa-
tions. States develop criteria without a minimum data
set requirement We support that We have great dif-
ficulties with criteria or application rules that have
minimum data set requirements and that don't
develop criteria if those requirements are not met
There is an important phiosophical and legal point to
be made here: who should develop the information
needed to make more sophisticated and more
refined judgments about how much pollution to too
much? In our view, the answer as a legal and
phflosophical matter to dear it should be those that
would use our waters for waste disposal purposes.
As States address questions such as minimum
data base requirements, they ought to consider the
kind of incentives provided for discharges to
generate more information. If you have a no-mini-
mum-data-set requirement and if, as the data
diminish, the safety factors increase, you provide an
incentive for those who use public waters for waste
disposal purposes to generate more information to
show that the State can cut the margin of safety a lit-
tle doser. We think it is very important to consider the
incentives created by minimum data base require-
ments.
Another question to how to address multiple pol-
lutant situations in developing criteria. We are not
necessarily talking about interactions, where one of
those pollutants mediates the effect of the other. We
are talking here about the combined effect of having
more than one pollutant present Again, this can be
viewed as an issue of inadequate data. In many in-
stances, particularly with carcinogens, there are no
experimental data or any other data that can be used
to determine what those combined effects might be.
EPA's 1986 risk assessment guidelines contain a
statement Implying that in trite situation, it to ap-
propriate to assume that the combined effects of car-
dnogens are cumulative or additive. That is also the
approach NWF has proposed. However, if data exist
that show there are other noncumulative, nonaddi-
tfve effects, those data should be considered. The
point to that not having an assumption of cumulative
effect to. itself, an assumption. The choice isn't
whether or not to make an assumption; the only
choice facing the State agencies to which assump-
tion to make.
Another issue to one that we characterize as "dilu-
tion." It to often articulated in terms of mixing zones,
but many States have moved away from using a
mixing zone as a spatial concept in developing
chronic human health-based limits. Instead, they use
a volume- or flow^based formula for giving a dilution
credit There are many questions to be considered
when thto dilution credit to developed. What stream
flows w« be used? Should it be a worst case stream
flow, or since we are considering chronic effects over
a lifetime, should It be a mean or average flow? This
can make a big difference in permit limits. Michigan
uses oneHjuarter of the 95 percent exceedence flow
tor carcinogens as Its dilution credit; Wisconsin
recently adopted a rule that uses the mean annual
flow. Wnle there are specific features of Wisconsin's
rules that are better than Michigan's, the difficulty is
that with no EPA guidance on these issues, there is
no way to determine if the Great Lakes are getting
consistent environmental protection from these
States.
Thto to an important issue that the standards pro-
gram needs to address in its Framework document.
EPA cant just look at criteria and standards but must
address how they are applied to specific kinds of
sources. EPA must provide more leadership in this
area to ensure some minimal level of consistency.
EPA has already backed into thto issue with the
propos^J regulation implementing section 304(1),
which to supposed to be the "toxic hot spots" rule. In
the proposed rule and preamble. EPA also partially
confronted the issue of when water quality-based ef-
fluent limitations are required. Thto is a key issue, one
that should not be addressed piecemeal in the con-
text of the section 304(1) rule making. It is an issue
that needs to be systematically addressed by the
176
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY, 1988:175-177
water quality standards program and should be in-
corporated in the Framework document
Another dilution issue (as we characterize it) con-
cerns analytical limits of detection. As we look at pol-
lutants with high bioconcentration and bioaccum-
ulation factors, we find that the effluent limitations or
the criteria levels are often below current detection
limits. In this situation, the Federation contends that
analytical limits of detection are a compliance
monitoring issue, not a criteria development issue. It
has nothing to do with human health protection re-
quirements or with determining what is necessary to
protect the ambient environment Our position has
been that though less than the limits of detection,
water quality-based effluent limits should be put into
permits as enforceable permit limitations. Then there
are innovative w§ys to monitor for compliance, using
fish bio-uptake studies, monitoring Internal waste-
streams, or doing a mass balance of the wastewater
treatment system.
Another detection limit issue is calculating back-
ground pollutant concentrations. What do you do
when the background concentrations are less than
the limit of detection, and you are developing a water
quality-based effluent limit for a source? Our position
has been (and this is where the incentives come in
again), that where States have a reasonable basis to
believe there are background levels of a pollutant-
there may be a fish or waterfowl consumption ad-
visory—the States should assume that background
concentrations measured as npndetectable are at
the detection level. In effect that would deny any as-
simflative capacity to a downstream source, but it
gives that source an incentive to prove that this as-
sumption is not correct to go out and generate addi-
tional information on background concentrations to
prove that there is some available assimilative
capacity.
The final issue I want to address is the antiback-
sliding issue. In one sense, this isn't a water quality
standards or water quality criteria application issue.
But in the real world, it is. State program managers
are finding that regulated entities are very fearful
about antibackslkJing and use it as an argument for
delaying the development of water quality-based
controls. It is also an issue that comes up in the con-
text of using water quality advisories as opposed to
criteria. The way the Federation views the issue (and
we were very involved in the inclusion of this section
in the Clean Water Act) is that it represents a recogni-
tion by Congress of a convergence between the
technology-based and the water quality-based ap-
proaches. If pollution control requirements for a
given facility have been met it represents pollution
control technology In place. The original reasons for
requiring the development of that technology are
now irrelevant: the treatment capability Is in place.
The Issue then is the cost of continuing to operate
treatment capability or practices in place as opposed
to the incremental benefits of haying water quality
better than standards. I remember listening to a con-
sultant for a wastewater treatment plant testify at a
Michigan Water Resources Commission hearing
about the •awful situation" in the Kalamazoo River
where we now had "artificially induced water quality."
The current water quality was better than the mini-
mum water quality standards required for the
Kalamazoo River, and the suggestion was that this
could not be tolerated, that we should immediately
back off from pollution control requirements and use
up that unused and. according to this consultant,
"wasted" assimilative capacity.
Water quality criteria are not the be-all and end-all
of pollution control efforts. They are intermediate
goals on the way to zero discharge, to total elimina-
tion of pollutants added to the Nation's waters. That
doesn't mean that you never back off. I want to be
very dear about this because we have been
misunderstood. What it does mean is that in decid-
ing whether or not a new water quality standard, a
new water quality criterion, or a little new information
suggests relaxing pollution controls, the issue is not
just the effect on water quality criteria or the environ-
ment Rather, it is now an issue of the costs of main-
taining existing treatment capabilities, as opposed to
the incremental benefits to the environment of having
water quality that might be a little better than required
by criteria or standards.
177
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS. & COMMBCTS
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. The Colorado Commission that I work for is
developing statewide organic pollutant standards
tor oath surface and groundwaters. The Commis-
sion is considering two separate sets of standards
for surface water one for water supplies and the
other for aquatic life. For water supplies, maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) are generally 'more
lenient for toxic organics than are Iff* risk criteria.
The Commission is focusing on the Iff* risk level
but has not resolved what to do about the MCLs.
Does EPA recognize that those numbers come from
a different office with a different statute within the
Agency? Is mere any internal discussion about that
inconsistency? Does EPA consider technology-
based MCLs a public health risk? What numbers
should we use? What are other States doing?
A. (UlanosW) Pennsylvania is using the 1 x 10"8
risk levels for surface waters; however, the drinking
water programs are using MCLs. I hope that ERA'S
Office of Drinking Water and Office of Standards are
considering these inconsistencies. Is the public fully
informed about the hearth risks from MCLs?
I am an advocate of dean water and of promoting
compliance to water quality standards. I think that
Pennsylvania cannot, in good faith, use MCLs to set
effluent limitations because they wffl not give the 11n
a million protection level established by the State. We
protect all streams at all points for drinking water and
don't differentiate between aquatic life and human
health limits when we develop effluent limitations. We
assume that there could be a water supply in that
area and will have it ready for potable water supply
use, but that can present some problems.
If you take a look at criteria for organics, you'll see
that human health limits are much more stringent
than those for aquatic life. When we put limits on dis-
chargers, they ask us why we are protecting for a
non-existent water supply. We tried to make changes
to the policy a few years ago fora couple of nontoxic
parameters by implementing criteria for human
health at the point of exposure, and all hell broke
loose. We decided if the public would not accept that
policy for nontoxics, there's no way they were going
to accept it for toxics and have remained with what,
today, could be considered a conservative policy.
However, we use MCLs for groundwater because it is
a public water supply use.
A. (Hartung) There may be one misconception.
The goal for all drinking water supplies, as far as car-
cinogens are concerned, is zero. Technical feasi-
bilities and other kinds of considerations are spelled
out in a couple of Agency documents that expl
why some of these inconsistencies occur. (It is t
bad that they are not that widely distributed.) Tt
then, is an area that can be considered useful to 1
extent to which criteria advisories are scientific*
defensible.
What to the minimum data set? The law says ze
discharge, but there's going to be waste, no mat
how stringent we are. Zero discharge is a v«
laudable goal but, in reality, ft may be a pipe drea
Using the data as best we can stfi) runs us into t
antibacksllding problem, where there are importa
issues that frankly, need to be faced and resolved
an equitable way that covers the interests of the e
vironment regulator, and the regulated.
There's confusion about what all these numoe
are, and EPA should develop and distribute a she
and simple document that explains all of the:
things, their strong points, shortcomings, and a
propriatauses.
a (Blosser) The backsliding issue is the key b
cause the States are leery of adopting a laundry II
of numbers that are changing as the science is it
proving. The/rS afraid that if those numbers becon
less stringent they wont be able to go with the bam
science. We adopt a risk level and use it as the lev*
from which we wont backslide. We're going to try i
adopt Iff4 because ff we find that it is not protectiv
enough, we can backslide from it or can make
more stringent We will also have other requin
merits, such as adaptMty and antagonism.
Should the class C and D carcinogens hav
standards? We think not because there isn't enoug,
good information about human effects. We're goin
to try to regulate the A's and B's. Should advisorie.
be used? Our opinion currently is no. There's nc
enough Information, and we're afraid that If more in
formation comes in that shows that the numoe
should be less stringent, we wont.be able toreduct
those numbers.
A. Regardless of what one thinks about ad
usability of 1 x 10*4 as a risk level, we have to recog
nize that States are taking different views 01
acceptable .-Xs, which indicates that there shouk
be more aggressive EPA involvement As for mixinc
zones and backsliding, if s important to recognize
how we apply zero discharge that where we car
economically and technologically achieve pollutant
productions, we will, and we don't have to prove cor
relation in every case between an environmental
benefit in the receiving medium to justify continued
178
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21« CENTURY. 1980
progress toward reducing pollutant sources. It
doesn't mean we ignored intermediate transfers but
that we're constantly rationing down, so that recy-
cling, waste reduction, and minimization become
realities wherever they can be.
Mixing zones are not mentioned In the Clean
Water Act They probably were a technology-based
concept a concession to industry's Inability to meet
water quality criteria end-of-pipe. That view of mixing
zones, when applied to toadc pollutants, te even more
environmerrtaHy sensitive and appropriate. We need
to review mbdng zones with regard to those pol-
lutants and, more broadly, dlution and att of its
manifestations as a technology-based issue. There
should be no per se rule to gh/e everybody a mixing
zone; It should be an issue of whether technology ex-
ists to apply the criteria end-cf-pipe. The burden
should be the other way: a presumption that they
apply end-of-pipe, and a requirement for the source
or discharger to prove that It wont work in that situa-
tion.
C. (Blosser) If we were to backslide on numbers
for permits in effect In Delaware, the technology
basis for meeting those limits would remain in effect
We're not going to let dischargers back off on num-
bers tf the technology's there.
The life-style risk for cancer in a lifetime is about 35
percent so we're talking about a NT6, which is 11n a
million (Program decisions made In other EPA areas
are typically in the 10* to the 10"5 range.) From my
standpoint mixing zones are going to apply for acute
and aquatic life, not persistent or bioaccumulative
toxicants, which we would look at hi a different way.
Once we better understand the technology and
science, we may have to eliminate mixing zones for
some applications.
Q. (Hsueh) How do we define acceptable risk
levels and the insignificant risk level? I think they
should be different
C. (Hartung) The year is now 2500. and I can write
permits because IVe got aO sorts of super criteria. If I
have everything within criteria control, wfll I find areas
where pollutants have been introduced and there are
biological effects even though aO criteria are being
met? Or. wfll I be able to predict on hand, what the
toxidty will be to beasts and humans?
My answer Is. even In 2500.1 cannot because it
would be nearly impossible to predict all the interac-
tions of all the chemicals in the biological organism
The technology and science that would allow us to
do that is hundreds of years away. Therefore even
under the most ideal conditions, the chemically
based water quality approach has some Inherent
flaws in It that cannot be overcome now.
Where does this drive us? WBI we look at the biol-
ogy to find where the areas are. where there are ef-
fects as the second line of attack? And then once you
have found areas where there are biological
problems, do we evaluate toxidty sources and
causes and then remove It step by step? Perhaps
that sort of approach should achieve equal stature
with the chemistry-based approach.
C. (Hansen). We have identified a rather small list
of chemicals that seem to be causing indirect
toxidty. When there was more than one chemical
causing toxidty, the number never exceeded 3. The
problem of understanding synergism and an-
tagonism is a tractable one; however, I don't want to
minimize the role of the field ecologist who tries to
use all the avaJabfe tools to identify whether there is a
problem occurring, even though our best toxicology
technology cannot find it
Over the next year or so, EPA wfll revise the water
quality criteria guidelines. Because I believe there are
some things that can stand improvement—minimum
data base requirements, expressing criteria in terms
of bioavaiable form, rather than total—I urge the use
and scientific community to participate with their
input
C. (Palachek) I would also push for revision of the
wistency between aU the different approaches.
For example, the MCLs.are the not-to-exceed num-
ber, so you look at one flow, regime for that; the
human health numbers may be an annual average, or
some percentage of an annual average, a harmonic
mean flow. As a result a permit limit may not be that
different between the two different regimes once you
consider the in-stream concentrations and calculate
a permit limit The greatest differences come through
the States' implementation of these criteria and
standards.
C. (Hartung) It is dear that there are some real dif-
ferences among the States. So what are the trade-
offs of trying to have uniformity and flexibility? That's
really what the question bois down to.
A. (Van Putten) The kinds of Inconsistencies that
we see in water carp are particular^' disconcerting
because they're not paper inconsistencies without
environmental consequences. We see inconsisten-
cies between States that have a shared resource—
the Great Lakes-and in a situation like that it is
particularly important for the States to have some
uniform level of approaches and in applying stan-
dards.
179
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWSB, & COMM8OS
On the water quality criteria and advisories Issue,
I've concluded that EPA is. In large measure, a victim
of its own success with regard to the water quality
criteria documents. It raised unwise expectations
through the way it approached those documents, ex-
pectations that they were going to be comprehensive
assessments of the Impacts of these pollutants that
could be used in a predictive sense and applied with
rather small adaptations to a wide-ranging variety of
situations. The advisory approach holds more hope
for the future In terms of tne kinds of trade-offs that
Martha (Prothro) charged us to discuss over these
three days. EPA ought to spend less time and fewer
resources on producing these thick criteria docu-
ments and more time on advisories and uniform
guidance in areas where there's no data to answer
questions about combined effects, interactions, and
acceptable risk levels. The advisories, or these
criteria, are nothing more than presumptions,
anyway.
The burden should be on the sources. If they have
some reason to believe that a given ambient number
Isinot appropriate in a situation, they should generate
the data, produce the proof. I donl believe there wffl
be money on either the Federal or State level to do
that kind of monitoring. Every day we confront the
regulated community's pleas for State monitoring to
develop stte-spedflc criteria to meet some barely
defined standard of proof before regulating starts.
Then when the Michigan legislature finally appro-
priates money for monitoring, it is eliminated from the
budget The environmental community was there ar-
guing for those dollars, but not a single repre-
santatlve of the very vocal discharge community was
there. That's why I feel so strongly that It's not the
regulator's job. it's not your job as State officials. It's
not EPA's job to do comprehensive assessments that
prove there is a problem. You need to have some
reasonable threshold of scientific belief. There may
be a problem, but if s up to the sources to come back
and rebut that In a specific case or face the controls.
C.I agree generally and have the same skepticism
about industry when ft says it needs more data and
then will nothing do to help data generation. This is
an area where we also need some reorientation, or
maybe the major national environmental groups
should reoriented their agendas, which principally
have been what new controls can we get in place
tomorrow?
Maybe we should be looking at some new ap-
proaches. You can create incentives for industry to
do it themselves or look at trade-offs in negotiating
Federal legislative and budgetary issues. I think we
might get some more long-range environmental
benefits from a different focus, a shift in priorities. '
C. (Alexander, Dow Chemical) I am not aware that
the State is paying for monitoring of NPDES permits
or water quality in the Tittabawassee River or any
other locations within Michigan. They have a
monitoring program, but Dew's program of NPDES
permits within Michigan is self-monitoring. We pay
our own monitoring and turn ourselves in when we
violate the permit That's what responsible Industry
One water quality criteria versus standards, States
set standards to protect the water. These standards,
hopefutty, reflect the criteria. Most of the NPDES per-
mits for industry and communities have certain
stipulations on toxics to protect the standard that are
usually based on some figure of flow, like a 7Q10. so
most of the time they're well below the standard, well
below any toxic limit
C. (van Putten) I would like to respond to that I
was not speaking of generating compliance monitor-
ing data. If s one thing to say, "once we've put a per-
mit limit In here-permit for a given substance-it's
up to you to monitor It" However, data needs to
demonstrate that an environmental harm is occurring
In the stream. There is a need tor limits, a need to look
at sources. Heretofore It has been largely left up to
the government agencies to generate that informa-
tion and satisfy some initial burden before a problem
occurs. I would suggest that this is a burden that
might be more appropriately shared by sources.
As for the issue about variation in flows, it is true
that historically, we have set permit limits based on
an assumed low regime, limits that have to be met
year-round. But don't sell short the staff in EPA's
Water Innovations Project Their better idea was. and
I presume stffl is, that we should have flow dependent
permit limits seasonable flows and the rationale is
that we've got them. From an economist's point of
view, we must efficiently use every iota of assimilative
capacity In our streams, or somehow we are not
being rational
In terms of the future, I am concerned that we may
be seeing more proposals to deviate from the situa-
tion that Mr. Alexander from Dow mentioned. In
Michigan, four seasonal flows can be used. As I men-
tioned, there have b»«
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1988
criteria for toxic substances, and developing an im-
plementation code to specify how to calculate ef-
fluent limitations based on these criteria and
anddegradation.
We need consistency among the States because
we, as agencies, are pulled back and forth by dis-
chargers and by environmental groups about what
different States and dischargers are doing. We need
implementation guidance. We also need EPA .over-
sight and involvement In our standards program, we
have Intimately Involved EPA all along the way. Some
other States do not Involve their regional office
people as much as we did In standards development
and have sort of an antagonistic relationship.
I was on a disinfection task force to review EPA's
policy. Chlorine is the issue with toxic substances. I
was disappointed to hear people in other regions,
particularly In Region VI, say that Texas has a 1 m8-
ligram per liter chlorine discharge for their publicly
owned treatment works. That*s hardly consistency
across the country when Region VI is advocating
very strong chlorine criteria.
One last comment about In-stream criteria and the
use of in-stream biomonitoring and blocriteria: often
dischargers use that as a cop-out for not putting in
appropriate controls. Years ago industry in Wiscon-
sin stated that there's nothing to protect no fish in
that river. Well, there were no fish because the river
was polluted. I'm concerned that would be the result
of these in-stream criteria,
C. In Region VI in Texas the chlorine went, and
even though we dont have criteria and State stan-
dards for that, we're handling it, at least through the
whole effluent toxtdty test, and saying they've got to
spike It up to 1 or higher, which everybody knows is
going to kill everything, so if s being required on ail
the major plants.
C. (Hartung) There are issues that need to be
clarified. Including the issues of the degree of protec-
tion that is desired In terms of consistencies among
States, especially as these areas' criteria and stand-
ards are applied. There are some obvious advant-
ages to an increased emphasis with advisories, but
there are some conflicts against the backsliding
provisions, and there are probably ways to get that
worked out that constitute a decent compromise. We
need to coordinate looking at toxicologies! effects or
biological effects from the chemistry side first as we
do with single chemicals' standards, and, coming at
it from the other direction, where we look at the biol-
ogy first and then try to find out which particular pol-
lutants are causing the problem. These are compli-
mentary types of approaches, so there may be ways
to smooth out ttie interaction between them.
We need to start early development of certain
methods, especially for wildlife and terrestrial life. It is
much more important that that particular effort have
low-budget visibflrty over time rather than a crash
program right at the end to develop it suddenly. This
will require significant new methodological develop-
ment, not merely an adaptation of existing methods.
although many of the existing data can be used.
All in all. this is a growing effort, and one that hds
been useful because it has provided the yardsticks. I
am looking forward to some further expansion of
both the science and applicability in this area.
*
*
181
-------
•
t
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21 «t CENTURY. 1888:183
Implementing Antidegradation
Charles Sutfin (Moderator)
Director Water Division, KJ. Environmental Protection Agency Region If Chicago, Illinois
Water quality criteria or standards can define either
success in cleaning up pollution or faiure in prevent-
ing water from becoming polluted from waste dis-
charges. To dean up polluted water, we impose
effluent limitations and best management practices
through NPOES permits and other water quality
management mechanisms. The antidegradatton rule,
on the other hand, is a policy with implementation
procedures aimed at preventing dean water from be-
coming degraded.
Antidegradation defines conditions under which
we would allow degradation of water quality. The na-
tional antidegradation policy, published in 40 CFR
part 131. consists of three parts. First, the policy
states that all existing uses of the Nation's water shall
be maintained. The second part stipulates that for
high quality waters - waters that meet the goals of
the Clean Water Act — a lower water quality is per-
mitted (after .full public participation) if lower water
quality is necessary to accommodate important so-
cial and economical development A third part estab-
lishes another category of high quality water, called
"outstanding national resource waters," where no
degradation is allowed.
Antidegradation is considered a part of water
quality standards but the result of applying anti-
degradation policy can be a more stringent, technol-
ogy-based requirement For example, we have to ask
several questions In the antidegradation procedure
for high quality waters: Is lower water quality neces-
sary for an important sodal and economic purpose?
Will the discharges being proposed maintain the ex-
isting use of the receiving water? Is lowering of the
water quality necessary? And are there any alterna-
tives to the discharge, either alternative treatment
technologies or alternative ways to reduce pollution
load using substitute products or even discharges in
another location?
Depending on the answers to these questions
there are two possible outcomes. Either you can ac-
cept the lower water quality and implement the dis-
charge as proposed in the draft permit or water
quality management program, or you can apply
more stringent technology to reduce or eliminate the
lowering of water quality. So the end result could be a
technology-based requirement One way to look at
antidegradation is that it bridges the gap between
water quality criteria and standards and technology-
based requirements.
The antidegradation policy was established in
196a In 1988 EPA Headquarters did an evaluation of
the 10 regional offices to determine the status of the
States' implementation of antidegradation policies
and procedures. I did a quick summary of that
analysis: of the States, 34 did not have complete im-
plementation strategies for antidegradation, and 30
did not have antidegradation policies that dealt with
nonpoint sources.
We have a long way to go according to that sur-
vey. It is important to note, however, that the
Framework does not call for any additional EPA ef-
forts to define what antidegradation is or to establish
additional regulatory or guidance requirements for
antidegradation.
183
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY, I960: 185-188
Implementing Antidegradation Policy
in Colorado
PaulFrohardt
Administrator Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, Denver, Colorado
Antidegradation is not a new issue in one sense, al-
though recently it has gained a more specific focus. I
want to give you a brief State perspective on anti-
degradation and, to begin, offer the following excerpt
from the 1968 proceedings of the Colorado Water
Quality Control Commission:
The activities of the Commission since its
inception in 1966 have been varied and
many. Both the Federal water pollution
control legislation and the State's newly
enacted law require that stream water >
quality standards be adopted and applied
to the streams of Colorado or segments
thereof. Federal legislation gave the
States until June 30, 1967, in which to
adopt water quality standards and a plan
of implementation. Consequently, during
the first year of operation, the Commis-
sion held eight hearings for the adoption
, of water quality criteria and for the clas-
sification of Colorado streams. These
were submitted to the Federal Govern- -
ment for approval prior to the June 30,
1967, deadline. To date the standards have
not been officially approved by the
Federal Government because of a con-
troversy over the Secretary of Interior's
announced antidegradation policy, which
would give the Secretary concurrent ap-
proval authority with the Commission
over the location of new industrial plants
on streams in Colorado. Governor Love
and fog Commission have refused to
agree to such a policy as it holds the threat
of stifling the State's economic an^
sociological growth.
I think It is interesting that, certainly in terms of the
State's perspective, things haven't changed a lot in
over 20 years, and I would like to suggest at the out-
set a couple of reasons why that is the cas* First, a
major problem has been the reliance on regulations
that state a very general principle without giving a
practical explanation of how it should work. Second,
from EPA's perspective and those of other people
concerned about this policy, there has been an ex-
cessive focus on purist policies rather than practical
results. •
Colorado adopted new antidegradation regula-
tions In 1988, which have now been approved by
EPA, both In terms of the policy and the plan of im-
plementation. That doesn't mean, by the way, that
the issue is dead; there is stai a Federal lawsuit pend-
ing by a number of environmental groups. Colorado
adopted antidegradation provisions in 1979 that
were a little over a page long: a very brief statement
of the basic principles, but no explanation of how
these provisions would really work or guidance on
how they would be applied in practice. Very little at-
tention was paid to the policies until the mid- to late
1980s when, after amending its water quality stan-
dards regulations in late 1983, EPA began a cor-
respondence with the State that extended over the
next two to three years. Then in 1987, the Environ-
mental Defense Fund (EOF) ffled a lawsuit joined by a
couple of other environmental groups against EPA,
challenging .that agency's failure to disapprove the
Colorado provisions.
In response to those activities and also because
the Commission had finally settled some other con-
tentious issues, it scheduled a major rulemaking
hearing in 1988 to consider revisions to the policies. I
would like to emphasize that what the Commission
was revising was our Basic Standards and Metho-
dologies document that sets up a framework for the
classification and standards-setting system general-
ly, so the outcome of these regulations is a. revision to
that framework; then the next step will be, during the
next round of triennial reviews, to begin to apply the
results of that revision on a site-specific basis
throughout the State. In the 1988 review there were
two principal issues: which waters should be
reviewed and how to review them. The principal
focus in concern and debate in Colorado was on tier
2 waters. Frankly, very little attention was given to the
outstanding national resource waters; there are
provisions for those waters in the regulation, but the
principal attention was on tier 2 waters.
First what waters should be subject to review?
These are waters where the existing quality is better
than necessary to protect the specified uses. What
does this mean? Does it mean that at least one
parameter has better quality than the criteria for the
uses? (That1 s what EOF suggested.) Or does it mean
185
-------
P. FROHARDT
that all the parameters have to have a quality better
than the uses? Or some number in between? These
are very difficult questions.
Under the old system, Colorado had largely
avoided those questions by a classification ap-
proach: waters could be classified as high quality
waters. There were no specific criteria, just a general
principle of classifying waters as high quality waters,
and then an antidegradatlon review would apply only
to waters so classified. Admittedly, that old system
was applied on a relatively limited basis In Colorado,
and this provided, aside from an the legal procedural
arguments, the principal basis for EDPs lawsuit It
wasnt hard for EOF to say. "Look guys. youVe got
dean waters -in Colorado's mountains that are not
classified high quality that dearly have quality better
than required to protect the uses, and you aren't sub-
jecting them to the antidegradatlon review.* That was
the old system hi Colorado, dasslfkatlon-based.
. EOF and EPA recommended that the Commission
take a case-by-case approach and. each time new
activity was proposed on a water, decide whether the
water was a high quality water that warranted review.
The Commission didn't think that made sense for a
number of reasons. It seemed that this sort of reac-
tive approach, rather than a proactive planning ap-
proach, meant the Commission would be trying to
decide whether to protect a waterbody precisely at
the moment that there was the most pressure to
allow development So the Commission was very in-
terested in sticking, in part, with a pianrtng-based ap-
proach.
The Commission ended up with a hybrid ap-
proach. It retained a notion simflar to classification.
although now it is called "designation" of waterbodles
as high quality. For the first time it adopted some fair-
ly specific criteria, partially mandatory and partially
discretionary, to guide designation of waters, and I
believe that those criteria are going to lead to more
waters in Colorado being designated "high quality."
In addition, the Commission did something new. It
adopted what is called a "use-protected designa-
tion." which is meant to designate waters at the other
end of the spectrum: waters that win not be subject to
antidegradation review because it has been deter-
mined that their quality is not better than necessary
to protect the uses. There wD be a planning-based
function, so that developers r-1 know in advance
that these are waters where they have to meet stand-
ards that have been established to protect uses, but
where antidegradation review is not applicable.
EPA expressed a concern about what would hap-
pen in the meantime. whBe the designations were
being put into place, so the Commission established
an intermediate group of waters-for example, ones
with an aquatic life dass 1 dassiflcation -where cer
tain waters are presumptively subject to antldegrada
tion review. That presumption can be overcome
however. If the Commission ultimately applies a higl
quality designation or use-protected designation
then the presumption is overridden. I think that this
approach makes sense. It combines some of th<
benefits of planning with some flexibility in the sys
tern. I also think that it has been at the-cost of sonu
added complexity to the Colorado system, but that i
wffl be more workable in the long run.
Second, the review process: what has Coloradc
done with that? The activities subject to the new antt
degradation review provisions are NPOES permit:
and 401 certifications, which are principally related tc
404 permits hi Colorado. Nonpoint sources would bt
brought into the system as "control regulations"-
new regulatory programs-are adopted for nonpoim
sources.
The review process has been set up as a sequen-
tial process, asking a series of questions. First, is the
degradation from the new activity significant?
Colorado has tried to put into the regulation some
specific criteria that define the circumstances in
which degradation win be considered insignificant
(For example, if impacts are temporary or if a dis-
charge wiH be touted by at least 100 to 1 at low
flows.)
A second interesting concept that was put in at
that point to that the determination of significance will
be based upon the net impact of the activity, taking
into account any mitigation that has been incor-
porated into the project Initially, EPA was very nerv-
ous about considering mitigation at this stage in the
process, but we put it in here for a very conscious
reason that has some real environmental benefits; it
creates an incentive for project proponents to build
mitigation into their project up front They know they
can avoid further steps in the antidegradation review
process if they can convince the Commission that
impacts have been mitigated to the point of insig-
nificance. We think this creates some constructive in-
centives.
If there is significant degradation, the next point in
the review to to decide whether the activity is an im-
portant social or economic development That1 s the
step that our Commission and many other people
like least about this analysis. Why is a water pollution
agency deciding what is or isn't an important social
or economic development? Our Commission tried to
give deference In the regulation to local land use
planning because it thought that was where these
, decisions are traditionally and more appropriately
made, but it maintained the opportunity for a different
result with the public input process.
186
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1968: 185-188
The third step, if the development is important and
the degradation b significant, is the last step: is the
degradation necessary? We think that this is the real
water quality issue -that it should be the principal
focus. Colorado has chosen an approach that
focuses on the avaBabflity of alternatives. Is the
degradation necessary? Well, it depends on whether
you've got an alternative that is economically, en-
vironmentally, and technologically reasonable under
the language of our regulation-one that would
result in less or no degradation. How do you decide if
something is economically reasonable? Our Com-
mission debated many options and ultimately came
around to an approach that provided some
guidance; it included in the regulation a list of factors
to be considered when trying to decide which alter-
natives are economically reasonable. For instance, in
the case of publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs), what the impact would be on user charges
and how that would compare with simBarty situated
POTWs.
That is a very quick overview of what Colorado has
adopted. What has happened since the regulation
went into effect in September 1988? Approximately
fifty 401 certification projects have been reviewed
overall, and approximately 60 percent of them have
been on presumptively reviewable waters. Remem-
ber .that the Commission has not implemented the
new high quality or use-protected designations on a
basin-by-basin basis, so right now it is principally
focusing on that category of presumptively review-
able waters. Of those activities on presumptively
reviewable waters in the 401 context (the Commis-
sion is looking principally at 404 permits), ap-
proximately 90 percent have insignificant impacts
because their nature is temporary. Two projects on
the 401 side nave been initially disapproved because
the Commission decided that there were feasible.
less damaging alternatives available. I might also
mention that, in this brief time period, the Two Forks
Reservoir Project went through the antidegradation
review process under the new system and was deter-
mined to meet the insignificance test on impacts for
the streams where antidegradation review applied
once mitigation was taken into account
On the NPOES permit side, the majority of new or
expanding discharges (and remember that we are
not talking about the status quo or rereviewing ex1-
ing Impacts) -about 80 percent or approximately 15
projects-have been on reviewable waters. Of those
15 all but 2 have insignificant impacts under 1 or
more of the tests that have been established; of those
2. 1 project has been allowed to degrade down to
standards because no feasible alternative existed.
and the other project review is in process. The staff Is
inclined to disapprove that project because a
feasible alternative Is available, again unless the
project proponents modify their proposal.
Briefly, here are five very general lessons teamed
from the Colorado experience, from my perspective.
First. States, EPA, and the environmental groups
bringing the lawsuits need to recognize the
legitimate, continuing paranoia of those on both
sides of this issue and help provide some specifics in
State programs to reduce the uncertainty. I think that
uncertainty has been the real crippling factor in this
program. States must recognize that this is going to
require some complexity in their regulations.
Colorado has found that unless it wants to agree with
the extreme position on one side or the other, it ends
up with some complexity. States need to retain some
flexibility.
Second, EPA needs to be practical and not overly
purist in the approval process. Endless "what if s" can
. be asked about any specific potential proposal, but
more environmental progress will be made if we all
get something concrete and practical in place and
refine it later-certainly more progress than the last
20 years of paralysis due to uncertainty. After some
somewhat painful negotiation, Region VIII ultimately
took this approach with Colorado. It approved the
regulation but also gave the State a letter containing
a long list of concerns that indicated the agency was
stffl nervous atJbut how Colorado was going to do all
these things in practice; and. if the State doesn't do
them in a way that EPA thinks makes some sense, it
wiB hear about it I think that is very fair.
Third,ajnless a State already has a regulatory non-
point source program in place, don't bog the anti-
degradation program development down with an
insistence that nonpoint sources be addressed now;
insisting that States somehow address nonpoint
sources in a specific antidegradation context can
only further paralyze efforts to get meaningful an-
tidegradation programs in place, and it will also
paralyze further efforts to develop nonpoint source
programs. Be willing to take one step at a time.
Fourth, if EPA feels that certain aspects of an anti-
degradation program are critical, its regulations
should be revised to say so. Trying to strong-arm
States with informal guidance is disingenuous and
unfair it puts States in an extremely politically
awkward position when trying to adopt State
programs, and it unnecessarily fosters an adversarial
relationship between the State and EPA.
Now, having said that, my fifth and final point is
that right now I don't think we need new Federal
regulations. I think that this is a good area for State
experimentation. Nevertheless, expanded Federal
guidance would be useful to explain the array of
1*7
-------
P. FROHAROT
options that help States find a way to put specifics in tell the States that if they really want their program
this program. However, when that guidance is approved, their, regulation better look like a carbon
developed, EPA needs to treat it as guidance and not copy of the guidance.
188
-------
WATER OUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY, 1969: 189-190
ERES — Delaware's Priority for
Antidegradation Protection
MarkC.Blosser
Program Manager, Water Quality Management Branch
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Doven Delaware
EPA's water quality standards regulation contains its
policy on antidegradation (40 CFR 131.12). Section
(a) (3) of the policy states:
Where high quality waters constitute an
outstanding National resource, such as
waters of National and State parks and
wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional
recreational and ecological significance,
that water Quality shall be maintained and
protected.
Delaware is a small coastal State wedged snugly
within the highly urbanized Boston-Washington,
D.C., megalopolis of the eastern seaboard. While
Delaware's orientation on the coast has spared It
some of the intense development in neighboring
States, favorable demographics have accelerated ur-
banization in northern and southeastern coastal
Delaware in recent years. Also, the poultry Industry
has expanded rapidly in southern areas of the State.
These pressures have resulted in degradation of
some of the State's more valuable waters. In 1985,
these waters were designated 'ERES' in Delaware's
water quality standards.
Background
The acronym ERES stands for waters of "exceptional
recreational or ecological significance.' Waterbodies
designated ERES are surface waters that are impor-
tant, unique, or sensitive; however, they do not
necessarily have excellent water quality. In
Delaware's case, no major waterways are pristine,
wild, or excellent In quality. The decision was made to
"select the best of Delaware's streams" and protect
them.
ERES waters are characterized by intensive
recreational or unusual ecological uses, which in-
dude swimming, water skiing, high quality fishing
and shellfishing, and boating, and also by unique or
unusual natural areas of regional significance. Of 36
stream basins in the State, all of 7 basins and part of 4
others are designated ERES.
ERES waters are accorded a higher level of
protection (through use of more stringent water
quality standards) than other waters. They also
receive a greater priority for monitoring and re-
search, more attention to new and revised NPDES
permits, and they are targeted for nonpoint source
controls through the State's management and cost-
share programs.
ERES Water Quality Standards
The ERES water quality standards were developed to
protect and enhance waters considered to be
Delaware's special natural assets. The standards
adopted in 1985 and, for the most part, those
proposed in the current revisions, are narrative in na-
ture. They compare water quality to natural condi-
tions and. in most cases, do not allow variation from
those conditions. Because none of Delaware's
waters can be said to have water quality at "natural"
levels, ERES standards are not attained and the use
is construed to be a "goal" use. Thus, ERES in effect
takes antidegradatiori an additional step, requiring
not just maintenance but also improvement of water
quality.
The State remains cognizant that the potential ex-
ists to turn ERES Into a "no development-no dis-
charge" use. However, the language used in the 1985
standards should signal (and the proposed revisions
should clarify) the intent to avoid major economic
dislocations for riverside communities. Delaware
wishes to direct priority use of point and nonpoint
source controls and innovative practices in ERES
basins but not to stifle development ERES requires
dischargers to examine alternatives to stream dis-
charge, most notably land treatment, and to use the
wast polluting option that is technologically feasible.
highly reliable, and not cost-prohibitive. Unques-
tionably, however, the State would be pleased if the
existence of the ERES use for a particular stream
resulted in an industry's choice of other, lower
priority basins in which to site a facility.
189
-------
M.C. BLOSSER
The ERES standards offer incremental protection
to these waters. All other applicable water standards
remain in effect unless superseded by an ERES
standard.
Implementation of ERES
A designated use and Its accompanying standards
and criteria are only as good as the State's im-
plementation strategy and its wflllngness and ability
to bring this strategy to bear in critical situations.
Delaware has developed an implementation strategy
for ERES and has made steady progress in refining
and using tt to influence decisions affecting water
quality.
Implementation involves considerable coordina-
tion with many government agencies and the use of
existing regulations, policies, and rules. This ap-
proach varies from everyday practice in that ERES
watersheds are given highest (earliest) priority for ap-
plication of resources at control levels more stringent
than normally required. Local agencies are made
aware of Delaware's concerns for ERES waters and
are asked to pay dose attention to pollution conse-
quences related to land use decisions they maka
Given that all agencies are struggling with burden-
some loads of "good intentions,'' the State has
designed ERES to Include that limited set of waters
where follow-through in a consistent and determined
manner is possible in all areas of pollution control.
Other waters are not ignored, but Delaware realizes
that it cannot do all the work at the level of excellence
it would wish. Thus. ERES waters are those waters
where Delaware insists on that level of excellence.
Delaware has taken the parameter list of ERES
standards and identified on a basin-spedfic basis
those types of pollution sources that need to be ad-
dressed. In this way, the State has been able to focus
attention on ERES waters as areas to work on first
and to rally effective implementors and technical
contributors around a limited number of high value
watersheds. ERES is included as an element of our
Clean Water Strategy, in both of our National Estuary
programs and as a part of the State's Environmental
Legacy Program. These endeavors are long-term
planning instruments that help to identify resources
and areas of need and to make efficient ur- of the
capabilities of many groups.
As an example, our nonpoint source program has
developed a detailed priority action plan for four
Delaware stream basins. Of these, three are ERES
waters. EPA and agencies of the State have com-
mitted funds to increase field presence, target finan-
cial incentives, manage watersheds, and hire animal
waste specialists to provide technical assistance to.
and develop management plans for, farms. Delaware
has also taken the initial steps to develop a statewide
stormwater management program, with priority ap-
plication (e.g., ordinance and practice manual for-
mulation, watershed planning) in ERES watersheds.
Summary
The ERES use and attendant standards are
Delaware's method of giving priority attention to
maintaining and improving water quality in valuable
watersheds. The use is adapted from the Clean Water
Act provision for Outstanding National Resource
Waters and applies to waters with special recreation-
al or eojkxjical significance but not necessarily with
excellent water quality.
Delaware has been developing and phasing in an
implementation strategy for the ERES watersheds. It
has recognized and actively exploited cross-pro-
gram synergies and has succeeded in obtaining
resources through Nonpoint Source, Clean Lakes,
and National Estuary programs. The State intends to
concentrate future efforts in education, technical as-
sistance, improved ambient and discharge monitor-
ing, and local agency coordination.
Delaware needs guidance and ideas in several
areas. It continues to encounter problems with land
use planning, which is controlled at the local level
and which can, if not done with an environmental
consciousness, undermine progress. Delaware also
has had difficulty in establishing benchmarks for
comparisons using its ERES standards that specify
natural conditions. We win examine the potential of
using more readfly measured "reference" conditions
and increasing the use of biological measures of
water quality.
Also, changes In water quality, either positive or
negative, do not necessarily translateJnto changes in
uses. When do you know when an improvement goal
or unacceptable change has occurred? How do you
measure degradation-how much change can be
tolerated? How can Delaware hold the line against
pollution resulting from rapid population growth in
some areas? Answers to these and other questions
are needed to aid the difficult task of implementing
antidegradation in our waters.
190
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1969: 191-193
Outstanding National Resource Waters
Barbara West
Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Resources Division
Policy Planning and Evaluation Branch, National Park Service-Air Quality Division, Denver, Colorado
Clean water is an important attribute of each unit of
the National Park System whether it provides water-
based recreation, serves as the focal point of a
scenic overlook, or adds valuable dimensions to a
historical scene. Appropriate management is not
limited to the management of water as a single
resource: the National Park Service Organic Act
directs the Service to preserve and protect entire
ecosystems by maintaining their integrity and by
finding ways to avoid interferences with natural
ecosystem processes.
The boundaries that define parks do not Insulate
them from influences that affect the lands around
them. Park resource managers need to make use of
all available tools to prevent external influences from
causing unacceptable alterations to park systems
and resources. "Single resource" statutes, like the
dean Water Act with Us antidegradation provisions,
offer opportunities for National Park Service
managers to preserve and protect natural systems.
Water quality standards that implement antidegrada-
tion can be successfully maintained. They enhance
water quality by protecting the water from new dis-
charges and limiting changes to waters that flow into
parks, as well.
The Clean Water Act was designed to restore and
maintain the integrity of the Nation's water, including
the waters of the National Park System. As part of the
Act the Congress recognized the primary role of the
States in managing and regulating water quality
within the general framework developed by Con-
gress. Part of the framework, namely section 313. re-
quires that all Federal agencies, including the
National Park Service, comply with the requirements
of State law for water quality management regardless
of other jurisdictional status or land ownership.
ONRW as a Resource
Management Tool
If a State has an antidegradation policy but does not
have an Outstanding National Resource Waters
{ONRW) program, or its program does not include
waters within units of the National Park System, the
triennial review of water quality standards public
hearings offers the opportunity for National Park Ser-
vice managers to propose ONRW status for waters in
National Park Service units. There are significant
benefits to be derived from this. Although the Service
may have responsibfltty for management of the area
within the park's boundaries, water resource-related
laws and programs are administered by other agen-
cies. In some cases, it may be possible to develop
cooperative working arrangements or agreements
that can result in management that, by and large,
meets National Park Service management stan-
dards. In most cases, however, given differing State
goals and objectives for water resources manage-
ment, it may be difficult to develop arrangements that
wiH result in comprehensive resource protection
based on a recognition of the interconnected web of
natural systems that constitutes a unit of the National
Park Service. That recognition should also include
acknowledgement of the fact that the interconnected
web is related to systems outside the park's boun-
daries. Designation of waters as ONRW can provide
protection that closely approximates Service
management standards.
Developers may be less likely to propose activities
for a given area if ONRW would be affected. From an
environmental permitting perspective, developers
seek areas free from ihe constraint posed by more
stringent water quality standards like those as-
sociated with ONRW (which one must presume is
one of the purposes of the ONRW designation
process). If fewer development proposals-are made,
park staffs win be able to spend their time and ener-
gies on management
The National Park Service is sometimes perceived
negatively by other agencies and some individuals
because the Service often opposes developments or
activities that pose the potential for adversely affect-
ing park resources. National Park Service resource
managers frequently must seek to protect the status
quo. When a Federal land manager appears at a
hearirf he or she is rarely perceived as "just another
landowner* and, to many, is considered the Federal
bully. ONRW designation for park waters might result
in fewer permit applications and thus, fewer hearings
and permit reviews.
- It is often difficult to demonstrate a dear and un-
equivocal connection between changes to water
quality and resource damage. This is the case be-
191
-------
a WEST
cause comprehensive data that can dearly prove
resource damage will occur are rarely available and
defining what discharges cause "degradation" has
proved to be a difficult task. In many cases, the ef-
fects of discharges on Service resources may be
subtle and long-term. Because changes would not
occur in the short term, it Is possible that Service
concerns may be discounted or Ignored by permit-
ting authorities.
Finally, both EPA and the appropriate State agen-
das Issue a large number of wastewater discharge
permits. The sheer number of permits makes it dif-
ficult for staffs of Individual parks to effectively keep
track of all the actions that may result in Impacts to
National Park Service units. Because ONRW desig-
nation for designated waters requires more stringent.
standards in and of itself, there may be less need for
additional monitoring of permits by Service man-
agers.
National Park Service Experience
with ONRW
In 1986. the staffs of Buffalo National River and
Southwest Region and the Interior Department
Solicitor used the Arkansas designation of waters
within the park as Outstanding National Resource
Waters ("Extraordinary Recreational and Aesthetic
Value") as one of the bases for protesting the is-
suance of a permit foralandfil near the park. The Na-
tional Park Sewtea believed that because of the karst
geology of the area, there was a significant potential
for degrading waters within the unit if a landfiU were to
be constructed. ONRW status for waters within Buf-
falo River provided a framework that was used as the
basis for Service arguments concerning the need for
enhanced resource protection. On appeal to the
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, the
permit was denied, at least partially due to the Park
Service's arguments. An appeal is pending before
the Arkansas Supreme Court
In another case, a catfish farm in Oklahoma was
discharging nutrient-laden effluent without a permit
into a tributary of Lake of the ArbucMes, an ONRW in
the Chickasaw National Recreation Area that also
serves as the source of drinking water for several
nearby towns. The discharge is located about r • „•
mile upstream of the park's boundary. In the permit
proceedings, protection of the ONRW was the basis
for much of the testimony. Unfortunately, the water
quality standard applicable to the tributary was much.
less stringent than the ONRW, classification for the
lake. The final decision of the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board put seasonal discharge limitations
on the catfish farm that were designed to limit the ad-
dition of nutrients to the lake during the summer
months when the potential for eutrophication is
greater. The Service is continuing to monitor for ad-
verse effects.
The National Park Service has suggested that park
managers take some, or ail, of the following .steps to
facilitate ONRW designation for waters that are within
or may affect park units:
• Work Closely with State Officials. State pro-
grams and policies vary widely. Some have prepared
detaled guidance on how to apply for such designa-
tions (Arizona, for example), with dearly delineated
criteria that the waterbody must meet to be desig-
nated. In other States, the statutes implementing the
Clean Water Act may mention ONRW. or their
equivalent but provide no information on how they
are identified or designated. In either circumstance.
work doseiy with State agency officials to prepare an
application or petition for designation. Where the
State has not already established procedures.
managers can influence how the State goes about
structuring and defining its applications processes.
• Provide Water Resource Information. The more
information provided to the State on the quality of
water resources', on the ways water functions as part
of the park's ecosystem(s), and on the ways visitors
and wildlife use water resources for which designa-
tion is being sought, the more likely the State will be
able to act positively on the application for designa-
tion. If the uses of the water or purposes for which the
unit was established are positively correlated with the
quality of the water, for example, the Service should
make that dear.
• Write Comprehensive Planning Documents.
The information in the park's planning documents
(Statement for Management, Development Con-
cept Plans, General Management Plan, Natural
Resources Management Plan. Water Resources
Management Plan, and others) should support the
application for designation as an ONRW. That infor-
mation should be supported by National Park Ser-
vice actions, as well. For example, if any National
Park Service activities, like road or trail construction
or use of pesticides, could adversely affect water
resources, environmental assessments or other
documentation should make it dear that protection
and preservation of high quality waters in the unit are
important to the Service.
• Present Clear Proposals. The National Park Ser-
vice, should make sure its actions to have ONRW
designated are dearly understood. Explain
proposals to local landowners, industries, civic
192
-------
WATS* QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1989: 191-193
groups, and other potentially interested parties. If
there is tremendous or widespread resistance, it may
be worth reconsidering the way the information is
presented or how the proposal is explained. Work to
ensure that the State agency can function as a
partner, rather than as an adversary.
• Work with Local Groups. The National Park Ser-
vice manager may find it helpful to work as dosely as
possible with other Interested groups in protecting
the water in the park (local hunting and fishing or-
ganizations, local Audubon chapters, and dvic or en-
vironmental groups). Where waters of National Park
Service units serve as sources of drinking water, the
local units of government or water management dis-
tricts often support applications for ONRW status.
• Prepare an Ad-inclusive Petition. If a State has
more than one park unit with waters that appear to
qualify for ONRW status, it might be preferable to
prepare only one, all-indusive petition to the State.
This approach wffl require dose coordination and
consultation between the parks to avoid duplication
of effort. Such a situation might warrant having the
Water Resources Division serve as the project coor-
dinator.
• Be an Ally. In some circumstances, property
owners whose lands are adjacent to or near waters
that are candidates for ONRW may not support
designation. On the other hand, it is difficult to im-
agine a circumstance in which a National Park Ser-
vice manager would not support ONRW designation.
States that find themselves under pressure from EPA
or the public to conclusively implement antidegrada-
tion policies can find an ally in the National Park Ser-
vice.
Areas for Further Action
Most of the States have ONRW programs that specifi-
cally address "national parks." When the Service
uses that term, it is synonymous with any unit in the
National Park System as directed by the 1970 Act for
Administration. When the term "national park" Is used
by the States, it may mean only national parks and
may not include monuments, recreation areas, na-
tional lakeshores, or national historical parks.
Managers may find it useful to consult with the ap-
propriate State agency to determine the reach of the
State program. If National Park Service units other
than "parks" are not included as ONRW, the triennial
review of the water quality standards is the time for
the Service to raise the question and resolve the
issue. In addition, some States have petition proces-
ses that allow individuals or agencies to propose
changes to State standards and policies.
Many times, the valuable uses for water in National
Park System units are not considered to be "uses" for
the purpose of water quality standards. Or, the uses
in the National Park Service units represent a small
segment of a longer or larger water system and thus
are not accounted for in the State's water quality
standards. For example, the San Antonio River links
the Spanish Colonial missions that make up San An-
tonio Missions National Historical Park in San An-
tonio, Texas. Upstream and downstream of the park,
the river is used for light industrial purposes, and the
water quality standards reflect those uses. In spite of
the standards, however, many park visitors wade,
swim, and fish in the river-uses that were dearly not
contemplated by the existing water quality stan-
dards. There would be greater protection of park
visitors and resources if the National Park Service
could identify the uses served by water in Service
units and communicate those uses to the State.
Cooperative efforts should enable accommodations
that are mutually satisfactory.
It is not dear how ONRW designations affect State
policies and programs that concern nonpoint source
pollution. At present a suit brought by the U.S. Attor-
ney against the South Florida Water Management
District and the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation is pending in the Federal Court for the
Southern District of Florida. It alleges, among other
things, that an Outstanding Florida Waters designa-
tion (equivalent to ONRW) for Everglades National
Park requires special efforts to abate sources of non-
point pollution that threaten to change the composi-
tion and functioning of ecosystems that the park was
established to preserve.
193
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21M CBfTURY, 1980:195-198
Implementing Antidegradation
Mark Van Putten
Director, Great Lakes Natural Resource Center
National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbon Michigan
The National Wildlife Federation heartly supports the
Draft Framework's provision on antidegradation im-
plementing procedures. As stipulated In the
Framework, during the next triermium States would
be encouraged or required to adopt these proce-
dures, which would be subject to public review and
comment and also to EPA's review and approval as
part of the regular water quality standards revision
process. I would hasten to second Paul Frohardt's
observation that this ban area with great potential for
flexjbitty in how States implement antidegradation
requirements, including allowances for regional
variations. This flexibility in methods, however; puts
an Increased burden on the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. On the one hand, the regional offices
must participate in the process of developing State
procedures that recognize the unique needs of the
different regions and. on the other, they should as-
sure that States within their regions and States with
comparable water quality issues are proceeding on a
somewhat simlar course.
In the open waters of the Great Lakes, our most
pressing concern, which has been recognized by the
United States and Canada and also by the Great
Lakes Governors In their 1986 toxics control agree-
ment, is the problem of persistent toxic pollutants.
We are concerned with the mass loads of the persis-
tent bioaccumtdative toxic pollutants that reach
those lakes from a wide variety of sources, both point
and nonpoint (It is generally understood that non-
point sources include such problems as atmospheric
deposition, in-place pollutants, and groundwater dis-
charges.) One of the most important concepts that
the Great Lakes environmental community is looking
for in this region's State antidegradation procedures
is a way to use that rule to prevent any increased
mass loadings Into the Great Lakes of the most per-
sistent and bioaccumulatrve toxic pollutants.
There has been some rather creative thinking and
discussion in the region about ways of Implementing
a concept like this. In 1986. Michigan included in its
antidegradation rule a presumption against any
mixing zone for new or increased discharges of a
toxic pollutant directly into the waters of the Great
Lakes. The genesis of that provision was a concern
that, as Michigan's water quality standards for toxic
pollutants began to be applied statewide on Inland
waters, it could create incentives to expand and lo-
cate new toxic polluting facilities directly on the
lakeshores to take advantage of the tremendous dilu-
tion capabiity. In fact, we have seen this occur in the
last year with a very public debate over the wisdom of
locating a new bleached Kraft pulp mill on the shores
of Lake Superior in Michigan's upper peninsula. One
of the key locational factors involved was the lake's
dilution capability for discharges of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
from such a mil.
It Is this provision of Michigan's antidegradation
rule that has given rise to the debate about control
technology. What kind of controls are available for a
mill like this? Even more important, what kind of alter-
native processes are avaiable for delignification and
bleaching? Those are questions that might never
have come up in such an immediate and forceful a
fashion were it not for the section of Michigan's anti-
degradation rule that denied the dilutive capacity of
Lake Superior. So one feature that we are interested
in is Its focusing of attention away from in-stream
concentrations in the vicinity of a source toward
mass loading of a group of key pollutants into the
downwater Great Lakes.
This approach has been somewhat more refined
in Wisconsin's recently adopted antidegradation
rule. That State has identified a list of pollutants that
have a bioaccumulation factor of over 250 and has
provided a more stringent level of antidegradation
review for those pollutants. We have continuing con-
cerns about how the pollutants were identified and
about the contents of the more stringent anti-
degradation review, but, nevertheless, I think the
. focus on a certain dass of pollutants is exactly what
we need to see more of in the Great Lakes.
Over the next triennium, I would much prefer to
see EPA expend its resources on a two-track effort
First, every EPA region should be required to have a
regional antidegradation policy like that developed in
Region V. Headqt. .ers should ensure that all the
regions proceed on a somewhat simultaneous track
when implementing this policy. Otherwise, one
region might be out in front of the others and there-
fore could be subjected to an unfair share of resis-
tance and pressure.
The second thing that I would like to see EPA
focus its attention on when developing antidegrada-
195
-------
M.WNPUTTEN
tlon policy on a regional ecosystem basis is guidance
for States as to what antidegradation means in the
region. By "region" I mean ecoregion, not necessarily
EPA region. What does antidegradation mean for the
Chesapeake Bay watershed? How does it contribute
to efforts to dean up and maintain water quality in
that sensitive ecosystem? What does antidegrada-
tion mean for the Great Lakes? How can it be used to
assure that their dButlon capacity does not result in
new or increased mass loads?
I do not believe that efforts to develop numeric
criteria and apply them to existing sources can
proceed independently of a regional antidegradation
policy. Otherwise, those numeric criteria and those
restrictions, which are largely concentration based,
are going to provide incentives to discharge into the
Great Lakes. Moreover, as we begin to put numbers
on specific chemicals and concentrations for certain
chemicals, it may appear that the Great Lakes could
absorb more of these pollutants-that is a feature of
the lakes' tremendous dButfve capacity. We have to
anticipate this and ensure that for certain kinds of
toxic chemicals-the persistent, bioaccumulath/e
ones-there are antidegradation provisions in place
that will prevent any increased loads into the basin.
I would like to conclude with a hint of what an-
tidegradation might mean to the future of a region
like the Great Lakes. We have proposed in Wiscon-
sin, and renewed a proposal in Michigan, for a Great
Lakes "toxics freeze." We are proposing, in the con-
text of these States' antidegradation rules, a prohibi-
tion against any net increase in the amounts of the
most dangerous, persistent, bioaccumulative toxic
pollutants into the Great Lakes. In our view, the way
to begin cleaning up those lakes is not to exacerbate
the existing problems. What we have looked for in
Wisconsin and Michigan, unsuccessfully so far, is
use of an antidegradation rule to implement this con-
cept I think we are going to see more of those kinds
of ideas coming from an over the country as each of
.the regions and all of the States struggle to develop
their antidegradation implementation policies over
the next triennium.
196
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989
Questions, Answers, and Comments
C. Hague) I have some observations from my ex-
perience in trying to develop, propose, and defend
public hearings on water quality standards for New
Mexico over the past 13 years. The battle over anti-
degradation is joined by four ideas: First, afl uses of
water degrade it, including backpacking In wilder-
ness areas and the multiple-use concept of the U.S.
Forest Service. Secondly, with a few notable excep-
tions an waters in New Mexico are better than the
water quality standards so virtually all are covered
under antidegradation. Next, all uses of water and aU
activities In a drainage basin (either existing or
proposed) are viewed by their advocates as ab-
solutely necessary to the public good, so the battle is
joined between people for and people against an ac-
tivity. And finally, in New Mexico the concept of anti-
degradation is most flagrantly compromised by the
mandated responsibilities in programs of two Federal
agencies: the US. Forest .Service by the multiple use
of public lands, and the Bureau of Land Management
by Its requirement under a 19th century law to Issue
mining leases. The most degrading environmental
activity is cattie leasing-the contracting to cattie
owners or ranchers of use of widemess areas. The
greatest destruction to headwaters in New Mexico
takes place right at the top of the watershed, in the
wilderness areas.
C. (Blosser) In regions like that implementation
will have to include cooperative work so that anti-
degradation provisions will be used appropriately
and applied among EPA regions, Headquarters, and
other Federal land management activities. With
regard to the Forest Service, the forest planning
process is a major issue in some of the challenges to
those plans, so the Service's comprehensive land
management decision-making process provides a
vehicle for applying antidegradation. Grazing Is a
more difficult problem. The National Wildlife Federa-
tion would certainly support a stipulation that the
degradation of water quality on those lands be an in-
tegral part of the decision to grant or renew those
grazing permits in any decision regarding the grant-
ing or renewal of grazing rights on Federal lands.
C. I would echo the sentiments on problems with
waters that exceed standards, and the administrative
work involved to allow a lower water quality in such
waters when trying to implement the review required
under the regulation. Ths majority of State waters are
better than the water quality standards, probably 99
percent are above 5 milligrams per liter detilitar.
The definition would include looking at social and
economic impacts for waters like that and holding
hearings. The States do not have the resources or
the policies to handle that In the question and
answer document's item 8 regarding degradation, it
seems to state that, for antidegradation of any
waters, you are required to have existing uses fully
attained and indicates that there cannot be any acute
or chronic tooddty in the surface water. That gets
back to the end-of-pipe limitations for NPOES per-
mits and the impossibility, at this point, for most per-
mittees to meet chronic toxicity limits at the
end-of-pipe.
C. (Sutfln) One of the issues that has come up in
practically every presentation is what constitutes
high quality waters. Colorado has established a set of
criteria for determining this; in Delaware, they've ac-
tually designated waters as high quality; in Region V
in the Michigan and the Wisconsin proposals, all
waters that meet water quality standards are desig-
nated as high quality waters and have to undergo
some degree of antidegradation review. I'm wonder-
ing how people feel about that issue.
C. (Baker) I would like to see some emphasis or
dear statemenfin the EPA guidance that it is permis-
sible to have standards greater than the minimum
necessary to protect fish and aquatic life, wildlife, or
human health. In too many antidegradation policies
either you're at that level or you're at the existing
level. When you are-looking at alternatives, there
ought to be some emphasis on the fact that there's
room in between for setting standards and that EPA
win support standards that permit you to fall back
some small percent if, technically, you cannot meet
or maintain the current level.
It would be helpful to have the concept of
ecoregions recognized in the Framework. Anti-
degradation implementation will differ, so the con-
cept of ecoregion consistency could set a basic
structure to use when States look at some of those
critical issues. There also needs to be some consis-
tency on terms for designating high quality waters. In
Wisconsin, we got carried away with antidegradation
and designated more outstanding resource waters
than some States have waters. That's going to be a
problem if outstanding resource waters are so dif-
ferent across the country because there is supposed
to be some national significance associated with
those waters. Perhaps some additional dialogue or
information transfer by EPA to show what* s going on
in the different States would help to create some con-
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
sistency in those designations. Finally, there's a total
lack of information about designating lakes. We are
in the second tier of designating lakes in different
classifications, and we're finding out that all lakes, for
the most part, deserve some special recognition.
C. I'd Hke to make one comment on the desire to
have some option available between the extremes of
no degradation and degradation all the way down to
a sometimes minimum standard. There are a couple
of ways to work In the antidegradation framework to
achieve that result There is an option to define "sig-
nificance" our regulation states that increased load-
ings trial are less than 10 percent of the existing total
load to that segment for the critical parameters shall
be considered Insignificant Now you still have to
worry about cumulative loads (and Colorado has a
provision for them), but I think that's one place where
you can provide some flexlbiity without going down
to the standard. Also, when you look at alternatives
(not just alternatives that provide no degradation, but
ones that provide less degradation) you might
decide that there's no feasible alternative avalabte
that praxes no degradation, but there is a feasible
alternative avaiabie that provides less but wouldnl
go all the way down to the standard, and because we
think you can, we're not going to approve the project
unless you go to that point
C. Most of the waters in Idaho are either outstand-
ing or high quality. We have a lot of timber on Federal
lands, and we have a lot of grazing on Bureau of Land
Management lands. Idaho set up, instead of a system
of hard standards and measurements, an ongoing
dynamic process that allows these decisions to be
made essentially at the basin area level, or the local
level, with participation of appropriate State and
Federal resource agencies. The consequences of
grazing or timbering would be discussed and best
management practices for specific activities on
stream segments of particular concern individually
prescribed. The Sol Conservation Districts are heavi-
ly involved in-the review of best management prac-
tices and in developing special range conservation
projects. There wfll be low interest loans and grant
monies avaflaWe for farmers and ranchers to imple-
ment special best management practices for grazing
and fanning lands adjacent to stream segments of
particular concern. These plans will be reviewed an-
nually in the So9 Conservation District process, and
biennially in the Bureau of Land Management
process.
Instead of developing hard standards and
measuring to see if they are met we've tried to push
the decision-making level down to the local people
(who use the lands and the waters the most), with
participation of State and Federal resource agencies
to create an on-going, dynamic process to make
plans for best management practices and monitor
their effectiveness. What we've set up is a system that
requires the interest groups to participate in water
quality planning on an on-going basis; if they don't,
our system isn't going to work. But if they don't par-
ticipate, it must be because they don't care. I think
they care, so I think they'll participate.
C. (van Putten) I work with the National Wildlife
Federation's membership in the Great Lakes region
and try to get them involved in these water quality
standards issues. I have found no issue that people
seem to understand easier and be more interested in
participating in than antidegradatioa The level of
genuine public involvement from the areas that will
be affected by designation Is unlike that in any other
water quality issue that I've known. It is an area where
local people and local planning can actually work.
The kinds of questions that are asked in the anti-
degradation review process are the things that the
average citizen wants to talk about The antidegrada-
tion process is a place where, for the first time, those
are the right questions.
Another issue is the question of whether a given
waterbody qualifies for antidegradation and. in
answering that question, are you looking on a pol-
lutant-by-pollutant basis? Let's say a given water-
body is better than the minimum standard for
pollutant X. but not for pollutant Y Should anti-
degradation be applied just wtth regard to pollutant X
and does it apply at all because all the key
parameters are not exceeded? That is a critical issue
involved in implementing antidegradation regardless
of the ecoregion and EPA region.
C. Your last point is very important What we
recognized in Idaho was that setting hard standards
is difficult so we try to establish a dynamic process
not onry for land-use planning, industry, timber, min-
ing, and agriculture but hand-in-hand with that
development of a water quality data base. Focusing
again on local planning and local dedsionmaking,
what is critical is putting your monitoring in the most
sensitive places along the stream segments, and
focusing your attention on those particular water-
bodies instead of trying to do a blanket program for
the entire State. Over time your standards will evolve,
based on the accurate information you acquire
through your monitoring program. You can't set
standards and know the cumulative impacts, that the
standards are workable and necessary, unless you're
watching the water constantly. That*s why monitoring
and the standards procedure must go hand-in-nand.
198
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21 «t CENTURY. 1989
C. (Frohardt) It is not only a question of one pol-
lutant or ail of the pollutants being better than stan-
dards, but certainly In Colorado and I'm sure in most
areas, quality varies substantially from year to year in
certain streams especially related to variable flows,
the quality varies substantially from season to
season.
What do you look at? That is complicated. It is
tough to find and have enough data for definitive
answers. Based on that alone, the approach that
we've taken is to then look at a combination of fac-
tors. We've got one test for high quality waters that Is
based on a numerical test of the existing quality of 12
different parameters, but there are other factors that
are listed to consider high quality designation, in- -
dudlng whether the waters are located in national
parks, monuments, or wildlife refuges; those that are
designated wild rivers; and (a further discretionary
authority added on to retain some flexibility) waters
may be designated-high quality, even though none of
the proceeding criteria apply, if the Commission
believes, based on the available Information, that ex-
ceptional reasons are present to warrant the extra
protection of uses provided by the high quality desig-
nations. Any one of these aspects isn't a satisfying
answer in and of itself, but there are a combination of
techniques and approaches available that can often
be used in combination.
C. (Sutfln) We've had questions in Wisconsin on
whether or not the antidegradatlon rules would apply
to a permitted discharge or to the actual existing ef-
fluent quality that was being discharged by a par-
ticular user of a stream. Often we have found that the
permitted discharge level is way above what the
facility is actually able to produce with its existing
treatment plant and current production. Dischargers
will argue that they have a right to what their permit
says, and when their permit expires, that it should be
rolled over and given to them again. That* s an Issue.
Currently, most permits that control toxldty do not
also develop pound limits, and so there isn't a
baseline to use for judging mass loading to lakes in
permits. In my region I'm asking if we should estab-
lish that baseline by requiring mass loadings either to
be put in as effluent limits or at least identified in the
fact sheet for new permits that are issued. Another
issue came up in Wisconsin on a river where there
ware five dischargers. One shut down and released a
large quantity of available assimilative capacity on
the stream. Do the remaining dischargers have a
right to that capacity? I dont think they do. but that
was a major issue in Wisconsin. There's any number
of mechanical issues that deal with permits that I
think ought to be resolved and discussed, as well.
C. In Colorado, because of the seasonal low
flows, dischargers often need to meet standards at
the end of the pipe (or something pretty dose to that)
and, because of the inevitable variability in what they
actually achieve, to try to make sura they are in com-
pliance they often have to do significantly better than
what is actually required. Therefore, the receiving
water quality is being kept better than, in theory (if
they could fine-tune their discharges) they could
deplete it to. Suddenly, some dischargers are argu-
ing: "Now. wait a minute. You're going to tell us that, if
we're doing better than required by our permit, we're
going to be subject to antidegradatlon review?" We
were concerned by that disincentive and put in a
specific exdusion that says waters will not be subject
to antidegradation review if the existing quality is
maintained better than standards solely because dis-
chargers are treating their wastes levels higher than
required by standards.
C. I would have to vigorously object to such a
proposal. It seems to me that there's a fundamental
misconception there in terms of the Clean Water Act
and the overall policy thafs represented in that Act
The notion that water quality, whether it results from a
certain level of pollution control, technologically
natural conditions, or whatever, belongs to anyone.
that there's anyyignt to use that assimilative capacity,
is, in legal and'ohflosophical terms, the single most
important feature of the I972 dean Water Act The
reason why it represented such a departure from all
prior approaches was its recognition that the dis-
charge of any pollutant by any person is prohibited,
with some exceptions, and since 1972 what we've all
been doing is defining and implementing the excep-
tions. However, we can't lose sight of the basic
prohibition of any addition of any pollutant into the
Nation's waters. That translates into a recognition by
the Congress that there is no right to pollute, there is
no such thing-as any right to the assimilative capacity
of a stream.
Years ago, in a very similar situation, it was argued
that the water quality in the Kalamazoo River, which
was better than the minimum dissolved oxygen re-
quirement, was "artificially induced water quality" and
that the State agency had no choice but to allocate
that assimilative capacity to the dischargers. It was in
that context that the issues of antidegradation and
antibacksliding really began to assume great impor-
tance. We are not saying you never use up that as-
simBative capacity. What we are saying is that there's
a value to water quality that exceeds minimum stan-
dards, and that we're not going to just automatically
give away that assimilative capacity as though there
were some right to it but rather ask ourselves some
199
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERa & COMMENTS
admittedly very difficult questions. What is the value
of that incremental water quality? That*s what we
mean by defining a significant degradation. What can
be done to avoid using that up for pollution pur-
poses? Are there alternatives, like waste reduction?
What's the benefit to the area of using that up? So I
would disagree very vehemently with any suggestion
that there's some kind of entitlement to assimflative
capacity.
& Well, this is an area where I think zero discharge
matters. How you Interpret the zero discharge goal
and directive, the further reducing of pollutants
added to the Nation's waters.
C. (Courtemanch) I hope that it's becoming ob-
vious to EPA that the guidance thafs currently aval*
able for antidegradation is Insufficient The ambi-
guities in it are enormous and have created a lot of
business for the attorneys, and I would prefer to see
attention be given to the ecological, sociological,
and economic questions that are ad nested in this
anti-degradation issue.
Maine is on the verge of adopting antidegradation
regulations. It's been a long and painful process both
in negotiations with the various parties-industry, the
environmental advocates, and so forth—and with the
EPA region, in that there's Just an incredible amount
of ambiguity in the language that creates a liberal
type of application. We have been involved with
several projects in Maine where we have had to make
a decision on existing uses. It gets down to a com-
mon point are you going to take the purist approach
to antidegradation or are you going to take the prag-
matic approach? Recently, the -decisions have
tended toward the purist side there have been a
broad array of discrete types of existing uses. There-
fore, when we look at our entire water policy or anti-
degradation policy, we can see that, if we continue in
this type of purist direction, there will probably never
be another high head hydroelectric project
developed in the United States. If you look at existing
uses in a very discrete manner, specifically ones that
have been argued with our projects (protection for
specific fish species, spawning in running waters)
they would be precluded by habitat modifications
that would occur by a hydroelectric project going
Into place. It is worthy of debate. I'm not saying that
we need to take a purist side or the more liberal ap-
proach, but If you take that type of purist approach, it
does create other certain discrepancies for us.
We were recently given a dam for the expressed
purpose of removing it putting a hole in It to allow
restoration for Atlantic salmon in one of our former
Atlantic salmon rivers. If we punch a hole in that dam,
which we would like to do, the habitat is going to
change dramatically, as will the uses that' currently
occur behind that Impoundment Which uses do we
protect? I think if we take this purist approach to it
we run into these types of discrepancies that haven't
been addressed. I would like to see EPA explore this
issue.
C. The biggest complaint we hear about anti-
degradation is what we should really be doing is
protecting beneficial uses, and if we're doing that
who cares about theoretical levels above beneficial
uses? If your beneficial uses include aesthetic and
recreational uses, let's just worry about protecting
them. We're aU stifl struggling with the science on
protecting uses, and I think that in some sense in a
long-term viewpoint that if s conceivable if we ever
come anywhere near perfecting the science of
protecting beneficial uses. then, the need for anti-
degradation policy may whither away but only if we
have a unified effort by everyone, including industry,
to adequately fund State and Federal agencies to
move forward on a science for these different areas.
200
-------
WATER QUALITY NOAls FOR THE 21« CENTURY. 1989
Extending Standards to
Wetlands
201
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21« CENTURY. 1989: 203-205
How States Can Use 401 Certification and
State Standards to Affect Federal Permits
Thomas J. Dawson
Wisconsin Public Intervenor, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin
This paper is presented with the caveat that my
perspective is not necessarily the same as that of the
State of Wisconsin, which is normally represented in
such matters by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
I am an appointed State official who has the
privilege of saying what many civfl servants in the
Wisconsin bureaucracy are only allowed to think, but
not to say. Under a very unique Wisconsin State law, I
am one of two assistant attorneys general who have
been appointed to carry out a legislatively imposed
duty to advocate the protection of "public rights" in
the waters and other natural resources of Wisconsin.
Because we are charged with representing these
public rights, and to even sue agencies that trample
on these rights, I .not only plan to report on what
States are doing In this area, but to also advocate
what I think they should be doing.
The Authority to Deny Water
Quality Certification is also the
Authority to do Nothing
At the Boston conference last September, I offered
the following observation: As an observer and
watchdog of regulatory agencies for many years, I
continually have to remind myself, the environmental
community, and others that the grant of authority to
an agency by the Congress or a State legislature to
do something also is the authority to do little or noth-
ing. And so along with the authority of the States to
deny water quality certifications for 404 permits. I
have seen that the authority to "veto" has resulted in
few or no vetos of 404 permits. True, there are oc-
casions when some States have denied water quality
certifications for both nationwide permits and for in-
dividual 404 permits. However, we know that most
States nave not developed their own odes, regula-
tions, and standards for water quality certification
decisions on 404 permits and that waivers of water
quality certifications for 404 permits are nearly as
epi< idrtiir M the issuance of 404 permits by the U.S
Army Corps of Engineers for non-water-dependent
activities.
The Wisconsin Public Intervenor Office has peti-
tioned the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) twice within the last 10 years to
develop criteria and decision-making standards for
the granting and denial of water quality certifications,
particularly with respect to 404 permits for fills and
wetlands. To this day, the standards do not exist al-
though the agency has promised recently to develop
such standards. We shall see. The department has
not yet been able to bring itself beyond the "end-of-
pipe" discharge mentality to develop the narrative
physical and biological standards necessary for the
denial of water quality certifications for fills and wet-
lands. Wisconsin is not alone among the States in
this faJure to act, largely because of the lack of politi-
cal wfll to obtain or to exercise the authority neces-
sary to deny water quality certifications for wetland
fins.
In light of this, can we really blame the Army Corps
for getting away with its epidemic permit issuances if
the States do not exercise their authority to stop
them?
In 1986 there were between 10,000 and 12,000 in-
dividual 404 permit applications processed by the
Army Corps; only 3 percent of those permits were
denied. Countless other aquatic resources were
sacrificed to nationwide permits. The Army Corps
presumes fining wil be permitted: others must prove
the permit should be denied. Meanwhile, States
waive or grant certifications, and EPA seldom flexes
its404(c)musde.
With that, lets look at how some States are using
and can use the 401 certification process and State
standards to affect Federal permits.
What States are Doing
At the Boston conference, an entire segment of the
program was devoted to 401 certification. Several
States reported that they were successfully denying
water quality certifications for wetland fill permits by
invoking the provision in 401 (d) that provides that
certifications shall set forth limitations necessary to
assure that an applicant for a Federal license or per-
203
-------
T.J. QAWSON
mtt wffl comply "with any other appropriate require-
ment of State law set forth in such certification."
For example, Maryland Invokes this provision as a
basis for using the 404(b)(1) guidelines (in 40 C.F.R.
part 230) as their water quality 'certification stan-
dards. The Maryland Department of Environment has
personnel evaluate and document the impacts of
wetland fins on wetland resources and applies those
facts to the 404(b)(1) guidelines criteria relating to:
the need for the project In light of practicable alterna-
tives; water dependency; and harm to aquatic
resource values. Likewise, Tennessee reported ft was
using the 401 certification process as a de facto as-
sumption of the 404 program. Wisconsin's Public In-
tervenor Office advocated this use of 401 to the
Wisconsin ONR almost 10 years ago.
Various States, including Maryland. Ohio, and Ten-
nessee are using their antidegradation rules as a
basis for denial of water quality certifications, espe-
cially where wetlands, or types of wetlands, are das-
sffled as "outstanding* waters under the rules, and
EPA endorsed this use of the antidegradation rule (40
C.F.R. 131.12). Maryland reminded us that where a
water or aquatic resource is attaining a higher use
than its classification under the antidegradation rule,
it must be protected at that higher use because
present water quality of the water is to be maintained.
Whle some States deny water quality certifica-
tions under general authorities in statutes or ad-
ministrative rules that are not specifically labeled
"401 certification." other States (Ohio. West Virginia.
and California are among them) have chosen to
develop specific rules and regulations governing
their 401 certification activity. I do not include Wis-
consin in that group, although the Wisconsin DNR
has enacted a chapter for water quality <
because WONR does not apply these rules to 404 fffl
permits and actually uses it as a justification for waiv-
ing water quality certification. The WONR has yet to
escape the end-of-pipe milligrams-per-liter mentality.
Ohio's rules Incorporate the antidegradation ode
in its water quality certification program, classifying
wetlands as outstanding waters. Rules in other
States deny water quality certifications for 404 fill per-
mits for specific classifications of wetlands. For ex-
ample, Minnesota denied 401 certifications for 404
fills in fens. South Carolina ruled that HI permits in
coastal zone wetlands were inconsistent with coastal
zone plans and so denied certification. Several
States developed regulations governing mitigation
as a component of the certification process. Ten-
nessee requires "2-to-l mitigation," unless it is not
practicable.
The California Water Resources Board is reported-
ly prioritizing mitigation in the forms of in-kind mini-
mization and replacement on- and off-site. Buffer
zones for wetlands are provided, and mitigation ac-
tivity is required before or during the approved
project construction to assure that mitigation activity
occurs. California also requires mitigation project
monitoring, annual reporting, proof of ownership of
the mitigation site, verification of funding to conduct
mitigation, and Identification of who will do the work
as components of its certification program.
In West Virginia, a certification denial based on
loss of habitat was upheld in the courts under the
"other appropriate requirements of State law
provision in 401.
From these examples, some observations can be
summarized. States are successfully denying or con-
ditioning water quality certifications for Federal per-
mits. They are doing so with or without State statutes
or rules specifically authorizing 401 certification.
Authority is being drawn from a mosaic of general
and specific water quality-related and conservation
State laws as a basis for authority for water quality
certification decisionmaking. For example, it would
appear that States administering the dean Water Act
NPOES point source discharge law would have
ample authority to establish water quality certifica-
tion rules for wetlands. While States are using and ex-
panding water quality-related statutes and rules as a
basis for 401 certification, they are also successfully
denying water quality certifications on the basis of
non-water-quality-related requirements in their laws
and the dean Water Act 401 (d).
What the States Can and Should Do
I share the State resource agencies' frustration, con-
cern, and anger at the dismal record of the Army
Corps in administering 404 of the Clean Water Act
particularly as it relates to wetlands destruction.
However, I am also very critical of State agencies that
wring their hands over the Army Corps' record, while
.. they themselves have not even attempted to do what
the resource agencies and courageous regulators
have done in Maryland, Ohio, California, West Vir-
ginia, Tennessee, and a few other States. Lack of
authority is not the reason for the failure of many
State agencies to use Clean Water Act 401 as a
mechanism for protecting our dwindling and pre-
dous wetlands resources. It is merely an excuse to
cover what, hi my opinion, is usually a lack of political
will to take on the economic and political forces be-
hind wetlands destruction. In Maryland's case, it is
the recent cut in staff positions for this vital program.
While some State agencies may have been specifi-
cally precluded from acting by legislatures, I do not
204
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21 «t CENTURY, 1989: 203-205
believe this is the general rule. It certainly is not the
case in Wisconsin.
State agencies should a take a long, hard look at
how other States use 401 of the Clean Water Act to
protect wetlands. Pull together the mosaic of
authorities and laws that provide powers to your
agencies to protect water quality, habitat surface
water resources, groundwater, navigable waters,
wildlife, human health, soil, and other components of
the aquatic ecosystem that are served by wetlands
resources. Like Maryland, you may not even need to
adopt specific rule packages to begin using the
authority you already have, so use it, especially
where you believe you have the authority and adop-
tion of rules would be suicidal. The worst that can
happen Is that you wil be told you have to adopt
rules or get new legislation. If you are not invoking
401 certification authority now, what has the wet-
lands resource to lose in your State?
Seriously consider adopting, tailoring, and im-
proving upon the handbook 401 certification
developed by the EPA Office of Wetlands Protection
and the Environmental Law Institute and consider
using it along with rules and programs already
adopted by other States.
Be creative. While I encourage agencies to break
free from the discharge pipe/mUllgrams-peMiter
mentality, this does not mean that traditional notions
of pollutant discharges to waterways cannot be ap-
plied to other point sources, including dump trucks.
bulldozers, dredges, and other earthmoving equip-
ment Agency personnel often snicker when t ask
them why they have not applied their suspended
solids standards to discharges from dump trucks.
Doesn't anyone recognize the absurdity of agencies
that are willing to regulate point source pipes in wet-
lands because they may injure wetlands, while they
apply absolutely no regulation to other point sources
that obliterate or utterly destroy the same wetlands?
Do not abuse the concept of mitigation. Wetlands
fin permits, as well as water quality certifications,
should rise or fan on their own merits without con-
siderations of "mitigation." Mitigation should be
relevant only In cases where wetland loss is un-
avoidable where an overriding public interest is
served—and this should be the case in only a
minority of cases. Then, and only then, should injury
to aquatic resources be minimized and, hopefully,
repaired. Do not allow your certification programs to
degenerate into the let's make a deal" scheme with
the Army Corps of Engineers.
To my dear friends in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, I say, duck ponds do not mitigate the losses of
non-surface water wetlands. Ducks and fish are not
the only animals and values served by wetlands, and
mitigation should always be in-kind replacement
wherever possible. We do not "enhance" wetlands by
converting them to another type of wetland. Given
the loss of wetlands due to the 404 program and the
abuse of the mitigation process, consider seriously
the Tennessee policy of seeking 2-to-l in-kind mitiga-
tion wherever practicable.
205
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21« CENTURY, 1988: 207-208
Extending Standards to Louisiana's
Wetlands
Robin S.Knox
Water Quality Modeling Specialist, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality
has received proposals to discharge wastewaters to
wetland areas. Because of the large extent of inland
and coastal wetland areas in Louisiana, there are in
many cases few, if any, alternatives to a wetland dis-
charge site. In the past such discharges have oc-
curred and, where permitted, effluent limitations
were technology based. However, Louisiana's new
Water Quality Management Plan calls for water
quality-based permitting in most areas of the State.
We are currently reviewing a permit application for a
wetland discharge and, in attempting to develop a
water quality-based permit have identified the need
to extend water quality standards to wetlands.
The City of Thibodaux, Louisiana, discharges into
the Terrebonne-Lafourche Drainage Channel, a
dredged canal that is primarily used for drainage of
urban areas. During the summer months when there
is little rainfall, the water in the canal stagnates: it
does not flow naturally, and It must be pumped from
the canal into the downstream canals. As a result
there is an accumulation of secondary sewage ef-
fluent, with the accompanying solids and oxygen
demands, sitting ail summer stewing in Louisiana's
semi-tropical climate-not a very desirable situation.
When it rains and the canal is pumped out, all of the
accumulated oxygen demand is flushed out, down
through the canal system into Bayou Black and the
wetlands that lie below. We don't have much data on
the system, but the field staff reports that there are
some severe water quality impacts as a result of this
and other discharges to the canal system.
Thibodaux has funded recent improvements to its
wastewater treatment system under the terms of a
Consent Decree with EPA. The improvements in-
cluded an aerated equalization basin, situated before
the two existing high rate trickling filters. These im-
provements will enable the city to meet the terms of
an existing NPDES permit (secondary level of treat-
ment). However, it has been recognized that this level
of treatment will not meet the long-term wastewater
treatment requirements
Tho Louisiana Water Quality Management Plan
does not assign effluent limitations for Thibodaux
and requires an individual analysis to determine what
limits should be assigned. It is known that some level
: of advanced treatment wOl be required. Therefore,
: Thibodaux has applied for a construction grant to
fund an innovative and alternative treatment process.
The city maintains that wetlands enhancement by the
discharge of secondarily treated effluent onto fresh-
water wetlands is a cost-effective method for achiev-
ing advanced wastewater treatment The city has
proposed to discharge an average 4.0 MGD of
secondarily treated effluent from the existing treat-
ment facflity to 600 acres of an existing wetlands area
via a 7.000-foot force main and a 500 to 1,000 foot-
long distribution pipe.
The proposed discharge site is part of a cypress-
tupelo swamp forest The wetland has in the past
been hydrdogically altered. The proposed discharge
site is bounded on the north by the spoil bank of the
Terrebonne-Lafourche Drainage Channel, on the
east by a wide natural ridge, and on the west by an oil
field board road, so that the application area is a fun-
nel-shaped unit with a bottom control point where
discharges from the wetiand application area can be
monitored.
The treatment facility plan as presented raises
legal, Institutional, and scientific issues that must be
resolved prior to permitting of the project The legal
issues identified include jurisdiction of the wetland (is
this a water of the State and of the United States?),
the resource rights, and the legal definition of treat-
ment versus' assimflation. The scientific issues
revolve around the assimilative capacity of the wet-
.- land and Its biological, chemical, and physical func-
tions. Consideration of the scientific issues leads one
to realize that the questions go beyond protection of
water quality into general environmental quality and
protection of the integrity of an ecosystem.
Consideration of this proposal to discharge
wastewater into a wetiand raises institutional issues
concerning at least three regulatory areas within the
Office of Water Resources. The issues pertain to the
Louisiana Water Quality Standards, permitting under
the Louisiana Water Discharge Permit System, and
funding through the Construction Grants Program.
Similar EPA programs are involved at the Federal
207
-------
R.S.KNOX
level. The Institutional Issues include construction
grants ellgibfllty, methods tor determining effluent
limitations, the inadequacy of the currently used
water quality models, and other permitting condi-
tions such as addressing impacts on groundwater,
limiting public access, mosquito control, best
management practices, and alternatives tor reducing
area! loading rates.
The basic procedures involved In reviewing and
authorizing a wastewater discharge to a wetland are
the same as for any other discharge. However wet-
lands were not the prototype system used when was-
tewater management regulations, guidelines, and
procedures were established. As a result, due to a
lack of specific guidance and procedures concern-
ing wetland discharges, several issues must be
resolved before authorizing such a discharge.
The establishment of procedures to deal with
water quality-based permitting for discharges to wet-
lands must begin wtth the water quality standards
process. Trie wetlands in Louisiana are not identified
or specifically addressed in the existing water quality
standards. The narrative criteria, beneficial use
designations, and supportive numeric criteria are
designed to protect specific stream segments
delineated in the water quality standards. Wetlands
are outside the delineated segments and are con-
sidered to be tributary to them. Therefore the narra-
tive criteria, beneficial use designations, and numeric
criteria extend to the wetlands as they extend to all
tributaries.
For instance, at the proposed Thibodaux dis-
charge site the numeric criteria are chlorides 85
mg/L. sulfates 40 mg/L, .dissolved oxygen 5 mg/L,
total dissolved solids 295 mg/L, and pH range &0 to
8.5. The designated beneficial uses are primary and
secondary contact recreation, and fish and wildlife
propagation. There are provisions for exceptions to
the dissolved oxygen criteria under a naturally
dystrophte waters clause that requires us to do a use
attainability study to establish appropriate criteria.
There is also an antldegradatton policy that specifies
that existing beneficial uses must be maintained.
The narrative criteria, numeric criteria, anti-
degradation policy, and naturally dystrophic waters
exception are the only protection offered wetlands in
the State's water quality standards. The standards
are inadequate in that they were designed to address
water quality and aquatic life and do not address the
other values and functions of the wetlands.
In the process of attempting to permit the
Thibodaux discharge, we have identified certain
needs in regards to Louisiana's wetland standards.
The standards need to address impacts caused by
physical and hydrologic modifications to wetlands.
Numeric criteria should define physical; biological.
and hydrological limits, Le., loading rates to the wet-
lands! There is a need for numeric criteria that protect
the integrity of the wetland functions, both hydrologi-
cal and biological, and one for biological criteria.
either numeric or narrative, not only for aquatic and
bentrdc organisms but vegetative and wildlife com-
munities as wen. (For instance, the proposed wetland
standards in Florida limit the percent change of im-
portance value for vegetative species.) Sediment
criteria are also •appropriate from two aspects: sedi-
ment loading criteria and sediment contamination
criteria.
The recommendations that have been made for
the development of wetland standards in Louisiana
can be paralleled at the Federal level. Louisiana's
recommendations are to instigate the incorporation
of wetland functions-and values into water quality
standards designated beneficial use classifications;
to define parameters needed to support wetland use
designations and to establish criteria for those
parameters: and to classify wetlands by type and es-
tablish specific standards for each type of wetland.
208
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. Is then room in the law to accept what technol-
ogy says?
A. It depends on which lawyer you're talking to. It
think there's room under the Clean Water Act and the
Federal regulations for adaptation and flexibility.
However, there's always danger when you have that
kind of flexibility; I don't think the rules have been ap-
plied the way they should be. IH throw out the statis-
tic of 23 percent to make a couple of points, one of
which is that the dean Water Act, section 404, was
set up a part of the overall policy to maintain and en-
hance the Nation's waters. When I see wetlands
being filled for golf courses, residential development,
and nonwater-dependent activities where efforts
have not even been made to look for practical alter-
natives, that disturbs me.
A. The public has got to stand up and say what
they really want and not let the biologists and lawyers
decide for them.
C. The wetlands issue is not .well understood by
the public, which does not see wetlands and water
quality as being related. There's a real need for
education—for the public to understand what a wet-
land is, how a wetland functions, and what its relative
value is in water quality.
Secondly, when many people think of wetlands,
they think of the Everglades or Cypress Gardens.
They do not think of that little wet spot that* s down at
the end of their street, and they certainly don't think
of it as being important This learning gap is why you
are not getting public support. Thirdly, this program
has been in place for 13 years. Two weeks ago EPA,
Rsh and Wildlife, and the Army Corps finally came to
an agreement as to what constitutes a nontitie wet-
land.
You (Adamus) were talking about a classification
system tar wetlands, using terminology that*s not
found in Rsh and Wildlife documents. WOI there be
EPA guidance on that: do you expect each State to
classify their wetlands? What's your vision for water
quality?
A. (Adamus) EPA is certainly not going to tell
States what water quality should be. We have pilot
studies going on where we are providing technical
assistance or will be to Louisiana and Illinois. If other
States are interested In doing this with EPA on a cost-
sharing basis, we would be happy to help them out
A. (Knox) we can not educate the public until we,
the regulators, are educated. We need that technol-
ogy transfer and assistance from EPA. I don't think
anyone here wants EPA to set nationwide standards
but wants States to set their own. The standards
process can drive the education of the State
regulators, the development of State-specific criteria,
and the public education process ail at the same
time. At least in Louisiana's standards, public hear-
ings have not been that adversative unless they are
for human health criteria versus industry.
Q. What is EPA doing to beef up regulation on wet-
lands?
A. If s already been well debated in the courts that
wetlands are waters of the United States, and, by ex-
tension, waters of the State. Current regulations pro-
vide the basic framework for establishing wetlands in
States as their waters. Classification in the regulation
that wetlands are part of standards is necessary. We
did a survey of the States and found that half don't
even mention the term "wetland" or even terms re-1
lated to wetlands like "marshes," "bogs." and so forth.
There's a large disconnect out there between what
the courts have said are State standards and what
States are saying. We want to clarify that in revisions
to the regulation, and we-want to make dear that this
is not a major Qolicy change that we are proposing,
this is clarification.
Q. Does the propagation of separate standards
independent of State water quality standards service
standards for wetlands pose a problem fora national
program?
A. No, I think the adoption of the water quality
standards for wetlands is what we're trying to sup-
port through this Framework exercise. We should
identify it as a high priority for the program so that a
State like Washington, which developed its own pro-
gram, knows it is not out front by Itself but is doing
this as part of a consistent national program. A na-
tional program is underway (hopefully) if we can sup-
port this activity through the Framework, through the
right revisions of the regulation, and through
guidance and tech transfer.
C. Has anybody reviewed the final report of the
National Wetlands Policy Forum? It discusses the is-
sues of property ownership and the need for giving
incentives to private property owners to protect their
wetlands and tc ease their burden if they do it and en-
counter somv1 sf the FeO-:T;, and lcc«J taxing that
spur development This report is titled "Protecting
America's Wetlands an Acdon Agenda." I am not en-
dorsing this report as I do have some qualifications
209
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
and problems with ft, but at least It discusses the
whole assortment of issues relating to the need for
wetlands protection in a very comprehensive matter.
It is put out by the Conservation Foundation.
C. The Office of Wetlands and EPA have a draft
document that describes what other States are doing
and what EPA suggests as criteria standards relating
to 401 certification for wetlands. I would recommend
that you review it as well as the Conservation Foun-
dation report
C. A good solution,» you can afford It, is to have
the city review its zoning classification. I was involved
in a study in Juno, Alaska, where EPA worked
cooperatively in revising zoning classifications,
based on a scientific study of the functions and
values of urban wetlands.
C. The focus of this conference is on water quality
standards. Lef s work it from both ends; let*s start
getting the public involved. We've touched on educa-
tion. Three years ago, a wetlands conference was
held in Portland. Very few people showed up be-
cause It was a technical conference. Folks got
together to discuss the fact that they weren't getting
the citizens to come to this conference, so the next
year they called the it The Country and the City."
This year It was The Country and the City *2" and
next year It wfl be #3 because the conference keeps
expanding. The kind of people coming are the kinds
we all wantto get involved. On Saturday, there were a
number of field trips: two went to wetlands. Thaf s the
kind of stuff I think EPA and your area coordinators
could start themselves, get National Audubon and
wetland foundations folks to be sponsors. These
conferences would be very effective because most
people want to see what they are about and there's
that public steaming up again!
210
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1969: 211
Setting Human Health
Standards
Shing-Fu Hsueh (Moderator)
Chief, Bureau of Water Quality Standards and Analysis, Division of Water Resources
Trenton, New Jersey
The implementation of human health protection
standards is an important topic. We should focus on
four basic issues for our discussion. In all of the
State's water quality standards regulations, no toxic
materials are permitted in toxic amounts. The ques-
tion is, how are we going to take it from here and
translate narrative standards into implementable
criteria? In many cases, when a specific chemical is
identified and a chemical criterion or an advisory is
available, then we can use the criterion to develop
water quality-based effluent limits. But. in the ab-
sence of criteria and advisory, what can we do?
There are three options: The State can use
whatever scientific information is available and
develop its own scientific criteria; the State can wait
untfl the scientific community makes the information
and criteria available; and, based on the technology,
the State can require the permittees to comply with
technology-based requirements. Regardless of
which option we choose, we can say that the State
will use the available scientific information and come
up with numbers for regulatory purposes. Implemen-
tation of narrative human health protection standards
is the topic of concern for this discussion.
the next most important issue concerns accept-
able risk levels. We all know that different States have
adopted different risk levels. If I remember correctly,
EPA specifies four options to protect human health
from carcinogens: States can use maximum con-
taminant levels (MCLs) for the protection of all
potable water sources, or we can use an excess car-
cinogenic risk of 10 to the minus 5,10 to the minus 6,
or 10 to the minus 7 as the basis for criteria. Some
States use 10 to the minus 6, others use 10 to the
minus 5 or even 4, and some are currently proposing
MCLs. Should carcinogen risk levels be consistent?
This is a policy decision, and I would like to hear your
reaction to this issue.
The third issue is, once we set criteria, what do we
do with them? What do we do if we need to take both
duration and frequency of exposure into considera-
tion? Lastly, where can human health criteria be ap-
plied? We all know that when it comes to human
health considerations, we have to think about dif-
ferent routes for human exposure. Route one is from
drinking water, which is obviously a major source of
exposure. The second route is from fish consump-
tion. There may be other significant exposure routes
via water, such as taking a shower and so on, but the
exact extent of contribution has not been completely
established.
All of us know that water quality standards criteria
have to be applied to the entire receiving waterbody.
There are some people, however, who think that ap-
plying those criteria to the points of water intakes
adequately protects potable water sources and that
criteria based on fish consumption should be applied
•• to the areas where fishing is permitted. In other
words, where should human health criteria be ap-
plied, based on uses? This is yet another issue that
we need to discuss.
211
-------
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1969: 213-216
The Human Health Issue Pertaining to
Risk Assessment
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin
Chief, Systemic Toadcants Assessment Branch,Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
UJ5. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio
To begin to identify and define the issues associated
with human health risk assessment, we must first
look at where we are In determining risks associated
with environmental pollution. Presently, we are in-
volved in the derivation of chemical-specific criteria
and subsequent chemical-specific regulations. I wil!
briefly review our methods. To ensure Agency con-
sistency, program offices within EPA decide on a ref-
erence dose, or Rfl> (formerly called the acceptable
daiy Intake, or ADI). This is derived by using human
or animal data to define a no-adverse-effect level
(NOAEL) or a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level
(LOAEL) for a particular chemical and dividing by an
appropriate uncertainty factors) and modifying fac-
tor (Table 1). The RfD is then used to estimate a water
quality criterion by applying certain assumptions per-
taining to body weight, water consumption, seafood
consumption, and the btoconcentration factor for
that particular chemical. The particular assumptions
are that the protected individual is an adult, weighing
70 kflograms, drinking 2 liters of water per day. and
consuming 6.5 grants of fish per day.
Table 1.—Risk
__ NOAH. OM LOAEL
"PD" UPxMP
WnWe)
NOAH. -
LOAEL -
UF
MP
whteti no siattacttty or ttotogicatty sign*-
cant indteaflon of the tone effect of con-
cern ia<
Lowaat-Obaertfed-Advene-erect Level.
The towaatexperfcnentaJly determined doae.-
at which stattattcaNy or bwtogjcatty stgniff-
cart indication of the toxic effect of con-
Uncertainty factor
An additional factor to reflect tha profes*
sionat judgment in evaluating paculiaiiliaa
of trie data basa.
The exposure assumptions are currently under
review. We have not validated or verified the 2 liters of
water per day, although we assume thai is repre-
sentative of the consumption of the entire population.
In 1980 when we first published the ambient water
quality criteria, we assumed that, on the average,
humans consumed 6.5 grams of fish and shellfish per
day. We now believe that this estimate is low con-
sidering changing life-styles and the public's aware-
ness of health hazards associated with the
consumption of red meat EPA and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture are studying market basket sur-
veys to determine an appropriate range of fish and
shellfish consumption. This range will be provided to
the States and regions so that they can then decide
what value is appropriate for their area.
Additional assumptions must be made in the
derivation of chemical-specific criteria. When EPA
derives ambient water quality criteria, it assumes that
there is no effect of treatment on the contaminant of
concern (La., whether water treatment alters the
chemical, physical, or biological properties of the
parent compound); that exposure is to a single
chemical at a given time via a single route (in this
case, ingesdon); and that exposure is continuous
over a lifetime. At this point EPA does not correct for
the fact that exposure may be intermittent or vary
widely in amount over'a period of time.
A common interpretation of the EPA's risk es-
timates is, first and foremost that regardless of the
limitations or assumptions, these estimates are con-
servative. This is based on the rationale that maxi-
mum uncertainty factors are used and that
assumptions made tend to en- on the side of conser-
vatism. In addition, EPA has not identified any dis-
ease outbreaks that have been associated with
chemical contamination, although it is very difficult to
associate outbreaks with exposure to a particular
chemical.
Bur I don't believe that the statement that EPA's
estimates are conservative apply across the board.
Admittedly, the definition of a RfO is var*** It is "an
estimate, with uncertainty spanning an order of mag-
nitude, of a daily exposure to a human population
(which includes sensitive subgroups) that is likely to
be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime.* What does this mean? Being
vague, it does not define a particular risk level but
213
-------
C SONOtMUUJN
rather b an indication of EPA's attempt to quantify ac-
ceptable risk levels. The RfDbestirnaied and verified
by consensus of key Agency program offices. At
present there Is no statistical validity done to justify
the RfO; in the future, such tests should be under-
taken.
In an ideal example. Figure 1 demonstrates now
adverse effects depend on both dose and exposure
duration. Above the line drawn adverse effects are
observed, and below the line no effects are ob-
served. In estimating an RfO, we use human and
animal data to estimate this line.
Dose
(mg/kg/dy)
8
1 10 100 1000
(days)
ngur»1
However Figure 2 shows actual animal data for a
particular chemical. Obviously, the actual data are
not as neat as those shown ideally In Figure 1.
Severity of effects as well as appropriateness of the
data must be evaluated to describe the dose
response relationship. We would like to say that this
is done very scientifically, but in a lot of instances it is
just our best guess or best estimate at a point In time.
EPA really needs more data to validate the RfO.
An additional interpretation is that, at water quality
criteria levels, interactions among chemicals do not
pose significant health threats. The justification is
that if interactions are Important something would
show up. such as unexplainable health effects. There
is also a common belief that the chemicals on the list
to be regulated are the important chemicals of con-
cern, so any chemicals that might result from the in-
teractions of these specific chemicals are probably
not important with respect to human health. I tend to
disagree with that and think we need to look at inter-
actions more doseiy.
Having looked at the limitations, the assumptions,
and some of the uncertainties involved in criteria
derivation, we need to examine what refinements are
necessary. The Office of Research and Development
has instituted a program called the Research to Im-
prove Health Risk Assessments (RIHRA) Program.
Basically it is an effort that taps across all program
areas within the Agency to formally develop a pro-
gram for EPA to begin to answer some of these ques-
tions. I rove taken inforniatic^ from that program and
the development plan and have adapted it specifical-
ly for the derivation of water quality criteria (Table 2).
Table 2.—Major components of hearth risk issess-
MAJOR COMPONENTS ,
OP HEALTH RISK MAJOR COMPONENTS Of RESEARCH TO
IMPROVE HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS
Environmental levels Exposure assessment.
(water cuicentraDOfi) • fate and transport
• direct vs. indirect
-human exposure models
-human activity patterns
• kJentMcaUoii of target populations
! and water consumption
(amount ingested)
Phy
pharmacokinetic
tp
amp
influence of varying exposure
static
•40
Delivered dose
(dose to "enttcar
organ)
Health effects
structure activity relationships
BiologicaUv-oased dose response
inter- and intraspecies extrapolation
•less-man-lifetime to cnrorac
mechanism of action
statistical models to combine studies
Uncertainty analysis
clanficaoon of assumptions
evaluation of uncertainties
-define "critical-
are a number of ways of looking at the major
components of health risk assessment, going from
hazardous assessment, to dose response, to risk
characterization. But, for this particular example, I
started with hazard identification or identification of
environmental levels, in this case the concentration
that actual!/ occurs In ambient water. To get to the
final criterion or assessi.*** of health effects, we
need to move from the level that you see in the en-
vironment to the amount that is actually applied: the
applied dose or the amount that is actually ingested
by the organism. Once you know that, then you need
to look further to determine the delivery dose — the
dose that actually reaches the tissue or the critical
214
-------
WATER OUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21« CENTURY, 1
-------
CL SGMCH-MUUJN
so the Agency should tit working toward refining.
method* Howevei; I propose a wmplernentary ap-
proach whera we continue to refine our methods: to
improve our systemic tooddty methods by looking at
such things as synergistic effects and uncertainty
analysis; to come up with realistic RfDs: to reflect
these issues in guidelines tar ambient water quality
criteria derivation; and to update subsequent criteria,
But In addition and maybe more Importantly.. EPA
needs to begin to develop realistic tools for regutat-
Ing means hi water. TWa is one area where both
EPA and the entire reiearch community are rather
behind. The single chemical and mixtures ap-
proaches are compared hi Table 3.
Table 3.—Comparison
Lknttod to dwnJCsiis on
MattooaragUatad
Ooaa not account for
interactions among
• InCfcjdtal ChMTVCeVS flOt OO
M to oa raguUMd
• AcBDunfBtarMaracdona
Nacaaaaty for ooffloaanca
wMCWA
aOfva pfObMMI) Of 1
Abundaneaof<
Data an variaty of cffacta
• Uttaornoeaa
• Aaaaya daai wM)
unaamay to davatop
EPA needs to assess 8s regulations, based on
complex bloassays tor the human exposure sttua*
tion. We presently have data that we can use to imnk
chemicals and complex effluents, or determine if
they pass or fal a particular test but we need a
method to quantify that risk and further apply It to
human situations. EPA needs to fund research to
determine the applicablity and utfltty of these btoas-
say results so that It can begin to decide on a series
of tests to use, based on research. For example. EPA
should identify a level of response in either specific
test systems or a combination of test systems and
define it as critical. Although this seems a difficult
task, it Is not novel. A few years back EPA had to look
at all the models that were available for cancer risk
assessment and go out on a limb and choose one. I
think we are going to have to start doing the same for
mixturee.
The single-chemical approach is limited to chemi-
cala on a Dat to be regulated. If EPA looks at a mix-
turea approach; It wH include chemicals that are not
on the list to be regulated but might pose a significant
health threat to the exposed population. The regula-
tion of single chemicals may not account for interac-
tions; obviously, the regulation of mixtures will. The
single chemical-approach is necessary for com-
pliance with the Clean Water Act, but the mixtures ap-
proach may more realistically solve problems of
water pollution. There is an abundance of data on
single chemicals (though perhaps not enough to as-
sess them), but very little data on mixtures. The data
that are avalable on single chemicals cover a variety
of effects, whereas the assays that have been used to
assess mixtures deal with genotoxic effects and car-
dnogenidty. However ERA'S health effects research
lab is beginning to develop additional tests for the as*
says and not just concentrate on genotoxic effects.
In summary, and in addressing the question of
where risk assessment is and where it should be
going, I don't think EPA should limit itself by refining.
its methods to derive single-chemical criteria. We
should continue to perfect risk assessment
.methodology for single chemicals but with one goal
In mind, that la to provide realistic chemical-specific
assessments. However. In addition, we need to ad-
dress the real problem of what we face in the environ-
ment—exposure to chemical mfactures.
216
-------
WATER QUALITY tTANOARDS FOR 21* CENTURY, 1988: 217-218
Setting Human Health Standards
Philip R Vorsatz
Chief, Water Quality Standards Unit
UiS. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV,'Atlanta, Georgia
In February 1987 Congress placed upon EPA and the
States some very important responsibilities for estab-
lishing water quality standards for toxic pollutants,
along with some very tight time frames. Today in
Region IV some two years later, we are stfll struggling
with the detals of those requirements.
Seven of the eight Region IV States are currently
involved in the triennial review of water quality stan-
dards. Six are projected to be completed before Sep-
tember 30, 1989. As you would expect, the major
activity in each of these triennial reviews is the
revision of State standards to comply with section
303 (cj (2) (B) of the dean Water Act As manager of
the water quality standards program in Region IV, it is
my responsibility to provide guidance and assistance
to the States in the course of their reviews and to
review and recommend agency approval or disap-
proval of the revised standards.
The first thing I would like to briefly discuss is a
draft Region IV position on review of water quality
standards that we are using to provide direction to
States and ultimately for our review and approval/dis-
approval decisions. 1 wli limit my focus to Region I Vs
position on adoption of human health standards.
In determining compliance with section
303(c)(2)(B). Region IV win require the adoption of
numeric criteria that protect designated uses. For ex-
ample, consumption offish and shellfish by humans
is currently an integral part of the fishing or aquatic
life use classifications in almost all waters of each
Region IV State. Narrative criteria exist in all of our
State standards to protect this use. At least since
1986. and in some cases earlier, water quality-based
effluent limits have been Included in NPOES permits
to protect this use. Section 303(c) of the Act now
dearly requires each of Region IVs States to adopt
numeric water quality criteria hi standards to protect
human exposure through fish consumption and also
for those waters designated as drinking water sup-
plies.
EPA section 2304(a) criteria for protection of
human health based on consumption of aquatic or-
ganisms are appropriate for use in developing State
water quality criteria to protect aquatic life consump-
tion. Jnir.. -, a iTiore recent carcinogenic potency fac-
tor (ncMhreshold toxicants) or reference dose (for
threshold toxicants) has been derived by EPA,
Region IV State standards must reflect the EPA
304(a) criteria for protection of human health from
consumption of aquatic organisms.
Site-specific criteria may be appropriate if a State
wishes to adjust EPA criteria to reflect site-specific
consumption rates or site-specific bioaccumulation
information.
The first section 304(a) criteria documents, issued
by EPA in 1980, noted that the only safe pollutant
level for carcinogens is zero. However, when the pol-
lutants were present, EPA had estimated the con-
centrations for a combination of drinking water and
aquatic life consumption by humans that yield can-
cer risk levels of 1:10** (100,000), 1:10* (1 in 1 mil-
lion), and 1:10'7 (1 in 10 million).
Region IV will recommend and encourage States
to adopt a 1:10*8 cancer risk level for all nonthreshold
toxicants. The region will accept a 1:10*5 cancer risk
level without any special justification. When a State
seeks to set human exposure to a particular cancer
risk level greater than 1:10"5. it must provide EPA with
a rationale to support this decision. The Region views
the requirements for such a analysis and justification
as similar to a use attainability analysis. As in use at-
tainability analyses, we would expect successful site-
specific justifications based on widespread social or
economic impacts of complying with statewide
criteria or other bases such as natural pollutant levels
or irretrievable, human-induced conditions.
Region IV wfll not approve criteria in State water
quality standards that are based on levels of quantita-
tion or detection. Criteria should be based on the
designated use of the receiving stream and on the
... best scientific information on pollutant effects. The
most obvious utility of this approach is reflected in
the development of wastetoad allocations based on
criteria that are below normal levels of detection.
Often these wasteload allocations result in permit
limits well above detection levels in effluents. These
actions, which implement the section 303(c)(2)(B)
guidance, are appropriate for Region IV and will as-
sure that States meet the requirements of the Act We
have one final and five draft revisions to State water
quality standards already submitted for review.
Region IV needs at least this level of specificity to
complete review of State standards.
217
-------
P.M. VORSATZ
Lastly, I would like to suggest that discussion at
the national level focus on the following questions
and issues:
• What is EPA's role In selection of a risk level in
State water quality standards? Does the Clean
Water Act and especially Its interim goal of
flshable/swimmable (where attainable), limit
our flexiblity in selecting risk levels?
• Does EPA need to be concerned with national
consistency? One of my State program
managers told me that he would not survive in
his job if he selected a cancer risk level more
stringent than a neighboring State and that
decision Impacted the location of a major new
industrial facBtty.
• How does antlbacksliding fit into our decision
making on setting human health criteria? Do
we need more guidance from EPA on the
potential impact of the new antibacksliding
language in the Clean Water Act?
• How does developing new or revised criteria
for human health protection fit into our 10-year
framework? Do we need more
information/technology transfer? (In Region IV
several of our State agencies have commented
that the recent outreach seminar on water
quality criteria was one of the most beneficial
information transfer seminars EPA has ever
• Do we need better communication on changes
to bases for criteria such as cancer potency
factors, reference dose factors through IRIS,' or
through quarterly updates from Headquarters?
• Lastly, do we need more research into
chemical criteria/advisories and whole effluent
methods?
218
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21« CENTURY. 1969: 219-220
Louisiana's Approach to Setting Human
Health Standards — One State's Perspective
DuganS.Sabins
Environmental Quality Coordinator, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
In 1984 Louisiana established, in its water quality
standards, a limited number of human health criteria
for a very specific group of toxic substances com-
posed of chlorinated pesticides and other sub-
stances infrequently detected in effluents or in in-
stream waters. Although this was a significant first
step for Louisiana, upon evaluation during the
present triennial review, we found that these criteria
were largely unresponsive to present needs. In addi-
tion, the only human health numbers adopted In 1984
were for public water supplies at 10*9 risk level for
carcinogens. This was obviously inadequate to
protect human health in the majority of Louisiana's
waters that were not public water supplies.
During the present triennial review, we also
evaluated the results of a new data base on a series
of volatile organic chemicals found in both the Mis-
sissippi River and other State waterbodies that
received industrial discharges. These chemicals in-
cluded such common industrial compounds as ben-
zene, 1,2-dtehloroethane, vinyl chloride, and carbon
tetrachloride. Since many of the chemicals were
known or suspected carcinogens and designated
priority pollutants, we became concerned when we
found concentrations that exceeded some EPA
Quality Criteria for Water (Gold Book) numbers for
human health. Because of uncertainty about the EPA
approach and development of human health criteria,
Louisiana, as other States, was reluctant to use them
and tried instead to use aquatic toxicity criteria for
control. However, upon review we found that the
majority of these chemicals had very low toxicity to
aquatic life and, because of this, EPA has not yet
proposed aquatic life criteria for them. It became ob-
vious that if we were to have any control over the con-
centrations of these chemicals in State waters, we
had to develop and use human health criteria. One
other relevant factor concerned the recently
developed section 304(1) lists, which, for Louisiana.
had included at least three waterbodies that were
determined to have impaired water uses because of
point source discharges of some of these chemicals.
And so with this emerging situation immediately at
hand, what should Louisiana be doing? The answer
appeared to be to develop and set human health
standards to control problem chemicais-which led
directly to how can we do it? Our first response was
to go immediately to the EPA Gold Book to try to un-
derstand all the voluminous "qualifying" language,
and. we thought, to simply "adopt" the appropriate
numbers for the chemicals in question. Needless to
say, it wasn't that easy. Since we would have to ex-
plain and defend these numbers to the regulated
community and concerned public, we decided to
develop an understanding of the whole EPA process.
However, we found that there was no readily avail-
able process of technology transfer available to
States. A breakthrough occurred when, in collabora-
tion with our Region VI Water Quality Standards
coordinator, we retrieved and reviewed various EPA
support programs and documents, including the
newly developed Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS).
At last we had a basic understanding of the for-
mulas and equations involved in criteria develop-
ment—but we still had lingering doubts about using
them. So after numerous phone calls and consul-
tations with EPA representatives in the Office of Re-
search and Development lab in Cincinnati and Head-
quarters Criteria and Standards Division in
Washington. D.C.. the first EPA-State Human Health
Workshop was set up and held in Baton Rouge "in
August 1988. It was so successful that more than a
dozen other such workshops have been held sub-
sequently across the country.
After the workshop, we moved to adopt defensible
and appropriate human health criteria for Louisiana
The process we have used to develop them employs
the basic EPA equation that uses selected risk factors
and cancer slope factors for carcinogens and refer-
ence dose values (RFD) for noncarcinogens. The
equation gives the States the option of choosing a
carcinogen risk factor we have chosen 10"6. For
public water supply, the standard daily intake of 2
liters is applied in the equation, but it is left out when
calculating fc, ^ateracdies not so designated. The
States are also given the option of protecting for fish
consumption in the equation by including the
219
-------
0.& SABINS
bioconcentration factor. A flsh consumption rate,
which can be the nationally used 6.5 grams or a num-
ber derived or selected specifically for State condi-
tions, is also applied in the equation.
Finally, the States also have the option of including
consideration for incidental ingestion of water and
dermal absorption of water through the skin while
swimming. We have proposed to add a set amount
for incidental ingestion in the equations to protect for
swimming but wffl hold out (for now) on adding'con-
sideration for dermal absorption (though some
evidence Indicates it could be a significant route of
exposure for some chemicals) because the
documentation is not strong enough at present The
basic equations used for criteria calculations are
contained in the November 28, 1980. Federal
Register Notice of Avaiabiity of Water Quality
Criteria Documents (Vol. 45. No. 231) and an upcom-
ing guidance publication being prepared by the Of-
fice of Water Regulations and Standards, entitled,
"Establishment of Ambient Criteria to Limit Human
Exposure To Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish."
Using this procedure, we have proposed human
health criteria for 31 toxic substances In both public
and non-public water supplies.
As you may deduct, there were several groups in-
volved in the process of developing and proposing
defensible and appropriate human health criteria.
One of the most important, of course, is the financial-
ly strapped State Water Quality Agency, which is sad-
dled with the responsiblity of proposing to develop
human health criteria to protect State waters and
then developing the criteria, defending them, and
promulgating them into State law. Enter the EPA as
the national environmental agency authorized by
Congress first to assist the States to develop and
adopt water quality standards and then to produce
the standards itself if the States do not Congress
gave EPA far more research and development
money than the States to gather, analyze, and or-
ganize the best scientifically collected data available
and develop defensible criteria or criteria ap-
proaches for the States' use. Within EPA, the regions,
ORO laboratories, and Headquarters must get
together and organize good technology transfer sys-
tems for the States—not simply send us a dry docu-
ment and say go to it best wishes.
I think EPA is moving in that direction. As a result
of our needs in Louisiana, a national technology
transfer program is now being developed that should
bring the States and EPA much doser together in
protecting the Nation's waters for human health. In
my view, nothing short of this effort is needed if we
are to succeed. There are also roles for environmen-
tal organizations such as the National Wildlife
Federation. National Resource Defense Council, and
other citizen and public groups, as well as for the
regulated community in industry and municipalities.
The process is open enough that when the States
and EPA collaborate to make a proposal for human
health protection, adequate opportunity for outside
Input is afforded through public participation
programs. Certainly State and EPA regulations al-
ready reflect the roles of these groups in their
development This Office is presently considering
comments from various interest groups that were
submitted on an early water quality standards draft
developed for the present triennial revision.
One last comment Ohio, Michigan, and a few
other States have adopted a human health standards
approach that does not involve the promulgation of
numeric criteria. After some review, we have con-
cluded that Louisiana does not have the expertise or
the inclination at this lime to develop such detailed
technical approaches to the issue. Perhaps this may
be feasible at some time in the future. For the
present the State and EPA need to continue estab-
lishing doser interactions, with consultation of out-
side interest groups, to develop the best human
health criteria for Louisiana's waters.
220
-------
WATS) QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY, 1988: 221-225
Water Quality Standards and Human
Health: New Approaches
Douglas N.Rader
Senior Scientist, North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, North Carolina
The national goals established hi the 1972 Federal
Water Pollution Control Act continue to be the
primary driving force behind water quality regula-
tions, retaining the following long-overdue dates in
the latest iteration, the Water Quality Act of 1987:
1. It is the national goal that the discharge of pol-
lutants into the navigable waters be eliminated
by 1985;
2. 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 recrea-
tion In and on the water be achieved by July 1,
1983.33U.S.C.1251(a).
In addition, this legislation stipulates that
3. It is the national policy that the discharge of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited.
33U.S.C.l251(a).
Taken together, these statements dearly require
that discharges not just be reduced to the point
where toxic impacts do not occur (including sub-
lethal effects based on chronic exposure), they must
be eliminated completely.
How are we doing? Pretty poorly, by most indica-
tions. Instead of reducing the numbers of permitted
discharges, we are escalating them. In North
Carolina alone, the number of new discharges per-
mitted in a year has grown from 490 In1982 to almost
1.000 In 1987. Granted, some portion of this increase
has resulted from bringing new types of discharges
into the system (single-family residences, privately
owned package plants) but even so. more and more
of our major rivers are water-quality limited with no
assimilative capacity available for additional dis-
charges. We are neither reducing the volumes of
waste discharged nor saving assimilative capacity
for growth in the future.
Overall, the pollution discharge program in this
country is moving increasingly toward a highly tech-
nical p/ogram based on complex water quality and
human health modeling. Several important implica-
tions of this shift have been largely ignored. One
major change has resulted from wasteload allocation
methodology. The relocation of discharges from
small tributaries into the main bodies of streams and
rivers, which is often facilitated by high-technology
pollution-maskers like diffusers and side-stream
aerators, has produced an increase in pollution
delivered into our most critical waters because the
reduced average travel time results in reduced as-
slmlation. A side effect of the shift to technology is to
delay and in many cases subvert the goals of the na-
tional dean water legislation. Not only are discharg-
es not reduced, they may be expanded once the
enhanced dButive capacity of the higher flow streams
are utilized.
In addition to discharging to bigger streams and
deaner streams, polluters also may reduce loadings
to surface waters without reducing total pollution out-
put Unfortunately, pollution control has become an
environmental shell game: move the pollution to the
least regulated^nedium. For example, Federal Paper
Board Company in Columbus County, North
Carolina, has experienced significant problems with
total reduced sulfur discharges to the air. EPA regula-
tions required them to strip total reduced sulfur from
their air discharges but did not regulate the disposal
of the materials obtained. Because Federal Paper is
discharging to surface waters under a Special Order
by Consent (SOC) that is calculated to allow them to
be in compliance while constructing a pollution
abatement system, they have been allowed to ex-
pand their surface discharge for biochemical oxygen
demand from roughly 9,000 Ibs/day to almost 13,000
Ibs/day. Roughly 60 percent of this increase resulted
... from "sewering" of waste produced by total reduced
sulfur control equipment The air quality controls
reduced air pollution but also transferred waste
materials into the water, even though water quality
standards were already being violated.
The paucity of meaningful air pollution regulations
is directly responsible for significant surface water
pollution. Texasgulf, Inc., on the Pamllco River has
been extremely helpful during negotiations about
their surface water discharges and has agreed to ac-
cept a permit that wfll reduce total phosphate load-
ings by approximately 95 percent using a total
recycle system. However, because aerial emissions
were less well regulated, the company was allowed
_-_
-------
D.N.RADER
to discharge over 4 mfflion pounds of ammonia into
the air above the Pamllco River in 1987. Even if only 5
percent of that amount was transferred into the water,
200,000 pounds of ammonia would be delivered into
this nutrient-sensitive estuary. We are currently work-
Ing with both companies to achieve more acceptable
solutions to their pollution problems.
Unfortunately, these examples are not isolated. A
statewide survey of SARA data found that roughly
100 million pounds of toxicants per year are
delivered into North Carolina's air - but only about 8
percent of firms responding reported any efforts at
waste minimization or source reduction As the least
regulated medium, air takes the bulk of current pollu-
tion discharges. New data from the Great Lakes and
elsewhere (Including the Environmental Defense
Fund's (EOF) recent report on nutrient loadings to
estuaries from atmospheric deposition) have clearly
demonstrated that aerially transported pollutants
have great impacts on surface waters, in addition to
their human health Impacts.
Water Quality and Human Health
My primary message related to .human health im-
plications of water quality standards is the need for
conservatism. When we deal with human health, we
are attempting to protect individuals instead of
populations. In other words, whereas it Is acceptable
in aquatic life protection for some individual or-
ganisms to die as long as the populations of those or-
ganisms remain Intact, we must protect every
individual human from even sublethal effects. Be-
cause we are unwflling to engage in direct ex-
perimentation upon human populations, we cannot
produce specific no-effect levels that include all pos-
sible sublethal effects. We depend instead upon
statistical Inference based on epkJemiological
evidence or extrapolations from artificial experimen-
tal systems (e.g., tissue culture, bacterial or animal
tests). These tests are improving (how much remains
uncertain) for some sublethal manifestations such as
tumors but are less effective for others such as
changes in reproductive functions. After working with
the National Institute of Environmental Health Scien-
ces' doing tissue culture with human and rodent cells
and contributing in a small way to the data base cur-
rently being used to set human health standards, I
doubt seriously that we know as much as we need to
know about exactly which substances at what con-
centrations cause significant sublethal health effects
in humans.
Even worse, no biological safety net is available
for substances that might compromise human
health. Even when proposed new standards are
adopted in most States, we will fall far short of the
regulation of the 126 substances listed as priority pol-
lutants. In aquatic life protection, North Carolina is
now requiring whole effluent toxicity testing, which
should correct in part for our incomplete water
quality standard program. Nowhere do we have a
simlar test related to human health. Therefore, when
the discharge restriction system fails (whether ac-
cidentally or on purpose), substances released that
are harmful to human health are not likely to be
Currently, we depend upon water treatment and
the notoriously bad luck of fishermen to protect
human health. Unfortunately, maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) in drinking water were derived largely
from technological and economic factors rather than
science related to health protection. A sizable body
of information is being assembled to suggest that
many MCLs should be moving toward the maximum
contaminant goals. Lead standards for drinking
water should probably be reduced to the 5 to lO/ig/L
range, at least The EPA surface water criterion for
aquatic We protection for lead is 3.2 jig/L. yet it is
politically difficult to justify aquatic life standards and
accompanying discharge limitations (especially to
smaU streams) So far below the drinking water stan-
dard. In some instances In urban streams, water dis-
charged and treated for human consumption could
not be discharged even if never used! More environ-
mentally reasonable drinking water standards (and
better urban nohpoint control programs) can help
address this problem. The bottom line is that the
human health protection program should be more
conservative and comprehensive.
Translating the Narrative Standard
Given this need for real conservatism In protecting
human health, it Is dear that current procedures for
adopting numeric criteria are inadequate to the task.
The ponderous nature of the regulatory process as-
sures that we wfll always be behind the eight bail in
dealing with potential toxicants unless the basic
politics of pollution can be amended.
In fact, we are just beginning to get adequate in-
formation on exactly what is being discharged into
our waters. Annual priority pollutant scans have just
been required for all new or renewed major permits in
North Carolina, but it will take five years to get the re-
quirement into all such permits. Annual scans pro-
vide modest information at best about overall
discharges. Additional new information on discharg-
es is available under SARA title III, section 313 (Emer-
222
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21 it CENTURY. 1988: 221-225
Tabto 1.—
COMPOUND
formaldenyds
etnytone oxida
1,1,1-tnehloroetnarw
1.2.4-trichtorobonzene
1 .2.4-tncnloroben.wne
1 .Z4-tnmethylbenzene
"tetrachtoroetnytene
•tetrachtoroetnylene
nhljtrtfyfaim* w»
cntorofonn
rneiafTUTM)
xylerw
bjpnenyt
nwinyl tert-outvt ether
CARONOGEN
group 81
group 81
—
—
—
—
group 82
group 82
group 82
—
_
—
—
COMPANY
8«Wing Corticelli
Abbott Laos.
Burlington Inds.
United Piece Dye
Travia Knits
Travis Knits
Collins and Aikrnan
Travis Knits
Champion Inti.
Burlington Inds*
Stanly Knitting
United Mac* Dye
Burroughs Welcome
AMOUNT (MEDIUM)
62.800 Ibs-yr. (POTW)
81 .700 IDS- yr. (POTW)
45.600 Ibs^yr. (POTW)
36, 180 IDS./ yr. (NPDES)
52.249 Ibs^yr. (NPDES)
17.575 Ibs-yr. (NPDES)
77,242 Ibs-yr. (POTW)
42.192 Ibs^yr. (NPDES)
28.000 Iba.yr. (NPOES)
42.000 Ibs^yr. (POTW)
97.744 los^'yr. (POTW)
28.876 Ibs^yr. (NPOES)
' 54.000 Ibs-yr. (POTW)
gency Planning and Community Right to Know Act).
In North Carolina. EOF has computerized this infor-
mation and identified many known toxicants, admit*
tedly discharged, for which no water quality standard
exists. Some examples are listed in Table 1, with
asterisks denoting compounds with proposed
human health standards in North Carolina.
When these compounds are discharged to public-
ly owned treatment works (POTWs), they may be
volatilized and transported back to the surface
waters through the air.
The lesson is dear existing information from all
sources must be integrated so that all significant
chemical discharges are regulated.
Another problem is that information often is
scarce enough to prevent effective regulatory action.
A specific compound has to be dearly indicted as a
serious contributor to health impairment before it is
limited. Because costs for these analyses are often
prohibitive, the pace of regulation can only be
described as snafl-like. In addition, the industries in-
volved are often the major source of Information, a
potential conflict in interest The burden-of-proof
shoe is on the wrong foot EOF has been instrumen-
tal in beginning to address this problem in California,
where the adoption of Proposition 65 has required
producers of chemicals known to be carcinogenic or
to cause reproductive toxtetty to warn the public of
exposures to those chemicals, when the exposures
are above de minimis levels. Proposition 65 is unique
in that it requires the producer to demonstrate that
levels of a material are safe, thereby reversing the
burden of proof.
When Should Standards Apply?
It is generally accepted that the protection of aquatic
life in waters of the United States must include
chronic effects. Mos States r.y?e that .;;:ih protec-
tion must therefore extend to low Sow conditions,
such as 7Q10 (the lowest flow that occurs over 7 con-
secutive days, once every 10 years). Even though
human health protection is generally doser to the
hearts of the regulatory community, the level of
protection is not always as high as it should be. Be-
cause long-term rates are normally used in calculat-
ing human exposures, many States use mean flows
for this purpose. Mean flows are not conservative
enough to protect human health adequately. The
arithmetic mean as currently used badly underes-
timates the true average exposure through time of
fish to environmental contaminants, because of the
skewed distribution for flows. A method for avoiding
this problem is the use of the harmonic mean instead
of the arithmetic mean. Average concentrations are
more dosefy related to the average of 1/flow than to
1/(average flow). For example, the Tar River in North
Carolina has a harmonic mean flow of 602.3 frVs
which represents excess potential concentrations of
a pollutant almost exactly equal to potential deficits
(if the loading is constant). In contrast the arithmetic
mean flow is 2177.2 ftf/s and excess concentrations
exceed concentration deficits by about 20 times.
Harmonic mean flows should be used in calculating
exposures to compounds that result from eating fish
or from contact recreation, as an interim step toward
even more conservative methodology.
Acceptable Levels of Risk
We were asked to address whether specific risk
levels are required for nonthreshold toxicants, and
who should set them. Frankly, the current EPA policy
of allowing individual States to set risk levels for car-
cinogens is a disaster. At this conference we have
heard of States adopting or proposing ail possible
levels, from 10~* to 10'5 to 10* to MCLs. and even of
one State refusing to set a level at all.
Enough site-specific "fudge factors" exist in stan-
dard setting procedures as it is. The risk level should
be set at 10* by Federal mandate; lower risk levels
could be adopted by individual States. Risk levels
223
-------
O.N.RAD6H
higher than 10"6 are unacceptable, especially when
risks associated with exposures to individual chemi-
cals from individual sources accumulate into more
sizable risks. Proponents of higher risk levels argue
that one in three people will develop cancer in a
lifetime, and that incremental risks on the order of
10"* are ridiculously small; I argue that an existing in-
tegrated risk of 0.33 proves that our approaches to
risk management are wholly inadequate. The recent
brouhaha over the risk assessment for 2,3.7.8-
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCOO) Bustrates the con-
troversy and politics involved in risk assessment
TCDD is one of the most toxic substances known and
is a strong animal carcinogen, yet Its potency as a
human carcinogen continues to be debated. (A
detailed discussion of this problem Is found In EOF
lexicologist Ellen SDbergeld's testimony to the Sub-
committee on Water Resources contained in the
Hearing Record "Otoxln Pollution in the Pigeon River,
North Carolina and Tennessee." [100-70], 1988. aval-
able from the Superintendent of Documents.) Unfor-
tunately, in this case political and economic
concerns have appeared to play at least as important
a role as science in Agency dedsionmaking.
One way to improve the adequacy of our risk as-
sessment procedures would be to base aB risk as-
sessments on overall impacts of permitted pollution.
The highest level of incremental risk allowed should
be 1 in a million, but that risk would be integrated
across an entire facility Instead of being associated
with each chemical discharged to each medium.
The piecemeal regulation of substances Ignores
cumulative or synergistic impacts. For example, the
recent flurry of activity on chlorinated dloxins and
furans related to papermaking has focused on TCOO.
admittedly the most toxic of the lot But 2,3.7,8-
tetracrdorodibenzofuran (TCDF) is usually present in
10 times the concentrations of TCOO, making up for
its relative toxidty of one-tenth. Even when all dioxins
and furans are reported in terms of TCOO equivalent
units, the implications of the discharge of ad
chlorinated organic compounds from pulp mils Is
usually not evaluated. The public policy question of
expediting replacement of chlorine gas-based
bleaching units at pulp mffls, therefore, is usually as-
sessed in terms of TCDD produced and its estimated
health impacts, instead of the proper question: the
estimated health (and aquatic life) impacts of all
known toxicants produced by the chlorine bleaching
process. The paper industry effectively minimizes the
perception of significant impacts by dividing them
into small, discrete chunks.
In many ways, we continue to squabble over tech-
nical minutia. when obvious and straightforward
mechanisms exist to make significant progress on
reducing toxicant discharges.
Innovative Responses
Stones are easily (and commonly) thrown at
regulatory programs, but criticism is irrelevant if not
backed up with constructive suggestions. In North
Carolina, we have been struggling with some of the
same problems, and I hope we can offer a few per-
tinent recommendations.
The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission has just approved for public hearing a
proposed regulation requiring preliminary efforts at
source reduction for all new or renewed discharges
to waters better than the standards (roughly 90 per-
cent of North Carolina's waters). This regulation was
developed by Jim Kennedy (North Carolina Coastal
Federation) and me during the Triennial Review of
Water Quality Standards and approved by an ad hoc
committee Including environmental, industrial, and
municipal representatives. It will require prospective
dischargers to "document an effort to reduce waste
generation through source reduction and or recy-
cling techniques." It also allows local governments to
contribute to the assessment as to whether a
proposed discharge is "necessary for important
economic and social development" and allows them
Input on planning the allocation of assimilative
capacity within their jurisdictions. This regulation will
provide the impetus for real progress toward the
elimination of unnecessary discharges.
Another topic discussed at some length by the ad
hoc committee related to the continuing emphasis
on "big sticks" to enforce water pollution control re-
quirements. We came to a consensus that strict
regulatory and enforcement action must be supple-
mented by effective, incentive-based mechanisms to
allow maximization of pollution-reduction efficiency
in this age of diminishing Federal support of pollution
control efforts. New appraisals of pollution reduction
trading and other economic-based techniques
should encourage flexibility in regulation and stan-
dard design.
The most blatant problem in the toxicant control
program nationwide is its lack of integration. Total
emissions of toxic substances must be reduced, not
just transferred to the least regulated medium. For
example, in North Carolina, alone, in 1987 12.7 mil-
lion pounds of known carcinogens were released
into the air (about 55 percent of releases of such
compounds to all media). In fact this number is un-
doubtedly higher high proportions of such materials
released to POTWs and directly to water ultimately
224
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21st CENTURY. 1989: 221-225
end up In the air. Ironically, only 8 percent of the firms
involved had attempted any source reduction pro-
gram, and only 17 percent had some kind of air pollu-
tion controls in place. In 26 Instances a specific firm
emitted carcinogens at rates over 1,000 times the
reportable quantity as defined by the Air Quality Sec-
tion, N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Simply put, the absence of air toxicant standards na-
tionally and In North Carolina has encouraged ex-
pansions in the releases of such substances into the
air instead of the reductions dearly needed.
My message is simple: pollution reduction must
occur across the board, not just for one discharge',
medium. If integrated pollution reduction schedules'
are compiled, industry by industry, the result wfll be
stepwise reduction in pollution loadings Into our
waters and our air.
Recommendations
Implement the dean Water Act national goal of
discharge elimination by mandated stepwise
elimination of discharges, beginning with sub-
stances of greatest concern. No discharge
should be allowed that is not "necessary: if
source reduction can reduce or eliminate the
discharge, it is not "necessary.1*
For known carcinogens, EPA should assume
that no discharge is "necessary" if the Clean
Water Act prohibition against the discharge of
toxic substances in toxic amounts is to be
achieved.
3. Pollution reduction must be integrated across
sources, to avoid the environmental shell
game currently used to avoid environmental
restrictions.
4. Interim improvements should Include: (a)
fadKatfon of pollution reduction trading and
offset programs to maximize the monetary ef-
ficiency of toxicant reduction programs; (b)
adoption of more conservative methods to as-
sess potential threats to human health, includ-
ing use of harmonic mean flows for long-term
exposure estimates and integrated risk as-
sessment; and (c) shifting the burden of proof,
so that discharges must be analyzed and
demonstrated to be safe before they are per-
mitted.
The costs associated with necessary improvements
to water quality may be high. For that reason, crea-
tive solutions that can maximize the economic ef-
ficiency of pollution reduction mechanisms must be
fostered. The real challenge for the next century (and
the rest of this one) wfll be to transcend the limits of
current standards-driven programs to establish a
directed program of pollution reduction and to make
It work using approaches that are both environmen-
tally and economically sound.
225
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS. & COMMBJTS
Questions, Answers, and Comments
C. (Schwer) I'm with the du Pont Company, where
we are also concerned about water quality standards
and criteria. As members of the regulated com-
munity, business and industry should be represented
as fun participants in standard-setting efforts. We can
provide technical and scientific information and as-
sistance for the development of sound programs that
we can then carry forward for management support
We often find, however, that we're asked to accept
permits for either human health or water quality-
based toxic limits that are based on very lltde data. I
can see this problem looming with toxic substances
requirements for future permit negotiations and per-
mit compliance. Since the science cannot be perfect,
there wOl be some uncertainty in the development of
proposed toxic limits. However, if we recognize these
limits, we are committing our companies—in the
case of municipalities, committing the cities-to ex-
penditures of millions of compliance dollars. There-
fore we have a difficult time selling these programs
within our companies, which can lead to confronta-
tional problems such as going to court and overex-
tended negotiations that are counterproductive to
achieving water quality objectives. Give us some op-
portunity to provide input, and responsible Industry
will respond, partlcularty when the requirements that
will affect us win give us the basis for getting par-
ticipation funding and support from our companies.
We do not think that we have a license to pollute.
We only discharge into waters based on permits that
we negotiated with the States and EPA and recognize
our responsibility to ensure that our discharges are
safeguarding the integrity of State waters. Again, due
to limited scientific information, our responsibilities
are sometimes .hard to comprehend, but we know
that our long-term viabflfty depends on being positive
forces in the community.
So what should EPA be doing in terms of the
Framework? First of aU, EPA needs to provide a good
scientific basis for human health criteria (as well as
other kinds of criteria) by working with States and the
scientific community. EPA must publish guidelines so
policies can be administered with consistency. In-
dustry suffers from this inconsistency; we cannot
travel to 50 different States to talk with 50 different
groups of regulators and provide effective input Also
we get a lot of flack internally about varying State
standards.
We see a real problem with antibacksiiding, more
so in the human health area than in any other. We
resist accepting limits based on conservancy when
we're not sure the limit is valid and not certain that
there wai be an opportunity to address the level of
overconservancy, even if we can provide more infor-
mation. And industry does recognize its respon-
sibflities in this whole standards setting process;
sometimes we have the only available resources for
providing necessary Information. The States are
responsible for establishing criteria and standards;
we're just asking for time to provide input to the
process so that the best standards can be estab-
lished in a viable, consistent, continuing process. •
C. (Rader) I certainly didn't mean to imply that
we're throwing stones at industry. In fact we have
been working directly with the major industrial con-
cerns In North Carolina on the design of permits to
maximize the return of dollars and the efficient use of
funding. It is time to escape the limitations of a wholly
technical approach and to try to institutionalize the
"pollution prevention pays" approach to source
reduction. Almost every industry we nave worked
with can get 20 to 40 percent reduction in many pol-
lutants with modest process modifications, chemical
substitutions, or even waste stream segregation that
allow wastes toubecome the primary ingredients of
secondary processes. We need some dear direction
towards reducing wastes, and it won't work without
industry's involvement
Q. (Landman) Human health criteria initially
resulted in publication of the 304a documents and
established numbers' that were subject to public
comment; since then there has been the subsequent
availability of IRIS data. However, some numbers
derived using IRIS data differ significantly from num-
bers in the initial human health criteria documents.
What numbers are EPA regions now suggesting to
States, and if the regions are suggesting the use of
numbers modified by IRIS, has their decision been
publicly discussed, or is it something that's being
systematized? How is inconsistency between (nose
numbers being dealt with byEPA's regional offices?
A. (Vorsatz) 111 answer for Region IV. Quite frankly.
a lot of the more recent information in IRIS is some-
thing that, as a region, we didn't become aware of
until quite recently. Since we didn't set a dear posi-
tion in the criteria documents on how to deal with up-
dated reference doses, or IRIS's updated cancer
potency factors, we basically used some judgment
and looked at what these numbers meant, where
they came from, and how they differed from what
226
-------
WATS* QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21« CENTURY. 1989
was contained in the criteria documents. As a region
we've taken a position that if s probably more ap-
propriate for States to revise the EPA criteria value
with an updated number from IRIS.
C. (Mullin) Updated documents should be avail-
able shortly, I believe.
C. I'm glad that the updates are comina but they
do not answer the policy question of having sort of a
moving target be the result of the continuous update
of the IRIS system. If a decision is made that, as State
triennial reviews occur. States should rely upon this
other data base that is separate and apart from the
criteria documents, I think there should be a public
policy statement or decision on the composition of
304a criteria For example, when EPA sent out its
summary on where all the States stood on adoption
of water quality criteria, it attached a list of the
Agency's current thinking on health numbers, and
those numbers were always the same as the ones In
the criteria documents. If a State is trying to deckle
what numbers to adopt in the triennial review
process, it won't know where they came from or what
the policy was behind the updates. The numbers
should be updated but on a more global scale, and
something should be done to formalize that policy
and subject it to public comment
Q. / work mostly In drinking water. We base maxi-
mum contaminant levels (MCLs) on detection levels;
we'd like to establish them at levels less man detec-
tion levels, but we dont know how. You said that you
didnt want to establish standards based on detec-
tion levels, and you've established the risk at 10*
(0.00001). We have MCLs where the risks are Iff*
(0.001) at the detection level, and we dont know
how to establish an MCL at a higher or lower con-
centration when we can't detect It How do you
reconcile your statements?
A. One of the advantages that the water quality
standards program has over the drinking water pro-
gram in that aspect is that, oftentimes, we're using.
standards criteria to regulate point source dischar-
ges or make management decisions on other source
loadings to receiving waters. We need to have a num-
ber to shoot for as a scientifically based goal in the
receiving waters so we can make decisions on
upstream inputs to that receiving water. It doesn't al-
ways mean that when you have a problem with
detectabflity in-stream you can't control the source.
don't know the source, or can't even detect the prob-
lem in the source.
The tools are there for us to do at least some of our
job. Some pollutants have such high toxidty at such
low levels relative to detection levels that even in ef-
fluents, we might not detect them. However, given
the challenge and the standard, our programs will
move toward looking at sources within plants and ef-
fects in fish and examining other types of exposure
routes that will allow us to put in an appropriate con-
trol (or our best shot at an appropriate control) where
It's needed. One other thing concerns me about the
use of detection levels, especially in water quality
criteria: these levels change with time. Some water
quality criteria were based on 1970s detection levels
(PCBs come to mind) that may not be appropriate,
but they're institutional decisions, they're permitting
decisions that have already been "bought into."
These criteria were based on the detection level num-
ber rather than the criteria value, and I think that's a
policy mistake.
C. We considered this, of course, with volatile or-
ganic compounds. The derived criteria (even the
more stringent criterion for public water supply) did.
not come out below the purge and trap EPA
methodology for most of the chemicals. It is within
their detection limits, and in arriving at 10* we went
through the same procedure for proposed standards
before public review, comment and promulgation.
Our rationale was that we needed to control these
compounds, but we couldn't do it with aquatic
toxidty. We looked at human health, and if we went to
10*4 or 10* we were in the same boat as with aquatic
toxidty. We would come up with criteria already
above the concentrations in-stream, and many con-
centrations that the goal book, Human Health
Criteria, indicated were a threat so our common
sense rationale was that to protect public health and
welfare, we should consider adopting a risk level that
gave us a concentration level that would at least offer
some degree of control in-stream. The one that fit the
bin was 10*. If we went to 10*7, which r haven't for-
mally presented to the State, we would be well below
detection level for everything. We obviously did not
want to go to that extreme, so we picked a logical,
defensible compromise that affords the level of
protection we need but at the same time does not
overencumber industry.
C. (Tennant) I'm with ORSANCO. a water pollution
control company on the Ohio River. We are involved,
along with water utilities, in several cooperative ef-
forts to monitor the river. The utilities are an active,
united group, and with the enactment of the safe
drinking water requirements, they began to petition
us to prohibit the discharge of any contaminant that
was listed in the Safe Drinking Water Act It's impor-
tant to keep in mind that the MCLs are finished water
227
-------
OUESTONS. ANSWERS, ft COMMB4TS
levels, and to impose them as In-stream numbers is
to assume that what is in the river is going to be the
same as what comes out the tap. and I think we all
know that thaf s not the case.
Another point that the water utilities are strong on
is that while the MCL levels for many organies are
fairly high (highei; in (act than the ambient criteria).
the MCL goals for many are zero. So if a water utility
is finding any of this compound In its finished water,
even though if s meeting the MCL, K feels very vul-
nerable to lack of consumer confidence if not out-
and-out legal actions 9 anything appears hi the
finished watei; and therefore the utility reasons that •
there should be zero discharge. In our next stan-
dards revision, we are considering taking any chemi-
cals on the list that haven't been identified In that
discharge and putting them in our list of prohibited
discharge chemicals, as sort of a first step towards
trying to deal with the utilities' concerns.
We have more data on volatile organies and some
purgables on a single river than just about anybody.
Our organies detection systems have been function-
ing at 13 Ohio River Intakes for 10 years. A couple of
results wffl put Into perspective the dHerences
among some of the various risk levels: we find
chloroform In approximately 60 percent of the
samples we take from the river and 30 percent
methyiene chlorides. We find between 10* and 10*
risk level for these compounds. If we used the 10*
risk level to assess stream data, we wouldn't have
any problem-maybe three samples for the year in
the entire river would exceed those levels. If we use
10* probably about half to three-quarters of the
detections would exceed those numbers.
Have a minimal acceptable risk level and a
preferred risk level. States need to make local
decisions on this issue, but there should be a com-
mon risk level In all programs, not just water
programs. Decisions are being made, not based on
the best science but on which program has the least
stringent requirements. We'd like to see standard
levels of risk, with part of the State's job and of our
job as an interstate being to look at the local factors.
A question that our EPA region asked us was do
people on the Ohio River eat more fish than people
on the Great Lakes? WeO, I don't know, but if s infor-
mation we'd like to have in human health criteria.
C. (Palachek-Texas Water Commission) It's nice to
argue about harmonic mean flow, or annual
averages, but until our discussion in Louisiana back
in August nobody had even considered marine
situations or lake situations in terms of human health.
I might point out that for a lake situation, you might
want to use an annual average flow, but in a river
situation you might want to go to a harmonic mean
flow because you're looking at different types of en-
vironments.
In marine situations the mixing zone basically es-
tablishes dilution and the setting of effluent limits.
Thaf s one area that we need a lot of work on be-
cause the human health number is set on a fish con-
sumption number. These numbers and calculations
date from 1978. but there's been little interest in them
until recently. Therefore, we are still in an evolution-
ary phase; thaf s why States are pushing, trying to
get an up-to-date list and information on the latest
methods and criteria. We should pull that all together
and let it settle out then well be able to go forward
wtth good scientific evidence. We need to allow for
some flexibllty. because you can change the criteria,
and antibacksliding won't affect that but you can't
change the permanent levels without antibacksliding
coming Into play. The overall resistance from States
is due to this evolutionary-type process.
C. The situation's even worse than you suggest for
most coastal States because, unless there's been
Federal funding, we do not have an applicable waste
load allocation model for tidal waters. In North
Carolina, virtually all of our nonpoint source permits
in tidal waters are on a purely technological base. It's
a real chink in the armor of the coast
C. (Mullin) The comment has been made that the
chemicals on IRIS are not peer-reviewed, and that
really isnt the case. When a chemical goes on IRIS,
there Is a supporting document It may not be a water
quality criteria document or a drinking water docu-
ment but something'for the Office of Solid Waste;
nevertheless, the information that goes into develop-
ing that reference dose is the same across program
offices. So if you use IRIS and see an updated num-
ber, please look into the entire data base, go to the
references cited and look at the EPA document that
was used to justify the number. Those documents are
put out for public comment and peer-reviewed.
C. (Hseuh) (An informal poll was taken.) We have
20 in favor of having EPA make policy and recom-
mendations regarding risk level, and we have 8 in
favor of having States make their own decisions. It's
very dear that when we make decisions regarding
human health criteria, we should consider technol-
ogy, socJoeconomic factors, and politics. There are
EPA roles and State roles, but if you look at im-
plementation of narrative standards, the general feel-
ing seems that based on whatever signs in
technology are available, we should be taking more
conservative routes in recommending or adopting
criteria. Numerical design flow criteria for car-
228
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21« CENTURY. 1989
cinogens and noncarcinogens in terms of duration
and frequencies are not dear. I would like to see a
more technically oriented recommendation. The
general feeling seems to be that if we adopted human
health criteria or if we adopted water quality stan-
dards criteria, whether they be for aquatic protection
or human health protection, they should all be ap-
plied to the entire receiving waters. You can select
sites in terms of uses or classifications, but they will
have to be treated as receiving waters.
Based on the discussions, ifs very dear that this
first nationwide water quality standards conference is
long overdue. I viewed this conference as a technical
transfer and a consensus building process, and I
regret that there wasn't a representative from in-
dustry sitting on this panel. EPA should conduct
more workshops and technical transfers in different
regions and, when they do, invite the different inter*
ests involved to discuss all of the common issues so
we can not only share the experience but can use the
occasion to iron out differences.
C. There is a general consensus that a lack of
communication exists among the States, the
regions, and the regional offices. For us to move for-
ward with overall consistency, communication is
needed on each level, such as outreach workshops
and information on methodology for States and
regional offices. We have established our goals, now
it's a matter of actually taking action and that requires
joint participation by State, industry, and regional of-
fices.
229
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1989: 231
Water Quality, Quantity, and
Conservation
Max Dodson (Moderator)
Director, Water Division
US. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Vttl, Denver Colorado
Water quality and water quantity invariably come up
as a very serious issue-but I would have to charac-
terize EPA's official response as somewhat timid. A
lot of people have something to say about the Wallop
Amendment In regards to the 1977 amendments to
the Water Quality Act-a lot of words like accom-
modation, the need to accommodate quantity Inter-
ests as well as quality interests. What does accom-
modation realty mean—accommodation to the
natural resource or a political accommodation?
There are several other issues attached to water
quality and quantity. Is there a hierarchy of statutes,
with State water laws superimposed over Federal
statutes like the Water Quality Act? This is the ques-
tion we deal with in regard to the Indian tribes' ability,
through water quality statutes, to affect the allocation
of water resources at the State level.
There is a lot of debate about whether there is any
role at all for water quality regulatory agencies in the
area of water resources, be they State or Federal
regulatory agencies. And if there is a linkage, should
it be severed, therefore limiting our ability to reach
accommodation? Again, that is a fairly serious inter-
pretation of the Wallop Amendment as well as (per-
haps) State law.
231
-------
-------
WATER JUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21 «t CENTURY. 1988: 233-234
Water Quality, Quantity, and Conservation
Darlene E. Ruiz
Vice Chair, State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California
\ would like to give my thanks to EPA for recognizing
what I consider to be the irrefutable relationship be-
tween water quality and water quantity. In my estima-
tion it is certainly good science to produce ail the
criteria that any of us can possibly imagine. We can
even decide that zero discharge should be against
the order of the day, but without an appreciation of
the quantity issues, only minimal environmental
benefits will be achieved. So, hi addressing what
some States may take as a threat to set water quality
standards for those States thatfaB to do so, we need
to start working with one another to better under-
stand the constitutional, statutory, and evolving com-
mon law dealing with water both in California and
those States with appropriative water rights systems.
I want to start by stating that the Water Standards
Framework Is not the appropriate document for seek-
ing the solution to these complex legal and institu-
tional issues. It should be limited to developing the
scientific framework for defining and enhancing
water quality programs. The issues surrounding
water quality belong to the States and. at this time,
California is not seeking help, nor do we want the
Federal Government to give us any guidance in this.
area. The reasons are that, within the Clean Water
Act section H(g) is attve and well and asserted by
California,
To better examine the relationship between water
quality and water quantity, I want to focus on the fu-
ture of water quality management within the San
Francisco Bay delta estuary. The delta is a very vast
and complex water system that covers some 738,000
acres of marshland and waterways. Created by the
confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers, it is the site of enormous agricultural richness
and major industrializatioa Waters from the delta
provide nearly two-thirds of all the water used in
California, including 40 percent of the State's drink-
ing water supply. The importance of the delta to the
environmental, ecological, recreational, agricultural.
and economical quality of life in California can not be
understated. The Water Resources Control Board's
decisions about managing the quality of delta water
will affect all Califomians from residential water-users
in San Diego to commercial fishermen off the north-
em California coast
1 think this is a good point to explain that the State
Water Resources Control Board is an entity that is
empowered to issue all water rights within the State
and is also the entity responsible for implementation
of the Clean Water Act program, not to mention
numerous other State water quality laws. In con-
centrating on the protection of delta water quality, we
have been focusing upon the interrelatedness of
quality and flow issues. Delta water quality problems
cannot be solved through permits, best management
practices, or by establishing numeric criteria or
evaluating bioassay results, alone. Solutions will be
found in understanding and applying an approach
that appropriately uses all the tools currently avail-
able to us and some we have yet to discover.
For example, a rich agricultural area lying near the
sea, the delta contains ample quantities of
trihalomethane precursors and THMs. Chlorides,
bromides, and organic material are in abundance in
an area that serves the drinking water needs of a sub-
stantial portion of the State. Closely related to solving
the problems of THM precursors is solving the prob-
lem of salinity. Both because of the delta's proximity
to the ocean and because of the agricultural activities
in the basins feeding it the level of salinity in the
water has been an ongoing concern. Some factions
suggest that the solution to both of these problems is
an increased flow. But the suggestions for an in-
creased flow would 'seem contrary to what most
would view as the primary beneficial uses of delta
water. Clearly an increased flow might help some
mixing zones and act to flush salinity but it would also
decrease the amount of water available for domestic.
Industrial, and agricultural consumption.
As both the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers
travel the 370-mie courses to the delta, their waters
are subject to both use and pollution. Upstream uses
of delta waters. In-stream water uses, in combination
with municipal and industrial discharges, diffuse or
nonpoint sources of pollution, and thermal pollution,
take their toll before the waters reach the delta. We
can measure these effects through bioassay techni-
ques; we can monitor the health of striped L—s and
salmon; we can test and compare to numeric criteria
or rely upon narrative standards; but foremost we
must focus on one goal, protecting the beneficial
uses.
'The protection of beneficial uses is the current
focus of the Board's activity. We are engaged in an
update of the Bay-Delta Basin planning process, in
233
-------
0. RUZ
part because it is long overdue for revlewbutalso be-
cause, in its 1978 iteration, the Third District Court of
Appeals found that the Board's intent to combine the
functions of basin planning and water rights was
seriously flawed. At that time the court made a
decision that CaJifomians refer to as the RacanelH
Decision, which concluded that the Board improper-
ly mixed those two functions and. In so doing, did not
properly exerdse its role as a basin planner or estab-
lisher of water rights because it tried to address only
a small part of the problem. The Board had opened
up the permits on both the Central Valley Project and
the State Water Project and those two main water
programs, which are responsible for shipping vast
amounts of this water to southern California for
municipal use and to the central valley for agricultural
use, were not the only parties affecting the salinity
levels that had been established by the Board.
The court rather interestingly decided to analyze
how the Board should evaluate the various uses of
this area. Should It talk only about a basin plan or
should it weigh the uses within the delta. The court
finally decided that the Board has to weigh the issues
globally in the context of an the uses of the water.
which means ft has to weigh the uses throughout
California. In our view of the court's reasoning, that
balancing has to be ongoing, requiring us to review
(as part of our implementation program in achieving
water standards or narrative standards) possibly all
the water rights in the watersheds.
Some States can address nonpoint source prob-
lems by making agreements with the farmers along
the watershed. I wish that could be the case in
California. However, since it would involve the open-
ing of permits not only for the State and Central Val-
ley projects but also for appropriate water rights
along the Sacramento and San Joaquin River water-
sheds, this would be a monstrous task that includes
the involvement of riparian owners who use these
watersheds or pre-1914 water uses. Again, balancing
requires the State to view public trust values and all
the designated beneficial uses and also to keep an
eye towards a provision in our State constitution, ar-
ticle 10. section 2. which allows the State to establish
what is and what is not a waste and unreasonable
use of California's waters.
So. as we try to get through this basic planning
process and work with the dean Water Act, we
remain mindful that California must and wfll establish
Its own standards. If EPA can help us accomplish
this, we welcome their technical assistance, but we
are somewhat skeptical that the Agency can ever es-
tablish standards that would meet California's waste
and unreasonable use tests, let alone ones that in-
dude some of our considerations about public trust
boundaries and protection of other beneficial uses.
In the future. aU the States wfll have to deal with the
complexities of solving these kinds of water quality
problems. However, we must not allow our thinking
to become compartmentalized or fragmented. Cer-
tainly the main focus of this conference is water
quality standards, but we must not view standards as
the be-all and end-all or even as a driving force in
water quality, but as one of the tools we want to refine
in our ever-increasing effort to achieve water quality.
As we approach water quality issues in the 21 st
century, nothing wfll assist us more than a better un-
derstanding of the legal and institutional frameworks
and the ways to combine scientific effort with those
institutional restraints-to define options that will help
us to achieve our goal.
234
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21 it CENTURY, 1988: 235-237
Integration of Water Quality and
Water Quantity
Lawrence J. MacDonnell
Director, Natural Resources Law Center
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
The integration of water quality and water quantity is
truly one of the more perplexing issues of effective
water quality regulation in the Western States. It is in-
teresting to note that the two States that led the
development of the prior appropriation doctrine in
the West California and Colorado, are the ones now
struggling most directly with integration of water
quality considerations into the use of water related to
water rights.
There Is a direct relationship between water
quality and water quantity. The use of water depends
on its quality and, in turn, that use affects its quality.
This obvious relationship is central to understanding'
the way water can and should be used. The riparian
doctrine, the original system that governed the use of
water in the United States, recognized that relation-
ship by declaring that the pollution of water is an un-
reasonable use of water. The prior appropriation
doctrine, which of course rejected the fundamental
concept of riparianism as a device for allocating the
resource, did not reject the necessity of maintaining
and protecting the water quality associated with the
use of water.
The prior appropriation doctrine protects water
quality according to three general principles:
1. A prior appropriator is protected against pollu-
tion by a subsequent appropriator.
2. The protection is against pollution that
measurably or substantially impairs the senior
appropriator's use.
3. The senior appropriator must prevent pollution
harmful to subsequent appropriators only to
the extent that such pollution can be practic-
ably avoided.
Thus there is a hierarchy of rights with regard to
water quality just as there is for water quantity. The
focus of the inquiry concerns whether the sub-
sequent appropriator's use of water injures the
senior's use because of water quality impairment
Tho ®rt,}«t of fc'ury MUSH QQ more than de minimi's.
Ths sernur> use is restricted only to the extent it is
unreasonable or can ba readily modified to prevent
harm.
The University of Colorado is examining the ap-
proaches presently taken by the Western States to
link together water quality and water quantity issues
as a matter of State practice. We have organized
these approaches into five general types (see Table
1). The first general way that States consider water
quality and water use is in the general allocation
process, in which decisions are made about who
gets to use water. So. for example, California has a
provision in its water code requiring that the State
Water Resources Control Board must consider the
issue of water quality when allocating the right to use
water. This Board is also the entity in California that
develops water quality control plans. Thus, California
has brought together those functions, putting in one
entity the combined concerns of quality and quantity.
When that Board makes decisions about how to allo-
cate the resource, it is likely to be aware of the related
water quality considerations. That*s a unique institu-
tional arrangement in the West
Nearly all of the Western States include some kind
of public interest review in making an allocation of
water rights. In at least two States, the public interest
requirement has been defined specifically to include
water quality. A common standard for reviewing
water rights decisions in the West is impairment of
water uses. The general concept is to ensure no
harm to another user as a consequence of water
rights decisions and Is most commonly applied to a
transfer or change in a water right There are several
decisions in New Mexico in which a request to
change a point of diversion and place of use of
groundwater was denied, or conditions were at-
tached, to protect the water quality of the
groundwater aquifer. Wasteful uses of water are
prohibited in the West In Oklahoma, this concern
about waste led to denial of a request to use
groundwater for secondary oil and gas recovery be
cause it would pollute the water.
A second approach found in a number of Western
States (largely for groundwater) is to establish spe-
cial rranagement systems for water resources in
designated areas. Alaska, Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, and Oregon all have built such ap-
proaches into their legal systems. The original idea
235
-------
LJ. MACOONNELL
Table 1.—We
cristate*1
to- Integrating water quality protection with water uaat.
1.
quality Inthet
a. Dirac»V*« one of the review criteria a.g^. CaMomia Water
Coda S«cL 1256:
"In acting upon appirationa to appropriate watei, tha board
shall eonaidar watar quality control plane which have baan
established.. .and may subject such appropriations to such
tamw and condWona aa it finda ara naoaaaary to cany out
aucft plane."
b. Indirectly aa a "puMcintefeeri
t^byst*
pmnajajejw mm m pajtH*** aiPaaw^aj» MMiieHM»i^an»»«w.y^ wj ana^~
uta. Alaaka's pubHe Maraat reviaw ia to eonaidar aflacts on
pubic haattft. :
By ragUaflon. ttw Uaho Oapanmant of Waiar Raaoureaa
haa daflnad Hi sattdaiy pudNe imaraat nvia^ obligation to
raqujra condMortng al waiar uaa parmrta to inaura comp>-
ancawMh (data's watar quality standarta. •
a To consider impairment to other water mars .
uta. Kansas indudee aa a review standard for a <
permit whether "unreasonable deterioration of watar quality
at the easting usef s point of diversion beyond a reasonable
aoononvc Hfflif* wii occur*
New Mexico's cases involve a transfer of groundwataY
PoButton of water prohibited aa "waste"—e.g., Oklahoma's
requirement of a finding of no waste in considering a ground-
water permit defined by regulation to include "any act per-
rmttng or causing the pollution of fresh water or the uaa of
. such watar in an inefficient manner or any manner that ia
not beneficial..."
2. Conaider quality In i
Widely used hi the West aa a means of managing graundwa-
tar—piimanlyiia development but watarquaiHy concerns may
tareaar-"any
all
•01
• Colorado (dasiQnatvd groundwaiar basins}^Bdany pan
basis of "unreasonable deterioration of water quality"
Ma)-whi
ton
Kansas (intensive groundwater use <
Oil
Nebraska (special protection areas)— program to cmuiul or
reduce the level and extant of contamination
Oregon (ciilical groundweter areea)^Mfequirenteni
sary to protect me public's welfare, health, and safety
3» GonafdSeT c|U4vity in i
Value* Recognized In Fourteen Weatem States.
of fish and wildlife hatiitat,
Rocrsation and wildttfo* including fish
Prwarvation and •nhancamant of fish and
Arizona
California
Colorado Pnmiva tht natural •nvironmant to a
ftJ«^»A^M*^M«^i^ *4 II^A* — * ,, £lMllm te^AM4^fa*
Maanananca or nan ana wwuia naonaia.
outdoor facraational aettvitiaa: maimananca of
aooayatama such a» astuahas. watiands. and
maMtananca of watar quality
Idaho
Pnxacflon of ftah and wikflifa habitat [and]
aquMfeHfa '
Fish and wNdwv
Nabraaka Rah.. .and wfldttfa
Naw Maxioo
Oragon
Utah
WaaMngton
Wyommg
Any recreation purpose
FiahinQ and fecreauon
Conservation, maintenance and enhancement
of aquatic and fish life, wildlife, fish and wildlife
habitat and any other ecological values
Preservation or propagation of fish
Protecting fish. game, birds or other wildlife
reeourcei. or recreational or aesthetic values
' of.. .public waters whenever it appears to be m
the public interest.
Majntajn new or existing fisheries
4* neajuaallofi or apt
a. nslaMd to water uaa— e^.. well drilling requirements to
pfottq water quality:
naquiremenu to plug weMa no longer in use
—Chemigatton regulation
nd
—Solid and hazardo
aste regulation
5. Weter quaWy ragutottan.
a. EatabUahing water quality standards to protect uses
b. Monitoring watar quality and identifying water quality
c. Water quality planning including nonpont source control
i (beat management practices)
d. Anttdegradation program
a. 401 c
was to prevent overdraft of aquifers by placing spe-
cial controls on the manner of developing
groundwater. This general approach has been ex-
tended to the water quality area in some States and
offers an opportunity for States to identify problems
not just on a statewide basis, but also on a specific
regional or local basis. It enables States to isolate
aquifers and particular surface water areas and pro- •
vide special attention to their water quality problems.
A third general approach is the inclusion of water
quality as a basis for establishing minimum in-stream
flows. Legal protection for in-strearr.'..ows of water is
a relatively new development in the West Fifteen
years ago, only a handful of States provided a means
for protecting in-stream flows: now virtually every
Western State has some type of protection for such
flows.
236
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21*1 CENTURY, 1968: 235-237
Maintaining some minimum flow levels in a
stream obviously Is beneficial to water quality. As
shown In Table 1, most Western State laws and
programs relating to streamflow protection are
based on the protection of fish. However, we are
beginning to broaden that concept In a few States.
water quality may provide the basis for establishing
an in-straam flow. Of course, when States protect
fish, they are indirectly protecting the quality and
quantity of the water needed to maintain a habitat for
fish propagation.
There are many opportunities here: for example.
States should consider allowing a point source dis-
charger an opportunity to acquire a consumptive
water right and to change that water right to a mini-
mum streamflow right to guarantee some minimum
flow of water as a device to offset the need for addi-
tional treatment capablity. States might also want to
consider an "offset" type system as exists under the
Clean Air Act In nonattainment areas. Any new water
developer or discharger would have to provide
protected in-stream flows in an amount necessary to
offset the water quality Impacts of the new use. I think
those kinds of opportunities are there, and that State
systems are increasingly allowing them to happen.
The fourth approach is our traditional approach to
pollution control regulation of specific kinds of ac-
tivities. These regulations relate specifically to con-
cerns about water use things like drilling wells,
plugging wells, and chemigatioa Other areas of
regulation that have benefits not normally directly re-
lated to water use are pesticide controls, under-
ground injection controls, and solid and hazardous
waste regulations.
The final approach is water quality regulation
under the dean Water Act and the various State
programs. The Western States' programs have few
regulations that directly address the relationship be-
tween water quality and water use. However, some
efforts are being made. For example, water quality
standards can protect uses; when you establish the
desired quality for a given segment of the stream you
are protecting the designated uses. If valuable non-
consumptive uses are designated, then water quality
regulation can be a valuable means of integrating
quality and use. In a few States, an effort has been
made to link up the information developed in connec-
tion with water quality planning and monitoring and
decisions concerning water use. Kansas appears to
be a good example of a State that has established
meaningful coordination between the water .quality
people and the water allocation people. The anti-
degradation program provides an important oppor-
tunity to ensure better consideration of the water
quality implications of new activities. And. the 401
certification process provides an opportunity to
review activities requiring a Federal permit to insure
compliance with State water quality standards.
What can EPA do about these issues? First, it can
encourage the States to develop and expand the ap-
proaches I have discussed. Water allocation
decisions will continue to be made by the States.
Water quality protection programs also are imple-
mented primarily by the States. There are many at-
tractive options available to States to better integrate
these programs that should be actively promoted by
EPA. On a more specific issue, there is a need for
clarification on whether Federal water quality stan-
dards extend to all activities affecting water quality or
if they are limited strictly to activities that discharge
pollutants from either a point or nonpoint source. In
other words, does water quality control under
Federal law extend only to regulation of pollutants or
does It include activities (beyond those regulated
under section 404) that adversely affect water quality
in any way? The nonpoint source area presents a
major challenge. Pollution from nonpoint sources
represents the major water quality problem in many
States. Some States are moving aggressively to ad-
dress this problem, but others are saying, "What's the
big deal? Section 319 looks like section 208. What
does 319 really add?; That's a good question, and
people are looking to EPA for direction.
I would encourage EPA to get into the voluntary
water reallocation game. There is a great deal of in-
terest in the marketing of water, changes in water
rights, and exchanging water to meet new uses.
There are tremendous opportunities for private users
as well as public agencies to think about reallocating
.. water from existing consumptive to new consump-
tive and nonconsumptlve uses that may have posi-
tive effects, including water quality benefits. There
are also opportunities to participate in this process
for Federal land management agencies concerned
about protecting water quality.
237
-------
-------
WATB* QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY. 1968: 239443
Supplying Denver with Water Efficiency
Alternative to TSvo Forks Dam
JohnCWoodwell
Reseanh Assistant, Rocky Mountain Institute, OUSnowmass, Colorado
-An
With a steady, and sometimes legally ensured flow of
money into the bank, utilities are now among the
Nation's least discriminating investors. Utility invest-
ments to supply - clams, water tnuttMnt plaints, arid
other long-lived capital improvements - often return
only a taw percent annually on the investment, with
corresponding payback periods of 15 to 20 years
(Mercer and Morgan. 1986). When demand for the
improvements doesn't materialize as anticipated, the
realized return may drop further, with paybacks rising
to 30 years, 40 years, or even infinity.
Competing with water utilities are consumers, who
do what they can to cut water bUs: put water darns In
the toiet, take showers Instead of baths, or buy low-
flow showerheads, for example. But whfle water sup-
pliers are wiling to make investments in supply that
have long paybacks, commonly 20 years or more,
consumers demand a much higher rate of return
from their efficiency Investments: if a product wont
pay for itself through reduced water use .in two or
three years, most homeowners wont buy it For con-
sumers without discretionary capital, know-how, or
confidence that they wifl be around long enough to
reap the benefits - low-income homeowners and
moble tenants, for example - the payback require-
ment may be six months or less (Lovins and
Shepard, 1988). Figure 1, Typical Investment Re-
quirements: Consumers vs. Utilities, Illustrates this
point
This gross discrepancy In investment criteria be-
tween water suppliers and consumers means that
utilities tend to overinvest in supply while consumers
underinvest in efficiency. Consumers buy more water
than the market says they should buy, while utilities.
buying supply under less stringent criteria, supply
more water than consumers truly need. Consumers
pay the expensive bffls that result from this misalloca-
tion of capital To induce consumers to buy as much
300-r
230 - •
200 - •
Required annual
real return on
investment (%) 1501
loo--
so..
6-12 month payback
8—36 month payback
15-30 year payback
Low—Income Tenant - Homeowner
••"TypiCew InvMttiMirt rtc|ulrMiMntK GofMuintfBViv Utmtta0«
Utility
£39 *
-------
J.C. WOODWBJL
efficiency as is worthwhBe using the utility's invest-
ment criteria would require raising water prices
roughly tenfold.
The challenge for suppliers is to capture the water
that leaks through this payback gap. By making cost-
effective efficiency investments that return about 10
percent to 100 percent annually - investments that
consumers rarely make unaided - suppliers and
consumers can plug the gap and share in the profits
that these attractive investments provide.
Efficiency as a New Supply
Water saved Is exactly the same as water supplied.
One person's reduction in water use makes water
available for someone else to use. A temporary
reduction in use is equivalent to a temporary in-
crease in supply, a permanent reduction in use
equivalent to a permanent Increase in supply. Tem-
porary reductions and those requiring life-style
changes are generally useful only during temporary
shortages after which they can readHy reverse; but
permanent, reliable reductions that do not' require or
depend upon life-style changes can permanently dis-
place alternative, reliable supplies.
Ultra-low-flush toiets, high-performance low-flow
showerheads, efficient faucet aerators, and efficient
lawn irrigation equipment provide permanent, reli-
able water savings. Chosen carefully, purchased
wholesale, and professionally Installed as replace-
ment equipment throughout a service area, water-ef-
ficient hardware can save water at less than a third
the cost of supplying it anew and treating it twice.
Fast easy, certain, environmentally sound, and flex-
ible in scale, utility-sponsored efficiency programs
are a cheap and effective way to ease or forestall a
water shortage. They are less expensive than con-
ventional supply development and do not include the
financial or environmental risks of large, irreversible
investments.
A Supply Curve for Denver
Residential Water Efficiency
Indoor residential water use in Denver totals 158.000
acre-feet per year (U.S. Army Corps Eng., 1988).
Water-efficient toilets \,.0 gpf), showerheads (2.0
gpm), and kitchen and bathroom faucet aerators (2.0
and 0.75 gpm. respectively) have the capacity to
reduce indoor water use by 37 percent (US. Dep.
Housing Urban Dev.. 1984). Installed in all of the Den-
ver area's households, they can save more than
57.000 acre-feet of that total per year. For a program
cost of $400 per household (which includes
wholesale product prices and professional installa-
tion at $30 per hour), the average annualized cost of
water saved in this way is f9*9 an acre-foot - a
quarter the cost of equivalent supply from the
proposed Two Forks Dam (U.S. Army Corps Eng.,
1988). These are permanent savings through the use
of efficient high-performance products; they do not
involve any life-style change.
Of that total water savings, low-flow showerheads
don't just contribute 15,000 acre-feet of annual water
savings; they save energy, too. Showerhead energy
savings to the power and gas utilities would return
more than $7 per household per year, $4.9 million per
year for all of Denver. Those fuel savings would pro-
vide a rate of return more than four times that of the
best traditional investments - a certificate of
deposit, for example. After returning the cost of the
showerheads, the remaining energy savings are still
considerable: large enough, for example, to pay a
third of the levelized cost of the indoor efficiency pro-
gram.
Outdoor water use in the Denver supply area is
143.000 acre-feet per year. 90 percent of which goes
toward lawn irrigation (US. Army Corps Eng., 1988).
For $100 per household, a professional lawn irriga-
tion consultant can save an additional 47,000 acre-
feet a year in tha£enver supply area at a cost of $70
per acre-foot, one-tenth the cost of equivalent supply
from the proposed Two Forks Dam. These savings
are through proper timing of irrigations, which result
In improved irrigation efficiency; they do not involve
any change in life-styles such as a reduction in lawn
quality or size. Nor dp they include any changes in
the types of vegetation grown: switching to low-
water-use grasses or including other low-water-use
plants and techniques in landscape design can main-
tain or improve landscape appearance while sub-
stantially reducing cost and water requirements.
Combined savings, indoor plus outdoor, for all ex-
isting (but no new) households in the Denver supply
area amount to 104,000 acre-feet per year - 6.000
acre-feet per year more than the proposed Two Forks
Dam Whereas the 98,000 acre-feet of treated water
from Two Forks (not including wastewater treatment)
is estimated from official data to cost an average of
$760 per acre-foot the average cost of equh/alently
sized permanent savings from these efficiency im-
provements is almost fivefold smaller, $154 per acre-
foot Even efficient toilets, the most expensive
efficiency improvement, save water at only $282 per
acre-foot As a reliable source of inexpensive water.
residential water efficiency is an extremely attractive
option.
240
-------
WATB1QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21K CENTURY, 198% 239-343
Additional savings, chiefly In non-residantlal water
ara also possible and cost-effective, even
though they are not detaied here. They indudefbdng
leaks in municipal water systems; Indoor and out-
door technological improvements in the commercial.
industrial, and public sectors; more thoughtful
choice of decorative vegetation; and improved ap-
plication and management techniques In agriculture.
Water and energy savings can also be achieved by
encouraging people to buy more water-efficient (but
equally serviceable) dishwashers and washing
machines for new construction and as replacements.
Figure 2 Oustrates graphically the cost-effective
alternative of water efficiency- The horizontal axis
shows the cumulative savings. In acre-feet per yew
that each efficiency improvement provides. The verti-
cal axis shows the cost, in dollars per acre-foot, of
each of the five efficiency improvements. The points
high and to the right enow the cost and quantity of
water that the proposed Two Forks Dam is expected
to provide. Remember that this supply curve shows
only some residential efficiency improvements.
There are other cost-effective opportunities to save
residential water, as weO as other ways to save a sub-
stantial fraction of Denver's remaining (21 percent)
non-residential water use.
The Wider Benefits of Water
Efficiency
Saving water saves the environment Residential
water saved in Denver makes water available for raft-
ing, fishing, wetlands, and wildfowl. Water efficiency
eases salinfcatton problems and other pressures on
this limited resource. Saved energy (through
reduced water heating) has still broader implications
for the environment: the energy savings in the Den-
ver supply area can displace more than 50,000 tons
of carbon, as carbon dioxide, per year. Carbon
dioxide is responsible for half of the global warming
problem. The saved fuel would also help reduce
utilities' and residences' contribution to Denver's
brown doud of air pollution.
For utilities facing a'potential water shortage, im-
proved efficiency is not only less expensive than ad-
ditional supplies, it is also much less risky than big
investments in big projects. As the Washington
Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) so spec-
tacularly demonstrated with electricity, rising rates
encourage efficiency and reduce demand. Reduced
use, in turn, forces an additional price hike that fur-
ther reduces, demand. This financial "death spiral"
has bankrupted WPPSS and several other utilities.
1100
1060
900
800-
700-
600-
300-
400-
300-
200-
100-
cost of water
supplied or saved
(1988 $/acre-ft).
lerelized at • 42C/7
real discount rate
Post-treated fraction (40%) of
Two Forks project** yield
STiouwrhearf «n«ryy ratrfna*. net Mown
tor*, total t4.3 mtfffen -jnr year. Thu
tow/i* u •?uaJ tn *i*e to SOX «/ Me
ormuofeed CM* •/ ite ^//ieieney prvyi am.
Two Forks Pro/ect,
including 100% pre-
arwt ¥0% poat-treatment x
Two Forks project,
including 1007, prt- »
out no post-treatment
Bathroom faucet aerators (1.8 —> 0.75
Kitchen faucet aerators (3.5 —>_2»0 cpm)
Showerheads (2.8 —> 1.7 gpm)
Efficient lawn-
watering equipment
(no change in tjpe or
area of plants grvwn)
t
Toilets (5.1 —> 1.25 gpf)
2000Q
40000
60000
Figure 1—improved r«
cy compared with
80000 100000
m of water supply In the Denver i
241
-------
J.C. WOOOWHJ.
By tapping the water that improved efficiency offers,
water utilities can protect themselves from drastic
reductions In demand that rising tariffs encourage.
Efficiency can be bought gradually, on a buQd-as-
you-need, pay-as-you-go basis, thus minimizing
financial exposure to intrinsic errors in demand
forecasts.
Making It All Work: Designing a
Successful Implementation
Program
There are several Impediments to the orderly adop-
tion of water-efficient products - poverty, prejudice,
ignorance, habit, and inertia all get in the way. A
proper program breaks each of these barriers with a
systematic, rational approach Involving economic
and common sense, both of which favor efficiency.
The performance, appearance, and styling of
water-efficient products rival any on the market For
an efficiency program to be successful, the public
has to know this. Installed In and around public buBd-
ings-Ctty Had. for example-water-efficient hard-
ware and landscapes become famliar and
acceptable, even preferable, to the people who might
use them. Support grows through use and multiplies
by imitation, speeding adoption by the general
public. Economically attractive, highly efficient water-
using appliances have been increasingly accepted.
first by hotel chains, and now by bidders across the
country. Hawk Mountain Corporation, a resort
developer in Vermont, uses efficient fixtures ex-
clusively. With per capita water use reduced to 50
gallons per day (less than the target calculated here
for Denver), the residents' water oils are small. Cor-
responding reductions in the size of the sewer sys-
tem save money for the corporation (Fretz, 1988).
Engineering tests under laboratory conditions and
in-house performance data show that many 1.0- to
1.5-gpf toilets perform substantially better than 3.5-
gpf models. Their high instantaneous peak flow (70 + .
gpm versus 30-40 flpm for many 3.5-gpf toilets)
reduces the frequency of double-flushing and gives
1.0- to 1.5-gpf toilets a waste-transport ability sub-
stantially better than that of many less efficient ones,
particularly those retrofitted with "water-saving-
dams or dlsplacemen uags. There is no known
evidence that such toilets interfere with proper per-
formance of either sewer systems or sewage-treat-
ment plants; on the contrary, household water
savings can greatly extend the useful life of septic
systems and sewage treatment plants (Rocky Moun-
tain I nst, 1989).
The economic edge that makes efficiency so at-
tractive for existing dwellings makes it even more at-
tractive for new construction. Using efficient
equipment the first time around can reduce construc-
tion costs. Inexpensive low-water-use landscapes,
smaller plumbing, smaller water heaters, and smaller
septic systems or lower sewer hookup fees all tend to
make water-efficient houses relatively inexpensive.
The 104,000 acre-feet of annual water savings shown
above, however, do not include savings in new con-
struction.
A bidding code to require hardware in new con-
struction to a proper step hi the orderly development
of a program. Proven in communities in Arizona,
California. New York, and Massachusetts, mandatory
limits on the water use of toilets, showerheads, and
faucets prevent builders from choosing outdated and
grossly inefficient equipment Limits of 1,6 gpf for
toflets. 2.5 gpm for showerheads, 2.5 gpm for kitchen
faucets, and 1.0 gpm for bathroom and lavatory
faucets wffl cut water use dramatically, immediately,
and cost-effectively, without reducing amenity or per-
formance (Rocky Mountain Inst, 1989). BUS to re-
quire efficient fixtures have been introduced in the
California, Colorado, Florida, Texas, and Washington
legislatures and in the U.S. House and Senate.
A bidding code is important but it does not pro-
vide the proper incentive to install the most efficient
hardware. A slidlng-scale hookup fee. linked propor-
tionally to the amount of water the new home is ex-
pected to use, provides that incentive. As a
supplement to its efficient building code, Monterey,
California, offers a $75 per-toBet bonus to buVders
who install toilets that jjse 1.0 gpf or less. As a result
most of the new toiets installed in Monterey meet
that limit (Locke. 1988).
North Marin Water District in California offers
hookup-fee discounts for builders who follow the
district's voluntary water-frugal landscaping guide-
lines. A builder of a townhouse or condominium who
limits a turf area to 400 square feet or 20 percent of
the total landscape area, whichever is more limiting,
will receive a $190 discount on the per-unit hookup
fee. Turf area of 200 square feet or less will earn the
builder of an apartment a hookup fee discount of $95.
Those voluntary turf limits have led to a 40 percent
reduction in turf area for this new construction, cor-
responding to a roughly 20 percent and 33 percent
reduction in outdoor water use, respectively. The dis-
trict is now writing a workable rebate plan for single-
family homes (Nelson, 1988). This incentive program
is intended to reflect the true capital costs that each
new user brings to the utOlty. Water-efficient homes
and landscapes place a smaller capital burden on the
242
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21 «t CENTURY. 1989: 239-243
utility than do inefficient homes; the sllding-scaJe
hookup fee property reflects that fact (Nelson. 1968).
For making existing buildings water-efficient, the
options are manifold: direct rebates to homeowners,
utility-sponsored giveaways, cost-sharing, or trans-
ferable savings are just a few of the possibilities
(Levins and Shepard, 1988). Santa Barbara and the
Goleta Water District cooperate in their retrofit pro-
gram: the providers offer a rebate of $80 per toflet
(Fan/veil. 1988), which brings the homeowner's price
of an efficient toilet down to about $10. The program
saves water fortheutatties at about hatf the cost of al-
temath/e supplies. Glendale, Arizona, has a simflar
rebate program. The city pays $100 to anyone who
replaces a standard toilet with a water-efficient one,
and $100 to -anyone who remakes an existing
landscape into one that meets the city's landscaping
guidelines (Schultz, 1988). The North Mann Water
District wOl pay $0.50 for each square foot of turf that
a homeowner converts to low-water-use landscape.
By far the fastest proven method of implementing
efficiency is to link new construction to improved ef-
ficiency in existing construction. As a prerequisite to
buBding a home in water-short Morro Bay, California,
buflders must first save more water than the new
home will use. Given the option of refitting existing
houses with efficient hardware or paying to replace a
specified length of the city's leaky water main,
buflders did both: in the first two years of the pro-
gram, some builders paid the water main replace-
ment fee while others refitted existing homes.
Competing for the most cost-effective efficiency im-
provements in existing homes, builders installed effi-
cient hardware in a third of the city's houses In the
first two years of the program, an unprecedented im-
plementation rate for water suppliers.
Extensively documented programs carried out by
US. electric utilities In recent years have demon-
strated even more dramatic speed and degree of
market capture. In well-designed programs to give
away and install energy-saving equipment, typical
success ranges from a third of the target population
in one year to 90 to 98 percent in two to three years.
Electric utilities offer rebates, concessionary loans,
and even gifts of free electricity-saving equipment to
the majority of U.S ratepayers, not out of altruism, but
because if s often cheaper to save electricity than to
make it To be sure, a utility that sells less can bring in
less revenue, but its costs can go down more than its
revenues, so its profits can go up. An immense range
of implementation methods is available and being
used successfully by electric utilities across the
country (Lovins and Shepard. 1988). Exactly the
same methods and logic can apply to water efficien-
cy. Where, as in Denver, a projected need for more
water has led to serious consideration of a billion-dol-
lar supply project, the argument for a cost-effective
efficiency program is even more compelling.
The foregoing examples, then, are just a few of the
proven ways to save money and the environment by
Improving the efficiency of water use. Certain and
cheap, these products and methods offer a fast per-
manent alternative to traditional supply expansion; a
means of stretching finite water supplies and of
easing pressure on plants that treat water and was-
tewater a way to reduce the uncertainty of future
demand and the risks of investing to meet it; and, by
keeping more dollars recirculating faster in the
regional economy, a new tool for economic develop-
ment
References
Farwell, L 1968. Personal communication. Water Conservation
Coordinator. Gotota (CA) Wafer District
Fretz. 0. Personal communication. The Consulting Group, Hawk
Mountain Corp. Plymouth, VT.
Lock*, S. 1988. Personal communication. Conservation Tech-
nician, Monterey (CA) Peninsula Water Management District
Lewis, A,a 1988. Implementation Paper *1: Financing Sectric
End-Use Efficiency. Rocky Mountain Inst. CM Snowmass,
CO.
Mercer LJ. and W.O. Morgan. 1988. -The efficiency of water pric-
ing: a rate of return analysis for municipal water departments.
Water Reeour. Bull. 28945.
Nelson. J.O. 1988. Personal communication. General Manager.
Norm Msrtn (CA) County Water District
Rocky Mountain Institute. 1989. Performance of residential water-
efflcient fixtures: notable cits studies. Old Snowmass, CO.
Schultz, 0.1988. Personal communication. Water Conservation
Coordinator, City of Glendale, CA.
US. Army Corps of Engineers. 1988. Metropolitan Denver Water
Supply OS. App.24-33; App.4c: 4-7; App.2:4-33.
US. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1984.
Chap. 4 Pages 8-9 in Residential Water Conservation Projects
Summery Rep.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: Rocky Mountain Institute publishes s
detailed catalog. Water-Efficient Technologies for the Urban/
Residential Sector (*W87-30). The calculations presented in this
presentation are more fully documented and discussed in Rocky
Mountain publications #WK .. #W89-24, and *W89-26.
243
-------
-------
WATS* QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR 21* CENTURY, 1989:245-247
Water Quality, Quantity, and Conservation
Elizabeth Tabbutt
Lobbyist, Washington Environmental Council, Seattle, Washington
The Washington Environmental Council is a coalition
of both individual members and 70 organizational
members. We represent sports fishing groups,' gar-
den dubs, hiking groups such as the Mountaineers,
and local chapters of environmental groups such as
the Sierra Club and National Audubon Society.
Not surprisingly, water issues are a major focus for
us. The Counci has been following water issues-
both quality and quantity-since our formation in
196& We played a key role In establishing
Washington's Department of Ecology in 1970, recog-
nizing the importance of bringing water allocation
and water pollution programs doser together, and
we supported the State Water Resources Act of 1971,
which strengthens the policy of protecting in-stream
flows. Currently, the Council is involved in legislative
efforts to reexamine those key policies, to more
sharply define in-stream resource values and alloca-
tion policies, and to identify conservation or water
use efficiency techniques.
quality is appreciated as more than a measure of pol-
lutant concentrations.
Washington's Water Resource
Problems
Interest in water supply in Washington is as broad
and varied as the State. We have over-allocated sys-.
terns that run dose to dry in some summer months
(such as the Walla Walla and the YaMma); we have
systems where dams and urban growth have so al-
tered flows that the concentration of pollutants in
lower reaches exceeds water quality standards; we
have rivers where flows must be protected for their
fisheries habitat; and we have stretches of rivers and
streams where aesthetics and recreational values re-
quire a flow above that necessitated by fisheries'
needs or water quality standards.
In each of these examples, water quantity is the
immediate problem, but water quality is really at
issue. Whether we are speaking of overstressed sys-
tems with seasonal flows so low that temperature to
the restricting parameter; systems where pure water
is withdrawn and fertilizers, herbicides, and salts are
returned; systems where there is not adequate water
coverage of gravel or other habitat areas; or systems
where the quantity of the flow, in and of itself, defines
the quality of the water (such as free-flowing sys-
tems), it is stQI water quality. For the Councfl, water
Jurisdiction
Recognizing that the relationship between quality
and quantity goes beyond measuring pollutant con-
centrations broadens the JurisdictionaJ questions.
The State is managing water withdrawals by writing
permits on some, but not all, withdrawals. The
Federal Government is setting standards for dis-
charg-es of pollutant concentrations and loads. The
State is striving to meet those EPA standards by writ-
ing permits on some, but not all, dischargers. And the
State is legislatively charged with protecting other
water quality values, such as flows necessary for in-
stream resources (aesthetics, recreation, wfldlife).
Are there sharp JurisdictionaJ lines? No.
Are there gaps? Yes. What we have learned in all
areas of environmental protection is that small,
cumulative impacts add up. This is especially true in
the complex relationship between water quantity and
quality. Every withdrawal of water from a system af-
fects the concentration of pollutants downstream,
the avaiabitty of habitat the quality of the aesthetics
experience. Every discharge into surface water that
brings pollutants makes the water less available for
other beneficial uses. Nonpoint discharges, some of
which may be too dispersed to ever consider regulat-
ing, add up. Combined, these withdrawals and dis-
charges are degrading water. We do need to protect
against cumulative impacts. Controlling water quan-
tity may be the only way to protect against the
cumulative impact of discharges that we cannot ef-
fectively regulate.
How can we do that? Simple answer take less
water out of our systems by conservation and water
use efficiency.
Washington's Legislative Study of
Water Policy and Conservation
The impetus for the legislatively directed study on
water use efficiency was, unfortunately, not the res-
toration of In-stream flows and protection of water
quality, but rather the hope that conservation and ef-
245
-------
E TA88UTT
fidency techniques might result in "new water
similar to the new energy supplies that resulted from
serious energy conservation. The analogy to the
energy experience, though attractive, breaks down
on dose examination. Under our western water law,
where water is basically a public resource given
away free for public or private use, the two assump-
tions are: only beneficially used water is induded In
the water right; and the "use It or lose ft" rule prevais.
These two tenets work against conservation. Ques-
tions such as "Who has the right to the saved water?"
and "What incentive does the user have to con-
serve?* are serious and must be addressed. How-
ever, Washington's legislators seem to want to avoid
them. These questions touch too dosely upon exist-
ing water rights, and, as always, existing water rights
are given a hands-off assurance in the political arena.
Our State's Water Use Efficiency Study Group
divided the question. One subcommittee looked at
agricultural practices, and another looked at
munidpal/Industrial practices. The study identified
techniques and incentives, from demonstration
projects of improved Irrigation systems to new
plumbing codes, but it stopped short of recommend-
ing mandatory actions. Conservation was looked at
mainly as a way to have more water for future con-
sumptive needs. Returning that "saved water to the
stream, which would be the most direct way to en-
hance water quality, was not assured.
The Washington Environmental Cound found this
worrisome. We have seen that our legislature does
not have the political wil to be aggressive in limiting
existing water rights. What*s more, it does not even
appear to understand the need to require conserva-
tion for the express purpose of restoring or enhanc-
ing in-stream flows. Taken together, this would signal
little hope of maintaining or improving water quality
in rivers and streams.
The Public Trust Doctrine in Water
Quality Issues
In The Emerging Recognition of a Public Interest In
Water Water Quality Control by the Public Trust
Doctrine" (Johnson, 1988), Professor Ralph Johnson
of the University of Washington's School of Law
points to the public trust doctrine as * has been
defined by a series of court decisions as the means
to protect water quality:
A basic premise of this essay is that the
prior appropriation system is flawed:
from inception it has failed to protect
public rights to dean water, recreation,
fish and wildlife, and environmental
quality. The public trust doctrine, how-
ever, may provide a means of constraining
prior appropriators to assure water
quality and to accomplish other public
purposes.
To redress the degradation of water quality Prof es-
sor Johnson suggests:
Examples of controls that might be im-
posed on water extractors under the
public trust doctrine indude: (1) requir-
ing increased efficiency and greater con-
servation; (2) controlling the times of day,
week, or month for irrigation or other
water uses; (3) regulating the type, com-
position and time of application of pes-
ticides, herbicides, and other chemicals;
and (4) restricting the quantity of water
extracted by appropriators or riparians.
Whle these controls appear more applicable to ir-
rigation users, comparable measures might be im-
posed on munidpal/Industrial withdrawals.
Clearly, the results of conservation on the part of
irrigators and conservation on the part of municipals
win have a differing impact on water quality at the
point of reentry to the system. But both efforts should
incorporate waste reduction as a accompanying
practice. We should require lesser applications of
pesticides and fertilizers with more efficient irrigation.
We should institute industrial pretreatment and
process modification to decrease the pollutants
moved by the lower water volumes.
The use of the public trust doctrine could be our
best tool in water quality control, but when it is used
as the justification to either constrain existing rights
or to mandate conservation efforts, the water which
to "saved" must remain in-stream to protect or en-
hance water quality or other public trust values. That
water cannot be considered a new source, water up
for grabs, either by private marketing or State alloca-
tion. Granted, there are complexities and hard ques-
tions. "Saved water needs to be defined. Should it
indude wasted water that another user was depend-
••* ing on? Should water saved by voluntary efforts or
privately financed efforts be returned to the public
domain or to that water (or a portion of that water)
marketable as a private property? By avoiding the
hard questions Washington's legislature to failing the
public. The reality to that while it postpones the politi-
cally tough questions, the water continues to dribble
away, and water quality continues to degrade.
Prom the perspective of a citizens' group dedi-
cated to protection of our State's natural resources,
the Council's position to dear Washington State, to
meet its public trust responsibilities, which indude
the maintenance of water quality, must use its
246
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CaffURT. 1980:245447
authority over water quantity. Our water manage-
ment agency needs direction from the legislature,
but It would be consistent with existing State policy
to:
• Require conservation, a strict meeting of the
tenet of western water law that says that
wasted water is not beneficially used, and
• Assure that conserved water remains in-stream
to offset the increasing number of discharges,
both large and small, permitted and
unpermitted.
If those efforts are not sufficient to protect water
quality, then the State must reexamine water rights
and, where appropriate, reclaim those rights.
States' Use of Water Allocation
Authority in Meeting Federal Water
- Quality Standards
Do I see water quantity issues addressed within your
water quality Framework? No. Is the relationship be-
tween quantity and quality woven into your water
qualfty program? That Is not dear. Our observation of
Washington's two water programs -quality and
quantity - indicates thatthe relationship between the
two Is not an Integral part of either program. We
suspect that relationship has not been' an integral
part of EPA's water quality program, either. We need
to buld allocation thinking into water quality problem
solving from the Federal level down to the State and
local level. In some areas of concern we cannot ig-
nore it any longer. The Federal Government can pro-
vide useful dlnactlon in iritegrating water quantity and
water quality relationships and can highlight areas
where water quantity actions should be considered
by the State as the most effective tool for meeting
standards.
The Federal Government, though not intending to
usurp States' control over water allocation, can
nonetheless encourage and expect States to use that
authority to meet federally set water quality stan-
dards, especially where State legislatures have
authorized their agencies to Implement the Federal
Program and delegation has been given. The EPA
should recognize thatthe public trust doctrine Is the
dear justification for such State action.
Reference
Johnton, R. W. 19SS. The emergency recognition of • public inter-
Ml In water water quality control by the puttie trust doctrine.
taOwfd Geejhee, ed. Water and the American Wett Nat
RMOur. Law Cantor, Univ. Colorado School of Law, Boulder.
247
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS. & COMMENTS
Questions, Answers, and Comments
C. (Moderator Dodson) I wil summarize the
major points from this session. Dariene thought that
California was doing the right sort of things in water
conservation and. although she has difficult issues to
deal with, nonetheless does not see a directorial rale
for EPA in the water quality standards program. Am I
correct on that Dariene?
A. (Dariene Ruiz) Very correct
C. (Dodson) As for Larry's presentation, first of afl
he noted that there is a relationship between quantity
and quality, not onty from a technical, scientific basis
but from a legal standpoint Then he discussed all the
things that States were attempting to provide that
link. He also recommended that EPA be more in-
volved in allocating decisions as they pertain to water
quality.
C. (MacDonnefl) EPA has to be more involved
when States don't protect water quality adequately in
the context of the Federal Water Quality Act One of
the things that I've asked for Is clarification from EPA
of the meaning of some of that Act so that States will
have better guidance.
Q. (Ruiz) When specifically do you feel then Is
ambiguity in trie Clean Water Act?
A. (MacDonnell) Particularly in EPA's role in affect-
ing the use of water.
Some States have fully embraced the whole con-
cern about water quality and the things that affect it
Some have drawn a narrower line in their approach
to those issues and are wondering if they have to do
more. Colorado has specific provisions in its Water
Quality Control Act that directly limit what can be
done to regulate water use persuant to a water
variety, and a broader section about what can be
done, as well. Colorado's Water Quality Control
Commission has found it difficult to determine what
its responsibilities are in the context of State law and
wants to know more about what the Federal law may
require.
C. (Ruiz) California is choosing to do more be-
cause of the State law and did not agree with review
that there is ambiguity in the Clean Water Ad. in fact
the Act very dearly restricts and limits kinds of dis-
charges affecting surface waters.
C. (MacDonnell) You had to have the court tell
you, under the public trust doctrine, that you needed
to do more. Throughout the West we wfll have to wait
untB certain standards reach the point where things
get so bad that courts intervene.
C. (Ruiz) It wasnt that we weren't doing enough,
it's that we Ve done too much. The courts felt that we
had pulled together too many pieces into one
decision-making process and were simply telling us
we had to do It in a staged approach. They were in no
way reflecting on the fact that we had done it insuffi-
ciently.
C. (Dodson, continuing) John indicated that there
is a role for EPA in promoting water conservation be-
cause there's a real environmental payoff. Also, on
the issue of conservation and its linkage to environ-
mental protection, he thought EPA should be provid-
ing technical assistance to interested parties.
Again in the context of water quality standards and
the Framework. Betty thinks that EPA should giving
guidance on integrating water quantity and quality.
Q. Larry stated that EPA should become more in-
volved In the reallocaOon of water, and I would like
him to give a specific example.
A. (MacDonnefl) One example is instrument flow
programs: encouraging States to consider transfer of
existing consumptive water rights and teaching
States flow purposes. EPA could take a more direct
decision-making role In the allocation of water in ex-
isting storage protects. In the West, the Bureau of
Reclamation is realigning its role on the use of that
water resource, whictris largely dedicated to existing
consumptive uses. It reexamined the operating prin-
ciples or the number of those projects and. though
the Clean Water Act had a provision to consider aug-
mentation of storage, few new projects have been
buBL EPA could potentially play some role in decid-
ing, where appropriate, that some of that water be
released as needed to address water quality issues.
C. (Ruiz) How can I stimulate Federal response to
States' water quantity allocations? A number of
forests, public lands, and other interests that are
federally owned are now hiding behind the reserva-
tion of rights principle and in marry cases that is lead-
ing to claims of rights to some of our headwaters and
to some of the better areas in California. This has
serious implications to the State and yet the Federal
Government seems, on the whole, totally uncoor-
dinated in coping with those kinds of environmental
questions. EPA could be helpful in educating and in
bringing about the conversion of others within the
Federal bureaucracy.
248
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21« CENTURY, 1988
C. (Dodson) Governor George Center of North
Dakota has convened a group of water resource ex-
perts in the West to talk about getting the Federal
Water Act together. If quantity spells quality, EPA has
an effect The general perception of the western
Governors is that the left hand doesn't know what the
right hand Is doing, which is further complicated by
the fact that both quantity agencies, the Army Corps
and the Bureau of Land Management, as well as
quality agencies, EPA in particular, are involved.'
O, (Ruiz) deallocation at conserved water is a key
interest In California. Is there any legal Justification
for not appropriately reallocating conserved water
as opposed to holding it exclusively for public trust
measures?
A. (Tabbutt) If you use the public trust doctrine, as
it has been defined here as "court decisions,'' as the
justification for requiring reexamination of the right,
you've passed the justification. If you're going in and
opening the right, then I think it should cut back to
satisfy the public trust I did not mean to imply that
every conservation effort would automatically send
water back into the stream. That is a really difficult
issue because you get into who made the Invest-
ment, and whether ft was voluntary or required Untl
we've defined safe water and have dealt with the
waste issue, if s very hard to place return at SO per-
cent or any cut-and-dried percentage.
Q. (Du Bey) If we had a chance to look at ap-
propriation today, dealing with environmental pro-
tection and a need to not worry about Investment
rights, what would we do? That's the situation thafs
exacted by Indian tribes who are developing water
programs that are part quantity and part quality, and
who are not getting into the loans water now. They
had to do it as a management scheme that would
make sense and would address these issues.
A. (MacOonnell) Are you thinking of a situation
where tribes develop water codes so that they can
devise their own rules? Okay. The things we have
learned about allocation decisions that may require
reconsideration in this context are that we offered up
water rights in the West without very explicit condi-
tions about use limitations. Many of the water rights
that we are concerned about today were given, with
no explicit conditions on quality effects other than
those that existed in basic nuisance law. We also
made those rights permanent. Some people would
suggest that we do two things in allocating new rights
if we have that opportunity; one is to condition those
rights on the basis of quality considerations. At a min-
imum we might want those water rights to be used in
a manner that does not Impair existing water quality
standards. We also might want to have some term
placed on future use, to consider whether that is still
the best use.
C. There is a need to get clarification or input from
EPA about whether dean water applies just to dis-
charges of pollutants. Thafs one of the principal
focuses of the Clean Water Act Our jurisdiction ex-
tends only to discharge of pollutants in the traditional
402 situation; however, when you get into 404. you're
also going to look upstream and downstream at
secondary Impacts. I think you should certainly ex-
pect the argument that you need to have a standards
compliance and to look at those secondary impacts.
One way is through 401 certification, which can be a
very powerful regulatory tool for the States, or it can
be no program at all. If s easy to say that EPA should
get more involved with these water allocation-type of
decisions, but from a political standpoint it's virtually
impossible, and we have to realize that, as a water
quality agency, we just don't have the political clout
or the political power to do those kinds of activities
and when we try, sometimes we suffer the backlash.
Perhaps another way for EPA to get involved in
water allocation situations is in policing compliance
with the 404 review and guidelines. The guidelines re-
quire that anyone applying for a permit essentially
make sure thatjhey have the least damaging alterna-
tive, and we often find that proposed water alloca-
tions and water projects are, or can be, alleged to be
not the least damaging alternative. You may also
want to look at conservation as a real alternative to
some sort of structural project Our efforts have been
fairly modest because the politics, not the law seem
to be a limiting factor 101 g not only recognizes there
may be incidentally passed water rights from water
quality considerations, it provides for this contingen-
cy. Most Federal court cases interpreting lOlg have
been substantially in favor of EPA or in favor of water
quality. We don't have or ever will have in place the
kind of political clout to cany out the law if it doesn't
authorize us to do so.
The biggest flaw in developing water quality
programs is that everyone thinks the latest idea
solves aJI problems. We faced that in the Central Val-
ley in the hearings on the Bay delta in which we
talked about conservation only to learn that the im-
pacts to ti« groundwater basin were going to be so
substantial in an overdrafted area that we would do
serious environmental harm if we held farmers to the
conservation standards. Conservation always has to
be a consideration, but it isn't the answer every time.
It is something to consider within a given set of facts.
249
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
-------
WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21 «t CENTURY. 1989
provoke response from Federal regulatory agencies Colorado system. It wanted to Improve efficiency so
regarding quality and quantity. it changed the irrigation technique. As a result the
On the issue of wetlands, the Salinity Control Pro- salt level went down, but some wetlands dried up. It's
gram of the Upper Colorado, which is about the best a really difficult issue, but we're moving in a positive
national nonpoint source program, tries to improve direction.
irrigation efficiency to reduce salt loading into the
251
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21« CENTURY. 1989: 253-255
Priorities and Timeframes for the Water
Quality Standards Framework
Martha Prothro
Director, Office of 'WaterRegulations andStandards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C,
I have had an overriding sense during this con-
ference of the real richness of our program. It is In-
credibly diverse, and the people who are involved
have a great deal of expertise, experience, and
dedication. Obviously, there is no way that I can rep-
resent the views of everyone who spoke in all of the
sessions; I wfll speak from the notes that I received
from conference participants.
Nonpoint Sources and Water
Quality Standards
The sense that came out of this session is that there
is an urgent need to get on with implementation by
using existing tools. While standards are needed to
assess waters and to evaluate control effectiveness,
they might not be the nonpoint source program's
highest priority. There was a concern expressed that
EPA should use caution as It approaches new stan-
dards for the nonpoint source scenario, and a fairly
strong view that the ecoregion approach can be very
useful although there Is still more to do in working out
and implementing that concept Many people feel
that EPA needs to be more sensitive to the site-
specific nature of nonpoint source problems and
should not adopt plans or polides on a national basis
that either direct or delay local approaches.
Diversity and Innovation in State
Standards Programs
In this session we heard about some State efforts to
build consensus around programs involving growth
(antidegradatlon) and protecting specific aquatic
resources (Chesapeake Bay). There was a charge to
all of us to find ways to work together (the Federal
Government, States, locals, industries, and citizens'
groups) and to stop wasting the limited resources
available for environmental protection in litigation
and disputes over is-';9s that with good wSI and
responsible debate, we could resolve among us. I
think we will all remember Greg Forge's admonition
to us for a long time, or at least I hope we will.
Identification and Control of Toxic
Pollutants
This session focused more on aquatic life protection
than human health, which was addressed in a
separate session. There was discussion on the triad
of necessary approaches — identification, assess-
ment , and control — and that EPA needs to clearly
identify these different needs in the program to avoid
wasting the States' and industries' resources. There
was also discussion about focusing on the core
group of toxics that EPA has identified through na-
tional research and monitoring programs as causing
problems in receiving waters. In addition, we heard
that NRDC expects EPA to take action against States
that do not incorporate requirements for numeric
toxic criteria by 1990. and that EPA should be
prepared to step in and promulgate for those States.
There were suggestions that EPA should put
promulgation of water quality standards in the
Framework to balance it with the other priorities. A
couple of States are stffl arguing for the implementa-
tion of the "free fronVstandards rather than numeric
criteria, (I pointed out that this isn't an option under
the 1987 Water Quality Act, and that we need to be
talking about other areas where we can still issue ad-
ditional, helpful guidance.) There was some talk
about the flexibility now available for risk levels and
about site-specific criteria modification. Not
everybody seemed to like the flexibility in the criteria
documents, however, and I don't think we reached a
consensus about how to approach those hard is-
sues.
Developments in Sediment Criteria
The sediment grou^ deemed to agree that criteria are
needed, and that EPA should get on with developing
them. There was a sense that guidance on the
development and use of criteria must accompany
them, and that EPA must teach people about criteria
through technology transfer and guidance. There
was consensus on the need to look at all types of
sediment criteria and assessment methods, not just
253
-------
M. PROTHflO
chemical specific but also the biological or bioassay
approaches. More field evaluation is needed in the
development of a regulatory or a technical
framework for the use of sediment criteria. Methods
and framework should include considerations for
making decisions concerning disposal options.
Finally, there was a sense that States should be re-
quired to adopt sediment criteria, and that they may
not feel ready to do it unless they have a mandate
from the EPA.
and, in the second triennium, that EPA should talk
about developing guidelines for States to set lake
water quality standards.
Water Quality Standards and
Indian Tribes
New Mexico was the only State that attended this
sessioa I think the tribes are really anxious to have
some State involvement in their activities and hope.
you all will spend some time thinking about this. The
tribes indicated that they are wffllng and eager to par-
ticipate fuOy In the water quality standards program,
but they need additional funding, tech support, and
outreach in the area of tech transfer.
Tribes suggest that EPA and the States use face-
to-face communication In providing support to
tribes, since that is the best way to understand each
other. Tribes also asked for ERA'S help to get more
technical assistance and expertise from the States.
The feeling was that, over the years, the Federal
Government has given a lot of assistance to States to
develop programs and expertise, and that some of
these benefits should be passed along to the tribes
through the State governments.
Lakes Protection through
Standards
The lakes panel discussed the need to establish bet-
ter State monitoring programs, including bkxnonitor-
irrg and fish tissue analysis, to improve the lakes' data
base. There is little or no information on the ade-
quacy of existing water quality standards for lakes;
EPA needs to do more data gathering and data
analysis to property protect lakes. For interagency
coordination, a framework is needed for potentially
conflicting water quality and water quantity issues
that affect lakes, and guidelines are necessary to es-
tablish State lake management programs. There
were some questions on whether the ecoregion con-
cept could be helpful or is even really scientifically
applicable to lake protection and development of
lake water quality standards. In addition. States sug-
gested that we need to review the existing Gold Book
criteria to determine their appropriateness for lakes.
There was discussion on the Framework document,
a suggestion that EPA add lakes to the first triennium.
Developments in Biocriteria
In this session there was a sense that the narrative
approach is a good first step that will lead eventually
to some numeric biocriteria approaches and that
narrative biocriteria may manifest themselves in
biological descriptive use classes. It was suggested
that EPA should be falrty comprehensive when
developing biocriteria; that biocriteria could serve as
a supplement to the chemical and effluent toxicfty ap-
proaches. There was recognition that biocriteria will
measure effect and not causes and that EPA needs to
think about the implementation aspects (how we
move from the biocriteria to the control programs) to
protect waterbodies. The session thought that EPA
should play an active role in technical assistance and
guidance development, and possibly in oversight of
State programs for developing biocriteria, because
there is such a broad range of approaches and a
need for national consensus/consistency about the
best approach.
Criteria and Advisory
Development by EPA: their
Derivation and Application
In this area there was consensus on most of the
major issues. The degree of protection (the risk level)
Is one of the major issues that was discussed; the
consensus was that EPA should select a national risk
level that is appropriate across the board (the human
health group made the same recommendation).
There were some who felt that water quality ad-
visories are a good, useful expansion of the criteria
program and that EPA should accelerate its efforts to
issue advisories, particularly the latest information on
toxic pollutants. As in other sessions, there was
.. much concern about the effect that the antibacksikJ-
ing section of the law has on the use and implemen-
tation of the advisories (and even some of the criteria
documents) and strong suggestions that EPA has to
define what part these provisions play in the regula-
tions.
T*- •« was also quite a bit of discussion about
wildlife protection, which focused on an urgent need
to develop wildlife protection criteria. There is still
work to be done on implementing the existing water
quality criteria: EPA needs to give guidance on issues
such as the difference between the drinking water
MCLs and the water quality criteria, and the Agency
should do more in the areas of tech transfer.
254
-------
WATBt QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 21* CSOURY. 19M: 253-255
Implementing Antldegradatlon
A number of States have made progress in Im-
plementing antidegradation, although there are sig-
nificant differences in approach. EPA policy and
guidance documents may be too ambiguous and
even insufficient in this area.
All EPA regions should have some guidance on
antidegradation, probably issued at the regional level
with Headquarters helping to ensure consistency.
This guidance should foster not just remote or
esoteric policy approaches, but practical ap-
proaches that actually could be implemented and
that have real meaning.
EPA should provide an array of options to allowfor
some State experimentation in this relatively new
field, and EPA regions should participate in preparing
State plans since consistency within geographic
areas or geographic regions is quite important There
is also a sense that if regulation revisions are needed,
they should address only the most critical aspects of
the antidegradatton process to allow for State-
specific experimentation and approaches. There was
evidently a sense that, until the States have
regulatory nonpoint source programs, EPA shouldn't
be insisting on antidegradation being applicable to
nonpoint source development
Extending Standards to Wetlands
In this session there was a sense that EPA needs to
give a Federal signal, possibly through water quality
standards regulation. President Bush did give a
Federal signal, in my opinion, when he highlighted
wetlands protection as a priority for the Federal
Government Nevertheless, the message here is that,
at the Federal level, EPA needs to continually help
with outreach and public education and to continue
to signal that wetlands deserve protection. There is a
sense that States are nervous about all of this, mat
most States dont want to be out front and need
Federal leadership. There is also a recognition that
although new water quality standards are needed,
there are existing authorities States can use through
section 401 certification programs, so States can
take a stronger role in protecting wetlands than they
have In the past Any guidance that EPA issues
should build on those existing authorities.
Setting Human Health Standards
EPA should take a more conservative route on how it
implements narrative standards, specifically in refer-
ence to risk levels. EPA's recent efforts to do tech
transfer In this area meet with general approval, but
States hope that the Agency wilt do much more.
There seems to be a consensus that EPA should set
the carcinogenic risk level, or at least that EPA should
say what the preferred and minimum acceptable risk
levels would be. There was a discussion about the
need for additional guidance on duration and fre-
quency, that EPA needs to be dear on numeric
design flow, and on how all of this relates to car-
cinogens and to noncardnogens. The session con-
sidered where human health criteria should be
applied in reference to drinking water.
Water Quality, Quantity, and
Conservation
The panel seemed to agree on the relationship be-
tween the water quality/water quantity issues. There
was a difference in opinion, however, as to whether
EPA should take a more active role in the quan-
tity/quality issues if the States fail to do more than
they have in the past Water conservation provides
an important environmental and economic payoff.
There needs to be some Integration of the water
quality and water conservation Issues. EPA does
have a role to play here, particularly with regard to
water treatment wastewater treatment and general
technical assistance. Also, there was recognition of
the Important role the Federal Government plays
through the section 404 dredge and fOI program.
Other* Comments
A group of Industry people gave me some comments
on things they thought were priorities. EPA should
clarify how advisories should be used by the States
and develop guidance for the use of mixing zones
and zones of initial dilution. EPA needs to assure
more involvement from the regulated community in
.. developing water quality programs at both the State
and Federal level. EPA should resolve the antiback-
sllding problem as it affects the setting of standards
and provide guidance to the States on consistent im-
plementation of antidegradation. Industries advocate
revision of the 1979 human health criteria to reflect
the latest data and scier'"c understanding in this
field. EPA should focus on best management prac-
tices development for resolving nonpoint source
problems. Technical and scientific input should be
sought from the regulated community in developing
water quality programs, and finally, EPA should pro-
vide strong and effective technology transfer
programs for the States.
255
-------
QUESTIONS. ANSWERS. * COMMENTS
Questions, Answers, and Comments
C. (Wood) There an four cornerstones to the
water quality standards program: the Federal
Government, the State government, the public Inter-
est groups, and the regulated community. Ap-
proximately 15 of the 200 plus registrants tar this
conference are from the regulated community: per-
haps publicity was not sufficiently widespread.
I also want to take issue with your (Prothro's)
statement that them Is a consensus that the Federal
government should set standards. The meeting that I
sat In on had a straw vote where 20 people said yes
and 8 people said no; hi addition, approximately 33
percent of the attendees are Federal Government
regulators.
C. (Rader) There are two larger issues that I hope
we win consider. One is to Instltutlonalfre the pollu-
tion prevention pays approach to get EPA into
negotiating and directing nationwide source reduc-
tion efforts. This ties directly into the second issue.
which has to do with the intermediate pollution load-
ing problem. As we attempt to restrict discharges to
water, we are doing very little with other media. I
would like to see integration in the approach towards
source reduction.
C. (Ftothro) This is an issue that EPA's new ad-
ministrator, BO Reffly, supports strongly, and we are
working to integrate the waste minimization pollution
prevention approach into our programs. One impor-
tant area is antldegradatlon, and how we can use it to
promote pollution prevention.
C. (Frohardt) One of the focuses on the first day
was the need for funding. Industry has often talked
about the need for more information, more facts to
justify what we are doing, but frankly I dont see in-
dustry providing a lot of lobbying support for more
Federal or State funds for these efforts. Correspond-
ingly, it seems that environmental groups too often
have an agenda of what new controls can we put in
place tomorrow rather than let*s get funding to make
sure that we can get better science and do all of this
right There is some natural potential common
ground there; maybe If Industry and environmental
groups got together, we could back off from insisting
on countless new controls tomorrow in return for ad-
ditional funding so that we can do the job better in the
long run.
C. (Garrets) I hope EPA wil do the resource and
manpower study that we all need to justify implemen-
tation of thb rather airibitious program. Also, please
take the results of this meeting and what you have
described as a consensus (which I have a problem
with) and redrculate it back to the States, along with
the draft agenda for comments. There are many
State people here who are willing to offer comments
but are not In a position to commit to that kind of an
ambitious agenda or may not be representing the
feelings of the folks back home. The timing on the cir-
culation of that draft was poor because most of us
were struggling with the 304(1) list
EPA should organize more of these conferences in
the future. However, if you want us to come to a con-
sensus, you should structure these conferences to
include more Industry and environmental group par-
ticipation and send the questions well in advance so
we have time to think about them in terms of money
and human resources.
C. (Prothro) Thank you. We wil do the resource
analysis talked about'on the first day and will send
the draft agenda out again for comment. I think it
might be a good Idea to try to put some kind of a
summary in front of the proceedings document, too.
I didn't mean to describe all of the highlights as
consensus Items but tried to communicate where the
notes indicated a consensus. I realize many points
were Important but not necessarily things that all par-
ticipants agreed upon.
256
-------
WATS* QUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY. 1969
Participants
Carrol Adams
USDA. Sol Conservation Service
101S. Main Street
Temple. TX 76501
PauiAdamus
U. S. EPA, Wetlands Research
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallb, OR 97333
Susan Alexander
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Howard Alexander
Dow Chemical
Midland. Ml 48674
Erlece Allen
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Bruce Baker
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
RO. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Richard Ballantine
U.S. EPA, OWRS
401MSL.SW
Washington. DC 20460
Warren Banks
US. EPA. OWRS
401MSL.SW
Washington. DC 20460
Jack Bamett
Colorado River Basin Salinity .
Forum
106 West 500 South. Suite 101
Bountiful. UT 84010
Richard Batiuk
U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay
Uason
Chesapeake Bay (Jason Office
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis. MD 21403
Stephen Bauer
Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare
Div. of Environmental Quality
450 West State Street
Boise, ID 83720
Mark Bloseer
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Control
89 Kings Highway
R O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Clyde Bohmfalk •
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin. TX 78211
Joan Bortnem
S.D. Department of Water
Re
523 E. Capftoi
Pierre. SO 57501
Alan Boynton
James River Corporation
Box 221 8, Tredegar Street
Richmond, VA 2321 7
Donald Brady
US. EPA, OWRS
401MSL.SW
Washington. DC 20460
Rick Brandes
US. EPA, OWEP
401MSL.SW --
Washington, DC 20460
Sarah Burgin
Brown, Maroney & Oaks Hartline
1400 1 Congress Plaza
111 Congress Avenue
Austin. TX 78701
Bernard Caton
Virginia Water Control Board
RO. Box 11 143
21 11N. Hamilton Street
Richmond. VA 23230
Chee Chang
Dynamac Corporation
il140Rockv«lePlke
Rockville, MD 20852
Sam Chapman
US. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
John Clausen
School of Natural Resources
University of Vermont
Alken Center
Burlington, VT 05405
David Clough
Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation
103 So. Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
Jamee Conlon
U S. EPA, OWRS
401 M St. SW
Washington, DC 20460
Marjorie Coombs
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
TwJn Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, PL 32399-2400
Emelise Cormier
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
Office of Water Resources
P. 0.44091
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
David Courtemanch
Maine. Department of
Environmental Protection
State House Station
Augusta, ME ,*333
David Crttcnfield
International Paper
RO. Box 809024
Dallas, TX 75380
257
-------
PARTICIPANTS
Phillip Crbcktr
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
John Grossman
Colorado Bureau of Reclamation
RO. Box 25007 (D-5150)
Denver, CO 80225
MlmiDanneJ
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Suite 1200-
Dallas, TX 75202
Jim Davenport
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
Tom Oawson
Wisconsin Department of Justice
123 West Washington Avenue
Madison. Wl 53707
William Diamond
U.S. EPA, OWRS
401 M St. SW
Washington. DC 20460
Ken Dickson
North Texas State University
Institute of Applied Sciences
RO. Box 13078
Denton. TX 76202
David Dillon
Oklahoma Water Resources
Board
P. O. Box 53585
Oklahoma City. OK 73152
Bob Doan
Insituform Texark
9330 LBJFWY* 900
Dallas. TX 75243
Max Dodson
U.S. EPA. Region VIII
99918th Street Suite 500
Denver. CO 80202-2405
Phillip Dom
Shell Development Company
P. 0. Box 1380
Houston. TX 77251-1380
Cynthia Dougherty
US. EPA. Office of Water
401 M St. SW (EN 336)
Washington. DC 20460
Jane Downing
US. EPA, Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
Steven Dressing
US. EPA. OWRS
40lMSt.SW
Washington, DC 20460
Richard Du Bey
The Du Bey Law Firm
3110 Bank of California Center
900 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98164
Roland Dubois
US. EPA, Off. General Counsel
401MSL.SW
LE-132W
Washington, DC 20460
Dan Dudley
Ohio EPA
Water Quality Program
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus. OH 43266-0149
Tim Eder
National Wildlife Federation
802 Monroe Street
Ann Arbor. Ml 48104
Doug Ehom
US. EPA. Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago. IL 60604
William Elchbaum
5204 Wissioming Road
Bethesda, MO 20016
Bruce Elliot
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Robert Elliot
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Dennis Erinake*
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Box 6567
Fort Worth, TX 76058
KImberly Everett
Oklahoma Department of Health
1000 NE 10th
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
C.P. Fall*
ARCO
BOX2819
Dallas, TX 75221
James Fava
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus. OH 43201
Jack Ferguson
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Larry Ferguson
US. EPA. Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Jeffery Foran
National Wildlife Federation
802 Monroe Street
Ann Arbor. Ml 48104
Gregory Forge
Northwest Renewable Resources
1133 Dexter Morton Bldg.
Seattle. WA 98104
James Fraser
Dynamac Corporation
ni40RockvBlePike
Rockvflle. MD 20852
Richard Freeman
US. EPA. Region V
2305 S. Dearborn Street
Water Division
Chicago. IL 60604
Toby Frevert
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield. IL 62794-9276
258
-------
WATS* QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21 «t CENTURY. 1988
Paul Frohardt
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control
Commission
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Mary Jo Cartels
Maryland Department
Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Building 30,1st Floor
Baltimore, MD 21224
Janet Gonser
Texas Soil & Water Conservation
RO. Box 658
Temple. TX 76503
Frank Gostomskl
US. EPA, OWRS
401 M St, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Charles Gregg
U.S. EPA, Office of Water
401MSL.SW
Washington, DC 20460
Jean Gregory
Virginia Water Control Board
2111N. Hamilton St
Richmond, VA 23230
Jay Hair
National Wildlife Federation
141216th St,NW
Washington DC 20036
Eric Hall
US. EPA, Region I
Water Quality Branch. WQP-2109
JFK Federal Buflding
Boston, MA 02203
Rebecca Hanmer
US. EPA, Office of Water
401MSL.SW
Washington, DC 20460
David Hansen
EPA/ERL-Narragansett
US. EPA
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Rolf Hartung
University of Michigan
School of Public Health
3125FemwoodDr.
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109
Steven Heiakary
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
520 Lafayette Road
SL Paul. MN 55155
Patricia Hill
American Paper Institute
1250 Connecticut Avenue
Suite 210
Washington. DC 20036
Douglas Holy
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Tom Howard
California Water Resources
Control Board
901 PSL
Sacramento, CA 95814
Shing-Fu Hsueh
New Jersey Bureau of Water
Quality Standards and
Analysis
401 East State Street
P.O. Box CN 029
Trenton, NJ 08625
Robert Hughes
NSI Technology Service Corp.
1600 SW Western
Corvallis. OR 97333
John Jackson
Unified Sewerage Agency of
Washington County
150 N. First Avenue
Hiilsboro, OR 97123
Edgar Jeffrey
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue. 6W-SP
Dallas, TX 75202
Dave Jensen
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control
Call No. 98922
Statehouse Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
Robert Johnson
Tennessee Valley Authority
SPB2S215P
Environmental Quality Staff
Knoxville, TN 37902
Peter Jones
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
Barbara Keeler
US. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Street
Dallas, TX 75202
Gene Keepper
US. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Richard KJmerle
Monsanto Company
SOON. Lindbergh Blvd.
St Louis, MO 63167
Arnold King
USDA SoB Conservation Service
Box 6567
Ft Worth, TX 76133
Kenton Kirkpatrick
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Robin Knox
Department of Environmental
Quality
RO. Box 94381
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9381
Myron Knutson
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue ,
Dallas, TX 75202
Robert Koroncai
US. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. PA 19107
Paul Koska
US. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
259
-------
PARTICIPANTS
RayraLanray
National Wildlife Federation
802 Monroe Street
Ann Arbor. Ml 48104
Jessica Landman
Natural Res. Defense Coundi
1350 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Willie Lane
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Robert Layton, Jr.
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
12th ROOT, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
John Lehman
US.EPA.OMPC
401MSL.SW
Washington. DC 20460
Frederick Leutner
U.S.EPA.OWRS
401MSL.SW
Washington. DC 20460
James Luey
US. EWPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn (5WQS-TUB-8)
Chicago, IL 60604
Jane Lyons
National Audubon Society
2525Walllngwood
Suite 1505
Austin. TX 78746
Lawrence MacDonnell, Jr.
University of Colorado
Natural Resources Law Center
Campus Box 401
Boulder, CO 80309-0401
Suzanne Marcy
US. EPA, OWRS
401 M Street. SW (WH-585)
Washington. DC 20460
John Maxted
US. EPA. OWP
401 M St.. SW
Washington, DC 20460
MarfcMcCasland
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Curt McCormick
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Larry McCullough
South Carolina Department of
Health & Environmental
2600 Bud Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Bruce McDonell
US. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Ann McQinley
Texas Water Commission
1 TOON. Congress
Austin. TX 78759
James Mclndoe
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 W.L Dickinson Drive
Montgomery. AL 36130
Kymber Messersmith
Chemical Manufacturers
Association
2501MSLNW
Washington. DC 20036
Don Miller
EPA/ERL-Narragansett
South Ferry Road
Narragansett. Rl 02882
Reid Miner
N.QA.S.I.
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
David Moon
US. EPA, OWRS
401MSL.SW
Washington. DC 20036
Michael Morton
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin
US. EPA. ECAO
26 West Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati. OH 45268
David Mumper
Weyerhauser
Tacoma,WA 98477
Art Newell
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Room 530
50 Wolf Road
Albany. NY 12233-4756
Warren Norris
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Edmund Notzon
US. EPA. OWRS
401 M St. SW
Mai Code (WH-586)
Washington. DC 20460
Reed Obemdorfer
Utah Bureau of Water Pollution
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690
Cheryl Overstreet
US. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. TX 75202
Bin Painter
US. EPA
Office of Policy Analysis
401MSL.SW
Washington, DC 20460
Randy Palachek
Texas Water Commission
RO. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
Richard Pepino
US. EPA. Region III
841 Chestnut Building
PhiUielphia. PA 19107
John Persell
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Govt.
P.O. Box 217
Cass Lake. MN 56633
260
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21« CENTURY. 1989
Spencer Peterson
US. EPA, Region X
Mai Stop E5096
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle. WA 98101
Quang Plum
Oklahoma State Department of
Health
1000 NE 10th
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Marjorie Pitts
US. EPA, OWRS
401MSL.SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ken Pointer
Tennessee Department Health &
Environmental
150 9th Avenue N.
Nashville, TN 37219-5404
Stephen Pollock
Blackfeet Tribe
P.O. Box 850
Browning, MT 59417
Don Poreella
Electric Power Research Institute
P.O. Box 10412
Polo Alto, CA 94303
Frank Prince
American Petroleum Institute
1220LSL.NW
Washington. DC 20005
Martha Prothro
U.S. EPA, OWRS
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Bob Pryor
Tennessee Valley Authority
231 Sumner Place Bidding
Knoxville, TN 37902
Douglas Rader
North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund
128 East HargettSL
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27601
Susan Ratcliffe
US. EPA, OWRS
401MSL.SW
Washington, DC 20460
Jon Rauscher
US. EPA, Region VI
6H-ST
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Bruce Ray
US. EPA, Region VIII
99918th Street
Denver. CO 80202
Vickie Rest
Texas Water Commission
Wastewater Permits
P.O. Box 13087
Austin. TX 78711
Russell Rhoades
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Peter Huffier
Assn. Metro. Sewerage Agencies
12251 Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington. DC 20005
XBaitRuitar
South Carolina Department of
Health & Environmental
2600 Bull Street
Columbia. SC 29201
Dariene Ruiz
State Water Resources Control
Board
901 P Street
Sacramento. CA 95814
Dugan Sablns
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
RO. Box 44091
Baton Rouge. LA .70804
DavkfSabock
US. EPA. OWRS
401 M Street. SW, (WH-585)
Off. of Water Reg. & Standards
Washington, DC 20460
Stephen Saundera
Washington Department of
Ecology
PV-:;
Olympic WA 98504 '
LeeSchroer
US. EPA. Off. General Counsel
401 M Street S.W., Room 5II
West Tower [LE-132W]
Washington, DC 20460
Duane Schuettpelz
Wisconsin Department Natural
Resources
P.O. BOX 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
Lawrence Schwartz
Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Facilities
Department of Environmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Richard Schwer
El. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
655 Paper Mill Road
Newark, DE
Robert Seyfartn
Mississippi Department of
Natural Resources
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 392894385
Robert Shippen
US. EPA. OWRS
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Shon Simpson
Oklahoma Water Resources
Board
P.O. Box 53585'
Oklahoma City. OK 73152
Kathleen Sisneroe
New Mexico Health&
Environmental Department
1190 St Francis Drive
RO. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87504-0968
Robert Smith
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
Water Compliance Unit
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
261
-------
PARTICIPANTS
Derek Smith**
Oklahoma Water Resources
Board
RO. Box 53585
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Gene Soderbeck
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
520 Lafayette Road
Standards Development Unit
St Paul, MN 55155
Mary Lou Soscia
US.EPA.OMEP •
401MSL.SW
Washington. DC 20460
MarkSoutherland
Dynamac Corporation
Hl40RockvfllePlke
Rockvffle, MO 20852
Robert Southworth
US. EPA, Office of Water
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington. DC 20460
Robert Spehar
EPA/ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Duluth. MN 55804
Alexis Steen
Battelle
2101 WHson Blvd.
Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22201
Donald Steffeck
US. Rsh & Wildlife Service
18th and C Streets. NW
Washington. DC 20240
Robert Steiert
US. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 66101
Wren Stenger
US. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas. TX 75202
Allan Stokes
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Wallace State Office Bldg.
DesMoinesJA 50319
Charles Sutfin
US. EPA. Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago. IL 60604
Susan Swenson
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Elizabeth Tabbutt
Washington Environmental
Councfl
3213 Cove Lane. NW
Olympia.WA 98502
Judylaggart
1000 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 300
Washington. DC 20036
David lague
New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division
11 90 SL Rands Drive
Santa Fe,NM 87505
DonTahksel
Yakima Indian Nation
RO. Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948
Peter Tennant
OBSANCO
49 East 4th Street
Cincinnati. OH 45202
Nelson Thomas
EPA/ERL-Duluth
600 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
Chuck Thomas
Hercules, Inc.
5130 NW Hercules Plaza
Wilmington. DE* 19894
Paul Thompson
Natural Resources Defense
Council
1350 New York Ave.. NW
Washington, DC 20005
James Ulanoski
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
1 1th floor Fulton Building
RO. Bdx2063
Harrisburg. PA 17120
Mark Van Putten
National Wildlife Federation
802 Monroe Street
Ann Arbor. Ml 48104
BobVIckery
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202
Philip Vorsatz
US. EPA. Region IV
345CorttandSL,NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Randall Watte
US. EPA Region III
841 Chestnut SL
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Robert Ware
Kentucky Division of Water
18ReaiyRoad
Frankfort. KY 40601
David Wefring
International Paper
6400 Poplar Avenue. Suite 5-17
Memphis, TN 38197
Barbara West
National Park Service
Water Resour. Division
NPS-AIR RO. Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225-0287
Linda Wilbur
US. EPA, Office of Water
401 M Street SW(WH-551)
Washington, DC 20460
Thomas WHson
US. EPA. Region X
1200 6th Avenue (WD-139)
Seattle, WA 98101
Wendy Wittse
US. EPA. Region IX
215 Fremont SL
W-3-1
San Francisco, CA 94105
Joe Winkle
US. EPA. Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
262
-------
WATER OUAUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21* CENUIRY, 1988
Gordon Wood BIO Wuertnelo Howard Zar
SOCMA US. EPA. Region VIII US. EPA, Region V
1330 Conn. Ave. 999 18th Street 230 S. Dearborn Street
Room 300 Denver, CO 80202 Chicago, IL 60604
Washington.DC 20036
Ernest Woods Ohio EPA U.S. EPA, OWRS
US. EPA, Region VI 1800 Watermark Drive 401 M SL SW
1445 Ross Ave. RO. Box 1049 Washington. DC 20460
Suite 1200 Columbus, OH 43266-0149
Dallas, 7X75202
Cart Young
John WoodweJI US. EPA, Region VI
Rocky Mountain Institute 1445 Ross Avenue
1739 Snowmass Creek Road Dallas, TX 75202
Snowmass, CO 81654
Special appreciation to the following EPA Headquarters personnel for their assistance with
this conference: Martha Prothro, Mike Conlan, Bill Diamond, David Sabock, Marjorie
Pitts, Chris Zarba.
263
-------
------- |