United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
December 1983
Water
Water Quality
Standards Handbook
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencjj
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street x*
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
-------
FOREWORD
The Water Quality Standards Handbook contains the guidance
prepared by EPA to assist States in implementing the revised Water
Duality Standards Regulation (48 F.R. 51400, November 8, 1983).
Changes in this Handbook may be made from time to time reflecting
State/EPA experience in implementing the revised Regulation. The
Handbook is organized to provide a general description of the overall
standards setting process followed by information on general program
administrative policies and procedures, and then a description of the
analyses used in determining appropriate uses and criteria.
The Clean Water Act established two types of regulatory
requirements to control pollutant discharges: technology-based effluent
limitations which reflect the best controls available considering the
technical and economic achievability of those controls; and water
quality-based effluent limitations which reflect the water quality
standards and allowable pollutant loadings set by the States (with EPA
oversight).
Technology-based requirements for dischargers are currently being
issued. However, in some cases these controls will not be sufficient
to eliminate water quality impacts and enable water quality standards
to be met. In these cases, water quality-based controls are needed.
Two technical approaches are available for developing WQ-based effluent
limits, the pollutant-specific approach and the biomonitoring approach.
Pollutant-specific techniques are best used where discharges contain a
few, well-quantified pollutants and the interactions and effects of the
pollutants are known. In addition, pollutant-specific techniques
should be used where health hazards are a concern or bioaccumulation is
suspected.
It may be difficult, however, in some situations to determine
attainment or nonattainment of water quality standards and set
appropriate limits because of complex chemical interactions which
affect the fate and ultimate impact of toxic substances in the
receiving water. In many cases, all potentially toxic pollutants
cannot be identified by chemical methods. Also, developing numerical
water quality criteria and determining allowable loadings for all of
the wide variety of pollutants found in effluents would be very time-
consuming and resource intensive. In such situations, it is more
feasible to examine overall toxicity and instream impacts using
biological methods rather than attempting to identify all toxic
pollutants, determining the effects of each pollutant individually, and
then attempting to assess their collective effect.
Therefore EPA has developed a two-fold approach to toxics control.
In certain situations we must still rely upon the chemical-specific
approach, measuring individual toxicants and evaluating their specific
toxic properties. In other situations, especially where complex.
effluents are involved, it is more appropriate;to examine the harmful
effects of toxicity of the whole effluent rather than attempt to
identify individual toxicants and understand their chemical
interaction. This second approach relies on newly-developed biological
monitoring methods and laboratory testing procedures.
-------
We expect to continue to build the necessary EPA expertise in the
area of biomonitoring and work together with other interested groups
over the next several years to develop a balanced and integrated
biological/chemical-specific approach to developing realistic water
quality-based permit limitations.
The purpose of this guidance document is to illustrate the types
of scientific and technical data and analyses EPA believes are
necessary to be conducted so that the public and EPA can review
decisions on water quality standards affecting water quality limited
segments, i.e. those water bodies where standards cannot be met even
with the implementation of the technology-based controls required by
the Act (secondary treatment for municipalities and best available/best
conventional treatment for industries).
When a State conducts use attainability analyses or establishes
appropriate criteria, EPA is not requiring that specific approaches,
methods or procedures be used. Rather, States are encouraged to
consult with EPA early in the process to agree on appropriate methods
before the analyses are initiated and carried out. States will have
the flexibility of tailoring the analyses to the specific water body
being examined as long as the methods used are scientifically and
technically sound.
State pollution control agencies are encouraged to solicit the
assistance of other State agencies, municipalities, industry,
environmental groups, and the community-at-large in collecting the data
for the analyses. By carefully outlining quality assurance/quality
control procedures States can assure the integrity and validity of the
data for the analyses, while easing the resource burdens.
A State must conduct and submit to EPA a use attainability
analysis where the State designates or has designated uses that do not
include the uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, or when a
State wishes to remove a designated use that is specified in the goals
or to adopt subcategories of uses requiring less stringent criteria. A
State must adopt criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses.
In adopting criteria, States may use Section 304(a) criteria or set
site-specific criteria. Analyses conducted in support of revisions to
standards are subject to EPA review.
A use attainability analysis is a multi-step scientific assessment
of the physical, chemical, biological and economic factors affecting
the attainment of a use. In preparing a use attainability analyses, a
water body survey and assessment is conducted to examine the physical,
chemical and biological characteristics of the water body. This
assessment identifies and defines the existing uses of that water body,
determines whether the designated uses are impaired, and the reasons
for the impairment. By comparing the water body with one that is not
impaired by man-induced pollution and with similar physical
characteristics, the assessment assists States in projecting the
potential uses that the water body could support in the absence of
ii
-------
pollution. The next step in a use attainability analysis is a waste
load allocation which utilizes mathematical models to predict the
amount of reduction in pollutant loadings necessary to achieve the
designated use. After determining the technology needed to meet these
effluent reductions, an economic assessment may be conducted to
determine whether requiring more stringent technology than that
mandated by the Act will cause widespread and substantial economic and
social impact.
A State may adopt EPA recommended criteria without any analysis or
justification. However, EPA's laboratory-derived criteria may not
always accurately reflect the toxicity of a pollutant in a particular
water body because of differences in temperature, pH, etc. A State may
choose to set site-specific criteria based on characteristics of the
local water body. Setting site-specific criteria is also appropriate
in water bodies with different species than those used in the
derivation of the Section 304(a) criteria or where adaptive processes
have enabled a viable, balanced community to exist with levels of
pollutants that exceed the national criteria.
Any questions on this guidance may be directed to the water
quality standards coordinators located in each of the EPA regional
offices or to:
David Sabock
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chief, Criteria Branch (WH-585)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(Telephone 202-24B-3042)
EPA sincerely appreciates the efforts of the many people and
organizations who participated in the public review of the water
quality standards program regulation and guidance since their proposal
in October 1982.
Steven Schatzow, Director
Water Regulations and Standards
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK
CONTENTS
Foreword ,
Chapter 1
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW AND
REVISION PROCESS
£131
i
1-1
Chapter 2 - GENERAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE
EPA Review, Approval, Disapproval, and .... 2-1
Promulgation Procedure
Public Participation 2-9
Mixing Zones 2-13
Flow 2-10
Economic Considerations 2-12
Antidegradation 2-14
Application of Numerical and Narrative
Criteria 2-17
Relationship of Section 304(a)(l) Criteria
to Designated Water Uses ..... 2-22
Chapter 3 - WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
FOR CONDUCTING USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES
Purpose and Application 3-1
Physical Evaluations 3-4
Chemical Evaluations 3-6
Biological Evaluations 3-8
Approaches to Conducting the Physical,
Chemical and Biological Evaluations .... 3-13
References 3-17
Appendix A: Sample State
Classification System A-l
Appendix B: Fish Taxonomic References .... B-l
Appendix C: Invertebrate and Algal
Taxonomic References C-l
Appendix D: Case Studies D-l
Chapter 4 - GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING SITE-SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Purpose and Application 4-1
Rationale 4-2
Definition of Site 4-4
Assumptions 4-5
-------
Procedures - Summary 4-5
Recalculation Procedure 4-7
Indicator Species Procedure 4-11
Resident Species Procedure 4-17
Heavy Metal Speciation and Plant and Other
Data 4-19
Appendix A: Bioassay Test Methods A-l
Appendix B: Determination of
Statistically Significantly
Different LC50 Values B-l
Appendix C: Case Studies C-l
-------
CHAPTER 1
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW AND REVISION PROCESS
Introduction
The Clean Water Act requires that a State shall, from time to
time, but at least once every three years, hold public hearings for the
purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as
appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. The Water Quality
Standards Regulation also requires that any water body with standards
not consistent with the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act must be
reexamined every three years to determine if new information has become
available that would warrant a revision of the standard.
The Regulation allows States to establish procedures for
identifying and reviewing the standards on specific water bodies in
detail.i/ Water bodies receiving a detailed standards review are
most liFely to be those where advanced treatment (AT) or combined sewer
overflow (CSO) funding decisions are pending, water quality based
permits are scheduled to be issued or reissued, or toxics have been
identified or are suspected of precluding a use, or may be posing an
unreasonable risk to human health. States may have other reasons for
wishing to examine a water body in detail.
In selecting specific areas, States should also take into account
the "Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of
1981" (P.L. 97-117, December 29, 1981). EPA interprets Section 24 of
the Amendments as requiring States to assure that water quality
standards influencing construction grant decisions have been reviewed
in accordance with Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. Section 24
prohibits the issuance of a construction grant after December 1984,
unless the State has completed its review of the water quality standard
for any segments affected by the project grant (see Construction Grants
Program Interim Final Rule 40 CFR 35.2111, 47 FR 20450, May 12, 1982).
Additional guidance regarding Section 24 and standards reviews is
contained on page 2-3 of this Handbook.
The water quality standards review process described in this
Chapter focuses on the analyses used in reviewing standards on water
quality limited segments, e.g. those standards which cannot be attained
even with the application of the technology-based controls required by
the Act.
In reviewing the standards on water quality limited segments,
States must perform and submit to EPA a use attainability analysis if
the State designates or has designated uses that do not include the
uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, or the State wishes to
remove a designated use that is specified in Section 101(a)(2), or to
_]_/ Any procedures States establish to revise standards should be
articulated in the Continuing Planning Process document consistent
with the Water Quality Management Regulation.
1-1
-------
adopt subcategories of uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) which
require less stringent criteria than are currently adopted. States may
adopt seasonal uses as an alternative to reclassifying a water body or
segment thereof to uses requiring less stringent criteria.
States may designate uses which do not reflect the goals of the
Act if supported by a use attainability analysis based on one or more
of the six factors listed in Section 131.10(g) of the Regulation. In
no case can a State downgrade an existing use. No use attainability
analysis is required when designating uses which include those
specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Actjy
States must adopt water quality criteria sufficient to protect the
designated use. The criteria adopted must provide sufficient
parametric coverage and must be of adequate stringency to protect
designated uses. Numerical criteria may be based on criteria
recommendations published by EPA or developed by other scientifically
defensible methods. States may also modify Section 304(a) criteria and
set site-specific criteria where (1) background water quality
parameters, such as pH, hardness, temperature, color, etc., appear to
differ significantly from the laboratory water used in developing
Section 304(a) criteria; or (2) the types of local aquatic organisms in
the region differ significantly from those actually tested in the
development of the 304(a) criteria or have adapted to higher pollutant
levels. EPA believes that setting site-specific criteria will occur on
only a limited number of stream segments because of the resources
required to conduct the analyses and the basic soundness of the Section
304(a) recommendations. States may also establish narrative criteria
based upon biomonitoring methods where numerical criteria cannot be
established or to supplement numerical criteria. The revised water
quality standards regulation provides increased emphasis on the need
for adoption by the States of criteria for toxic pollutants applicable
to a water body sufficient to protect designated uses.
State standards must also contain an antidegradation policy
designed to maintain and protect existing uses and water quality, to
provide protection for higher quality waters, and to provide protection
for outstanding national resource waters.
Before starting the analyses described in this Handbook, the State
should agree with EPA on the approach to be used, availability of
existing data, scheduling, quality control and assistance procedures,
etc. In many instances, EPA may be able to assist. States should also
work with municipal and industrial dischargers and other appropriate
organizations to enlist their assistance in gathering the data and
conducting the analyses to reduce the resource impacts of the analyses
on the State.
In the remaining portion of this Chapter, the Steps of the water
quality standards review and revision process are described. The steps
are outlined in Figure 1.
_]_/ NOTE: A use attainability analysis may be required to support
construction grant funding requests for advanced treatment in
publicly owned treatment works.
1-2
-------
FIGURE 1
WQS REVIEW AND REVISION PROCESS
LIST OF RIVERS,
STREAMS, LAKES,
COASTAL AREAS
NOT MEETING WQS
I
DO THESE WQ LIMITED
SEGMENTS HAVE PERMIT
AND AT DECISIONS PEND-
ING TOXIC/HUMAN HEALTH
PROBLEMS/OR USES NOT
CONSISTENT WITH 101(a)(2)?
YES
SELECT PRIORITY
STREAM SEGMENTS
FOR DETAILED
REVIEW
YES
ARE EXISTING
DATA ADEQUATE
NO
_L
1 CONDUCT A
/VATERBODY SURVEY
AND ASSESSMENT
ARE
DESIGNATED USES
APPROPRIATE ?
NO
PHYSICAL
CONDITION
WHY ARE
DESIGNATED USES
INAPPROPRIATE ?
NATURAL OR
IRRETRIEVABLE
CHEMICAL
CONDITIONS
DESIGNATE
APPROPRIATE USES
SET APPROPRIATE
CRITERIA
PERFORM WATER
QUALITY ANALYSIS
AND CALCULATE
PRELIMINARY LIMITS
1
ARE ECONOMIC OR
SOCIAL IMPACTS
WIDESPREAD AND
SUBSTANTIAL
I
YES
PROVIDE ANALYSES
TO PUBLIC
HOLD PUBLIC
HEARING
STATE ADOPTS
REVISION TO
WQS
STATES SUBMIT
WQS TO RA FOR
REVIEW
RA DISAPPROVES
WQS; NOTIFIES
REQUIRED STATE
OF CHANGES
FEDERAL WQS
PROMULGATED
IN FEDERAL
REGISTER
STANDARDS TO
PERMIT PROCESS
(FIGURE 2)
1-3
-------
List of Rivers, Streams, Lakes, Coastal Areas Not Meeting WQS
States know the location of their water pollution problems and
frequently list the segments in order of priority in State water
quality reports issued biennially under Section 305(b). Water quality
problems are most frequently expressed in terms of impacts on the biota
of the water body, restricted beneficial uses, and the extent and
frequency of water quality criteria violations.
Select Priority Water Quality Limited Stream Segments for Detailed
Water Quality Standards Review
Water quality standards should be revised only where a need
exists, given the limited resources available. Section 303(d) of the
Act requires States to identify those waters which cannot meet water
quality standards with effluent limitations required by Section
301(b)(l) and (2) and to establish a priority ranking for those
waters.
EPA recommends that States select for standards review those water
quality limited segments on which there are advanced treatment (AT) and
combined sewer overflow (CSO) funding decisions pending, major permit
revisions are scheduled or toxics have been identified or are suspected
of precluding a use. States may select other criteria for determining
which segments will be reviewed, such as human health problems, court
orders, or costs or economic and social impacts of implementing the
existing water quality standards. Any water body with standards not
consistent with the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act must be
reexamined every three years.
States are encouraged to review standards for a large enough area
to consider the interaction between both point and nonpoint source
discharges. In carrying out standards reviews, the State and EPA
should ensure proper coordination of all water quality programs.
Water Body Survey and Assessments
An intensive survey of the water body is not necessary if adequate
data are available. The purpose of a survey is to pinpoint problems
and to characterize present uses, uses impaired or precluded, and the
reasons why uses are impaired or precluded. Information generated in
the survey also can be used to establish the basis for seasonal uses
and subcategories of uses.
Included in Chapter 3 are examples of a full range of physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the water body which,
depending on the site, may be surveyed when evaluating aquatic
protection uses. This information is then used in determining existing
species in the water body, the health of those species as well as what
species could be in the water body given the physical characteristics
of the water body or might be in the water if the quality of the water
were improved.
If the results of the survey show that the water body is, in fact,
being used for the designated purposes and the biology of the water
body is healthy, although monitoring data show criteria continue to be
exceeded, EPA recommends that the State adopt appropriate criteria
using Section 304(a) criteria, one of the protocols included in Chapter
4, or other scientifically defensible methods.
1-4
-------
Review the Cause of Uses Not Being Met
If the survey indicates that designated uses are impaired, the
next step is to determine the cause. In many situations, both physical
conditions and the presence of water pollutants prevent the water body
from meeting its designated use. Physical limitations refer to such
factors as depth, flow, habitat, turbulence or structures such as dams
which may make a use unsuitable or impossible to achieve regardless of
water quality.
If uses are precluded because of physical limitations of the water
body, the State may wish to examine modifications which might allow a
habitat suitable for a species to thrive where it could not before.
Some of the techniques which have been used include: bank stabiliza-
tion, current deflectors, construction of oxbows or installation of
spawning beds. A State might also wish to consider improving the
access to the water body or improving facilities nearby so that it can
be used for recreational purposes. A State may also consider
establishing seasonal uses or subcategories of a use.
If uses are not being met because of water pollution problems, the
first step in the process is to determine the cause. If the standards
review process is well coordinated with the total maximum daily load
process and the permit process, some of the analysis necessary to
determine why uses are not attained may be collected by permittees
through permit modification or requests for information under section
308. When background levels of pollutants, whether natural or
man-induced, are irretrievable and criteria cannot be met, States
should evaluate other more appropriate uses for the water body and
revise the water quality standards appropriately.
Determine Attainable Uses
Consideration of the suitability of the water body to attain a use
is an integral part of the water quality standards review and revision
process. The data and information collected from the water body survey
provide a firm basis for evaluating whether the water body is suitable
for the particular use. Suitability depends on the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of the water body, its geographic
setting and scenic qualities and the socio-economic and cultural
characteristics of the surrounding area. It is not envisioned that
each water body would necessarily have to have a unique set of uses.
Rather the characteristics necessary to support a use can be identified
so that water bodies having those characteristics might be grouped
together as supporting particular uses.
Suitability, to a great extent, depends on the professional
judgment of the evaluators. It is their task to provide sufficient
information to the public and the State decision-makers to base a
decision. There are instances where non-water quality related factors
preclude the attainment of uses regardless of improvements in water
quality. This is particularly true for fish and wildlife protection
uses where the lack of a proper substrate may preclude certain forms of
aquatic life from using the stream for propagation, or the lack of
cover, depth, flow, pools, riffles or impacts from channelization,
dams, diversions may preclude particular forms of aquatic life from the
stream altogether. While physical factors do affect the recreational
uses appropriately designated for a water body, States need to give
consideration to the incidental uses which may be made of the water
1-5
-------
body. Even though it may not make sense to encourage use of a stream
for swimming because of the flow, depth or the velocity of the water,
the States and EPA must recognize that swimming and/or wading may occur
anyway. In order to protect public health, States must set criteria to
reflect swimming if it appears that primary contact recreation will in
fact occur in the stream. While physical factors are important in
evaluating whether a use is attainable, physical limitations of the
stream may not be an overriding factor. Common sense and good judgment
play an important role in setting appropriate uses and criteria. In
setting criteria and uses, States must assure the attainment of
downstream standards. The downstream uses may not be affected by the
same physical limitations as the upstream uses.
Criteria may reflect either primary or secondary contact
recreation depending on which is expected to occur, with flow being a
consideration in determining which recreational use is protected.
Where extremely low flow conditions exist, the State and EPA must be
sure that primary contact recreation does not occur in stream pools
before adopting the less stringent criteria for protecting secondary
contact recreation. (Of, course, if the "existing use" is a
recreational use, then both that use and the criteria to protect it
must be reflected in the standard. Common sense must be used in
deciding whether a use is sufficiently likely to be a "existing use"
rather than merely incidental, or, indeed whether it will occur at
all.)
The rationale offered by a State for not designating a stream for
either primary or secondary contact recreation must be of sufficient
detail to indicate that the State has considered the conditions in a
particular water body or water bodies rather than a simple blanket
Statewide exception. Water bodies, with specific and limited
exceptions, should be suitable for human use in recreation activities
not involving significant risks of ingestion without reference to
official designation of recreation as a water use.
The basis of this policy is that the States and EPA have an
obligation to do as much as possible to protect the health of the
public even though it may not make sense to encourage use of a stream
for swimming or wading because of physical conditions. In certain
instances, particulary urban areas, people will use whatever water
bodies are available for recreation.
Set Appropriate Criteria
Regardless of whether changes or modifications in uses are made,
criteria protective of the use must be adopted. States may use EPA's
Section 304(a) criteria or set site-specific criteria. EPA's
laboratory-derived criteria may not always accurately reflect the
bioavailability and/or toxicity of a pollutant because of the effect of
local physical and chemical characteristics or varying sensitivities of
local aquatic communities. Similarly, certain compounds may be more or
less toxic in some waters because of differences in temperature,
1-6
-------
hardness, or other conditions. Setting site specific criteria is
appropriate where:
0 background water quality parameters, such as pH, hardness,
temperature, color, etc., appear to differ significantly from the
laboratory water used in developing the Section 304(a) criteria;
or
o
the types of local aquatic organisms differ significantly from
those actually tested in developing the Section 304(a) criteria.
Developing site-specific criteria is a method of taking local
conditions into account so that criteria are adequate to protect the
designated use without being more or less stringent than needed. A
three phase testing program which includes water quality sampling and
analysis, a biological survey, and acute bioassays provides an approach
for developing site-specific criteria. Much of the data and
information for the water quality sampling and analysis and the
biological survey can be obtained while conducting the assessment of
the water body. Included in Chapter 4 are scientifically acceptable
procedures for setting site-specific pollutant concentrations that will
protect designated uses.
Perform Water Quality Analysis and Calculate Preliminary Limits
When the technology-based limitations are insufficient to protect
the designated uses, the Clean Water Act requires the development of
more stringent limitations to maintain the water quality standards (see
§301(b)(l )(C)). EPA encourages States to review in detail those
segments where more stringent effluent limitations are necessary to
meet water quality standards. More stringent limitations are generally
developed as part of the total maximum daily load and wasteload
allocation processes required under Sections 303(d) and 303(e)(3)(A) of
the Act. These sections require States to identify waters requiring
more stringent effluent limitations, set priorities for calculating
total maximum daily loads and submit the above to the Administrator for
approval. Total maximum daily loads of pollutants are calculated so as
to meet water quality standards. A wasteload allocation involves: (1)
identifying the pollutant sources and their loadings, (2) applying
mathematical models and other techniques that predict the amount of
load reduction necessary to achieve the water quality standards, and
(3) allocating the necessary load reduction among the pollution
sources.
1-7
-------
Although not included in this document, guidance is available on
performing waste load allocations.^/ Again, the water body survey
provides much of the data to determine the total maximum daily load and
waste load allocation.
In addition to examining more stringent technology-based controls
the State should also consider establishing or improving best
management practices for the control of pollution from nonpoint
sources. Existing BMPs and related control programs should be reviewed
to determine if they constitute the most effective way of meeting
standards or if revised nonpoint source controls need to be
implemented.
Economic Impact Assessment
The Regulation allows States to establish uses that are
inconsistent with the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act if the more
stringent technology to meet the goals will cause substantial and
widespread economic and social impact. These are impacts resulting
specifically from imposition of the pollution controls and reflect such
factors as unemployment, plant closures, changes in the governmental
fiscal base, and other factors (see page 2-11 of this Handbook). The
analysis should address the incremental effects of water quality
standards beyond technology-based or other State requirements. If the
requirements are not demonstrated to have an incremental substantial
and widespread impact on the affected community, the standard must be
maintained or made compatible with the goals of the Act.
Revise Water Quality Standards
If a change in the designated use is warranted based on a use
attainability analysis, States may modify the uses now assigned. In
doing so, the State should designate uses which can be supported given
the physical, chemical, or biological limitations of the water body.
Or, a State may designate uses on a seasonal basis. Seasonal use
designations may be appropriate for streams that lack adequate water
volume to support aquatic life year-round, but can be used for fish
spawning, etc. during higher flow periods. In setting seasonal uses,
care must be taken not to allow the creation of conditions instream
that preclude uses in another season. EPA encourages the designation
of seasonal uses as an alternative to completely downgrading the use of
a water body.
Change in use designations must also be accompanied by
consideration of the need for a change in criteria. If a use is
removed, the criteria to protect that use may be deleted or revised to
!_/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Guidance Manuals
~ for Performing Wasteload Allocations. Wasteload Allocation Section,
(Phone 202-382-7056) Monitoring and Data Support Division (WH-553),
401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 204fiO, 1983.
1-8
-------
assure protection of the remaining uses. If a use is added, there must
be adequate water quality criteria to protect the use. Existing
criteria may be adequate or new criteria may have to be adopted.
As an alternative to downgrading standards a State may wish to
include a variance as part of a water quality standard rather than
change the standard across-the-board because the State believes that
the standard ultimately can be attained. By maintaining the standard
rather than changing it, the State will assure further progress is made
in improving water quality and attaining the standard. EPA has
approved State-adopted variances in the past and will continue to do so
if: the variance is included as part of the water quality standard, it
is subjected to the same public review as other changes in water
quality standards, and if the variance is granted based on a
demonstration that meeting the standard would cause substantial and
widespread economic and social impact, the same test as if the State
were removing a designated use. A variance may be granted to an
individual discharger. However, the determining factor is whether the
economic impact on the discharger is sufficient to have a substantial
and widespread impact on the affected community and not just on the
discharger. Such a variance controls the permit limits for the
discharger that received the variance. With the variance provision,
NPDES permits may be written such that reasonable progress is made
toward attaining the general standard without violating Section
402(a)(l) of the Act which states that NPDES permits must meet the
applicable water quality standards. (A word of caution is necessary.
The term "variance", if it is used at all in a State's standards, is
not always defined consistently from State to State. Therefore, some
State "variance" policies and procedures may not be consistent with the
standards regulation but, for example, an "exception" policy might be).
Office of General Counsel opinion 58, March 29, 1977, provides guidance
on the legal basis for granting variances.
Public Hearing
Prior to removing or modifying any use or changing criteria, the
Clean Water Act requires the State to hold a public hearing (see
Chapter 2). More than one hearing may be required depending on State
regulations. It may be appropriate to have EPA review the adequacy of
justifications including the data and the suitability and appropriate-
ness of the analyses and how the analyses were applied prior to the
public hearing. In cases where the analyses are judged to be
inadequate, EPA will identify how the analyses could be improved and
suggest the additional types of evaluations or data needed. By
consulting with EPA frequently throughout the review process, States
can be better assured that EPA will be able to expeditiously review
State submissions and make the determination that the standards meet
the requirements of the Act.
The analyses and supporting documentation prepared in conjunction
with the proposed water quality standards revision should be made
1-9
-------
available to the interested public prior to the hearing. Open
discussion of the scientific evidence and analysis supporting proposed
revisions in the water quality standards will assist the State in
making its decision.
EPA Review
States are to submit their revised water quality standards and
supporting analyses to EPA within 30 days of their final administrative
action. Final administrative action is meant to be the last action a
State must take before its revision becomes a rule under State law and
it can officially transmit State-adopted standards to EPA for review.
This last action might be a signature, a review by a legislative
committee or State Board, or a delay mandated by a State administrative
procedures act. In reviewing changes in uses that are inconsistent
with the Section 101(a)(2) goals of the Act or changes in criteria, EPA
will carefully consider the adequacy of the analyses and the public
comments received during the hearing process. Standards are to meet
the goals of the Act unless the State can clearly demonstrate that the
uses reflected in the goals are unattainable.
Standards to Permit Process
Based on a new or revised water quality standard, a wasteload
allocation analysis is conducted, as described earlier, to determine
the load reduction necessary to achieve the standard. The results of
the wasteload allocation analysis are adopted into the water quality
management plan for the stream, and are included as enforceable
effluent limits in permits issued to dischargers. These permits are
part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
are the legal basis for requiring dischargers to control the pollutant
levels in their effluents.
Figure 2 illustrates the steps involved in moving from a water
quality standard to the issuance of a permit reflecting that standard.
Details on these activities are beyond the purview of the standards
program and this guidance. Permits are issued based on the level of
discharge necessary to meet the standard. Dischargers are monitored to
determine whether they are meeting their permit conditions and to
ensure expected water quality improvements are achieved.
1-10
-------
FIGURE 2
MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE WATER QUALITY-BASED
STANDARDS-TO-PERMITS PROCESS
L Identify Water Quality-Limited Segments and
Set Control Priorities; Implement Local
Monitoring Program, if Necessary
Review and Revise (or Reaffirm) Water
Quality Standards-
Ill. Develop Water Quality-Based Control
Requirements
IV. Incorporate Identified WQL Segments, Priorities,
Revised/Reaffirmed Standards, TMDLs, Effluent
Limits, and Feasible Nonpoint Source Controls
into Updated WQM Plans
V. Issue Water Quality-Based Permits; Make
Water Quality-Based Construction Grant
Decisions; Implement Nonpoint Source Controls
VI. Monitor Municipal and Industrial Sources for
Compliance; Perform Amoient Monitoring to
Document Protection of Designated Uses
1-11
-------
CHAPTER 2
GENERAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE
Contents
Page
EPA Review, Approval, Disapproval and 2-1
Promulgation Procedures
Public Participation 2-5
Mixing Zones 2-7
Flows 2-10
Economic Guidance 2-11
Antidegradation 2-13
Application of Numerical and Narrative Criteria 2-17
Relationship of Section 304(a)(l) Criteria to
Designated Water Uses 2-22
-------
Chapter 2
GENERAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE
EPA REVIEW, APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL AND PROMULGATION PROCEDURES
Introduction
Section 303{c) of the Clean Water Act provides the basis for EPA
review and approval of State adopted or revised water quality
standards. It requires States to hold hearings to review these
standards at least once every three years, and to revise standards
where necessary; it establishes time limits for various State and
federal actions; and it provides a mechanism for Federal promulgation
if the State's action is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.
EPA's revised water quality standards regulation places greater
emphasis on the adoption of criteria for toxic pollutants necessary to
protect designated uses, requires States to periodically review any
standards not consistent with the goals of the Act, allows States to
justify standards other than those specified in the goals of the Act
through an analysis of the physical, chemical, biological, and economic
factors involved, and to develop site-specific water quality criteria.
The revised water quality standards regulation became effective on
December 8, 1983. Properly implementing the requirements of the
regulation will require extensive cooperation between EPA and the
States along with a good deal of common sense. This is because each
State administers its standards program differently, therefore, at any
point in time each State will be at a different stage in its standards
review. Also, it may require several years for the State to develop an
adequate response to the requirements of the regulation. EPA and the
States should identify areas where changes may be necessary to meet the
requirements of the new regulation and establish a schedule for making
the changes as soon as possible.
EPA assistance will include meeting with State officials before
WQS revisions are initiated to mutually agree upon what standards and
water bodies will be reviewed. This agreement will outline the extent
and detail of analyses needed to support any changes in the standards,
how the analyses will be conducted, who might be participating in the
analyses, the sources of existing data and information, and a schedule
for completion of the analyses. EPA will assist in the analyses and
recommend approaches where needed and requested by the State. The
objective is to develop a close working partnership between the States
and EPA and to assure the involvement of locally affected parties.
Local involvement should assist in developing the acceptance and
commitment to achieve the standards. Also, it will assist EPA in its
review of State water quality standards and lessen the possibility that
EPA will question or disapprove formally adopted standards.
Components of a Water Quality Standards Submission
The Governor, or his designee, should submit the results of the
review and any adopted revisions to State water quality standards to
2-1
-------
the Regional Administrator. The submittal should include the following
information:
(a) Use designations consistent with the provisions of Sections
101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act,
(b) The methods used and analyses conducted to support water
quality standards revisions,
(c) Water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated
uses,
(d) An antidegradation policy consistent with 40 CFR 131.12,
*
(e) Certification by the State Attorney General or other
appropriate legal authority within the State that the water
quality standards were duly adopted and enforceable pursuant
to State law, and
(f) General information which will aid the Agency in determining
the adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards which do
not include the uses specified in Section I01(a)(2) of the Act
as well as information on general policies applicable to State
standards which may affect their application and
implementation.
NOTE: The Administrator or Regional Administrator may also request
additional information from the State as an aid in reviewing the
adequacy of the State-adopted standards.
EPA's Review of State Hater Quality Standards
EPA will review State water quality standards to ensure that the
standards meet the requirements of the Act. EPA will review the
adequacy of the analyses in support of any changes in the standards.
Where the analyses are inadequate, EPA will identify how the analyses
need to be improved and will suggest the type of information or
analyses needed.
EPA will also be looking at whether uses and/or criteria are
consistent throughout the water body and that downstream standards are
protected. A review to determine compliance with downstream standards
is most likely to involve bodies of water on or crossing interstate and
international boundaries.
Timing of State Water Quality Standards Submission
Section 303(c) of the Act requires States to review their
standards at least once every three years and modify or adopt standards
as appropriate. EPA's regulation interprets that to include the
requirement that any water body with water quality standards that do
not include the uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act shall be
re-examined every three years to determine if any new information has
become available to cause a revision in the standards. Procedures for
identifying and reviewing the standards of specific water bodies in
2-2
-------
greater detail may be established by the States and identified in the
Continuing Planning Process Document.
States may review all or some of their standards more often than
once every three years. For purposes of the Act and the regulation,
EPA will measure the 3-year review from the date of the letter in which
the State informs EPA that revised or new standards have been adopted
for the affected waters and are being submitted for EPA review or, if
no changes were made in the standards for those waters, from the date
of the letter in which the State informs EPA that the standards were
reviewed and no changes were made.
Under the "Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981" (§24 of P.L. 97-117 33. U.S.C. 1313a) after 1984,
EPA may make a construction grant only where a State has reviewed the
water quality standards for the segment affected by the project.
Section 24 is no more than a reconfirmation of the requirements of
Section 303(c) of the Act and a mechanism to ensure that water quality
standards influencing construction grant decisions have in fact been
reviewed in accordance with Section 303(c) of the Act. Water quality
standards reviews for water body segments involving prospective AT
projects should take into account the Agency's policy and technical
procedures for review of and funding decisions for such projects.
Policies and Procedures Related to Approvals
Revisions to State water quality standards that meet the
requirements of the Act are approved by the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator. The Regional Administrator must within sixty days
notify the Governor or his designee by letter of the approval and
forward a copy of the letter to the appropriate State agency. The
letter should contain any information which may be helpful in
understanding the scope of the approval action. If particular events
could result in a failure of the approved standards to continue to meet
the requirements of the Act, these events should be identified in the
approval letter to facilitate future review/revision activities.
When only a portion of the revisions submitted meet the
requirements of the Act, the Regional Administrator may only approve
that portion. If only a partial approval is made, the Region should,
for the revisions which do not meet the requirements of the Act,
administer the State notification as a disapproval action.
Policies and Procedures Related to Disapprovals
If the Regional Administrator determines that the revisions
submitted are not consistent with or do not meet the requirements of
the Act, the Regional Administrator must disapprove such standards
within ninety days. Such disapproval is by written notification to
the Governor of the State or his designee. The letter must state why
the revisions are not consistent with the Act and specify the revisions
which must be adopted to obtain full approval. The letter must also
notify the Governor that the Administrator will initiate promulgation
proceedings if the State fails to adopt and submit the necessary
revisions within 90 days after notification.
2-3
-------
A State water quality standard remains in effect, even though
disapproved by EPA, until the State revises it or EPA promulgates a
rule that supersedes the State water quality standard.
Policies and Procedures Related to Promulgations
If the State fails to appropriately amend its standards during the
90 day period following the notification of disapproval, the
Administrator is required to promptly publish proposed revisions to the
State standards in the Federal Register. Generally, a public hearing
will be held on the proposed standards. Final standards are
promulgated after giving due consideration to written comments received
and statements made at any public hearings on the proposed revisions.
Although only the Administrator may promulgate State standards,
the Regional Office has a major role in the promulgation process. The
Regional Office provides the necessary background information and
conducts the public hearings. The Regions are encouraged to prepare
drafts of the rationale supporting EPA's action included in the
proposed and final rulemakings. The rationale should clearly state the
reason for the disapproval of the State standard. The documentation
should be forwarded to the Director, Criteria and Standards Division
(WH-585).
If a State remedies the deficiencies in its water quality
standards prior to promulgation, the Administrator will terminate the
rulemaking proceedings. However, if a proposed rulemaking has been
published in the Federal Register, then the Regional Administrator
must not approve the State's changes until the proposed rulemaking has
been withdrawn by the Administrator.
Withdrawal Notices
Proposed Rulemaking
Whenever promulgation proceedings are terminated, a notice of
withdrawal of the proposed rulemaking must be published in the Federal
Register. The Regional Offices are responsible for initiating such
action and furnishing a rationale for use in preparing the notice for
the Administrator's signature. These materials should be sent to the
Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585).
Promulgation
An EPA-promulgated standard will be withdrawn when revisions to
State water quality standards are made which meet the requirements of
the Act.
In such a situation, the Regional Office should initiate the
withdrawal action by notifying the Criteria and Standards Division
(WH-585) that it is requesting the withdrawal and specifying the
rationale for the withdrawal. EPA's action to withdraw a Federally
promulgated standard requires both a proposed and final Rulemaking.
2-4
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
This guidance includes two objectives that emphasize public
participation and intergovernmental coordination. The first is to
involve the regulated community (municipalities and industry) in the
review and revision of water quality standards. The second objective
is to encourage local, State, EPA, Regional and Headquarters personnel
to cooperate as partners in the water quality standards review process.
This partnership will ensure cross-fertilization of ideas, data and
information and will increase the effectiveness of the total water
quality management process.
Revisions in the water quality standards regulation were made to
foster improved scientific and technical bases of water quality
standards decisions. The analyses described in previous sections of
this Handbook should assist States in analyzing their standards and in
setting appropriate site-specific water quality standards.
An important component of the water quality standards setting
process is the meaningful involvement in the process of those affected
by standards decisions. At a minimum, States are required by Section
303(c) of the Clean Water Act to hold a public hearing in reviewing and
revising their water quality standards. However, States are urged to
more actively involve the public in the review process. By opening the
water quality standards decision-making process to the public, States
can encourage scientific discussion of the analyses and build the
consensus necessary for implementing water quality standards
decisions. The State may satisfy this public hearing requirement by
providing the opportunity for the public to request a hearing. If no
such request is forthcoming, the State need not actually conduct a
hearing.
There are several points in the water quality standards decision-
making process where public (municipal, industrial, environmental,
academic, etc.) involvement would be beneficial. Enlisting the support
of municipalities, industries, environmentalists and universities in
collecting and evaluating data for the recommended analyses is another
way States can involve those affected by standards decisions in the
review process. The participation of outside groups in data collection
and analyses must be based on State guidelines and oversight to ensure
the integrity of the analyses. The extra time and effort necessary to
organize and coordinate the participation of outside groups is worth
the effort, particularly if the standards review is likely to generate
widespread interest and/or controversy.
Involving the public in the analysis and interpretation of the
data should assist States in improving the scientific basis of the
standards decisions and in building support for a standards decision.
Scientific discussion of the data can clarify areas of uncertainty,
bring in new data, and/or identify areas where new data is necessary.
The more people that are involved early in the process of setting
2-5
-------
appropriate standards, the more support the State will have in
implementing the standards.
For the formal public hearings on the reviews and/or revisions of
State water quality standards, the following requirements are
applicable:
(1) A notice of the public hearing must be published in a
newspaper with general circulation in the affected area at
least 30 days prior the hearing. The notice should include:
(a) time and location of hearing,
b) hearing agenda,
c) notification of the availability of a Fact Sheet (The
sheet must outline the major issues to be discussed,
relevant State staff reports on the standards,
determinations on proposed revisions, and any analyses
conducted in support of proposed revisions that the
public should be aware of prior to the hearing), and
(d) the location where reports, documents and data to be
discussed at the hearing are available for public
inspection.
(2) Notice of the public hearing should be mailed at least 30
days prior to the hearing to interested and affected persons
and organizations including private and government
organizations and individuals who have filed with the State
requesting such notices. Notice of hearings should also be
mailed to adjoining States and to Federal, interstate, and
State agencies which are affected by existing State water
quality standards or the proposed revisions.
(3) In addition, any other requirements necesssary to comply with
State law for rulemaking hearings.
The hearing notice should solicit comments and provide opportunity
for public comment. It is suggested that the hearing be held in the
locally affected area. The State should prepare transcripts and
summaries of the hearings which would be available for inspection by
the public and the Regional Administrator. To facilitate EPA's review
of revisions, States should supply the Agency with responses to the
public comments related to the revision(s).
As has been indicated, effective public participation in the
standards revision process is far more than a public hearing. The
interaction of local, State and Federal governments along with the
input of industry, municipalities and public interest groups will make
the process more effective.
2-6
-------
MIXING ZONES
Introduction
The concept of a mixing zone, a limited area or volume of water
where initial dilution of a discharge takes place, has been covered by
a series of guidance documents issued by EPA and its predecessor
agencies. Although mixing zones have been applied in the water quality
standards program since its inception, the Water Quality Standards
regulation never has had explicit reference to mixing zones. The
rule now recognizes that States may adopt mixing zones as a matter of
State discretion. Guidance on defining mixing zones has previously
been provided in the following documents: the Department of Interior
Report, Water Quality Criteria 1968, (Green Book), the National Academy
of Science, Hater Quality Criteria 1972, (Blue Book), the EPA Quality
Criteria for Water 1976 (Red Book), and Chapter 5, "Water Quality
Standards, in the Guidelines for State and Area Wide Water Quality
Management Program, 1976. The current guidance evolved from and
supersedes these sources.
General
A limited mixing zone, serving as a zone of initial dilution in
the immediate area of a point source of pollution, may be allowed.*
Whether to establish a mixing zone policy is a matter of State
discretion. Such a policy, however, must be consistent with the Act
and is subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator.
Careful consideration must be given to the appropriateness of a
mixing zone where a substance discharged is bioaccumulative,
persistent, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic. In such cases the
State must consider such effects as sediment deposition,
bioaccumulation in aquatic biota, biconcentration in the food chain,
and the known or predicted safe exposure levels for the substance. The
effects of bioaccumulation will depend on the predicted duration/
concentration exposure of the biota; thus, the likelihood that the
mixing zone will be inhabited by resident biota for a sufficiently long
time to cause adverse effects should be considered. Factors such as
size of the zone, concentration gradient within the zone, physical
habitat, attraction of aquatic life, etc., are important in this
evaluation. In some instances, the ecological and human health effects
may be so adverse that a mixing zone is not appropriate.
Definition of Allowable Mixing Zones
Water quality standards should describe the State's methodology
for determining the location, size, shape, outfall design and in-zone
quality of mixing zones. The methodology should be sufficiently
*In the broadest sense, the zone surrounding, or downstream from, a
discharge location is an "allocated impact zone" where numeric water
quality criteria can be exceeded as long as acutely toxic conditions
are prevented.
2-7
-------
precise to support regulatory actions, issuance of permits and
determination of RMP's for nonpoint sources. EPA recommends the
following:
Location. Biologically important areas are to be identified and
protected. Where necessary to preserve a zone of passage for migrating
fish or other organisms in a water course, the standards should
specifically identify the portion of the waters to be kept free from
mixing zones. The zone of passage should be based on the water quality
criteria needed to allow migration of fish. This is typically less
stringent than water quality criteria needed to maintain good growth
and propagation of fish.
surface area
have been
Size. Various methods and techniques for defining the
the volume of mixing zones for various types of waters
formulated. Methods which result in quantitative measures sufficient
for permit actions and which protect the designated uses of the water
body as a whole are acceptable. The area or volume of
zone or group of zones must be limited to an area or
and
an individual
volume as small
as
practicable that will not interfere with the designated uses or with
the established community of aquatic life in the segment for which the
uses are designated.
Shape. The shape of a mixing zone should be a simple configuration
that is easy to locate in the body of water and that avoids impingement
on biologically important areas. In lakes, a circle with a specified
radius is generally preferable, but other shapes may be specified in
the case of unusual site requirements. "Shore-hugging" plumes should
be avoided in all water bodies.
Outfall Design. Prior to designating any mixing zone, the State should
best practicable engineering design is used and that
the existing or proposed outfall will avoid significant
resource and water quality impacts of the wastewater
assure that the
the location of
adverse aquatic
discharge.
In-zone Quality. Water quality standards should provide that all
mixing zones conform with the following requirements. Any mixing zone
should be free of point or nonpoint source related:
(a) Materials in concentrations that will cause acute toxicity to
aquatic life.*
(b) Materials in concentrations that settle to form objectionable
deposits;
* Acute toxicity as used here refers to aquatic life lethality caused
by passage through the mixing zone by migrating fish moving up - or
downstream, or by less mobile forms drifting through a plume.
Requirements for waste water plumes which tend to attract aquatic
life should take into account such attraction and reduce toxicity so
as not to cause irreversible toxic effects in such attracted aquatic
life.
2-8
-------
(c) Floating debris, oil , scum and other matter in concentrations
that form nuisances;
(d) Substances in concentrations that produce objectionable color,
odor, taste or turbidity; and
(e) Substances in concentrations which produce undesirable aquatic
life or result in a dominance of nuisance species.
Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material
EPA, in conjunction with the Department of the Army, has developed
guidelines to be applied in evaluating the discharge of dredged or fill
material in navigable waters. (See 40 CFR Part 230, Federal Register,
December 24, 1980). The guidelines include provisions for determining
the acceptability of mixing discharge zones (§230.11(f)). The
particular pollutants involved should be evaluated carefully in
establishing dredging mixing zones. Dredged spoil discharges generally
result in a temporary short-term disruption and do not represent a
continous discharge of materials that will affect beneficial uses over
a long-term. Disruption of beneficial uses should be the primary
consideration in establishing mixing zones for dredged and fill
activities. State water quality standards should reflect these
principles if mixing zones for dredging activities are referenced.
Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects
The Administrator is authorized, after public hearings, to permit
certain discharges associated with approved aquaculture projects
(Section 318 of the Act). The regulations relating to aquaculture
(40 CFR §122.56 and §125.11), provide that the aquaculture project must
not result in a violation of standards outside of the project area and
project approval must not result in the enlargement of any previously
approved mixing zone. In addition, the aquaculture regulations provide
that designated project areas must not include so large a portion of
the body of water that a substantial portion of the indigenous biota
will be exposed to the conditions within the designated project area
(125.11(d)). Areas designated for approved aquaculture projects should
be treated in the same manner as other mixing zones. Special
allowances should not be made for these areas.
2-9
-------
FLOWS
Water quality standards should protect water quality for
designated uses in critical low flow situations. In establishing water
quality standards, States may designate a critical low stream flow
below which numerical water quality criteria do not apply. However, at
all times water shall be free from substances that settle to form
objectionable deposits; float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter;
produces objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity; are acutely
toxic, and which produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.
Additional guidance on flow considerations may be found in Design
Conditions. Chapter I, Stream Design Flow (Draft), August 31, 1983.
This report is available from the Monitoring and Data Support Division
(WH-551).
2-10
-------
ECONOMIC GUIDANCE
Part 131.10, paragraph (g)(6) of the Water Quality Standards
Regulation allows States, under certain conditions, to change a desig-
nated use if attaining that use would result in substantial and wide-
spread economic and social impact. The substantial and widespread
criteria should be applied to discrete changes in economic activity due
to water quality standards. When considering these changes in economic
activity, States should evaluate the incremental effects due to water
quality standards; that is, effects due to controls beyond technology-
based standards or other State requirements.
For municipalities, States should consider the economic effects
associated with controls beyond the technology-based requirements in
Section 301(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Water Act. If water quality standards
require municipal treatment beyond those levels, EPA believes States
should evaluate both the municipality's ability to make the initial pollu-
tion control investment and their financial capability over time for
continued operation and maintenance. States should also evaluate changes
to disposable income resulting from increased user charges or higher
taxes. Another effect to consider is a situation where the municipality
can make the investment for pollution control only by restricting expendi-
tures for other municipal activities. These types of economic effects
are the factors States should consider. States should then determine
if the effects on the affected community are substantial and widespread.
When industry is required to install additional controls, the
appropriate baseline is the technology-based requirement of Section
301(b)(2). If water quality standards require industrial controls
beyond those requirements, States should consider the economic effects
associated with the additional level of control. States should consider
effects such as plant closure and unemployment, resulting from the
inability of the plant to provide the necessary treatment. States should
evaluate these effects in light of the level of unemployment in the area.
States should also consider the condition where the plant is able to
install and operate the treatment, but these expenditures would cancel
or delay current plans for plant expansion or modernization. This
effect on plant investment could cause reductions in future growth of
employment and sales. Other industry effects include shifts in production
processes or practices that change the plant's inputs. These shifts
could result in changes to local employment, sales, and tax revenues.
States should also evaluate effects on profitability and on a firm's
competitive position. Further, if the plant's output is used locally,
and the plant can pass through the additional costs in the form of
higher prices, States should consider the price increase.
2-11
-------
The factors listed above are not meant to be all-inclusive of what
the States should consider when evaluating economic impact. Other
economic effects may be appropriate, depending on the locality. Thus,
any evaluation must be site-specific and address specific conditions in
the affected community. The appropriate definition for community may
vary depending on the type of effect being measured. For example, if
unemployment is the effect being considered, the area from which the
labor pool is drawn is affected community. After considering the
appropriate factors, States should determine whether the effects are
substantial and if so, whether they are widespread.
2 -12
-------
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY
General
Each State must develop, adopt and retain a Statewide
antidegradation policy in the water quality standards and identify
methods for its implementation through the State WQM process. At a
minimum the policy should contain the following components:
1. Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality
necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and
protected.
2. Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to
support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained
and protected unless the State finds, after full satisfaction of
the intergovernmental coordination and public participation
provisions of the State's continuing planning process, that
allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important
economic or social development in the area in which the waters are
located. In allowing such degradation or lower water quality, the
State shall assure water quality adequate to protect existing uses
fully. Further, the State shall assure that there shall be
achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all
new and existing point sources and all cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control.
3. Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National
resource, such as waters of National and State parks and wildlife
refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological
significance, that water quality shall be maintained and
protected.
4. In those cases where potential water quality impairment
associated with a thermal discharge is involved, the
antidegradation policy and implementing method shall be consistent
with section 316 of the Act.
Existing approved antidegradation statements consistent with
§131.12 may be retained, but procedures for implementation must be
established through the State water quality management (WQM) process.
These procedures will enable the State to determine on a case-by-case
basis whether, and to what extent, water quality may be lowered.
Public and Intergovernmental Review
The State WQM process must provide that whenever an activity is
proposed which may degrade existing high quality waters, the State will
assure that there is adequate public and intergovernmental
participation.
2-13
-------
Uhere the public and Intergovernmental response, taken as a whole,
clearly opposes a proposed degradation, the State must give serious
consideration to that response and may not allow the proposed
degradation activity unless it has a substantial and convincing
justification for the activity.
While a State may decide, after satisfying the requirements for
coordination and public participation, to allow some degradation of
"high quality waters," any such lower water quality must protect
existing uses fully and must also reflect the highest statutory and
regulatory requirement for all new and existing point sources and all
cost-effective and reasonable BMPs for nonpoint source control.
"Highest statutory and regulatory requirements" refers to BAT or
secondary treatment or new source performance standards (subject to any
modifications under 301(g) and 316(a)), and any more stringent
requirements imposed under State law or regulation.
Outstanding National Resource Waters
EPA changed the regulatory provision dealing with the degradation
of outstanding National resource water (ONRW) to provide a limited
exception to the previous absolute "no degradation" requirement. The
regulation requires water quality to be maintained and protected in
ONRW. EPA interprets this provision such that States may allow some
limited activities which result in temporary and short-term changes in
the water quality of ONRW. Such activities must not permanently
degrade water quality nor result in water quality lower than that
necessary to protect the existing uses in the ONRW. It is difficult to
give an exact definition of "temporary" and "short-term" because of the
variety of activities which might be considered. The intent of EPA's
provision clearly is to limit water quality degradation to the shortest
possible time. If a construction activity is involved, for example,
temporary is defined as the length of time necessary to construct the
facility and make it operational. During any period of time when,
after opportunity for public participation in the decision, the State
allows temporary degradation, all practical means of minimizing such
degradation shall be implemented.
This change was made to make the ONRW provision a reasonable one
which should encourage more States to make use of this designation.
EPA views the effects of the change as minimal and consistent with
sound resource management. The change is intended to avoid
unreasonable restrictions and provide flexibility within the
regulation. Example of situations when flexibility is required
follow.
Example 1 - A national park wishes to replace a defective septic
tank - drainfield system in a campground. The campground is located
immediately adjacent to a small stream with the ONRW use designation.
If the previous regulation were taken literally, no construction
would be allowed because if precipitation occurred, sediment would be
washed into the stream. Under the new provision, the construction
could occur if best management practices were scrupulously followed to
minimize any disturbance of water quality or aquatic habitat.
2-14
-------
Example 2 - Same situation except the campground is served by a
small sewage treatment plant already discharging to the ONRW. It is
desired to enlarge the treatment system and provide higher levels of
treatment.
Under the previous regulation, since no degradation was permitted,
this water-quality-enhancing action would not be permitted because of
the temporary increase in sediment and, perhaps, in organic loading
which would occur during the actual construction phase. Under the new
regulation, it could be allowed.
Example 3 - A National forest with a mature, second growth of
trees which are suitable for harvesting, with associated road repair
and re-stabilization. Streams in the area designated as ONRW and
support trout fishing.
The new regulation intends that best management practices for
timber harvesting be followed and might include preventive measures
more stringent than for similar logging in less environmentally
sensitive areas. Of course, if the lands were being considered for
designation as wilderness areas or other similar designations, EPA's
regulation should not be construed as encouraging or condoning
timbering operations. The regulation only allows temporary and short
term water quality degradation while maintaining existing uses or new
uses consistent with the purpose of the management of the ONRW area.
Antidegradation and Growth
National antidegradation requirements should not be viewed as a
"no growth" rule. Where the State intends to provide for further
development, the State WQM process should evaluate the alternative
measures which can be taken to preserve water quality, such as
requiring land disposal for new projects. The evaluation must take
into account the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
the waterbody and possible widespread economic and social impacts.
Optional State Actions
The State's antidegradation policy is to be used for the
protection of existing water quality. Use designations should not be
an issue, since the specific water quality standards should always, at
a minimum, designate existing beneficial uses. The State's water
quality standards for high quality waters may, within the constraints
and limitations of monitoring practicability, set forth the existing
water quality of a segment. Thus, the State may adopt specific
criteria reflecting existing levels measured in the high quality
segment, even though such levels may be more stringent than the Section
304(a) criteria minimum levels for given uses. Documentation of
existing water quality is essential in the State WQM process as a
baseline against which any future degradation could be measured.
2-15
-------
Consistency with Section 316
Under Section 316(a) of the Act, if a proper showing is made,
NPDES permits may contain thermal effluent limitations which are less
stringent than those which might otherwise be required under Section
301(b)(l)(C) to implement State antidegradation requirements. (In this
respect, Section 316(a) creates a limited exception to Section 510).
Section 131.12(a)(4) of the water quality standard regulation therefore
provides that States must ensure that their antidegradation policies
are not interpreted or applied to prevent the imposition of modified
thermal effluent limitations in NPDES permits under Section 3l6(a).
Federal Review of Antidegradation Policies and Actions
The State's antidegradation statement and implementing procedures,
as a part of its water quality standards and WQM process, are subject
to the Regional Administrator's>review and approval. EPA encourages
submittal of any amendments to this statement and implementing
procedures to the Regional Administrator for pre-adoption review so
that the State may take EPA comments into account prior to final
adoption.
2-16
-------
APPLICATION OF NUMERICAL AND NARRATIVE CRITERIA
Introduction
Section 131.11(a)(2) of the Water Quality Standards Regulation
provides that the "States must review water quality data and
information on discharges to identify specific water bodies where toxic
pollutants may be adversely affecting water quality or the attainment
of the designated water use or where the levels of toxic pollutants are
at a level to warrant concern and must adopt criteria for such toxic
pollutants applicable to the water body sufficient to protect the
designated use." The criteria which are adopted may be numerical or
narrative or both. Pollutant-specific numerical criteria may be used
when the control of specific pollutants is of concern, and narrative
criteria may be applied when the control of either combinations of
pollutants together or individual pollutants not contained in State
water quality standards is of concern.
When narrative criteria are adopted in lieu of numerical criteria
to control toxic pollutants, the Water Quality Standards Regulation
requires that "the State must provide information identifying the
method by which the State intends to regulate point source discharges
of toxic pollutants on water quality limited segments based on such
narrative criteria," and that "such information may be included as part
of the standards or may be included in documents generated by the State
in response to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations
(40 CFR Part 35)."
To implement these numerical and narrative criteria, the
Environmental Protection Agency encourages the use of an integrated
strategy consisting of both biological and chemical methods. Where
State water quality standards contain numerical criteria for toxic
pollutants, NPDES permits will contain limits as necessary to assure
compliance with these standards. In addition to enforcing specific
numerical criteria, biological techniques and available data on
chemical effects will be used to assess toxicity impacts based on the
State's general narrative toxicity standard. The use of such an
integrated approach by the EPA and the States has been endorsed in a
draft EPA Office of Water "Policy for the Development of Water
Quality-Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants."
The following section discusses how numerical and narrative
criteria may be applied for toxic pollutants.
Approaches for Applying Numerical and Narrative Criteria for Toxic
Pollutants
All States have a general narrative requirement in their water
quality standards that their waters not contain toxic substances in
toxic amounts (e.g., the so-called "toxics free from"). This
requirement, which focuses on the toxicological properties of either
2-17
-------
individual substances or mixtures of substances, has most commonly been
applied to individual toxic pollutants through the establishment of
pollutant-specific water quality based controls, but can also be
applied to mixtures of pollutants such as can be found in whole
effluents or in receiving waters. The latter application of general
narrative toxicity criteria is consistent with §502(13) of the Clean
Water Act, which defines "toxic pollutant" as "those pollutants, or_
combinations of pollutants, . . . which . . .will . . . cause death,
disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, . . ." (emphasis added).
Narrative toxicity criteria are normally applied to those
pollutants identified under §307(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act, but may
also be applied to any other individual pollutant or combination of
pollutants which fit the definition of §502(13).
The two possible approaches for applying numerical and narrative
water quality criteria are discussed further below.
Pollutant-Specific Approach for Applying Toxics Water Quality Criteria
A pollutant-specific approach for controlling toxic pollutants
involves the application of numerical water quality criteria which
reflect the toxicological properties of individual substances. These
numerical criteria express water quality objectives for preventing
acute or chronic toxicity or for meeting a defined level of water
quality protection that is based on the water body's designated uses.
The pollutant-specific approach is most appropriately used where a
few specific pollutants have been identified as the concern, or where
human health is the issue. Predictive tools such as water quality fate
and transport models are often used to translate specific criteria on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis into a specific water quality based permit
limit.
The numerical criteria which are applied in any given case may be
based on existing water quality standards or published criteria, or
else site-specific numerical criteria may be developed based on the
State's general narrative toxicity standard. A recommended procedure
for determining appropriate numerical water quality criteria for
individual toxic pollutants is outlined below:
1) The designated uses of the receiving water should first be
examined to determine whether the protection of aquatic life,
human health, or both is of concern. Appropriate criteria
protective of aquatic life or human health should then be selected
in the steps below for those pollutants present or suspected of
being present in the water body.
2) The applicable State water quality standards for the receiving
water should be examined to see if a numerical criterion value
exists for the parameter of concern, and if it appropriately
reflects the aquatic life or human health protection needs of the
water body. If so, then this criterion may be applied.
2-18
-------
3) If no appropriate criteria appear in the State's water quality
standards, then the EPA national criteria for protection of
aquatic life and human health (References 1, 2, 3, 4) may be
consulted for the pollutant parameters of concern. If a discharge
is to a receiving water designated as a domestic water supply,
then the finished drinking water health advisories (adjusted for
treatment capabilities) should also be consulted. Where a
pollutant has both EPA human health water quality criteria and
drinking water advisories, the more stringent of the criteria
should normally be applied.
4) For those pollutants which have no EPA water quality criteria or
drinking water advisories, or the criteria or advisories are
inapplicable to the water body of concern, site-specific criteria
which are protective of the water body's designated uses should be
developed based on the State's general narrative toxicity
standard. These site-specific criteria should be developed
utilizing toxicity tests, indicator organisms, and application
factors which may be contained in the State's water quality
standards, or other procedures that are consistent with those
outlined in Chapter 4 of this Handbook.
The Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards illustrate how numerical
criteria can be developed and applied for pollutants. The Standards
list the parameters for which criteria have been established by the
State and the values of those criteria; and also acknowledge that the
"list of specific water quality criteria does not include all possible
substances that could cause pollution," and that "for substances not
listed, the general criterion that these substances shall not be
inimical or injurious to the designated water use applies." The
Pennsylvania standards further define the steps which may be taken when
a specific criterion has not been established for a pollutant. They
provide that a specific criterion may be determined through
establishment of a "safe concentration value," which shall be based
upon adequate data obtained from relevant aquatic field studies,
available literature, or specific bioassay tests, or, where
insufficient data are available to establish a safe concentration
value, shall be determined by using specified bioassay testing
procedures and by applying appropriate specified application factors to
the pollutant's 96-hour (or greater) LC5Q value.
General Toxicity Approach for Applying Toxics Water Quality Criteria
A general toxicity approach focuses on the overall toxicological
properties of mixtures of pollutants in effluents or receiving waters,
with the objective of preventing acute and chronic toxicity conditions
in the water body and meeting a defined level of water quality
protection that is based on the water body's designated uses. With
this approach, the State's general narrative toxicity standard is used
on a case-by-case basis to ensure that no acute toxicity conditions
exist within any State-defined or otherwise identified mixing zone, and
no acute or chronic toxicity conditions exist elsewhere in the water
body.
2-19
-------
The general toxicity approach is most appropriately used where
effluent or instream conditions are complex. For example, the toxicity
effects of one or several discharges containing many known or unknown
constituents can be readily assessed. This approach can also be
applied in conjunction with pollutant-specific techniques, especially
when residual toxicity or synergistic or other effects are a concern.
The State Water Quality Standards of Maryland and Florida
illustrate how narrative criteria can be developed and applied for
individual and combinations of pollutants. Maryland's Water Quality
Standards contain a general criterion which provides that the "waters
of the State at all times shall be free from . . . toxic, corrosive, or
other deleterious substances attributable to sewage, industrial waste,
or other waste in concentrations or combinations which interfere
directly or indirectly with water uses, or which are harmful to human,
animal, plant, or aquatic life" (emphasis added). Florida's Water
Quality Standards contain a similar general narrative criterion which
provides that "all waters . . . shall at all places and at all times be
free from . . . components of discharges which, alone or in combination
with other substances 0£ in_ combination with other components _of
discharges . . . are acutely toxic ... or . . . carcinogenfc~7
mutagenic, or teratogenic to human beings or ... aquatic life . . ."
(emphasis added). The Florida standards also further specify several
of the narrative requirements contained therein: for example, the
standards define acute toxicity to mean "the presence of one or more
substances or characteristics or components of substances in amounts
which . . . are greater than one-third (1/3) of the ... 96 hr.
LC5Q . . . where the 9fi hr. LC5Q is the lowest value which has
been determined for a species significant to the indigenous aquatic
community . . . ."
Toxicity tests, including instream or laboratory bioassays and
instream biological sampling, may be used to implement this approach.
The State should identify, in its water quality standards or a guidance
document, the appropriate acute and/or chronic toxicity bioassay tests,
number and types of indicator organisms, application factors, water
body design conditions, and instream biological sampling procedures to
be used. The methods and procedures to he employed should be
reflective of the use designations of the water bodies to be protected.
numerous States already identify various toxicity testing-related
requirements in their water quality standards. For example, the West
Virginia standards provide that "bioassay testing shall be conducted in
accordance with the methodologies outlined in the . . . [EPA
publication,1 Methods of Acute Toxicity Tests with Fish,
Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians . . .: Standard Method's of [sic] the
Examination of Water and Wastewater ...:... Standard Method of
Test for ASTM . . .; or . . . [the EPA pub! icatioTH, Methods fo~
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms . . .":
and Texas' standards state that, "[f]or evaluations of toxicity,
2-20
-------
bioassay techniques will be selected as suited to the purpose at hand,"
and "[a]s a general guideline, bioassays will be conducted using fish
indigenous to the receiving waters, and water quality conditions . . .
which approximate those of the receiving waters."
Reference 5 contains additional information on toxicity testing
methods and procedures for setting water quality based controls for
toxic pollutants using a general toxicity approach.
References
1. U.S. EPA, Water Quality Criteria Documents (45 FR 79318,
November 28, 1980, 46 FR 40919, August 13, 1981).
2. Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA (1976). GPO Stock No.
005-001-01049-4.
3. Water Quality Criteria, U.S. EPA (1972). EPA-R3-73-033.
4. Water Quality Criteria, FWPCA (1968).
5. A Technical Support Document for Mater Quality Based Toxics Control
(Draft), U.S. EPA, Office of Water (1983).
2-21
-------
RELATIONSHIP OF SECTION 304(a)(l) CRITERIA
TO DESIGNATED WATER USES
Introduction
The Section 304(a)(l) criteria published periodically by EPA can
be used to support the designated uses which are generally found in
State standards. The following sections briefly discuss the
relationship between certain criteria and individual use
classifications. Additional information on this subject may also be
found in the FWPCA report, Water Quality Criteria 1968 ("Green Book");
the National Academy of Science, Water Quality Criteria 1972 ("Blue
Book"); the EPA Quality Criteria 'for Water 1976 ("Red Book"); the EPA
Water Quality Criteria Documents(45 FR 79318. November 28, 1980, 46 FR
40919, August 13, 1981); and future EPA section 304(a)(l) water quality
criteria publications.
Where a water body is designated for more than one use, criteria
necessary to protect the most sensitive use must be applied.
Recreation
Recreational uses of water include activities such as swimming,
wading, boating, and fishing. In general, insufficient data exist on
the human health effects of physical and chemical pollutants, including
most toxics, resulting from exposure through such primary contact as
swimming. However, as a general guideline, recreational waters that
contain chemicals in such concentrations as to be toxic or otherwise
harmful to man if ingested, or to be irritating to the skin or mucous
membranes of the human body upon brief immersion should be avoided.
The section 304(a)(l) human health effects criteria based on direct
human drinking water intake and fish consumption might provide useful
guidance in these circumstances. Also, section 304(a)(l) criteria
based on human health effects may be used to support this designated
use where fishing is included in the State definition of "recreation."
In this latter situation, only the portion of the criterion based on
fish consumption should be used. Section 304(a)(l) criteria to protect
recreational uses are also available for certain physical,
microbiological, and qualitative parameters.
The "Green Book" and "Blue Book" provide additional information on
protecting recreational uses.
Protection and Propagation of Fish and Other Aquatic Life
The section 304(a)(l) criteria based on toxicity to aquatic life
may be used directly to support this designated use. If subcategories
of this use are adopted (e.g., to differentiate between cold water and
warm water fisheries), then appropriate criteria should be set to
reflect the varying needs of such subcategories.
2-22
-------
Agricultural and Industrial Uses
The "Green Book" and "Blue Book" provide information for certain
parameters on protecting agricultural and industrial uses, although
section 304(a)(l) criteria for protecting these uses have not been
specifically developed for numerous other parameters, including most
toxics.
Where criteria have not been specifically developed for these
uses, the criteria developed for human health and aquatic life are
usually sufficiently stringent to protect these uses. States may also
establish criteria specifically designed to protect these uses.
Public Water Supply
The drinking water exposure component of the section 304(a)(l)
criteria based on human health effects can apply directly to this use
classification or may be appropriately modified depending upon whether
the specific water supply system falls within the auspices of the Safe
Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) regulatory control, and the type and level
of treatment imposed upon the supply before delivery to the consumer.
The SDWA controls the presence of toxic pollutants in finished
("end-of-tap") drinking water. A brief description of relevant
sections of this Act is necessary to explain how the SDWA will work in
conjunction with section 304(a)(l) criteria in protecting human health
from the effects of toxics due to consumption of water.
Pursuant to section 1412 of the SDWA, EPA has promulgated
"National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards" for certain organic
and inorganic substances. These standards establish "maximum
contaminant levels" ("MCLs") which specify the maximum permissible
level of a contaminant in water which may be delivered to a user of a
public water system now defined as serving a minimum of 25 people.
MCLs are established based on consideration of a range of factors
including not only the health effects of the contaminants but also
technological and economic feasibility of the contaminants' removal
from the supply. EPA is required to establish revised primary drinking
water regulations based on the effects of contaminant on human health,
and include treatment capability, monitoring availability, and costs.
Under Section 1401(1)(D)(i) of the SDWA, EPA is also allowed to
establish the minimum quality criteria for water which may be taken
into a public water supply system.
Section 304(a)(l) criteria provide estimates of pollutant
concentrations protective of human health, but do not consider
treatment technology, costs, and other feasibility factors. The
section 304(a)(l) criteria also include fish bioaccumulation and
consumption factors in addition to direct human drinking water intake.
These numbers were not developed to serve as "end of tap" drinking
water standards., and they have no regulatory significance under the
SDWA. Drinking water standards are established based on
considerations, including technological and economic feasibility, not
relevant to section 304(a)(l) criteria. Section 304(a)(l) criteria may
be analogous to the recommended maximum contaminant levels (RMCLs)
under section 1412(b)(l)(B) of the SDWA in which, based upon a report
from the National Academy of Sciences, the Administrator should set
target levels for contaminants in drinking water at which "no known or
2-23
-------
anticipated adverse effects occur and which allows an adequate margin
of safety." RMCLs do not take treatment, cost, and other feasibility
factors into consideration. Section 304(a)(l) criteria are, in
concept, related to the health-based goals specified in the RMCLs.
Specific mandates of the SDWA such as the consideration of multi-media
exposure, as well as different methods for setting maximum contaminant
levels under the two Acts, may result in differences between the two
numbers.
MCLs of the SDWA, where they exist, control toxic chemicals in
finished drinking water. However, because of variations in treatment
and the fact that only a relatively small number of MCLs have been
developed, ambient water criteria may be used by the States as a
supplement to SDWA regulations. States will have the option of
applying MCLs, section 304(a)(l) human health effects criteria,
modified section 304(a)(l) criteria, or controls more stringent than
these three to protect against the effects of toxic pollutants by
ingestion from drinking water.
For untreated drinking water supplies, States may control toxics
in the ambient water through either use of MCLs (if they exist for the
pollutants of concern), section 304(a)(l) human health effects
criteria, or a more stringent contaminant level than the former two
options.
For treated drinking water supplies serving less than 25 people,
States may choose toxics control through application of MCLs (if they
exist for the pollutants of concern and are attainable by the type of
treatment) in the finished drinking water. States also have the
options to control toxics in the ambient water by choosing section
304(a)(l) criteria, adjusted section 304(a)(l) criteria resulting from
the reduction of the direct drinking water exposure component in the
criteria calculation to the extent that the treatment procedure reduces
the level of pollutants, or a more stringent contaminant level than the
former three options.
For treated drinking water supplies serving 25 people or greater,
States must control toxics down to levels at least as stringent as
MCLs (where they exist for the pollutants of concern) in the finished
drinking water. However, States also have the options to control
toxics in the ambient water by choosing section 304(a)(l) criteria,
adjusted section 304(a)(l) criteria resulting from the reduction of the
direct drinking water exposure component in the criteria calculation to
the extent that the treatment process reduces the level of pollutants,
or a more stringent contaminant level than the former three options.
2-24
-------
CHAPTER 3
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
FOR CONDUCTING USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES
Contents
Page
Purpose and Application 3-1
Physical Evaluations 3-4
Chemical Evaluations 3-6
Biological Evaluations 3-8
Approaches to Conducting the Physical,
Chemical, and Biological Evaluations 3-13
References 3-17
Appendix A: SAMPLE STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM A-l
Appendix B: FISH TAXONOMIC REFERENCES B-l
Appendix C: INVERTEBRATE AMD ALGAL TAXONOMIC
REFERENCES C-l
Appendix D: CASE STUDIES D-l
Assabet River, Massachusetts D-3
Blackwater River, Virginia D-10
Cuckels Brook, New Jersey D-18
Deep Creek and Canal Creek, North Carolina. . D-25
Malheur River, Oregon D-30
Pecan Bayou, Texas D-37
Salt Creek, Nebraska D-44
South Fork Crow River, Minnesota D-49
South Platte River, Colorado D-53
-------
Purpose and Application
The purpose of this guidance is to identify the physical,
chemical and biological factors that may be examined to determine if an
aquatic life protection use is attainable for a given water body. The
use attainability analysis is an important environmental analysis to
improve the scientific and technical basis of setting site-specific
water quality standards. The specific analyses included in this
guidance are optional. However, they represent the type of analyses
EPA believes are sufficient for States to justify changes in uses
designated in a water quality standard and to show in Advanced
Treatment Project justifications that the uses are attainable. States
may use alternative analyses as long as they are scientifically and
technically supportable. This guidance specifically addresses streams
and river systems. EPA is presently developing guidance for estuarine
and marine systems and plans to issue such guidance in 1984.
Several approaches for analyzing the aquatic life protection uses
to determine if such uses are appropriate for a given water body are
discussed. States are encouraged to use existing data to perform the
physical, chemical, and biological evaluations presented in this
guidance document. Not all of these evaluations are necessarily
applicable. For example, if a physical assessment reveals that the
physical habitat is the limiting factor precluding a use, a chemical
evaluation would not be required. In addition wherever possible,
States also should consider grouping together water bodies having
similar physical, chemical, and biological characteristics to either
treat several water bodies or stream segments as a single unit or to
establish representative conditions which are applicable to other
similar water bodies or stream segments within a river basin. Using
existing data and establishing representative conditions applicable to
a number of water bodies or segments should conserve the limited
resources available to the States.
The evaluations presented in this guidance document should be
sufficiently detailed to answer:
- What are the aquatic use(s) currently being achieved in the
water body?
- What are the causes of any impairment in the aquatic uses?
- What are the aquatic use(s) which can be attained based on the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water
body?
Questions addressing the evaluation of control options are
discussed in the Wasteload Allocation Guidance (EPA, 1983).
Table 1 summarizes the types of physical, chemical, and biological
evaluations which may be conducted. The guidance document presents
3-1
-------
CO
o
CO
LLJ
co
>~
<
O
O
o
o
l-H
03
Ol
to
Ol
C
to
x
L-
o
+J
o>
>
c
Ol
o
o
03
CO
>l
re
C
to
Ol
-Q
Ol
O
re
OJ
re
jo
01
!_
Ol
C
'o
L-
CJ
'i
i
CL
O
+J
o>
CL
CL
O
O
re
CO
CO
re
01
O
•r-
O
O
r—
re
o
•r-
Ol
0
f—
0
03
to
Ol
o
l-H
>.
•t->
•r—
t/>
L
01
.^
Q
1
to
r_
Ol
-O
O
s:
»— 1
CO
3C
I
to
Ol
to
,_
re
c
>
01
>
o
o
01
1
to
•1—
to
c
to
Ol
(J
Ol
CL
to
+J
c
re
t_
01
1—
0
+J
1 — 1
1
to
to
re
01
o
re
o
i
Ol
o
>
tr_
c
o
1
o
Q-
re
o
01
O
o
•r—
03
••- C
tO O
>> CO
re u
c re
•=C CL
o
re
01
u
c
01
o:
03
-
1—
LL.
0
>-
QC
<
S
s:
Z3
to
co
o
l-H
1
r^
Z3
— 1
UJ
_]
«cC
C_J
*-H
21
UJ
DI
<_>
^
01
>-J
X
O
-o
Ol
r—
0
CO
to
•I-
T3
CO
•M
e
re
o
•r—
X
o
4-1
CO
•o
•r—
^«
O to
to =j
e L.
T3 to Ol O
O) •<-> Ol JZ
•0 c O Q.
C OJ t- tO
O) -r- -I-) O
Q. «- ••- J=
in 4-> C CL
Zl Z>
to e i i
T3
c:
re
Ol
T3
c
01
01
x
o
+-> >>
c: +->
OJ -^
E c
•5 ^
oi re
to to
to
to
Ol
c
t.
re
JZ
o:
Q.
O
to
o
to
to
03
«t
O
l-H
1—
1
-
^
Q-
ten' sties
0
re
re
JZ
o
E
re
Ol
^J
to
c
i — i
o
dth/depth)
•r—
5
c:
re
Ol
gr
> —
O)
•r—
to
1
>j
•1—
O
o
r—
0)
•**^
o
r—
4-
1
CL
re
Ol
o
•^
>^
r-
r«.
re
IZ
c
re
i
01
3
f^
0
^«
re
o
1 1
1
to
0>
re
£=
O
.,—
+J
re
Ol
re
O)
t_
i
s/riffles
,_
0
o
CL
-I-J
C
01
T3
re
t_
Ol
1
01
Zi
4J
re
Ol
t
Ol
1
to
T3
,«
0
to
TD
01
T3
01
C.
to
Zi
to
1
>^
) *
>r.
-a
>r_
JD
£_
Zi
+J
1
£;
0
4_>
re
c
Ol
E
Ol
to
i
i cat ions
e
e
re
c~
O
1
s.
•i—
JD
»!_>
l/l
^»
Ol
c
c
_c
o
1
re
c
o
in
O
t
o
u
Ol
re
4->
CO
jQ
3
co
o
CO
o
•r—
-U
CO
I_
Ol
o
re
t_
re
JZ
o
CO
t-
-Q
01
T3
,_
01
c
re
c—
o
o
(/)
£
to
O
CL
OJ
•o
Ol
Ol
t3
Zi
r*^
CO
O
to
o
4->
to
Ol
o
re
re
_c
o
c
re
•r-
re
CL
>r«
o:
0
acteristics
£_
re
o
E
re
Ol
L,
to
C
2
O
o
o
3-2
-------
several approaches for conducting the physical, chemical, and
biological evaluations depending on the complexity of the situation.
Details on the various evaluations can be found in the Technical
Support Manual for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses, available
from the person listed in the Foreword of this Handbook. A survey need
not consider all of the parameters listed but rather the survey should
be designed on the basis of the stream characteristics and other
considerations relevant to a particular survey. Case studies showing
how the analyses were used in evaluating the attainability of uses and
in setting appropriate uses for a site-specific water quality standard
are contained in Appendix D.
These approaches may be adapted to the water body being examined.
Therefore, a close working relationship between EPA and the States is
essential so that EPA can assist States in determining the appropriate
analyses to be used in support of any water quality standards revisions
or Advanced Treatment Project justifications. These analyses should be
made available to all interested parties before any public forums on
the water quality standards to allow for full discussion of the data
and analyses.
3-3
-------
Physical Evaluations
Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act recognizes the importance of
preserving the physical integrity of the Nation's water bodies.
Physical habitat plays an important role in the overall aquatic
ecosystem and impacts the types and number of species present in a
particular body of water. Physical parameters of a water body are
examined to identify any non-water quality related factors which
impair the propagation and protection of aquatic life and to determine
what uses could be obtained in the water body given such limitations.
In general, physical parameters such as flow, temperature, water depth,
velocity, substrate, reaeration rates and other factors are used to
identify any physical limitations that may preclude the attainment of
the designated use. Depending on the water body in question any of the
following physical parameters may be appropriately examined. A State
may utilize any of these parameters for identifying physical
limitations and characteristics of a water body. Once a State has
identified any physical limitations based on evaluating the parameters
listed, careful consideration of "reversibility" or the ability to
restore the physical integrity of the water body should be made.
Such considerations may include whether it would cause more
environmental damage to correct the problem than to leave the waterbody
as is, or whether physical impediments such as dams can be operated or
modified in a way that would allow attainment of the use.
I. Channel and instream characteristics including:
0 mean stream width and depth
0 total volume
0 flow and water velocity
0 reaeration rates
0 gradient
0 pools
0 riffles
0 seasonal changes
0 turbidity
0 suspended solids
0 temperature
0 sedimentation
0 channel stability
0 channel obstructions:
- dams
- waterfalls, log jams, steep gradient
- other impoundments and channel obstructions
0 channel changes:
- road construction
- dredging activities
- clearing areas (culverts, bridges, etc.)
- channelization
0 instream cover:
- undercut banks
- overhanging brush
0 snags and woody debris
0 downstream characteristics
3-4
-------
II. Substrate composition and
0 organic debris/muck
0 clay
0 silt
0 sand
characteristics including:
° gravel
0 cobble
0 boulder
0 bedrock
cobble, sand,
III. Riparian characteristics including:
0 bank cover
- forested
- brush
- grass and herbaceous vegetation
- non-vegetated areas
0 bank stability
0 soil composition (percent boulder, gravel
silt, clay)
0 land gradients
0 bank width
Several assessment techniques have been developed which correlate
physical habitat characteristics to fishery resources (Stalnacker,
1978; Dunham and Cooper, 1975; Collotz and Dunham, 1978). The
identification of physical factors limiting a fishery is a critical
assessment that provides important data for the management of the water
body. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed habitat
evaluation procedures (HEP) and habitat suitability indices (HSI).
Several States have begun developing their own models and procedures
for habitat assessments. Parameters generally included in habitat
assessment procedures are: temperature, turbidity, velocity, depth,
cover, pool and riffle sizes, riparian vegetation, bank stability,
siltation, etc. These parameters are correlated to fish species by
evaluating the habitat variables important to the life cycle of the
species. The value of habitat for other groups of aquatic organisms
such as macroinvertebrates and periphyton may also be considered.
Continued research and refinement of habitat evaluation procedures
reflects the importance of physical habitat.
If physical limitations of a stream restrict the use, there are a
variety of habitat modification techniques which might restore a
habitat so that a species could thrive where it could not before. Some
of the techniques which have been used include: bank stabilization,
flow control, current deflectors, check dams, artificial meanders,
isolated oxbows, snag clearing when determined not to be detrimental to
the life cycle or reproduction of a species, and installation of
spawning beds and artificial spawning channels (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1978). If the habitat is a limiting factor to the propagation
and/or survival of aquatic life, the feasibility of modifications might
be examined prior to imposing additional controls on dischargers.
3-5
-------
Chemical Evaluations
The chemical characteristics of a water body are examined to
determine why a designated use is not being met and to determine the
potential of a particular species to survive in the water body if the
concentration of particular chemicals were modified. The following is
a partial list of the parameters that may be evaluated. The State has
the discretion to determine the parameters required to perform an
adequate water chemistry evaluation.
° toxicants
0 nutrients e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus
° sediment oxygen demand
0 salinity
° hardness
0 pH
0 alkalinity
0 dissolved solids
0 suspended solids
As part of the evaluation of the water chemistry composition, a
natural background evaluation is useful in determining the relative
contribution of natural background contaminants to the water body as
this may be a legitimate factor which effectively prevents a designated
use from being met. To determine whether the natural background
concentration of a pollutant is adversely impacting the survival of
species, the concentration may be compared to one of the following:
0 304(a) criteria guidance documents; or
0 site-specific criteria; or
0 State-derived criteria.
Another way to get an indication of the potential for the species
to survive is to determine if the species are found in other waterways
with similar chemical concentrations. However, this is not a precise
indicator.
In determining whether man-induced pollution is irreversible,
consideration needs to be given to the permanence of the damage, the
feasibility of abating the pollution, or the additional environmental
damage that may result from removing the pollutants. If nonpoint
source pollution cannot be abated with application of best management
practices (RMPs^ and the activity causing the nonpoint source pollution
problem is determined to be essential, States may consider the
pollution irreversible. EPA's policy is that feasible BMPs which
reduce nonpoint source pollution must be developed in accordance with
priorities for developing control programs for all nonpoint sources
identified in areawide and State planning areas. Site specific
conditions are to be taken into account during BMP design and
implementation.
In addition, if instream toxicants cannot be removed by natural
processes and cannot be removed by man without severe long-term
environmental impacts, the pollution may be considered irretrievable.
3-6
-------
In some areas the water's chemical characteristics may have to be
calculated, using predictive water quality models, rather than
determined empirically. This will be true if the receiving water is to
be impacted by new dischargers, changes in land use, or improved
treatment facilities. Guidance is available on the selection and use
of receiving water models for biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved
oxygen and ammonia for instream systems (EPA, 1983) and dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus for lake systems, reservoirs and
impoundments (EPA, 1981).
Once a State identifies the chemical or water quality
characteristics which are limiting the attainment of the use, differing
levels of remedial control measures may be explored.
3-7
-------
Biological Evaluations
In evaluating what aquatic life protection uses are attainable,
the biology of the water body should be evaluated. The
interrelationships between the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics are complex and alterations in the physical and/or
chemical parameters result in biological changes. The biological
evaluation described in this section encourages States to (1) provide a
more precise statement of which species exist in the water body and
should be protected; (2) determine the biological health in the water
body and; (3) determine the species that could potentially exist in the
water body if the physical and chemical factors impairing a use were
corrected. This section of the guidance will present the conceptual
framework for making these evaluations. States have the discretion to
use other scientifically and technically supportable assessment
methodologies deemed appropriate for specific water bodies on a case by
case basis. Further details on each of the analyses presented can be
found in the Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses.
° Biological Inventory (Existing Use Analysis)
The identification of which species are in the water body and
should be protected serves several purposes:
(a) By knowing what species are present, the biologist can
analyze, in general terms, the health of the water body. For
example, if the fish species present are principally carnivores,
the quality of the water is generally higher than in a water body
dominated by omnivores. It also allows the biologist to assess
the presence or absence of intolerant species.
(b) Identification of the species enables the State to develop
baseline conditions against which to evaluate any remedial
actions. The development of a regional baseline based upon
several site-specific species lists increases an understanding of
the regional fauna. This allows for easier grouping of water
bodies based on the biological regime of the area.
(c) By identifying the species, the decision-maker has the data
needed to explain the present condition of the water body to the
public and the uses which must be maintained.
The evaluation of the existing biota may be simple or complex
depending on the availability of data. As much information as possible
should be gathered on the following categories of organisms:
0 fish
0 macroinvertebrates
0 microinvertebrates
0 phytoplankton
0 periphyton
0 macrophytes
3-8
-------
It is not necessary to obtain complete data for all six categories.
However, it is recommended that whichever combination of categories is
chosen, fish should be included. The reasons for this recommendation
are: (1) the general public can relate better to statements about the
condition of the fish community; (2) fish are typically present even in
the smallest streams and in all but the most polluted waters; (3) fish
are relatively easy to identify and samples can be sorted and
identified at the field site; (4) life-history information is extensive
for many fish species so that stress effects can be evaluted (Karr,
1981). Since fish are mobile, States are encouraged to evaluate other
categories of organisms also.
Prior to conducting any field work, existing data should be
collected. EPA can provide data from intensive monitoring surveys and
special studies. Data, especially for fish, may be available from
State fish and game departments, recreation agencies, and local
governments or through environmental impact statements, permit reviews,
surveys, and university and other studies.
° Biological Condition/Biological Health Assessment
The biological inventory can be used to gain insight into the
biological health of the water body by evaluating:
(a) species richness or the number of species
(b) presence of intolerant species
(c) proportion of omnivores and carnivores
d) biomass or production
e) number of individuals per species
The role of the biologist becomes critical in evaluating the health of
the biota as the knowledge of expected richness or expected species
comes only from understanding the general biological traits and regimes
of the area. Best professional judgments by local biologists are
important. These judgments are based on many years of experience and
on observations of the physical and chemical changes that have occurred
over time.
There are many mechanisms to evaluate biotic communities that have
been and are continuing to be developed. The following briefly
describes mechanisms that States may want to consider using in their
biological evaluations:
- Diversity Indices - Diversity indices permit large amounts of
information about the numbers and kinds of organisms to be summarized
in a single value. Diversity indices have been applied to ascertain
quantitative relationships between the health of the population and
waste discharges. However, as summaries, diversity indices lose
3-9
-------
information concerning the identity of particular species involved and
thus may obscure major changes in species composition. These changes
are often indicative of changed conditions. The information on species
composition can be retained by developing a species list in rank order
of abundance such as the biological inventory discussed previously.
References on diversity indices may be found in the bibliography of
this guidance.
- Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Models - The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Habitat Suitability Index models relate habitat
requirements to specific fish species by identifying key habitat
variables and the range and optimums for such variables. These index
models are hypotheses of species-habitat relationships which may be
helpful in identifying the physical habitat characteristics that are
crucial to the species and defines the ranges and optimums to allow
species survival and propagation.
- Tissue Analyses - Tissue analyses may be conducted to assess the
effects of heavy metals and pesticides on the biota present. This
chemical analysis of tissue for bioaccumulation is especially important
if the water body is used for recreational or commercial fishing as
high hioconcentration of metals and pesticides by the organisms may
create a human health problem.
- Recovery Index - Estimating the elasticity of an ecosystem, or
its ability to recover after displacement of structure and/or function
to a steady state closely approximating the original, may be an
interesting quantitative evaluation to make to answer the question of
what is the potential for recovery in this water body. Cairns et a!.
(1977) developed an index of elasticity based on the following
factors:
(a) existence of nearby epicenters for reinvading organisms
(b) transportability or mobility of disseminules
(c) presence of residual toxicants following pollutional stress
(d) general present condition of habitat following pollutional
stress
(e) management or organizational capabilities for immediate or
direct control of damaged area.
Stauffer and Hocutt (1980) applied the above index to the Conowingo
Creek in Pennsylvania. They believe that this concept may form the
foundation for a stream classification system based upon the structure
and function of fish communities.
- Intolerant Species Analysis - The evaluation of the presence or
absence of intolerant species refers to those species readily
identified as declining because of water quality degradation, habitat
degradation or a combination of the two. For example in midwestern
streams, species such as blacknose shiner, southern redbelly dace,
banded darter and others have been found to be intolerant. The
3-10
-------
application of the intolerant species analysis can be used on
macroinvertebrates and periphyton as well as fish to indicate the
degree of degradation.
- Omnivore-Carnivore Analysis - The proportion of top carnivores
and omnivores may give an indication of the relative health of the
community. Karr (1980) found that as a site declines in quality, the
proportion of individuals that are omnivores increases. Viable and
healthy populations of top carnivore species such as walleye,
smallmouth bass, rock bass and others indicate a relatively healthy,
diverse community.
A number of other methods have been and are being developed to
evaluate the health of biological components of the aquatic ecosystem
including short term in situ or laboratory bioassays and partial or
full life-cycle toxicity tests. These methods are discussed in several
EPA publications including: Basic Water Monitoring Programs (1978),
Model State Water Monitoring "pTogram (1975) and the Biological Methods
Manual (1972).Again, it is not the intent of this document to specify
tests to be conducted by the States. This will depend on the
information available, the predictive accuracy required, site-specific
conditions of the water body being examined, and the cooperation and
assistance the State receives from the affected municipalities and
industries.
0 Biological Potential Analysis
A significant step in the use attainability analysis is the
evaluation of what communities could potentially exist in a particular
water body if pollution were abated or the physical habitat modified.
The approach presented is to compare the water body in question to
reference reaches within a region. This approach includes the
development of baseline conditions to facilitate the comparison of
several water bodies at less cost. As with the other analyses
mentioned previously, available data should be used so as to minimize
resource impacts.
The biological potential analysis involves:
0 defining boundaries of fish faunal regions;
0 selecting control sampling sites in the reference reaches
of each area;
0 sampling fish and recording observations at each reference
sampling site;
0 establishing the community characteristics for the
reference reaches of each area; and
0 comparing the water body in question to the reference
reaches.
In establishing faunal regions and sites, it is important to
select reference areas for sampling sites that have conditions typical
of the region. The establishment of reference areas may be based on
3-11
-------
physical and hydrological characteristics. The number of reference
reaches needed will be determined by the State depending on the
variability of the waterways within the State and the number of classes
that the State may wish to establish. For example, the State may want
to use size, flow and substrate as the defining characteristics and may
consequently desire to establish classes such as small, fast running
streams with sandy substrate or large, slow rivers with cobble bottom.
It is at the option of the State to: (1) choose the parameters to be
used in classifying and establishing reference reaches and (2)
determine the number of classes (and thus the refinement) within the
faunal region. This approach can also be applied to other aquatic
organisms such as macroinvertebrates (particularly freshwater mussels)
and algae.
Selection of the reference reaches is of critical importance
because the characteristics of the aquatic community will be used to
establish baseline conditions against which similar reaches (based on
physical and hydrological characteristics) are compared. Once the
reference reaches are established, the water body in question can be
compared to the reference reach. The results of this analysis will
reveal if the water body in question has the typical biota for that
class or a less desirable community and will provide an indication of
what species may potentially exist if pollution were abated or the
physical habitat limitations were remedied.
3-12
-------
Approaches to Conducting the Physical,
Chemical, and Biological Evaluations
Several measurements and experimental techniques have been
described for collecting and evaluating the chemical, physical, and
biological data to identify and define:
0 What aquatic protection uses are currently being achieved in the
water body,
0 What the causes are of any impairment in the aquatic protection
uses, and
0 What aquatic protection uses could be attained based on the
physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water
body?
States that assess the status of their aquatic resources, in some
cases will have relatively simple situations not requiring extensive
data collection and evaluation. In other water bodies, however, the
complexity resulting from variable environmental conditions and the
stress from multiple uses of the resource will require both intensive
and extensive studies to produce a sound evaluation of the system.
Thus procedures that a State may develop for conducting a water body
assessment should be flexible enough to be adaptable to a variety of
site-specific conditions.
A common experimental approach used in biological assessments has
been a hierarchical approach to the analyses. This can be a rigidly
tiered approach. An alternative is presented in Figure 1.
The flowchart is a general illustration of a thought process used
to conduct a use attainability analysis. The process illustrates
several alternate approaches which can be pursued separately, or to
varying degrees, simultaneously depending on:
0 the amount of data available on the site;
0 the degree of accuracy and precision required;
0 the importance of the resource;
0 the site-specific conditions of the study area; and
0 the controversy associated with the site.
The degree of sophistication is necessarily variable for each
approach. Emphasis is placed on evaluating available data first. If
this information is found to be lacking or incomplete, then field
testing or field surveys should be conducted. A brief description of
the major elements of the process is given below.
Steps 1 and 2: These are the basic organizing steps in the
evaluation process. By carefully defining the objectives and scope of
the evaluation, there will be some indication of the level of
sophistication required in subsequent surveys and testing. States and
3-13
-------
£
w
u
c
01
Si
Ol
4-> V
iJ-r-
"Si
*F*
^
CO
m
ATTAINABILITY ANALYi
w
z
IH
PM
H
CO
•
T-l
IN
S
s
M
2*2.= §
to Ol O —
II 4-> •>- VI
p in 4J •*•
,- *_~ IB o
6*2 |
U IO 1C B.
Based on foil wing
choose one approa
for conducting ev
1 - available dat
2 - accur acy and
needed
TO)
i i
tfl
3
4J 0)
ftl O ^3
U-.- 10
O "5 S
v! c >
oi o 10
13 - importance of
4 - site-specific
«; - time and mone
td T3
Jo)
c
"
"9
0
c
3
LU
S
^*
0>-r- C
4-1 in >i -O VI
•»-> o> c •»•
£ 01 01 O Ol £ X
o c c — E in oi
••- — o o
oi E £ i- »
•*-
^ to
C to to .O f- f 01
f- Ol O> 3 10 f
Ol OJ 01 C Ol VI IB
O O O *D to UJ tS
1 1 1
1 1
•g
4J
U
Ol
in
3
in
i 3
o *^
^» X
H- o
§ g *•
_J o H-
§ ^3 "*•
UJ n i/i M
APPROACHES FOR ADDITIONAL
vey, if appropr late
appropriate
f appropriate
tat and water quality alter
e, area of impact
emical, biological variable
n situ or lab bioassay test:
>, to f •<- U C. —
OJ 3 H- 0 to 0
to >> J£ O • to
3 4J • Ol VI — SJ
r--r->5 U OT-- 4J
to ^ 5 '«>,>-, S
c 10 jc cl v>
Oi— >- u &. >,
U U Ol O> ••- C O
4-> -^ •— O 4J 4J •— 3
U VI E •— ICCE-C
3>,OJO 3OI
>
in
OJ
/
0
*- VI
c x
o
LI *O
4. ^
i- IO
u
in -o ••-
•o -o c E
O C ID CU
'&
o
"o
•^
1 * s
o H !£
U (O
^ in 4.J X1
m i»- oi c E
• o>
»— ^
CJ *O
i ^
0 f- 0) T3
Of 41 ^
ii fi. Z
3 >» to QJ 0
O *J iJ t_ •»-
£ > vi -^ i, ~ >
O -^ o -fl Ol to <0
>, c ••- oi H- 6 j:
•t- O X 4J <4- V Ol
,— •«- t- O O Ol 2
^ j_j IA
or spatial changes in physii
nd number of samples to qua
vey to characterize distrib
nd chemical surveillance if
sis if bioconcentr ation sus
ysical, chemical, biologica
irements and tolerance limil
ull life cycle chronic test:
If
r— Ol
to CT
g-,to
"s
OJ n
4J 01
>
UJ 1
t
o
fel
5 "^ fig- ""I
V) -e — fl3 Of to ^
cuo.
**o o •«- +* ••- •— c
LJ 4* CTi O) t/t ro o m u
•(— Cj. O 5 ^ <^> 4> •!«- 4
v
^
•C t^ *^~ *^ E *o *p ^i * •»•
X *j c "
3 U 3 3 >> k. = :
exec c ^ Q. c '
O O O O f-CEO*
o>
1 1 1 CC 1 1
t
o
si
;e Information
:e conclusions
le if additional
:ion is needed
•* "•* b. *-*
S.SB2
v> *V ^ ^
oi g oj o
4-1 E 4-» »*-
C 3 O> C
»-^ in o •*-
i i i
=
c
•— TJ
C OJ
Ol •£ ^
y in c
u x
85=
— 4J JO
*> C 10
> ft;
TJ »O GJ t/>
5. > — =
3-14
-------
the regulated community can then adequately plan and allocate resources
to the analyses. The designated use of the water body in question
should be identified as well as the minimum chemical, physical, and
biological requirements for maintaining the use. Minimum requirements
may include, for example, dissolved oxygen levels, flow rates,
temperature, and other factors. All relevent information on the water
body should be collected to determine if the available information is
adequate for conducting an appropriate level of analysis. It is
assumed that all water body evaluations based on existing data, will
either formally or informally be conducted through Steps 1 and 2.
Step 3: If the available information proves inadequate, then
decisions regarding the degree of sophistication required in the
evaluation process will need to be made. These decisions will, most
likely, be based on the 5 criteria listed in Figure 1. Based on these
decisions, reference areas should be chosen (Step 4) and one or more of
the testing approaches followed.
Steps 5A, R, C, D: These approaches are presented to illustrate,
in a general way, several possible ways of analyzing the water body.
For example, in some cases chemical data may be readily available for a
water body but little or no biological information is known. In this
case, extensive chemical sampling may not be required but enough
samples should be taken to confirm the accuracy of the available data
set. Thus, in order to accurately define the biological condition of
the resource, 5C may be chosen, but ISA may be pursued in a less
intensive way to supplement the chemical data already available.
Step 5A is a general survey to establish relatively coarse ranges
for physical and chemical variables, and the numbers and relative
abundances of the biological components (fishes, invertebrates, primary
producers) in the water body. Reference areas may or may not need to
be evaluated here, depending on the types of questions being asked and
the degree of accuracy required.
Step 5B focuses more narrowly on site-specific problem areas with
the intent of separating, where possible, biological impacts due to
physical habitat alteration versus those due to changes in water
quality. These categories are not mutually exclusive but some attempt
should be made to define the causal factors in a stressed area so that
appropriate control measures can be implemented if necessary.
Step 5C would be conducted to evaluate possibly important trends
in the spatial and/or temporal changes associated with the physical,
chemical, and biological variables of interest. In general, more
rigorous quantification of these variables would be needed to allow for
more sophisticated statistical analyses between reference and study
areas which would, in turn, increase the degree of accuracy and
confidence in the predictions based on this evaluation. Additional
laboratory testing may be included, such as tissue analyses, behavioral
tests, algal assays, or tests for flesh tainting. Also, high level
3-15
-------
chemical analyses may be needed, particularly if the presence of toxic
compounds is suspected.
Step 5D is, in some respects, the most detailed level of study.
Emphasis is placed on refining cause-effect relationships between
physical-chemical alterations and the biological responses previously
established from available data or steps 5A-5C. In many cases, state-
of-the-art techniques will be used. This pathway would only be
conducted by the States where it may be necessary to establish, with a
high degree of confidence, the cause-effect relationships that are
producing the biological community characteristics of those areas.
Habitat requirements or tolerance limits for representative or
important species may have to be determined for those factors limiting
the potential of the ecosystem. For these evaluations, partial or full
life-cycle toxicity tests, algal assays, and sediment bioassays may be
needed along with the shorter term bioassays designed to elucidate
sublethal effects not readily apparent in toxicity tests (e.g.,
preference-avoidance responses, production-respiration estimates, and
biconcentration estimates).
Steps 6 and 7: After field sampling is completed, all data must
be integrated and summarized. If this information is still not
adequate, then further testing may be required and a more detailed
pathway chosen. With adequate data, States should be able to make
reasonably specific recommendations concerning the natural potential of
the water body, levels of attainability consistent with this potential,
and appropriate use designations.
The evaluation procedure outlined here allows States a significant
degree of latitude for designing assessments to meet their specific
goals in water quality and water use.
3-16
-------
References
Cairns, Dickson and Herricks (1977) Recovery and Restoration of Damaged
Ecosystems (University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville) 531 pp.
Collotzi, A.M. and D.K. Dunham 1978. Inventory and display of aquatic
habitat p. 533-542 In: Classification, Inventory, and Analysis of
Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Proc. Nat. Symp., U.S. Fish and Wildl.
Ser., FWS/ORS-78/76.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish
Communities. Fisheries Vol 6 No. 6 p. 21-27.
Stalnacher, C.B. 1978. The IFH incremental methodology for physical
stream habitat evaluation p. 126-135 _In_: Samuel, D.E., J.R. Stauffer,
C. Hocutt and W.T. Mason, eds. Surface Mining and Fish/Wildlife
Needs in the Eastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser,
FWS/OBS-78/81
Stauffer, J. R. and C. Hocutt 1980. Inertia and Recovery: An Approach
to Stream Classification and Stress Evaluation. Water Resources
Bulletin Vol. Ifi no. 1 p. 72-78
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1983. Technical Guidance Manual
for Performing Wasteload Allocations. Lakes and Impoundments,
Futrophication, Streams and Rivers, BOD/DO. U.S. EPA Monitoring and
Data Support Division (WH-553).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1972. Biological Field and
Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and
Effluents. U.S. Env. Pro. Agen. EPA-670/4-73-001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1975. Model State Water
Monitoring Program. U.S. Env. Pro. Agen. EPA-440/9-74-002
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1978. Basic Water Monitoring
Program. U.S. Env. Pro. Agen. EPA-440/9-76-025
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1978. "Western Reservoir and Stream
Habitat Improvements Handbook" U.S. Dept. of Interior Contract
No. 14-16-0008-2151 FWS
3-17
-------
Appendix A: SAMPLE STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
States have the responsibility for the development and refinement
of use classification systems. The methodology, number of classes and
factors to be included in such systems are at the discretion of the
States. During the development of this guidance document, several
requests were made to include a sample State classification system
which is based on a ecosystem evaluation approach. In response to such
requests attached is the stream classification guidelines for Wisconsin
which includes a stream habitat evaluation. The inclusion of this
classification system does not constitute an endorsement or that this
system should be adopted in other States. It is provided as
information which may be of interest to other States.
A-l
-------
STREAM CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES
FOR WISCONSIN
By
Joe Ball
Technical Bulletin No.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Madison, Wisconsin
1982
A-2
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of this classification system is to describe potential
stream uses and provide a basis for making and supporting water quality
resource management decisions. Only those uses which can be described
in terms of biological communities are discussed. "Use" is defined by
a class or organisms capable of inhabiting a stream. The "use classes"
are: A - cold water sport fish, B - warm water sport fish, C -
intolerant forage fish, intolerant macroinvertebrates, or a valuable
population of tolerant forage fish, D - tolerant or very tolerant
forage or rough fish, or tolerant macroinvertebrates, and E - very
tolerant macroinvertebrates or no aquatic life.
The appropriate use class for a stream is determined by comparing the
ecological needs of use class organisms with the natural ecological
characteristics of a stream system. A set of procedures to evaluate
stream system characteristics is presented. Stream system habitat
evaluation is stressed. A matrix is used to numerically rank habitat
characteristics from excellent to poor. Twelve habitat rating items
are listed and include characteristics of the watershed, banks, stream
substrate, stream morphology and hydrology, and aesthetics. Other
factors used to determine appropriate use classes are background
dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, toxics, and existing biota. A range
of values for all of these stream system characteristics is provided
which correlated with criteria required to support a specific use
class. Although the intent of the system is to provide more
objectivity to the classification process, professional judgment of a
stream's potential use is still important.
A-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
Procedures for classifying Wisconsin streams have been developed to
provide a scientific method for designating uses according to a
stream's natural ability to support a certain biological community. A
specific biological community is termed a "use class." The objective
of the classification system is to provide a basis for making and
supporting water quality management systems. The need for classifying
surface waters is based on the recognition that all surface waters will
not support the same level of use, and that different use classes may
require different levels of water quality to survive.
To classify streams, and meet both scientific and management
objectives, two basic assumptions are necessary: (1) stream systems
with similar characteristics will support similar biological
communities and can be described as a use class, and (2) if streams
within a use class are managed in a similar way they will support a
similar use.
Stream classification systems have generally been based on existing
conditions; e.g., fish populations, trophic state. The problem with
these types of systems is that existing biological communities or
trophic state may be a function of controllable pollution, not a
function of stream system potential. According to Warren (1979)
"classification of stream systems ought not to be based directly on
just measurement of stream performance, for then it would have little
value for prediction, explanation, understanding and management." He
recommended that stream classification systems should be based on
"watershed-environment and stream habitat-capacity," not on just
biological communities inhabiting a stream when it is classified.
A stream is an ecosystem made up of climate, watershed, banks, bed,
water volume, water quality, and biota. A stream's use is dependent
upon the natural characteristics of the entire stream ecosystem, and on
the cultural alterations or impacts which have occurred or are
occurring. Present stream uses are always affected by both natural
characteristics and cultural impacts. Potential uses are always
affected by natural characteristics, and may be affected by cultural
impacts. Since the management goal is to control the cultural impacts
affecting stream use, it is logical to base classification on a
stream's potential to support a given use in the absence of
controllable impacts, not on the present state of the biological
community.
To determine the biological community a stream can support, it is
necessary to relate the natural characteristics of the whole system to
the ecological requirements of use class organisms. A stream
classification system structured in this way will predict the potential
use of a stream and will also serve to indicate the management
necessary to attain the use.
A-4
-------
Published stream classification systems based on stream system
potential are rare. A few systems include parameters which affect use
(Pennak 1971, Platt 1974, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1979).
However, these systems do not include a method for quantifying data and
observations to arrive at an objective classification. Perhaps the
reason for this is a lack of information on all the ecological
requirements of specific organisms. There is a good data base on how
temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other chemical parameters affect
aquatic organisms, but not on the influence of habitat. The U.S.
Forest Service comes close to providing an adequate stream
classification system (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1975). It was
developed to quantitatively assess the stability of mountain streams
and to identify streams needing intensive management. Some of the
parameters in the Forest Service system are not applicable to Wisconsin
streams, but the concept is sound, and has been adapted for part of
this classification system.
The set of guidelines described in this report is not intended to be a
rigid assessment technique. Streams cannot always be realistically
classified by a totally objective system. Because of their dynamic
nature, biological communities are perhaps the most difficult objects
we have chosen to study. Similar stream systems should support similar
uses, but each stream is an individual ecosystem and must be classified
individually. A stream classification comes down to a final judgment
-- a judgment based on measurable factors, and perhaps just as
important, on intuition gained from experience and past observation.
A-5
-------
FACTORS AFFECTING STREAM USES
A variety of factors affect the ability of a surface water to support
certain uses (Table 1). Some are "natural" and are a function of the
watershed system in which the stream is embedded. Some are "cultural"
and are a function of societal use of the stream system. These natural
and cultural factors are characterized as either physical or chemical,
and further, they may be controllable or uncontrollable. For the
purpose of classification the uncontrollable factors, whether they are
natural or cultural, ultimately determine a stream's potential or
attainable use. Controllable factors such as point source discharges,
which have an impact on stream use, should not influence a stream's
classified use. Controllable factors are considered temporary,
TABLE 1. Example of common factors affecting stream uses.
Factor Comments
Uncontrollable Natural Factors
1) Flow regime
2) Habitat structure Habitat development
may be considered in
high quality streams
3) Water quality
Uncontrollable Cultural Factors
1) Land use
2) Existing hydrologic modification
a. Dam Some management may
b. Straightening be possible
c. Wetland drainage
Controllable Cultural Factors
1) Point sources These factors are
a. Municipal controllable within
b. Industrial bounds
2) Nonpoint sources
a. Agricultural runoff
b. Urban runoff
c. Construction site runoff
3) Other factors
a. Water withdrawal
b. Septic system drainage
c. Proposed hydrological alterations
pending implementation of control measures. The effects of some
cultural factors may be uncontrollable because they cannot be changed
A-6
-------
with the application of "reasonable" management. In many cases these
cultural factors, and impacts, have become the "natural"
characteristics of a stream.
Natural Factors
Since most streams in Wisconsin have been disturbed, it is difficult to
define a totally natural factor. For classification, natural factors
are defined as the characteristics of a stream system in the absence of
direct cultural impacts, such as dams, flow reduction by withdrawal,
and point source discharges. Natural factors which affect stream uses
are flow, habitat, and "natural" physical or chemical characteristics
of water.
Flow Regime
The flow or quantity of water available to support aquatic organisms is
of primary importance. It's an obvious fact that large fish species
require a higher level of flow than small fish species to survive in a
stream. Without adequate flow, large fish would not have room to move,
feed or reproduce. Stream flow is directly correlated to the classes
of organisms, or uses, a stream is capable of supporting. Flow
stability or frequency also becomes an important factor in some
streams. Flow stability or frequency also becomes an important factor
in some streams. Flow extremes, especially in streams running through
altered watershed, can be a major factor in determining appropriate
uses.
Habitat Structure
The physical structure and flow of water in a stream interact to create
an environment suitable to support various classes of organisms.
Substrate, pools and riffles, water depth, erosion and deposition
areas, and cover provide necessary habitat. Studies by Gorman and Karr
(1978), and Hunt (1971) clearly show that more diverse habitats support
more abundant and diverse aquatic communities. A stream with poor
habitat structure will support fewer organisms, to the extent that the
life support requirements of only very tolerant fish or insects may be
met. An analysis of habitat structure is an important factor in the
stream classification process.
Water Quality
The natural physico-chemical characteristics of general importance in
streams include dissolved oxygen, temperature, suspended solids, and
dissolved ions. These parameters are of major concern in determining
the ability of a stream to support certain classes of organisms. Water
quality extremes are of particular importance. Deviations from water
quality criteria levels, even for a short time, may stress aquatic
communities beyond recovery.
A-7
-------
Natural water quality is influenced by watershed geology, soils, and
surface features. Flow regime and instream habitat structure may also
have an influence on water quality. To classify a stream into an
appropriate use class it's important to determine the natural water
quality of a stream system.
Natural factors are generally not controllable. They are the most
significant factors in determining the potential uses of a stream.
CULTURAL FACTORS
Culturally induced conditions are those that have been caused by
certain actions on the land and in the water. Nearly all waters of the
state have been disturbed, in some cases more significantly than
others. Cultural factors are broadly defined as point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. These factors have an impact on habitat and
water quality, and on the uses that may occur in a surface water.
Culturally induced conditions can be further subdivided into
controllable and uncontrollable types, or similarly, reversible and
irreversible impacts. Theoretically, if cultural impacts are properly
managed or removed, an altered environment will revert to its natural
state. Grass and trees could be planted instead of corn, and all dams
could be dismantled. However, in some cases, actions to control or
reserve cultural impacts may not be reasonable.
Uncontrollable Cultural Factors
Uncontrollable cultural factors are those activities over which
regulatory agencies have little or no control, or prefer to exercise no
control. For purpose of stream classification, two major factors are
of concern -- existing land use and hydrologic modifications. These in
place activities are generally uncontrollable and may have significant
impacts on stream use. When the cause of an impact is uncontrollable,
the impact must be considered a normal characteristic of a stream for
the purpose of classification.
The present use of land for agriculture and urban development will, in
most cases, not change. The impacts of land use on a stream system are
not always obvious because they have occurred gradually. For example,
removal of native vegetation, destruction of wetlands and paving of
streets increases runoff and reduced groundwater recharge. This
removal of water may alter the flow regime and water quality of a
stream, and affect uses. Such actions may also increase peak flows,
resulting in long term and irreversible changes in habitat structure.
A more obvious cultural factor affecting stream use is hydrologic
alteration. Existing dams, straightened portions of streams, and
wetland drainage are examples of stream alterations which can affect
uses and appropriate classifications. The question of controllability
of these factors is technically and legally complex, but assuming no
regulatory measure can be taken to revert back to an original
A-8
-------
condition, then these alterations and their impacts must be considered
uncontrollable.
Controllable Cultural Factors
Sources of pollution in this category are those that can be controlled
by a reasonable level of management. The primary controllable factors
are the point sources of wastewater discharge. Programs are in place
to regulate what, how, when, and where point sources discharge wastes.
Point sources are, within certain bounds, always controllable. The
impact of point sources on water quality and stream uses should not be
factored into the classification process, assuming the impact can be
removed.
Also possibly controllable are activities on the land -- nonpoint
sources. Although Wisconsin does not have a program to regulate
nonpoint sources* its does have a grant and management program to
encourage nonpoint source control. Controllable nonpoint sources, as
envisioned here, are those associated with the application of "best
management practices" on agricultural and urban lands.
In situations where application of best management practices are likely
to result in stream use improvements, the impacts from nonpoint sources
should be disregarded in the classification process. However, it may
be difficult to show a direct cause and effect relationship between
nonpoint sources and water quality. It may be equally difficult to
show a direct relationship between nonpoint sources and habitat
deterioration except in extreme situations. For instance, even if
better land management was applied to a watershed, it may be difficult
to predict how long it may take an impacted stream to recover.
Classifying a stream to a higher use, based on an anticipated natural
improvement, which may or may not take place, may not be logical. In
some situations the impact of nonpoint sources on habitat should
probably be considered uncontrollable for current actions.
According to Karr and Dudley (1981) nonpoint control efforts that
improve water quality may fail to improve the biota of a stream if
suitable physical habitats are absent. This does not imply, however,
that nonpoint source control efforts are not worthwhile. Over a long
time period stream uses will improve, and the effect of nonpoint
sources on downstream uses must also be considered.
There are other cultural factors with immediate and direct effects on
stream uses which can generally be controlled by regulation. For
example, a flow management scheme that results in witholding or
diversion of water on a routine basis may preclude certain uses and
aquatic populations. Such actions are almost always controllable.
Sources of pollution, such as rural septic systems, are controllable.
Proposed stream alterations, such as dams and straightening, are
*Wisconsin does have regulatory authority for construction site runoff.
A-9
-------
controllable because these are regulated activities. Even an existing
dam, already discussed as being uncontrollable, may be managed in
certain ways to reduce impacts on stream uses.
Determining the factors affecting stream uses and their status of
controllability are the most important parts of this classification
procedure. The process of identifying factors and determining
controllability serves two important functions: (1) it supplies much
of the information required to designate appropriate stream uses, and
(2) it identifies the specific management required to achieve
designated uses. The most difficult task is determining
controllability, especially for nonpoint sources. Another related
problem is anticipating the response of a stream to management of
pollution sources. To classify streams, subjective judgments regarding
the status of these problems will likely have to be made for individual
situations.
A-10
-------
STREAM USE CLASSES
Stream use classes are listed in Table 2. Stream use is described by
the fish species or other aquatic organisms capable of being supported
by a natural stream system. Use classes in Table 2 are listed from the
most sensitive to the most tolerant use. Common fish species and their
representative classification categories are listed in Table 3. The
designation of an appropriate use class is based on the ability of a
stream to supply habitat and water quality requirements of use class
organisms. Sections or "reaches" of a stream may be assigned different
use classes, and the same stream or stream reach may be assigned
different use classes based on seasonal differences. This concept,
termed "seasonal classification," is used to describe variations in
stream conditions. For example, a stream may serve as a fish spawning
area in the spring, but natural changes in flow or water quality may
preclude the existence of fish in other seasons. Following are
descriptions of the use classes for classifying Wisconsin streams:
Class A, Cold Water Sport Fish: Streams capable of supporting a cold
water sport fishery, or serving as a spawning area for salmonid
species. The presence of an occasional salmonid in a stream does not
justify a Class A designation (e.g., trout are occassionally taken from
the Mississippi River but that fact alone does not justify a cold water
sport fish designation).
Class B, Warm Water Sport Fish: Streams capable of supporting a warm
water sport fishery, or serving as a spawning area for warm water sport
fish.
TABLE 2. Stream use classes for aquatic life
Use Class Description
A Capable of supporting cold water sport fish
B Capable of supporting warm water sport fish
C Capable of supporting intolerant forage fish*, intolerant
macroinvertebrates, or a valuable population of tolerant forage
fish
D Capable of supporting tolerant or very tolerant forage or rough
fish*, or tolerant macroinvertebrates
E Capable of supporting very tolerant macroinvertebrates or no
aquatic life
*Refer to Table 3.
Although warm water sport fish are occasionally found in many small
streams, a stream should be capable of supporting a "common" designated
population to rate a "B" classification.
A-ll
-------
Class C, Intolerant Forage Fish, Intolerant Macroinvertebrates, or a
Valuable Population of Tolerant Forage Fish:
Streams capable of
abundant, and usually diverse, population of forage fish
macroinvertebrates. These streams are generally too
cold or warm water sport fish, but have natural water
sufficient to support forage fish or
Streams capable of supporting valuable populations
should also be included in Class C. This type
uses, such as a food source for a
supporting an
or intolerant
small to support
quality and habitat
macroinvertebrates.
of tolerant forgage fish
of stream may provide beneficial
downstream sport fishery, or a sucker
fishery.
Class D, Tolerant or Very Tolerant Fish, or Tolerant
Macroinyertebrates: Streams capable of supporting only a small
population of tolerant forage fish, very tolerant fish or tolerant
macroinvertebrates. The aquatic community in such a stream is usually
limited due to naturally poor water quality or habitat deficiencies.
Class E, Very Tolerant Macroinvertebrates or No Aquatic Life:
Streams
supporting very tolerant macroinvertebrates, or
Such streams are usually small and
Marshy ditches and
only capable at best of
an occasional very tolerant fish.
severely limited by water quality or habitat.
intermittent streams are examples of Class E streams.
TABLE 3. Common fish species and classification categories
Sport Fish
Intolerant Forage Tolerant Forage
Very Tolerant
Forage or Rough
Fish
Trout (sp)
Salmon (sp)
Northern Pike
Muskellunge
Small mouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
Yellow Bass
White Bass
Rock Bass
Walleye
Sauger
White Crappie
Black Crappie
Bluegill
Sunfish (sp)
Yellow Perch
Bullhead (sp)
Catfish (sp)
Sturgeon (sp)
Stoneroller
Rosyface Shiner
Spottail Shiner
Blacknose Shiner
Blackchin Shiner
Dace (sp)
Hornyhead Chub
Stonecat
Tadpole Madtom
Redhorse (sp)
Darter (sp)-(except
Johnny Darter)
Logperch
Sculpin (sp)
Golden Shiner
Common Shiner
Sand Shiner
Emerald Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Bluntnose Minnow
Creek Chub
Johnny Darter
Sucker (sp)
Brook Stickleback
Carp
Goldfish
Goldfish
Fathead Minnow
Sheepshead
Buffalo
Carp Sucker (sp)
Gar (sp)
Bowfin
Mooneye
A-12
-------
CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
The objective of stream classification is to designate logical uses by
evaluating and describing stream ecosystems. The classification
procedure includes a list of important factors which need to be
evaluated, and suggests how to merge data and perceptions into a final
decision about appropriate use. Designated uses are based on the
relationship and overall quality of all ecosystem components.
The stream classification procedure combines objective and subjective
analysis. Objectivity in the procedure comes from pointing out the
major individual factors one needs to evaluate, and by placing bounds
on ecological "criteria" which separate streams into use classes.
However, because ecosystems are extremely complex, professional
judgment must also be part of the classification process. This
flexibility is needed to allow for logical decisions about stream use.
The following guidelines do not cover all potential situations and
should be viewed as starting points from which experience will dictate
the scope of an investigation, including what needs to be added or what
can be deleted. The classification process requires five basic steps
-- study design, data collection, data evaluation, impact
controllability analysis, and appropriate use designation:
Study Design
Because of the management objective of this classification procedure,
water quality evaluation staff have major responsibility. However, the
process should be a "team" effort and, at minimum, should be a
cooperative project with fisheries staff. Staff with expertise in
other areas may also be required. The team should determine the detail
and scope of analysis required to classify any given stream. In some
cases, file information coupled with a desk top evaluation may suffice.
In complex situations, detailed studies may be needed to reach a
credible decision.
Data Collection
Data located in files, studies, reports, etc. should be reviewed. If
sufficient current data exist they may be adequate to form the basis
for a classification. However, in all cases, a site visit is necessary
to verify the evaluation. If current data are insufficient, a stream
evaluation must be conducted.
Stream biota are generally dependent upon extreme conditions which
normally occur during periods of low flow. Thus, samples, measurements
and observations will give a more reliable indication of appropriate
use if taken when the stream is at a low or at least normal flow. In
situations where seasonal use changes are possible, additional data at
higher flows may be needed.
The following data may be required to determine and justify a use class
designation:
A-13
-------
1. Stream Flow -- The flow of a stream can vary over a wide range and
can be expressed in a number of ways.Stream use is often limited by
annual low flow which is expressed here as representative low flow.
Flow data for many streams are available from the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and can be used as points of reference for determining
representative low flow. If flow data are not available, it may be
necessary to gauge the present flow and obtain a low flow estimate from
USGS.
2. Water Quality -- Natural, or background water quality should
generally be used as the basis for classification. Daily, and
sometimes seasonal water quality extremes determine the class of
organisms a stream is capable of supporting. The most extreme water
quality conditions normally occur during low flow periods. Thus, an
attempt should be made to collect data at that time.
Water samples and instream data should be collected upstream from
controllable sources of pollution. In situations were this is
impossible, water quality may be a function of the controllable source
and can't generally be used as a basis for classification. Many forms
of water quality can have an impact on stream use. However, the
parameters most directly related to use include dissolved oxygen,
temperature and pH. Toxics and other parameters should be measured if
a problem is suspected.
3. Habitat Structure -- Habitat evaluation is considered the most
important factor in the stream classification process. In situations
where water quality data can't be used, habitat may be the only basis
for classification. The habitat rating is based on an evalution of
watershed, stream banks, and stream bed characteristics. The habitat
evaluation and rating procedure is detailed in a separate section.
4. Stream Biota -- The biological communities presently inhabiting a
stream including fish, benthic organisms, rooted vegetation, algae,
etc. should be determined. This need not be an exhaustive sample
collection effort since designation of attainable use will rarely be
based totally on biological data. Knowing what organisms are present
in a stream helps determine what the appropriate use class should be.
Many biological sampling and analysis methods are available. The
methods are left to the discretion of the evaluator, but should be
described in the classification report.
Data Evaluation
The use class a stream is capable of attaining is determined by
comparing stream system data to the life support needs of use class
organisms. Table 4 lists a set of stream system parameters and values
for each which correspond to the five use classes. The table is used
to estimate appropriate stream use based on the quality of individual
A-14
-------
Table 4. Physical and chemical criteria guidelines for aquatic life
use classes
Parameter
Dissoved
Oxygen
Temperature
PH
Toxics
Representati
Low Flow
Habitat
Rating
A
>4
<75
>5,<9.5
.5
<144
Use Class
B
>3
<86
>5,<10.5
3
<144
and Criteria
C
>3
<86
>5,<10.5
. 2
<144
D
>1
<90
>4,<11
acute
>. 1
>144
E
<1
>90
<4,>11
>acute
>0
>200
parameters. Parameter values and use classes are listed from high to
low quality and are intended to be mutually exclusive. Therefore, the
lowest class indicated by the lowest quality parameter is the estimated
appropriate use of a stream. The values shown in Table 4 are not water
quality standards criteria. Rather, values at the extremes are
conditions which the particular biota may be able to tolerate for a
short time. Criteria in water quality standards are developed to
assure protection for sensitive species throughout their life history
of exposure. Table 4 values are guides to determine if tolerable
conditions exist in a surface water. Even these values should be used
with care because observed conditions outside the noted bounds do not
necessarily preclude the existence of a use class. The values in Table
4 should be used to evaluate stream system data and be a major factor
in the stream clasification process. Following is a description of the
parameters in Table 4, and other stream characteristics used in the
evaluation procedure.
1. Flow Characteristics -- In this classification system
representative low flow most nearly reflects the long-term ability of a
stream to support certain organisms. Representative low flow values in
Table 4 are based on a review of fish community data from various
Wisconsin streams.
Streams receiving an effluent, or are proposed to receive an effluent,
should be evaluated as two representative low flows. One based on
natural flow, and one based on natural flow plus design effluent flow
adds significantly to a stream base flow. For example, an effluent
going to an otherwise dry drainage way creates a stream. This
procedure involves interpolation of stream conditions at a higher or
lower flow, and relies heavily on professional judgement. The purpose
is to provide a more complete evaluation and consideration of
alternatives upon which to base a logical designation of appropriate
use. The procedures also provides more complete information needed by
resource managers to base subsequent decisions regarding effluent
limits or other management practices.
A-15
-------
2. Hater Quality Characteristics -- Criteria in Table 4 are maximum or
minimum values at which use class biota may be expected to survive
during critical periods. If these extreme values were common in a
stream, the corresponding biota would probably not be maintained in a
healthy state. However, natural short-term fluctuations in water
quality are expected in some streams, and values exceeding "standards"
do not necessarily preclude associated uses. If water quality is a use
limiting factor due to a controllable impact, and natural water quality
cannot be determined, appropriate uses should be based on a flow and
habitat.
3. Habitat Rating -- The rating values in Table 4 are a numerical
ranking of the overall quality of a stream's watershed, banks and bed
characteristics. The rating procedure is described in the final
section of the classification guidelines. Rating values can range from
56 to 210 and lower number values indicate higher quality habitat.
High quality use usually requires high quality habitat. The range of
values within a specific use class also gives an indication of the
quality of use. For example, a trout stream with a rating of 60 would
be expected to support more fish than a trout stream with a rating of
120.
4. Biological Data Evaluation -- The biological community inhabiting a
stream may be used as an indication of attainable use, but should
generally not form the only basis for use class designation. Most
streams are disturbed in some way, and their present biota may be a
function of that impact. Thus, present biological communities may not
indicate realistic attainable uses under proper management of the
sources of impact. Even in streams with no obvious problems, the
present organisms may not reflect what otherwise may be a higher
quality use. For example, a stream with trout stream characteristics
may not contain trout because they were never introduced. The
classification of such a stream, if based only on its present community
of organisms, may not indicate its true potential use.
The most important use of a biological evaluation is to determine if a
water quality problem exists. For example, a stream with flow and
habitat characteristic of a high use class, but not supporting that
class of organisms, most likely has a water quality problem. It is
then necessary to determine the source to the problem and judge if it
is controllable or not. If the problem is controllable the
classification should be based on flow and habitat. If the problem is
uncontrollable the classification may be based on the biological
evaluation.
Impact Controllability Analysis
A major objective of the data evaluation process was to identify the
factors limiting stream use. The objective of controllability
analysis is to determine if those limiting factors can be managed in
some way to improve stream use. That is, are the causes of impacts
limiting stream use controllable, and further, are the impacts
A-16
-------
reversible? Controllability was discussed in the factors affecting
stream uses section of these guidelines. Table 1 suggested what may or
may not be controllable, but no further guidelines are provided.
Determining controllability of sources and impacts can be a complex
decision point and it may be necessary to obtain help from other staff
with experience in the problem area.
Appropriate Use Designation
The use class designated for a stream should be based on Table 4, any
other data which may be available, and the professional judgement of
the evaluators. There will always be cases that do not conform to a
rigid analysis process, and this system is intended to be flexible
enough to account for those situations.
The evaluation of small streams receiving or proposed to receive waste
dishcarges may result in two possible use designations. When this
occurs it will be necessary to recommend one use class as more
appropriate. This is one point where the classification process may,
and perhaps should, digress from a purely scientific endeavor. Many
factors, such as resource value, downstream uses, effluent
characteristics and size, and even economics should be considered
before recommending a use class designation. As a final consideration,
the biological data can serve as a check on the results of the
evaluation as follows:
1. If the biological community conforms to the indicated use class
report that classification.
2. If the biological community is better than the indicated use class
base the classification on the biological evaluation.
3. If the biological community is lower than the indicated use,
determine the factors affecting use and if they are controllable or
uncontrollable. If the factors are controllable, base the
classification on the use indicated by background water quality,
flow, and habitat. If the factors are uncontrollable, the
classification can be based on the biological evaluation.
To complete the classification process, the evaluators should file a
report which recommends a use class, and outlines why the use class is
appropriate. A number of management and administrative decisions may
be based on the use class. These decisions may be made by people
without first-hand knowledge of the stream. Thus, it is important to
document all factors, both objective and subjective, which entered into
the classification process. In most situations, there are key factors
influencing the use class recommendation, and those should be
highlighted in the report.
A-17
-------
STREAM SYSTEM HABITAT EVALUATION
Stream system habitat is defined as watershed, stream bank, and
instream habitat characteristics. Watershed and stream bank
characteristics are included because they directly affect instream
characteristics -- e.g., flow, depth, substrate, and pool-to-riffle
ratio. Stream system habitat is one of the most important factors
determining attainable use, and therefore habitat evalution is stressed
in this classification procedure. A detailed discussion of stream
system habitat evaluation is presented here to insure that, where
practical, uniform evaluation procedures are followed.
The purpose of this evaluation procedure is to integrate and rate
stream system habitat characteristics in relation to the various use
classifications. The final product is a numerical rank or score of
habitat quality which is used to help identify the use (Table 4). The
evaluation process used here is similar to one developed by the U.S.
Forest Service (1975) to assess the stability of mountain streams.
Some of the rating characteristics for stream habitats in that system
have been adapted and some new parameters added to fit the character of
Wisconsin streams.
Following is a description of stream system habitat characteristics and
an excel!ent-to-poor rating scale for each. The evalution form in
Appendix 1 provides a method to integrate data and observations of
individual characteristics into an overall habitat rating for a
stream.
Watershed - The total area of land above the extreme high water line
that contributes runoff to a surface water. The character and
condition of a watershed affects the character of a stream and stream
bed. The portion of a watershed draining directly to a surface water
is usually of greatest concern.
1. Erosion - The existing or potential detachment of soil and
movement into a stream. Mass movement of soil into a stream results
in destruction of habitat and a reduced potential to suppport
aquatic life. This item can be rated by observation of watershed
and stream characteristics.
a. Excellent: No evidence of mass erosion that has reached or
could reach the stream. The water shed is well managed and
usually characterized by mature vegetation. The stream shows no
evidence of siltation.
b. Good: May be some erosion evident but few "raw" areas. There
may be well-managed agricultural fields in the area. Areas that
may have eroded in the past are revegetated and stable. The
stream shows little evidence of siltation.
c. Fair: Erosion from fields and some raw areas are evident.
Heavy storm events are likely to erode soil resulting in
A-18
-------
periodic high suspended solids in the stream. Some siltation is
evident in the stream, and has resulted in destruction of some
habitat. Vegetative cover may be sparse and does not appear
stable in all areas. There is moderate potential for mass
erosion.
d. Poor: Erosion sources are obvious. Almost any runoff will
result in detachment of soil from raw areas and cause suspended
solids and siltation problems in the stream. Instream habitat
may be poor due to siltation. Stream flow may fluctuate widely
("flashy stream").
2. Nonpoint Source Pollution and Other Compromising Factors - This
item refers to problems and potential problems other than siltation.
Nonpoint source pollution is defined as diffuse agricultural and
urban runoff. Other compromising factors in a watershed which may
affect attainable use are feedlots, wetlands, septic systems, dams
and impoundments, mine seepage, etc. Nonpoint sources and other
compromising factors can be a major source of pollutants, or create
problems which affect stream use. Examples of potential problems
from these sources include pesticides, heavy metals, nutrients,
bacteria, temperature, low dissolved oxygen, etc. If these types of
problems are suspected, it may be necessary to conduct an intensive
study to determine the problem. It is also important to determine
if the problem is controllable or not. If the problem is
controllable it should not be factored into the habitat evaluation
process.
a. Excellent: No evidence of sources or potential sources.
b. Good: No obvious problems, but there may be potential sources
such as agricultural fields, farms, etc. The watershed should
be well managed to fit this category.
c. Fair: Potential problems evident. Some runoff from farm
fields, watershed intensively cultivated, urban area, small
wetland area draining to stream, potential for barnyard runoff,
small impoundment, etc.
d. Poor: Sources of pollution which may be affecting stream use
are evident. Examples of sources are runoff due to poor land
management, high use urban or industrial areas, feed lots,
impoundments, drainage from large wetlands, mine seepage, tile
field drainage, etc. An absence of intolerant organisms in
streams with excellent to good habitat may be an indication of
the problems.
Stream Banks - The stream channel is composed of an upper and lower
bank, and a bottom (Figure 1). The upper band is the land area from
the break in the general slope of the surrounding land to the normal
A-19
-------
Extreme High Water
Normal High Water
Lower Bank
Figure 1. Stream Cross Section
Lower Bank
high water line. It is normally vegetated and is covered by water
in only extreme high water periods. Land forms vary from wide, flat
flood plains to narrow, steep slopes.
The lower bank is the intermittently submerged portion of the stream
cross section from the normal high water line to the low water line.
The lower channel banks define the stream width. This area varies
from bare soil to rock, and the land form may vary from flat to
steep.
Stream banks are important in rating stream system habitats because
their character and stability directly affect instream
characteristics and uses. The evaluation and rating is based on
observation of bank characteristics combined with observation of
resultant instream characteristics. Habitat rating items 3 and 4
refer to both upper and lower banks because it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish a line between the two. Also, the effect
on a stream is similar in situations where either bank area is a
problem.
3. Bank Erosion, Failure - Existing or potential detachment of soil
and movement into a stream. Steeper banks are generally more subject
to erosion and failure, and may not support stable vegetation. Streams
with poor banks will often have poor instream habitat.
Excellent: No evidence of significant erosion or bank
failure. Side slopes are generally less than 30% and are
stable. Little potential for future problem.
Good: Infrequent, small areas of erosion or bank slumping.
Most areas are stable with only slight potential for erosion at
flood stages. Side slopes up to 40% on one bank. Little
potential for major problem.
A-20
-------
c. Fair: Frequency and size of raw areas are such that normal high
water has eroded some banks. High erosion and failure potential
at extreme high stream flows. Side slopes up to 60% on some
banks.
d. Poor: Mass erosion and bank failure is evident. Many raw areas
are present and are subject to erosion at above normal flow.
Erosion and undercutting is evident on bends and some straight
channel areas. Side slopes greater than 60% are common and
provide large volumes of soil for downstream sedimentation when
banks are laterally cut.
4. Bank Vegetative Protection - Bank soil is generally held in place
by plant root systems.The density and health of bank vegetation is an
indication of bank stability and potential instream sedimentation.
Trees and shrubs usually have deeper root systems than grasses and
forbs and are, therefore, more efficient in reducing erosion (Khonke
and Bertrand 1959). Bank vegetation also helps reduce the velocity of
flood flows. Greater density of vegetation is more efficient in
reducing lateral cutting and erosion. A variety of vegetation is more
desirable than a monotypic plant community.
Vegetative protection is important in evaluating the long term
potential for erosion, and stability of the stream system. The
evaluation and rating is based on observation of existing vegetation,
erosion, and instream conditions.
a. Excellent: A variety of vegetation is present and covers more than
90% of the bank surface. Any bare or sparsely vegetated areas are
small and evenly dispersed. Growth is vigorous and reproduction of
species is proceeding at a rate to insure continued ground cover.
A deep, dense root mat is inferred.
b. Good: A variety of vegetation is present and covers 70-90% of the
bank surface. Some open areas with unstable vegetation are
evident. Growth vigor is good for all species but reproduction may
be sparse. A deep root mass is not continuous and erosion is
possible in openings.
c. Fair: Vegetative cover ranges from 50-70% and is composed of
scattered shrubs, grasses and forbs. A few bare or sparsely
vegetated areas are evident. Lack of vigor and reproduction is
evident in some individuals or species. This condition is ranked a
fair due to the percent of area not covered by vegetation with a
deep root system.
d. Poor: Less than 50% of the banks covered by vegetation.
Vegetation is composed of grasses and forbs. Any shrubs or trees
exist as individuals or widely scattered clumps. Many bare or
sparsely vegetated area are obvious. Growth and reproduction vigor
is generally poor. Root mats are discontinuous and shallow.
A-21
-------
5. Channel Capacity - Channel width, depth, gradient, and roughness
determine the volume of water which can be transmitted. Over time,
channel capacity adjusts to the size of watershed, climate, and changes
in vegetation (stability). When channel capacity is exceeded, unstable
areas are likely to erode resulting in habitat destruction. Indicators
of this problem are deposits of soil on the lower banks and organic
debris found hung up in bank vegetation. The objective in rating this
item is to estimate normal peak flow and if the present lower bank
cross section is adequate to carry the load without bank
deterioration.
The ability of a stream channel to contain flood flows can be estimated
by calculating the width-to-depth ratio (W/D ratio). The W/D ratio is
calculated by dividing the the average top width of the lower bank by
the height of the lower bank. This item is rated by the W/D ratio, and
by observing the condition of banks, position of debris, and instream
siltation.
a. Excellent: The stream channel is adequate to contain peak flow
volumes plus some additional flow. Overbank floods are rare. W/D
ratio less than 7; i.e., 36 ft. wide divided by 6 ft. deep = 6.
b. Good: The stream channel is adequate to contain most peak flows.
W'TiTratio of 8 - 15.
The channel can barely contain normal peak flows in average
W/D ratio of 15 - 25.
d. Poor: The channel capacity is obviously inadequate. Overbank flow
are common as indicated by condition of banks and accumulation of
debris. W/D ratio greater than 25.
6. Bank Deposition - The character of above water deposits is an
indication of the severity of watershed and bank erosion, and stability
of the stream system. Deposits are generally found on the lee side of
rocks and other objects which deflect flow. These deposits tend to be
short and narrow. On flat lower banks, deposition during recesssion
from peak flows may be quiet large. The growth, or appearance of bars
where they did not previously exist is an indication of upstream
erosion. These bars tend to grow in depth and length with continued
watershed disturbance. Deposition may also occur on the inside of
bends, below channel constrictions, and where stream gradient flattens
out. This item is evaluated and rated by observation.
a. Excel 1ent: Little or no fresh deposition on point bars or on the
lee side of obstructions. Point bars appear stable.
b. Good: Some fresh deposits on old bars and behind obstructions.
Sizes tend to be of larger sized coarse gravel and some sand, very
little silt.
A-22
-------
c. Fair: Deposits of fresh, fine gravel, sand and silt observed on
most point bars and behind obstructions. Formation of a few new
bars is evident, and old bars are deep and wide. Some pools are
partially filled with fine material.
d. Poor: Extensive deposits of fine sand or silt on bars and along
banks in straight channels. Accelerated bar development. Most
pool areas are filled with silt.
Stream Bottom - The portion of the stream channel cross section which
is totally on aquatic environment (Fig. 1). The character and
stability of bottom material is important in determining stream use
because this area provides habitat necessary to support aquatic life.
A variety of stable habitat, which provides area for feeding, resting
and reproduction, will generally support a higher class of organisms.
Stream bottom characteristics are evaluated and rated by observation.
The evaluation should be conducted when the stream is free of suspended
material to enhance observation.
7. Scouring and Deposition - This item relates to the destruction of
instream habitat resulting from most of the problems defined under 1
through 6 above. Deposition material comes from watershed and bank
erosion. Scouring results from high velocity flows and is a function
of watershed characteristics, stream hydrology, and stream morphology.
Characteristics to look for are stable habitat and degree of siltation
in pools and riffles. Shallow, uniform stream stetches ("flat areas")
may be considered either scoured or silted, depending on stream
velocity. The rating is based on an estimate of the percent of an
evaluated reach that is scoured or silted; i.e., 50 ft. silted in a 100
ft. stream length equals 50%.
a. Excellent: No significant scouring or deposition is evident. Up
to 5% of the stream reach evaluated may be scoured or silted; i.e.,
0-5 ft. in a 100 ft. stream reach.
b. Good: Some scouring or deposition is evident but a variety of good
habitat is still present. Scouring is evident at channel
constriction or where the gradient steepens. Deposition is in
pools and backwater areas. Sediment in pools tend to move on
through so pools change only slightly in depth. The affected area
ranges from 5 to 30% of the evaluated reach.
c. Fair: Scoured or silted area covers 30 to 50% of the evaluated
stream reach. Scouring is evident below obstructions, at
constrictions, and on steep grades. Deposits tend to fill and
decrease the size of some pools. Riffles areas are not
significantly silted.
d. Poor: Scouring or deposition is common. More than 50% of
evaluated stream reach is affected. Few deep pools are present due
to siltation. Only the larger rocks in riffle areas remain
exposed. Bottom silt may move with almost any flow above normal.
A-23
-------
8. Bottom Substrate - This item refers to the availability of habitat
for support of aquatic organisms. A variety of substrate material and
habitat types is desirable. Different organisms are adapted to
different habitats; thus, a variety of habitat is necessary for
development of a diverse community. The presence of rock and gravel in
flowing streams is generally considered more desirable habitat,
However, other forms of habitat may provide the niches required for
community support. For example, trees, tree roots, vegetation,
undercut banks, etc., may provide excellent habitat for a variety of
organisms. This item is evaluated and rated by observation. The
evaluation should be conducted when stream flow is at a normal or lower
stage to enhance observation.
a. Excellent: Greater than 50% stable habitat. Rocks, logs, etc.
provide shelter. Gravel, debris, riffle areas provide habitat for
insects and feeding areas for fish.
b. Good: Stable habitat in 30 to 50% of the stream reach evaluated.
Habitat is adequate for development and maintenance of fish and
insects communities.
c. Fair: 10-30% stable habitat. Habitat is approaching a monotypic
type and may have a limiting effect on fish and insect populations.
Habitat is less than desirable.
d. Poor: Less than 10% stable habitat. Almost no habitat available
for shelter or development of a desirable insect or fish community.
Lack of habitat is obvious.
Stream Morphology and Flow - The rating items in this category include
depth, flow, and run-to-riffle or pool-to-bend ratio. These stream
characteristics are closely related to previous rating items. Stream
depth, morphology and flow are a function of watershed characteristics
and climate. They may be the most important evaluation parameters
because they relate to the volume of water and habitat available to
provide life support requirements i.e., shelter, food and reproduction
needs. Low stream flow and shallow depth can be major limiting factors
preventing a certain use. Stream morphology relates to habitat and can
also become a limiting factor.
In situations where effluent flow significantly adds to or subtracts
from natural stream flow, the stream should be evaluated under both
flow conditions. This procedure applies to the Average Depth and
Stream Flow rating items.
9. Average Depth at Representative Low Flow - Average stream depth is
estimated by measuring the maximum depth in riffles and pools, adding
those depths and dividing by the total number of riffles and pools.
This rough estimate should be adequate because it relates to the
ability of a stream to provide a medium for shelter and movement. It
may not be practical to measure depth at a representative low flow.
However, if a stream is evaluated at average or lower flow, a
A-24
-------
representative low flow depth can be reasonable estimated. The
representative low flow depth is rated because it is a better
expression of prevailing conditions and the uses possible in a stream
most of the time. The following rating depths are based on depths of
streams in southern Wisconsin known to support various communities.
The rating depths are general guidelines only. For example, a cold
water stream with an average depth less than 24 inches may deserve an
excellent rating if otherwise excellent habitat is available.
a. Excellent: Average depth greater than 24 inches. Riffle depths
allow for free passage of fish and shelter when feeding. Pool
depths provide security and ample space for several fish, even at
a very low flow.
b. Good: Average depth 12-24 inches. Most riffles allow free passage
and shelter at normal flow conditions. Most pools provide adequate
shelter under all but very low flow conditions.
c. Fair: Average depth 6-12 inches. Many riffles are too shallow for
free passage of fish at normal flow. Some habitat is provided by
pools but only at normal or higher flow. Depth may be sufficient
to support forage species and macroinvertebrates.
d. Poor: Average depth less than 6 inches. Riffles are shallow, even
at normal flow. Pools and flat area are shallow and uniform in
depth. Little cover available for any fish species. Stream may
cease to flow in very dry periods.
10. Stream Flow, at a Representative Low Flow - Stream flow relates to
the ability of a stream to provide and maintain a stable aquatic
environment. The rating flows are based on a review of Surface Water
Resources of Wisconsin Counties publications, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. Flows were compared to species of fish known to
inhabit streams.
a. Excel 1ent: Stream flow greater than 5 cfs for warm water streams,
and greater than 2 cfs for cold water streams. These values are
based on the potential of a stream to support warm or cold water
sport fish.
b. Good: Stream flow 2 to 5 cfs for warm water streams, and 1 to 2
cfs for cold water streams. Surface water resources data for
Wisconsin indicates many warm water streams, with good habitat, in
this flow range support sport fish. Other streams, with good water
quality, support diverse forage fish populations. Many cold water
streams in this flow range will support trout, if habitat is good.
c. Fair: Stream flow 0.5 to 2 cfs for warm water streams, and 0.5 to
1 cfs for cold water streams. These stream flows are sufficient
to support forage species in warm water. Cold water streams in
this flow range may support a few trout. Streams with exceptional
habitat may support a fishable trout population. Many cold water
A-25
-------
streams in this range will support diverse forage fish and
macroinvertebrate populations.
d- Poor• Stream flow less than 0.5 cfs for both warm and cold water
streams. Streams in this category may become intermittent in dry
periods. Streams with exceptional water quality and habitat may
support forage fish, or even serve as spawning or nursery areas for
trout.
11. Pool/Riffle or Run/Bend Ratio - This rating item assumes a stream
with a mixture of riffles or bends contains better habitat for
community development than a straight or uniform depth stream. "Bends"
refer to a meandering stream. Bends are included because some low
gradient streams may not have riffle ares, but excellent habitat can be
provided by the cutting action of water at bends. The ratio is
calculated by dividing the average distance between riffles or bends by
the averge stream width. If a stream contains both riffles and bends,
the most dominant feature which provides the best habitat should be
used.
a. Excellent: Pool-to-riffle or run-to-bend ratio to 5-7. Pools are
deep and provde good habitat. Riffles are deep enough for free
passage of fish.
b. Good: Pool-to-riffle or run-to-bend ratio of 7-15. Adequate depth
in pools and riffles.
c. Fair: Pool-to-riffle- or run-to-bend ratio of 15-25. Occasional
riffle or bend. Variable bottom contours may provide some habitat.
d. Poor: Pool-to-riffle or run-to-bend ration greater than 25.
Essentially a straight and uniform depth stream. Little habitat of
any kind.
12. Aesthetics - This rating item does not necessarily relate to the
ability of a stream to support aquatic life. However, people's
perception of what constitutes a desirable surface water is important.
Even though a stream may not be capable of supporting high-use-class
orgnaisma, it may have desirable aesthetic qualities which deserve
protection. It is not possible to guide everyone to a uniform
aesthetic rating decision. However, various studies have been
conducted on what most people consider as aesthetics when viewing a
a setting. The various factors important in this evaluation include:
1. Visual pattern quality 5. Naturalness
2. Land husbandry 6. Geological values
3. Degree of change 7. Historical values
4. Recovery potential 8. Flora and fauna diversity
A-26
-------
a. Excellent: The stream or stream section has wilderness
characteristics, outstanding natural beauty, or flows through a
wooded or unpastured corridor.
b. Good: High natural beauty -- trees, historic site. Some watershed
development may be visible such as agricultural fields, pastures,
some dwellings. Land in use is well managed.
c. Fair: Common setting, but not offensive. May be a developed but
uncluttered area.
d. Poor: Stream does not enhance aesthetics. Condition of stream is
offensive, and recovery without extensive renovation of watershed
and stream is unlikely.
Habitat Rating Procedure - The habitat characteristics described are
rated from excellent to poor on the form provided at the end of this
section. The habitat score obtained from the rating form is used in
Table 4 to assist in determining attainable stream use. The rating
numbers are relative to one another from excellent to poor, and number
values are weighted to give more important rating items (depth, flow,
substrate) more significance in the total score. It is the proportion
of the rating values to one another that is important, not the actual
number value.
The rating form is completed using field measurements, observations,
maps, aerial photos, etc. If a stream is divided into segments, a
separate form is used for each one. One of the numbers best describing
the condition of the rating item is circled. If the actual conditions
fall somewhere between the conditions described, the number is crossed
out and an intermediate number that better describes the situation is
written TruWhen all items have been rated the total score in each
column is added up and the column scores totalled for a final ranking
score.
The rating items are interrelated so do not dwell on any one item for
long. Avoid keying in on a single indicator unless it has significant
impact on the stream's potential to support aquatic life. The weight
given to more important items is intended to account for this. In this
system a stream with excellent characteristics will receive a lower
number score than one with poor characteristics, i.e., the lower the
score, the better the stream system habitat.
The rating form should be completed in the field to insure all items
are rated at the site. The descriptions are intended to stimulate
mental images of indicator conditions which lead to consistent,
reproducible habitat ratings by different evaluators.
A-27
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Alabaster, J.S. and R. Lloyd. 1980. Water quality criteria for fresh
water fish. Food and Agricultural Org., United Nations.
Gorman, O.T. and J.R. Karr. 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish
communities. Ecology, 59(3). pp. 507-515.
Kohnke, H. and A.R. Bertrand. 1959. Soil Conservation. McGraw-Hill
Book Co. 298 p.
Lotspeich, F.B. 1980. Water sheds as the basic ecosystem: This
conceptual framework provides a basis for a natural classification
system. Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 16, No. 4, August 1980.
Nemetz, P.N. and H.D. Drechsler. 1980. The use of biological criteria
in environmental policy. Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 16, No. 6.
Platt, W.S. 1974. Geomorphic and aquatic conditions influencing
salmonids and stream classification. U.S. For. Serv. SEAM Program, 199
pp.
Schuettpelz, D.H. 1980. Evaluating the attainability of water quality
goals. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality
Evaluation Section; May 1980.
Smith, P.W. 1971. Illinois Streams: A classification based on their
fishes and an analysis of factors responsible for disappearance of
native species. Biol. Note No. 76, Illinois Natural Fish Survey,
Urbana, Illinois, November 1971.
Thurston, R.V., R.C. Russo, C.M. Fetteralf, T.A. Edsall, and Y.M.
Barber (Eds.). 1979. A review of the EPA red book: quality criteria
for water. Water Quality Section, Am. Fish Soc., Bethesda, MD. 313 p.
Tramer, E.J. and P.M. Rogers. 1973. Diversity and longitudinal
zonation in fish populations of two streams entering a metropolitan
area. Am. Midland Nat., 90(2): 366-374.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Stream reach inventory and
channel stability evaluation. USDA; Forest service; Northern Reg.
Rl-75-002.
US EPA. 1977. Quality criteria for water. Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, US EPA; Washington, D.C. 256 p.
US EPA, Reg V. 1980. Environmental evaluation guidance. US EPA, Draft
Copy, December 1980.
Warren, C.E. 1979. Toward classification and rationale for watershed
management and stream protection. US EPA, EPA-600/3-79-059, June 1979.
A-28
-------
O
r- jo^!
if R
Sff
al
£2
33
V
V Ul
rt -*
0
n j
0.1
zs
— fs»
So
fsj m
VI Wl
on
r> o *
§ii
O (-•• r*
S3 3
gin*
o o
— isj
rt 0
??
S
l?s
;i*
Se n en
s
to
22?*
9
2
3
1
N
•"
O
—
•
S
IN>
3,
at
~
5
r*
01
M
00
Bottom
Substr ate
?fl V
O* O» «
sly
• ss
£&
• r1
N
£3 S
1 £o
rr *
' £"
z*
^
n93
3 — . o «*
«•» t-r O
*"?S
-«. •»
* "• -
2 = &&
•&3-Z
=i;
rt at
— a* <
A rt 11
C
Ills
Sr**S
«*„.&
M rr 7
• &»•
«
8
r-
Bottom
Scouring and
Deposition
o* cr r-
rt in
Is,!
?i;
s
§
i
*
j'a • «»
l|nO
30t affected. Sc
nstrictlons and
s steepen. SOM
itlon in pools.
M
CO
— • O «* "O
— a rrg r*
•— • w "* wi o
•A Oi n r» ui
O & — • *•
lj«s?
r- §|j
«
111!!
a n • iv
»« -»
a**
a
en
Lower Bank
Deposition
!!i
o 5"
li
si
J
or>
«•
l» rt 3
*§*
Oi • —
us
. lA 19
rt i
*3
8?
M>
•Ml
Us-
|i|
j!;
7
HI
rr i— . wi
VI 5t
2
f*
OB
I/I
PI
(sv o 6 •*»
r*
2. a*1*
tn o
;%
to
"3
3
0>
a ^
?1
1?
s9
03
§
^
— O TJ CD
w|2s
rt •* >r n
o er a
» 13"*
» i-r C 0.
• a* cr g
at * i*
is2
r> • S
^•o <
& w
o.
ft — ' O
fs •* a
?l!!?
"S?i
i
x>
HSJi!
• S3. ^
» 3 * M rt
*H- ?
Srr gt |/i
-•* -o p
=32:1
I"?
V*
— Or S\
*?.l
as?
j
&?»
1
00
Ul
JC-ff
= 83-
rt rt o
S 22.3
?=l
n n
3
Ol
2o?8 3*
El M -*
it rt ^
ra1"!
IP
8' *
i ?
«
IO O N &
7M^lt J
??!*!;
Is 5
|!i
s
i|j|
^!it
jlJ
i
5
r»
Water shed
Nonpoint
Source
*i*
m
rfr •*
•v n
»
10 MTJ
r- 1
•> -*•
3 *
o
»
OB
il=l
n 3 ot ••
5 2r «
r3?5
SI-
0. VI
r|
A
in S rr <^
* C *"?
• o an
M 9*%a M
• a. A *
c *
czj
3
. i
Water shed
Erosion
|"«9«f
5 a, o
w wt n
2-S-i
rt — 3 &. n
S|^3 S
«r-io ^
o — — -» a
«% r» ft r*
'*a!
• **jf
S'1
09
r?,S
•*,s
>!2.}C
Lsl
Good
erosion evident
f leant 'raw' arc
Und "gnt. pract
ea. Low potentii
igntficant erosi
• Sr*
o
9"* -.* < yf
ot n o a
« 3 u> 9
wt • r» — *
2. WOK
10 ^ 3 rt
52!*,. J
?rr
Sr,
III *
siH-
r fi
I
3|f
|Z,
§5
*&
is
91
• ,? s
I .
»
r
*
\
? ?
* 1
2
m
E
i
[
<
n so
I I
2 X1
2 «
S ?
r»
A-29
-------
•s s i I I
s s Is
S i i 5" 51
1 s 3 £ £
i « « s s
•^ a s s I
^ A r* <^i
3 * ? e 5
q S 1 2
_ 2 _ «• s
8 c " I 3
-1 » f ' T
- • i
? r ••*
~ i .«
' S
lit?
*'
c 5 I
r» —'
S!
A A •
~" 19 m
i§|
VI
III
S33
s
I
1
Wilderness
outstanding
Usually HOO
corr Idor .
ass
5-S
*Il
a*r
oa
<^M^« X
n
5|f
O jp'Jj
•3 O
*5
r5
rt
*
!"s
?
1
f»
<
T
3
(*
Q Ul
* •
3S' £*
l*.|f S
A-30
-------
Appendix B: FISH TAXONOMIC REFERENCES
Fishes - General References
Allen, G.H., A.C. Delcay, and S.W. Goshall. (1960). Quantitative
sampling of marine fishes - A problem in fish behavior and fish gear.
In: Waste Disposal in the Marine Environment. Pergamon Press, pp
448-5511.
American Public Health Association et al_. (1971). Standard methods for
the examination of water and wastewater. 13th ed. APHA, New York.
pp. 771-779.
Calhoun, A., ed. (1966) Inland fisheries management. Calif. Dept. Fish
and Game, Sacramento. 546 pp.
Carlander, K.D. (1969). Handbook of freshwater fishery;Life history
data on freshwater of the U.S. and Canada, exclusive of the
Perciformes, 3rd ed. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 752 pp.
Curits, B. (1948). The Life Story of the Fish. Harcourt, Brace and
Company, New York. 284 pp.
Cushing, D.H. (1968). Fisheries biology. A study in population
dynamics. Univ. Wis. Press, Madison. 200 pp.
Green, J. (1968). The biology of estuarine animals. Univ. Washington,
Seattle. 401 pp.
Hocutt, C.H. and J.R. Stauffer. (1980). Biology Monitoring of Fish.
Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass 416 pp.
Hynes, H.B.N. (1960). The biology of polluted water. Liverpool Univ.
Press, Liverpool. 202 pp.
Hynes, H.B.N. (1970). The ecology of running waters. Univ. Toronto
Press. 555 pp.
Jones, J.R.E. (1964). Fish and river pollution. Butterworth, London.
203 pp.
Lagler, K. F. (1966). Freshwater fisheries biology. William C. Brown
Co., Dubuque. 421 pp.
Lagler, K.F., J.D. Bardach, andR.R. Miller. (1962). Ichthyology. The
study of fishes. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York and London. 545
PP.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gillbert, C.H. Hocutt, R. Jenkins, D. McAllister and J.
Stauffer. (1980). Atlas of North America Freshwater Fishes. Pub.
B-l
-------
1980-12 North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. 845
pp.
Macan, T.T. (1963) Freshwater ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New Yor.
338 pp.
Marshall, N.B. (1966). Life of fishes. The World Publ. Co., Cleveland
and New York. 402 pp.
Moore, H.B. (1965). Marine ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York. 493 pp.
Reid, G.K. (1961). Ecology of inland waters and estuaries. Reinhold
Publ. Corp., New York. 375 pp.
Ricker, W.E. (1958). Handbook of computations for biological statistics
of fish populations. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. Bull. 119. 300 pp.
Ricker, W.E. (1968) Methods for the assessment of fish production in
fresh water. International Biological Program Handbook No. 3.
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh. 326 pp.
Rounsefell, G.A., and W.H. Everhart. (1953). Fishery science, its
methods and applications. John Wiley & Son, New York. 444 pp.
Rutter, F. (1953). Fundamentals of limnology. Univ. Toronto Press,
Tornoto. 242 pp.
Warren, C.E. (1971). Biology and water pollution control. W.B. Saunders
Co., Philadelphia. 434 pp.
Welch, P.S. (1948). Limnological methods. McGraw-Hill, New York. 381
pp.
General Fish Identification
Bailey, R.M., et al. (1970). A list of common and scientific names of
fishes from the United States and Canada. 3rd ed. Spec. Publ. Amer.
Fish. Soc. No. 6. 149 pp.
Blair, W.F. and G.A. Moore. (1968). Vertebrates of the United States.
McGraw Hill, New York. pp. 22-165
Eddy, S. (1957). How to know the fresh-water fishes. Wm. C. Brown Co.,
Dubuque. 253 pp.
Jordan, D.S., B.W. Evermann, and H.W. Clark, (1955). Check list of the
fishes and fish like vertebrates of North and Middle America north of
the northern boundary of Venezuela and Colombia. U.S. Fish Wildl.
Ser., Washington, D.C. 670 pp.
B-2
-------
LaMonte, F. (1958). North American game fishes. Doubleday, Garden City,
N.Y. 202 pp.
Morita, C.M. (1953). Freshwater fishing in Hawaii. Div. Fish Game.
Dept. Land Nat. Res., Honolulu. 22 pp.
Perlmutter, A. (1961). Guide to marine fishes. New York Univ. Press,
New York. 431 pp.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Grossman. (1969). Checklist of Canadian freshwater
fishes with keys of identification. Misc. Publ. Life Sci. Div.
Ontario Mus. 104 pp.
Thompson, J.R., and S. Springer. (1961). Sharks, skates, rays, and
chimaras. Bur. Comm. Fish. Fish Wild!. USDI Circ. No. 119, 19 pp.
Marine - Coastal Pacific
Baxter, J.L. (1966). Inshore fishes of California. 3rd rev. Calif.
Dept. Fish Game, Sacramento. 80 pp.
Clemens, W.A., and G.V. Wilby. (1961). Fishes of the Pacific coast of
Canada. 2nd ed. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. No. 68. 443 pp.
McAllister, D.E. (1960). List of the marine fishes of Canada. Bull.
Nat. Mus., Canada No. 168:Biol. Ser. Nat. Mus. Can. No. 62-76 pp.
McHugh, J.L. and J.E. Fitch. (1951). Annotated list of the clupeoid
fishes of the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Cape San Lucas, Baja,
California. Calif. Fish Game, 37:491-95.
Rass, T.S., ed. (1966). Fishes of the Pacific and Indian Oceans;
Biology and distribution. (Translated from Russian). Israel Prog, for
Sci. Translat., IPST Cat. 1411; TT65-50120; Trans Frud. Inst.
Okeaual. 73. 266 pp.
Roedel, P.M. (1948). Common marine fishes of Calif. Div. Fish Game Fish
Bull. No. 68. 150 pp.
Wolford, L.A. (1937). Marine game fishes of the Pacific Coast from
Alaska to the Equator. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 205 pp.
Marine - Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
Ackerman, B. (1951). Handbook of fishes of the Atlantic seaboard.
American Publ. Co., Washington, D.C.
Bearden, C.M. (1961). Common marine fishes of South Carolina. Bears
Bluff Lab. No. 34, Wadmalaw Island, South Carolina.
B-3
-------
-•frige-Vow,- H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. (1953). Fishes of the gulf'of Maine.
Fish. Bull. No. 74. Fish. Bull. No. 74. Fish Wild!. Serv. 53:577 pp.
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. (1954). Deep water elasmobranchs and
chimaeroids from the northwestern slope. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.
Harvard College, 112:37-87.
Bohlke, J.E., and C.6. Chaplin. (1968). Fishes of the Bahamas and
adjacent tropical waters. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. Livingston
Publishing Co., Wynnewood. Pa.
Breder, C.M., Jr. (1948). Field book of marine fishes of the Atlantic
Coast from Labrador to Texas. G.P. Putnam and Sons, New York. 332 pp.
Casey, J.G. (1964). Angler's guide to sharks of the northeastern United
States, Maine to Chesapeake Bay, Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Cir. No. 179,
Washington, D.C.
Hildebrand, S.R., and W.C. Scott. (1966). Fishes of the Atlantic Coast
of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. No. 155. 485 pp.
Leim, A.M., and W.B. Scott. (1966). Fishes of the Atlantic Coast of
Cananda No. 168;Biol. Sen. Nat. Mus. Can. No. 62. 76 pp.
McAllister, D.E. (1960). List of the marine fishes of Canada. Bull.
Nat. Mus. Canada No. 168; Biol. Ser. Nat. Mus. Can. No. 62. 76 pp.
Pew, P. (1954). Food and game fishes of the Texas Coast. Texas Game
Fish Comm. Bull. 33. 68 pp.
Randall, J.E., (1968). Caribbean reef fishes. T.F.H. Publications,
Inc., Jersey City.
Robins, C.R. (1958). Check list of the Florida game and commercial
marine fishes, including those of the Gulf of Mexico and the West
Indies, with approved common names. Fla. State Bd. Conserv. Educ. Ser.
12. 46 pp.
Schwartz, F.J. (1970). Marine fishes common to North Carolina. North
Car. Dept. Cons. Develop., Div. Comm. Sport Fish 32 pp.
Taylor, H.F. (1951). Survey of marine fisheries of North Carolina.
Univ. North Car. Press, Chapel Hill.
Freshwater - Northeast
Bailey, R.M. (1938). Key to the fresh-water fishes of New Hampshire.
In:The fishes of the Merrimack Watershe. Biol. Surv. of the Merrimack
Watershed. N.H. Fish Game Dept., Biol. Surv. Rept. 3. pp. 149-185.
Bean, T.H. (1903). Catalogue of the fishes of New York. N.Y. State Mus.
Bull. 60.784 pp.
B-4
-------
Carpenter, R.G. and H.R. Siegler. (1947) Fishes of New Hampshire. N.H.
Fish Game Dept. 87 pp.
Elser, H.O. (1950). The common fishes of Maryland - How to tell them
apart. Publ. Maryland Dept. Res. Educ. No. 88.45 pp.
Greeley, J.R., et al. 1926-1940. (Various papers on the fishes of New
York.) In: Biol. Surv. Repts. Supl. Anm. Rept., N.Y. St. Cons., Dept.
McCabe, B.C. (1945). Fishes. In: Fish. Fur. Rept. 1942. Mass. Oept.
Cons, pp.30-68.
Van Meter, H. (1950). Identifying fifty prominent fishes of West
Virginia. W.Va. Cons. Comm. Div. Fish Mgt. No. 3. 45 pp.
Whiteworth, W.R., R. L. Berrieu, and W.T. Keller. (1968). Freshwater
fishes of Connecticut. Conn. State Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. No.
101. 134 pp.
Freshwater - Southeast
Black, J.D. (1940). The distribution of the fishes of Arkansas. Univ.
Mich. Ph.D. Thesis 243 pp.
Briggs, J.C. (1958). A list of Florida fishes and their distribution.
Bull. Fla. State Mus. Biol. Sci. 2:224-318.
Cam, A.F., Jr. (1937). A key to the freshwater fishes of Florida.
proc. Fla. Acad. Sci. (1936): 72-86.
Clay, W.M. (1962). A field manual of Kentucky fishes. Ky. Dept. Fish
Wildl. Res., Frankfort, Ky. 147 pp.
Clay, W.M. (1975). The Fishes of Kentucky. Dept. Fish. Wildl. Res. 416
pp.
Fowler, H.W. (1945). A study of the fishes of the southern Piedmont and
coastal plain. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia Monogr. No. 7. 408 pp.
Gowanlock, J.N. (1933). Fishes and fishing in Louisiana. Bull. La.
Dept. Cons. No. 23. 638 pp.
Heemstra, P.C. (1965). A field key to the Florida sharks. Tech. Ser.
No. 45. Fla. Bd. Cons., Div. Salt Water Fisheries.
King, W. (1947). Important food and game fishes of North Carolina. N.C.
Dept. Cons, and Dev. 54 pp.
Kuhne, E.R. (1939). A guide to the fishes of Tennessee and the
mid-South. Tenn. Dept. Cons., Knoxville. 124 pp.
B-5
-------
Smith, H. (1970). The fihes of North Carolina. N.C. Geol. Econ. Surv.
2:xl;453 pp.
Smith-Vaniz, W.F. (1968). Freshwater fishes of Alabama. Auburn Univ.
Agr. Exper. Sta. Paragon Press, Montgomery, Ala. 211 pp.
Freshwater - Midwest
Bailey, R.M., and M.O. All urn. (1962). Fishes of South Dakota. Misc.
Publ. Mux. Zool. Univ. Mich. No. 119. 131 pp.
Cross, F.B. (1967). Handbook of fishes of Kansas, Mic. Publ. Mus. Nat.
Hist. Univ. Kansas No. 45. 357 pp.
Eddy, S., and T. Suber. (1961). Northern fishes with special reference
to the Upper Mississippi Valley. Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis. 276
PP.
Evermann, B.W., and H.W. Clark. (1920). Lake Maxinjuckee, a physical
and biological survey. Ind. St. Dept. Cons., 660 pp. (Fishes, pp.
238-451).
Forbes, S.A., and R.E. Richardson. (1920). The fishes of Illinois. 111.
Nat. Hist. Surv. 3: CXXXI. 357 pp.
Gerking, S.D. (1945). The distribution of the fishes of Indiana.
Invest. Ind. Lakes and Streams, 3(1):1-137.
Greene, C.W. (1935). The distribution of Wisconsin Fishes. Wis. Cons.
Comm. 235 pp.
Harlan, J.R., and E.B. Speaker. (1956). Iowa fishes and fishing. 3rd
ed. Iowa State Cons. Comm., Des Moines, 337 pp.
Hubbs, C.L., and G.P. Cooper. (1936). Minnow of Michigan. Cranbrook
Inst. Sci., Bull 8.95 pp.
Hubbs, C.L., and K.F. Lagler. (1964). Fishes of the Great Lakes Region.
Uniov. Mich. Press, Ann Arbor. 213 pp.
Johnson, R.E. (1942). The distribution of Nebraska fishes. Univ. Mich.
(Ph.D. Thesis). 145 pp.
Pfieger, W.L. (1975) the Fishes of Missouri. Dept. of Cons. 343 pp.
Phillips, G.L., W.D. Schmid and J. Ludhill. (1982). Fishes of the
Minnesota Region. Univ. of Minn.
Smith, P.M. (1979). the Fishes of Illinois. Univ. of Illinois Press,
Urbane 314 pp.
B-6
-------
Trautman, M.B. (1957). The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Univ. Press,
Columbus. 683 pp.
Traumlan, M.B. (1981) The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State Univ. Press.
Columbus. 782 pp.
Van Ooosten, J. (1957). Great Lakes fauna, flora, and their
environment. Great Lakes Comm., Ann Arbor, Mich. 86 pp.
Freshwater - Southwest
Beckman, W.C. (1952). Guide to the fishes of Colorado. Univ. Colo. Mus.
Leafl. 11. 110 pp.
Burr, J.G. (1932). Fishes of Texas; Handbook of the more important game
and commercial types. Bull Tex. Game, Fish, and Oyster Comm. No. 5, 41
pp.
Dill, W.A. (1944). The fishery of the Lower Colorado River. Calif. Fish
Game, 30:109-211
LaRivers, I., and T.J. Trelease. (1952). An annotated check list of the
fishes of Nevada. Calif. Fish Game, 38(1):113-123
Miller, R.R. (1952). Bait fishes of the Lower Colorado River from Lake
Mead, Nevada, to Yuma, Arizona, with a key identification. Calif. Fish
Game. 38(l):7-42.
Sigler, W.F., and R.R. Miller, (1963). Fishes of Utah. Utah St. Dept.
Fish Game. Salt Lake City. 203 pp.
Walford, L.A. (1931). Handbook of common commercial and game fishes of
California. Calif. Div. Fish Game Fish Bull. No. 28
Ward, H.C. (1953). Know your Oklahoma fishes. Okla. Game Fish Dept,
Oklahoma City. 40 pp.
Freshwater - Northwest
Baxter, G.T., and J.R. Simon. (1970). Wyoming fishes. Bull. Wyo. Game
Fish Dept. No. 4. 168 pp.
Bond, C.E. (1961). Keys to Oregon freshwater fishes. Tech. Bull. Ore.
Agr. Exp. Sta. No. 58. 42 pp.
Hankinson, T.L. (1929). Fishes of North Dakota. Pop. Mich. Acad. Sci.
Arts, and Lett. 10(1928):439-460.
McPhail, J.D., and C.C. Lindsey. (1970). Freshwater fishes of
Northwestern Canada and Alaska. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Ottawa No.
173. 381 pp.
Schultz, L.P. (1936). Keys to the fishes of Washington, Oregon and
closely adjoining regions. Univ. Wash. Publ. Biol. 2(4):103-270
Schultz, L.P. (19)41. Fishes of Glacier National park, Montana. USDI,
Cons. Bull. No. 22. 42 pp.
Wilimovsky, N.J. (1954). List of the fishes of Alaska. Stanford
Ichthyol. Bull. 4:279-294.
B-7
-------
Appendix C: INVERTEBRATE AND ALGAL TAXONOMIC REFERENCES
Macroi nvertebrates
Chutter, P.M. and R.G. Noble. (1966). The reliability of a method of
sampling stream invertebrates. Arch. Hydrobiol., 62(1):95-l03.
Dickson, K.L., J. Cairns, Jr., and J.C. Arnold. (197)1. An evaluation
of the use of a basket-type artificial substrate for sampling
macroinvertebrate organisms. Trans. Am. Fish.Soc. lOO(3):553-559.
Elliott, J.M. (1970). Methods of sampling invertebrate drift in running
water. Ann. Limnol. 6(2):133-159.
Elliott, J.M. (1971). Some methods for the statistical analysis of
samples of benthic invertebrates. Freshwater Biological Association,
U.K. Ferry House, Ambleside, Westmorland, England. 144 pp.
Flannagan, J.F. (1970). Efficiencies of various grabs and corers in
sampling freshwater benthos. J. Fish. Res. Pdg. Canada,
27(10):1691-1700.
Fullner, R.W. (1971). A comparison of macroinvertebrates collected by
basket and modified multiple-plate samples. JWPCF, 43(3):494-499.
Gaufin, A.R., and C.M. Tarzwell. (1956). Aquatic macroinvertebrate
communities as indicators of organic pollution in Lytle Creek. Sewate
& Ind. Wastes, 28(7):906-924.
Hamilton, A.L., W. Burton, and J. Flannagan. (1970). A multiple corer
for sampling profundal benthos. J.Fish Res. Bdg. Canada,
27(1)):1867-1869.
Henson, E.B. (1965). A cage sampler for collecting aquatic fauna.
Turtox News, 43(12):298-299.
Henson, E.B. (1958). Description of a bottom fauna concentrating bag.
Turtox News, 361(1):34-36.
Hester, F.E., and J.S. Dendy. (1962). A multiple-plate sampler for
aquatic macroinvertebrates. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 91(4):420-421.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. (1969). An artificial substrate device for sampling
benthic stream invertebrates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 14(3):465-471.
Hynes, H.B.N. (1970). The ecology of running waters. Liverpool Univ.
Press.
C-l
-------
Ingram, W.M., and A.F. Bartsch. (i960). Graphic expression of
biological data in water pollution reports. JWPCF, 32(3):297-3lO.
Ingram, W.M. (1957). Use and value of biological indicators of
pollution: Fresh water clams and snails. In: Biological Problems in
Water Pollution, C.M. Tarzwell, ed. USDHEW, PHS, R.A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center, Cincinnati.
Kolkwitz, R., and M. Marsson, (1909). Ecology of animal saprobia. Int.
Rev. of Hydrobiology and Hydrogeography, 2:126-152. Translation In:
Biology of Water Pollution, USDI, FWPCA, Cincinnati. 1967.
Lewis, P.A., W.T. Mason, Jr., and C.I. Weber. A comparison of Petersen,
Ekman, and Ponar grab samples from river substrates. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati. In preparation.
Mason, W.T., Jr., J.B. Anderson, and G.E. Morrison. (1967). A
limestone-filled artificial substrate sampler-float unit for
collecting macroinvertebrates from large streams. Prog. Fish-Cult.
29(2):74.
Mason, W.T., Jr., P.A. Lewis, and J.B. Anderson. (1971).
Macroinvertebrate collections and water quality monitoring in the Ohio
River Basin, 1963-1967. Cooperative Report, Office Tech. Programs.
Ohio Basin Region and Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, WOO,
USEPA, NERC-Cincinnati.
Mason, W.T., Jr., C.I. Weber, P.A. Lewis, and E.G. Julian. (1973).
Factors affecting the performance of basket and multiplate
macroinvertebrate samples. Freshwater Biol. (U.K.) 3: In press.
Paterson, C.G., and C.H. Fernando. (1971). A comparison of a simple
corer and an Ekman grab for sampling shallow-water benthos. J. Fish.
Res. Bd. Canada, 28(3):365-368.
Patrick, R. (1950). Biological measure of stream conditions. Sewage
Ind. Wastes, 22(7 ) :926-938.
Pennak, R.W. (1953). Freshwater invertebrates of the United States.
Ronald Press Co., New York. 769 pp.
Richardson, R.E. (1928). The bottom fauna of the middle Illinois River,
1913-1925: Its distribution, abundance, valuation, and index value in
the study of stream pollution. Bull. 111. Nat. Hist. Surv.
XVII(XII):387-475.
Scott, D.C. (1958). Biological balance in streams. Sewage Ind. Wastes,
30:1169-1173.
Waters, T.F. (1962). Diurnal periodicity in the drift of Stream
invertebrates. Ecology, 43(2):316-320.
C-2
-------
waters, T.F. (1969). Invertebrate drift-ecology and significance to
stream fishes. In: Symposium Salmon and Trout in Streams, T.G.
Northcote, ed. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Univ. British
Columbia, Vancouver, pp. 121-134.
Welch, P.S. (1948). Limnological methods. The Blakiston Co.,
Philadelphia, Pa. 381 pp.
Wilhm, J.L. (1970). Range of diversity index in benthic
macroinvertebrate populations. JWPCF, 42(5):R221-R224.
Wurtz, C.B. (1955). Stream biota and stream pollution. Sewage Ind.
Wastes, 27(11 ):1270-1278.
Mi croi nvertebrates
Arnon, W., et al. (1965). Towing characteristics of plankton sampling
gear. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10(3):333-340.
Barlow, J.P. (1955). Physical and biological processes determining the
distribution of zooplankton in a tidal estuary. Biological Bull.
109(2):211-225.
Barnes, H., and D.J. Tranter. (1964). A statistical examination of the
catches, numbers, and biomass taken by three commonly used plankton
nets. Aut. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 16(3):293-306.
Curl, H., Jr. (1962). Analysis of carbon in marine plankton organisms.
J. Mar. Res. 30(3):181-188.
Dovel, W.L. (1964). An approach to sampling estuarine macroplankton.
Chesapeake Sci. 5(l-3):77-90.
Frolander, H.F. (1957). A plankton volume indicator. J. Cons. Perm.
int. explor. Mer. 22(3):278-283.
Frolander, H.F. (1968). Statistical variation in zooplankton numbers
from subsampling with a Stempel pipette. JWPCF, 40(2), Pt. 2 82-R 88.
Hazelwood, D.H., and R.A. Parker. (1961). Population dynamics of some
freshwater zooplankton. Ecology, 42(2):266-274.
Jossi, J.W. (1970). Annotated bibliography of zooplankton sampling
devices. U.S. Fish. Wild!. Serv., Special Scientific Report.
Fisheries. No. 609.
Likens, G.E., and J.J. Gilbert. (1970). Notes on quantitative sampling
of natural populations of planktonic rotifers. Limnol. Oceanogr.
15(5):816-820.
C-3
-------
McGowan, J.A., and V.J. Fraundorf. (1966). The relationship between
size of net used and estimates of zooplankton diversity. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 11(4):456-469.
National Academy of Sci. (1969). Recommended procedures for measuring
the productivity of plankton standing stock and related oceanic
properties. Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
Paquette, R.G., E.L. Scott, and P.N. Sund. (I961d) An enlarged
Clarke-Bumpus sampler. Limnol. Oceanogr. 6(2):230-233.
Smith, P.E., R.C. Counts, and R.I. Clutter. (1968). Changes in
filtering efficiency of plankton nets due to clogging under tow. J.
Cons. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer. 32(2):232-248.
Smyly, W.J.P (1968). Some observations on the effect of sampling
technique under different conditions on numbers of some fresh-water
planktonic Entomostraca and Rotifera caught by a water-bottle. J. Nat.
Hist. 2:569-575.
Stross, R.G., J.C. Neess, and A.D. Hasler. (1961). Turnover time and
production of planktonic Crustacea in limed and reference portion of a
bog lake. Ecology, 42(2):237-245.
Tranter, D.J., J.D. Kerr, and A.C. Heron. (1968). Effects of hauling
sped on zooplankton catches. Aut. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. l9(l):65-75.
Ward, J. (1955). A description of a new zooplankton counter. Quart. J.
Microsopical Sci. 96:371-373.
Yentsch, C.S., and A.C. Duxbury, (1956). Some factors affecting the
calibration number of the Clarke-Bumpus quantitative plankton sampler.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 1(4):268-273.
Yentsch, C.S., and F.J. Hebard. (1957). A gauge for determining
plankton volume by the mercury immersion method. J. Cons. Perm. int.
explor. Mer. 32(2):184-190.
Phytoplankton
Holmes, R.W. (1962). The preparation of marine phytoplankton for
microscope examination and enumeration on molecular filters. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Sen/., Special Scientific Report. Fisheries No. 433, 1-6.
Ingram, W.M., and C.M. Palmer. (1952). Simplified procedures for
collecting, examining, and recording plankton. JAWWA. 44:617.
Jackson, H.W., and L.G. Williams. (1962). Calibration and use of
certain plankton and chantes in some organims due to formalin
preservation. Publ. Health Repts. 53(47):2080-93.
C-4
-------
Holmes, R.W. (1962). The preparation of marine phytoplankton for
microscopic examiantion and enumeration on molecular filters. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Serv., Special Scientific Report. Fisheries No. 433,
1-6.
Lackey, J.B. (1938). The manipulation and counting of river plankton
and changes in some organisms due to formalin preservation. Pub.
Health Rep. 53:2080.
Levinson, S.A., R.P. MacFate. (1956). Clinical laboratory diagnosis.
Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia.
Lund, J.W.G., C. Kipling, and E.D. LeCren. (1958). The inverted
microscope method of estimating algae numbers and the statistical
basis of estimations by counting. Hydrobiologia, 11(2):143-70.
McNabb, C.D. (1960). Enumeration of freshwater phytoplankton
concentrated on the membrane filter. Limnol. Oceanogr. 5:57-61.
National Academy of Sciences. (1969). Recommended procedures for
measuring the productivity of plankton standing stock and related
oceanographic properties. NAS, Washington, D.C. 59 pp.
Palmer, C.M., and T.E. Maloney. (1954). A new counting slide for
nannoplankton. Amer. Soc. limnol. Oceanog. Spec. Publ. No. 21, pp.
1-6.
Schwoerbel, J. (1970). Methods of hydrobiology (freshwater biology).
Pergamon Press, Hungary, 200 pp.
Weber, C.I. (1968). The preservation of phytoplankton grab samples.
Trans. Amer. Microscop. Soc. 87:70.
Welch, P.S. (1948). Limnological methods. Blakiston Co., Philadelphia.
C-5
-------
Appendix D: CASE STUDIES
Introduction
The Water Body Survey and Assessment Guidance for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses provides guidance on the factors that may be
examined to determine if an aquatic life protection use is attainable
in a given stream or river system. The guidance proposed that States
perform physical, chemical and biological evaluations in order to
determine the existing and potential uses of a water body. The
analyses suggested within this guidance represent the type of analyses
EPA believes are sufficient for States to justify changes in uses
designated in a water quality standard and to show in Advanced
Treatment Project Justifications that the uses are attainable. States
are also encouraged to use alternative analyses as long as they are
scientifically and technically supportable. Furthermore, the guidance
also encourages the use of existing data to perform the physical,
chemical and biological evaluations and whenever possible States should
consider grouping water bodies having simiTar physical and chemical
characteristics to treat several water bodies or segments as a single
unit.
Using the framework provided by this guidance, studies were
conducted to (1) test the applicability of the guidance, (2)
familiarize State and Regional personnel with the procedures and (3)
identify situations where additional guidance is needed. The results
of these case studies, which are summarized in this Handbook, pointed
out the following:
(1) The Water Body Surveys and Assessment guidance can be applied and
provides a good framework for conducting use attainability
analyses;
(2) The guidance provides sufficient flexibility to the States in
conducting such analyses; and,
(3) The case studies show that EPA and States can cooperatively agree
to the data and analyses needed to evaluate the existing and
potential uses.
Upon completion of the case studies, several States requested that
EPA provide additional technical guidance on the techniques mentioned
in the guidance document. In order to fulfill these requests, EPA has
developed a technical support manual on conducting attainability
analyses and is continuing research to develop new cost effective tools
for conducting such analyses. EPA is striving to develop a partnership
with States to improve the scientific and technical bases of the water
quality standards decision-making process and will continue to provide
technical assistance.
The summaries of the case studies provided in this Handbook
illustrate the different methods States used in determining the
existing and potential uses. As can be seen, the specific analyses
used were dictated by (1) the characteristics of the site, (2) the
D-l
-------
States capabilities and technical expertise using certain methods and
(3) the availability of data. EPA is providing these summaries to show
how use attainability analyses can be conducted. States will find
these case studies informative on the technical aspects of use
attainability analyses and will provide them with alternate views on
how such analyses may be conducted.
D-2
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Assabet River, Massachusetts
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The drainage basin of the Assabet River comprises 175 square miles
located in twenty towns in East-Central Massachusetts. The Assabet
River begins as the outflow from a small wildlife preservation
impoundment in the Town of Westborough and flows northeast through the
urban centers of Northborough, Hudson, Maynard and Concord to its
confluence with the Sudbury River, forming the Concord River. Between
these urbanized centers, the river is bordered by stretches of rural
and undeveloped land. Similarly, the vast majority of the drainage
basin is characterized by rural development. Figure 1 presents a
schematic diagram of the drainage basin.
The Assabet River provides the opportunity to study a repeating
sequence of water quality degradation and recovery. One industrial and
six domestic wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) discharge their
effluents into this 31-mile long river. All of the treatment plants
presently provide secondary or advanced secondary treatment, although
many of them are not performing to their design specifications. Most
of the treatment plants are scheduled to be upgraded in the near
future.
Interspersed among the WWTP discharges are six low dams, all but
one of which were built at least a half century ago. All are
"run-of-the-river" structures varying in height from three to eleven
feet. The last dam built on the river was a flood control structure
completed in 1980.
The headwaters of the Assabet River are formed by the discharge
from a wildlife preservation impoundment, and are relatively "clean"
except for low dissolved oxygen (DO) and high biochemical oxygen demand
(BOP) during winter and summer. Water is discharged from the preserve
through the foot of the dam that forms the impoundment, and therefore,
tends to be low in DO. DO and BOD problems in the impoundment are
attributed to winter ice cover and peak algal growth in summer. After
the discharge of effluents from the Westborough and Shrewsbury
municipal wastewater treatment plants, the river enters its first
degradation/recovery cycle. The cycle is repeated as the river
receives effluent from the four remaining domestic treatment plants.
Water quality problems in the river are magnified when the effluents
are discharged into the head of an impoundment. However, the flow of
water over the dams also serves as a primary means of reaeration in the
river, and thus, the dams also become a major factor in the recovery
segment of the cycle. Water quality surveys performed in 1979 showed
violations of the fecal coliform, phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen
criteria throughout the river.
D-3
-------
\
;
1 l
I
i ! J « J
1 i 1 i 1 1
" . « I ^ a
v " ---s -••>
\ ' -i
i ''v.
D-4
-------
At present, the entire length of the Assabet River is classified
B, which is designated for the protection and propagation of fish,
other aquatic life and wildlife, and for primary and secondary
recreation. Two different uses have been designated for the Assabet
River--from river mile 31.8 to 12.4 the designated use is "aquatic
life" and from river mile 12.4 to the confluence with the Sudbury River
the designated use is a "warm water fishery". The difference in these
designated uses is that maintenance of a warm water fishery has a
maximum temperature criterion of 83 degrees F, and a minimum DO of 5
mg/1. There are no temperature or DO criteria associated with the
aquatic life use. These designations seem contrary to the existing
data, which document violations of both criteria in the lower reaches
of the river where warm water fishery is the designated use.
B. Problem Definition
The Assabet River was managed as a put and take trout fishery
prior to the early 1970s when the practice was stopped on advisement of
the MDWPC because of poor water quality conditions in the river. While
the majority of the water quality problems are attributable to the
wastewater treatment plant discharges, the naturally low velocities in
the river, compounded by its impoundment in several places, led to the
examination of both factors as contributors to the impairment of
aquatic life uses. This combination of irreversible physical factors
and wastewater treatment plant-induced water quality problems led to
the selection of the Assabet River for this water body survey.
C. Approach to Use Attainability Analysis
Assessment of the Assabet River is based on the previously
mentioned site visits and discussions among representatives of the
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC); the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and the Massachusetts Fish and
Wildlife Division. This assessment is also based in part upon findings
reported in the field and laboratory analyses on the Assabet River in
early June, 1979, and again in early August, 1979. These surveys are
part of the on-going MDWPC monitoring program, which included similar
water quality assessments of the Assabet in 1969 and 1974. The water
quality monitoring includes extensive information on the chemical
characteristics of the Assabet River.
Analyses Conducted
A review of physical, chemical and biological information was
conducted to determine which aquatic life use designations would be
appropriate.
A. Physical Factors
The low flow condition of the river during the summer months may
have an impact on the ability of certain fish species to survive.
Various percentages of average annual flow (AAF) have been used to
describe stream regimens for critical fisheries flow. As reported in
D-5
-------
Cortell (1977), studies conducted by Tennant indicate that 10%, 30%,
and 60% of AAF describe the range of fisheries flows from absolute
minimum (10% AAF) to optimum (60% of AAF). The average annual flow of
the Assabet River, as calculated from 39 years of record at the USGS
gauge at river mile 7.7, is 183 cfs. Flow measurements taken at the
USGS gauge on four consecutive days in early August, 1979, were 43, 34,
27, and 33 cfs. These flows average about 19 percent of the AAF
indicating that some impairment of the protection of fish species may
occur due to low flow in the river. The 7-day 10-year low flow for
this reach of the river is approximately 18 to 20 cfs.
The outstanding physical features of the Assabet River are the
dams, which have a significant influence on the aquatic life of the
river. Most fish are incapable of migrating upstream of the dams, thus
limiting their ability to find suitable (sufficient) habitats when
critical water quality conditions occur. The low flow conditions
downstream of the dams during dry periods also result in high water
temperatures, further limiting fish survival in the river.
B. Biological Factors
As with data on the physical parameters for the Assabet River,
biological data are sparse. The last fish survey of the Assabet River
was conducted by the Massachusetts Fish and Wildlife Division in 1952.
Yellow perch, bluegills, pickerel, sunfish, and bass were all observed.
The Assabet River was sampled by the MDWPC for macroinvertebrates at
five locations in June, 1979, as part of an intensive water quality
survey.
The data were reviewed and analyses performed to determine whether
conditions preclude macroinvertebrate habitats. The results were
i nconclusive.
C. Chemical Factors
Of all the chemical constituents measured in the June and August,
1979, water quality surveys, dissolved oxygen, ammonia nitrogen, and
temperature have the greatest potential to limit the survival of
aquatic life. Ammonia toxicity was investigated using the criteria
outlined in Water Quality Cnteria 1972. The results of this analysis
indicate that the concentration of un-ionized ammonia would need to be
increased approximately three times before acute mortality in the
species of fish listed would occur. Therefore, ammonia is not a
problem.
Temperatures in the lower reaches of the Assabet frequently exceed
the maximum temperature criteria (83 degrees F) for maintenance of a
warm water fishery. However, temperature readings were taken in early
and late afternoon and are believed to be surface water measurements.
They are short-term localized observations and should not preclude the
maintenance of a warm water fishery in those reaches. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations above Maynard are unsuitable for supporting cold or warm
water fisheries, but are sufficient to support a fishery below this
point.
D-6
-------
The impoundments may exhibit water quality problems in the form of
high surface temperatures and low bottom DO. Surface temperatures have
been found to be similar to those in the remainder of the river. The
only depth sample was at 13 feet in the wildlife impoundment, where the
temperature was 63 degrees F, while 83 degrees F at the surface. While
such bottom temperatures are likely to be sufficient to support a cold
water fishery, it is likely that the DO at the bottom of the
impoundments will be near zero due to benthic demands and lack of
surface aeration, which would preclude the survival of any fish.
Findings
The data, observations, and analyses as presented herein lead to
the conclusion that there are four possible uses for the Assabet:
aquatic life, warm water fishery, cold water fishery, and seasonal cold
water fishery. The seasonal fishery would be managed by stocking the
river during the spring.
These uses were analyzed under three water quality conditions:
existing, existing without the wastewater discharges, and inclusion of
the wastewater effluent discharges with treatment at the levels
stipulated in the 1981 Suasco Basin Water Quality Management Plan. The
no discharge condition is included as a baseline that represents the
quality under "natural" conditions.
A. Existing Uses
A limited number of warm water fish species predominate in the
Assabet River under existing conditions. The species should not be
different from those observed during the 1952 survey. The combination
of numerous low-level dams and wastewater treatment plants with low
flow conditions in the summer results in dissolved oxygen
concentrations and temperatures which place severe stress on the
metabolism of the fish.
The observed temperatures are most conducive to support the growth
of coarse fish, including pike, perch, walleye, smallmouth and
largemouth bass, sauger, bluegill and crappie.
The minimum observed DO concentrations are unacceptable for the
protection of any fish. Water Quality Criteria establishes the values
6.8, 5.6, and 4.2 mg/1 of DO for high, moderate, and low levels of
protection of fish for rivers with the temperature characteristics of
the Assabet. The Draft National Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen in
Freshwater establishes criteria as 3.0 mg/1 for survival, 4.0 mg/1 for
moderate production impairment, 5.0 mg/1 for slight impairment, and 6.0
for no production impairment. The upper reaches will not even support
a warm water fishery at the survival level, except in the uppermost
reach. On the other hand, the lower reaches can support a warm water
fishery under existing conditions.
D-7
-------
B. Potential Uses
The potential aquatic life uses of the Assabet River would be
restricted by temperature and low flow, and by physical barriers that
would exist even if water quality (measured in terms of DO and
bacteria) is significantly improved. Despite an overall improvement in
treated effluent quality, the river would be suitable for aquatic life,
as it is currently, and would continue to be too warm to support a cold
water fishery in the summertime. The possibility of maintaining the
cold water species in tributaries during the summer was investigated,
but there are no data on which to draw conclusions. Water quality
observations in the only tributary indicate temperatures similar to
those in the mainstem. Therefore, the maintenance of a cold water
fishery in the Assabet is considered unfeasible.
The attainable uses in the river without discharges or at planned
levels of treatment are warm water fishery and seasonal cold water
fishery. These uses are both attainable throughout the basin, but may
be impaired in Reach 1, as the water naturally entering Reach 1 from
the wildlife preservation impoundment is low in DO. The seasonal cold
water fishery is attainable because the discharge limits are
established to maintain a DO of 5 mg/1 under 7Q10 conditions. If the
DO is 5 mg/1 under summer low flow conditions, it will certainly be 6
mg/1 or greater during the colder, higher flow spring stocking period,
and a seasonal cold water fishery would be attainable.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Division, the impoundments of
the Assabet River have the potential to be a valuable warm water
fishery. The reaches of the river that have a non-vegetated gravel
bottom also have a high potential to support a significant fishery
because these habitats allow the benthic invertebrates that comprise
the food supply for the fish to flourish. It was further suggested
that if the dissolved oxygen concentration could be maintained above 5
mg/1, the river could again be stocked as a put and take trout fishery
in the spring.
Summary and Conclusions
The low flow conditions of the Assabet River have been
exacerbated by the low dams which span its course. In the summer
months, the flow in the river is slowed as the river passes through its
impoundments and flow below the dams is often reduced to a relative
trickle. When flow is reduced, temperatures in the shallow river
(easily walkable in many places) can exceed the maximum temperature
criterion for protection and propagation of a warm water fishery.
Additionally, the dams limit the mobility of fish. At present, most of
the river reaches also undergo extensive degradation due to the
discharge of wastewater treatment plant effluent which is manifest in
low dissolved oxygen concentrations. All of these factors impair the
aquatic life potential of the Assabet River.
D-8
-------
Three use levels corresponding with three alternative actions
related to the wastewater discharges are possible in the Assabet. The
no action alternative would result in very low dissolved oxygen
concentrations in many reaches which are appropriate only for the use
designation of aquatic life and warm water fishery. In this scenario,
fish would only survive in the lowest river reaches, and aquatic life
would be limited to sludge worms and similar invertebrates in the upper
reaches. The remaining two alternatives are related to upgrading
treatment plants in the basin. If the discharges are improved
sufficiently to raise the instream DO to 5 mg/1 throughout, as
stipulated in the 1981 Water Quality Management Plan, it will be
suitable as a warm water or seasonal cold water fishery. Should the
discharge be eliminted altogether, the same uses would be attainable.
The treatment plant discharges inhibit the protection and
propagation of aquatic life. Most of the treatment plants are
scheduled to be upgraded in the near future, which would relieve the
existing dissolved oxygen problems. Even if the river is returned to
relatively pristine conditions, the type of fish that would be able to
propagate there would not change, due to the existing physical
conditions. However, the extent of their distribution, their
abundance, and the health of the biota would be likely to increase.
The present use designations of the Assabet River are sufficient
to characterize the aquatic life use it is capable of supporting, while
physical barriers prevent the year-round attainment of a "higher"
aquatic life use. The potential aquatic life uses could include
extension of the warm water and seasonal cold water fishery
classifications to the entire length of the river, should the planned
improvements to the wastewater treatment plants be implemented.
D-9
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Blackwater River
Franklin , Virginia
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The area of the Blackwater River which was chosen for this study extends
from Joyner's Bridge (Southampton County, Route 611) to Cobb's Wharf near
its confluence with the Nottoway River (Table 1 and Figure 1). In addition,
data from the USGS gaging station near Burdette (river mile 24.57) provided
information on some physical characteristics of the system.
TABLE 1
Sampling Locations for Blackwater River Use Attainability Survey
Station River
No. Location Mi 1e
1 Vicinity Joyner's Bridge, Route 611 20.90
2 Below Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant Discharge 13.77
3 Vicinity Cobb's Wharf, Route 687 2.59
The mean annual rainfall is 48 inches, much of which occurs in the summer
in the form of thunderstorms. The SCS has concluded that approximately
41,000 tons of soil are transported to streams in the watershed due to
rainfall induced erosion. Seventy (70) percent of this originates from
croplands, causing a potential pollution problem from pesticides and from
fertilizer based nutrients. In addition, 114,000 pounds of animal waste are
produced annually, constituting the only other major source of non-point
pollution.
There are two primary point source discharges on the Blackwater River. The
Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant at Station 2 discharges an average of 1.9
mgd of municipal effluent. The discharge volume exceeds NPDES permit levels
due to inflow and infiltration problems. The plant has applied for a
federal grant to upgrade treatment. The second discharge is from Union Camp
Corporation, an integrated kraft mill that produces bleached paper and
bleached board products. The primary by-products are crude tall oil and
crude sulfate turpentine. Union Camp operates at 36.6 mgd but retains its
treated waste in lagoons until the winter months when it is discharged. The
D-10
-------
USGS Gaging
Station
Station 1
Joyners Bridge
(Rt. 611)
Station 2
Fran k1i n
Figure 1. Map of Study Area
Southampton Co., VA
Scale 1:5000
Station 3
Cobb's Wharf
(Rt. 687)
North Carolina
D-ll
-------
Union Camp discharge point is downstream from Station 3 just above the
North Carolina State line at river mile 0.70.
The topography surrounding the Blackwater River is essentially flat and the
riparian zone is primarily hardwood wetlands. There is a good surface water
supply from several swamps. At the USGS gaging station near Burdette,
Virginia, the discharge for calendar year 1980 averaged 430 cfs.
The Blackwater River from Joyner's Bridge (Station 1) to Franklin is clas-
sified by the State Water Control Board (SWCB) as a Class III free flowing
stream. This classification requires a minimum dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion of 4.0 mg/1 and a daily average of 5.0 mg/1. Other applicable stan-
dards are maintenance of pH from 6.0 to 8.5 and a maximum temperature of
32°C. The riparian zone is heavily wooded wetlands with numerous channel
obstructions. Near Franklin the canopy begins to open and there is an in-
creasing presence of lily pads and other macrophytes. The water is dark, as
is characteristic of tannic acid water found"in swamplands.
Below Franklin the Blackwater River is dredged and channelized to permit
barge traffic to reach Union Camp. The channel is approximately 40m wide
and from 5m to 8m in depth. This reach of stream is classified by the SVICB
as a Class II estuarine system requiring the same dissolved oxygen and pH
limitation as in Class III but without a temperature requirement.
B. Problem Definition
The study area on the Blackwater River includes a Class III free-flowing
stream and a Class II estuarine river. Part of the Class III section is a
freshwater cypress swamp. The water is turbid, nutrient enriched and
slightly acidic due to tannins.
In response to the EPA request for Virginia's involvement in the pilot Use
Attainability studies, the State Water Control Board chose to examine the
Blackwater River in the vicinity of Franklin, Virginia. There were several
reasons for this choice. First, the major stress to the system is low dis-
solved oxygen (DO) concentrations which occur from May through November.
Surveys conducted by SWCB staff, and officials jfrom Union Camp in Franklin,
found that during certain periods "natural" Background concentrations of
dissolved oxygen fell below the water quality standard of 4.0 mg/1. This
has raised questions as to whether the current standard is appropriate.
Virginia's water quality standards contain a swamp water designation which
recognizes that DO and pH may be substantially different in some swamp
waters and provides for specific standards to be set on a case by case
basis. However, no site specific standards have been developed in Virginia
to date. One of the goals of this project was to gather information which
could lead to possible development of a site specific standard for the
Blackwater River. Second, the Franklin STP has applied for a federal grant
to provide for improved BOD removals from its effluent.
D-12
-------
C. Approach to Use Attainability
On 20 April, 1982, staff of the SWCB met with several EPA officials and
their consultant. After visiting the study area on the Blackwater River and
reviewing the available information, it was determined that further data
should be collected, primarily a description of the aquatic community. The
SWCB staff has scheduled four quarterly surveys from June 1982, through
March 1983, to collect physical, chemical, and biological information. In-
terim results are reported herein to summarize data from the first collec-
tion. Final conclusions will not be drawn until the data has been compiled
for all four quarters.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A. Physical Analysis
Data on the physical characteristics of the Blackwater River were derived
primarily from existing information and from general observations. The en-
tire reach of the Blackwater River from Joyner's Bridge to Cobb's Wharf was
traveled by boat to observe channel and riparian characteristics. A sedi-
ment sample was collected at each station for partical size analysis.
B. Chemical Analysis
Water samples were collected at Stations 1-3 for analysis of pH , alkalini-
ty, solids, hardness, nutrients, five-day BOD, chemical oxygen demand,
total organic carbon, phenols, pesticides, and heavy metals. In addition,
previous data on dissolved oxygen concentrations collected by the SWCB and
Union Camp were used to examine oxygen profiles in the river. The USGS
Water Resources Data for Virginia (1981) provided some chemical data for
the Blackwater River near Burdette.
C. Biological Analysis
Periphyton sampling for chlorophyll-a, biomass, and autotrophic index de-
termination was conducted using floating plexiglass samplers anchored by a
cement weight. The samplers were placed in the field in triplicate and re-
mained in the river for 14 days. They were located in run areas in the
stream. At the end of this two-week period, the samplers were retrieved and
the slides removed for biomass determinations and chlorophyll analysis.
Both a cursory and a quantitative survey of macroinvertebrates were con-
ducted at each station. The purpose of the cursory study was to rapidly
identify the general water quality of each station by surveying the pres-
ence of aquatic insects, molluscs, crustaceans and worms and classifying
them according to their pollution tolerance. A record was kept of all
organisms found and these were classified to the family level as dominant,
abundant, common, few or present. The cursory survey was completed with a
qualitative evaluation of the density and diversity of aquatic organisms.
0-13
-------
General knowledge of the pollution tolerance of various genera was used to
classify the water quality at each station. The benthic macroinvertebrate
samples were collected with Hester-Dendy multiplate artificial substrates.
The substrates were attached to metal fence posts and held vertically at
least 15 cm above the stream bottom. The substrates were left in place for
six weeks to allow for colonization by macroinvertebrate organisms. In the
laboratory the organisms were identified to the generic level whenever pos-
sible. Counts were made of the number of tax a identified and the number of
individuals within each taxon.
Fish populations were surveyed at each station by electrofishing. Each sta-
tion was shocked for 1,000 seconds: BOO seconds at the shoreline and 200
seconds at midstream. Fish collected were identified to species and the
total length of each fish was recorded. In addition, general observations
were made about the health status of the fish by observing lesions, hemor-
rhaging, and the presence of external parasites.
Diversity of species was calculated using the Shannon-Weaver index. Addi-
tionally, the fish communities were evaluated using an index proposed by
Karr (1981) which classifies biotic integrity based on 12 parameters of the
fish community.
III. FINDINGS
There are few physical factors which limit aquatic life uses. The habitat
is characteristic of a hardwood wetland with few alterations. The major
alteration is dredging and channelization below Franklin which eliminates
much of the macrophyte community and the habitat it provides for other
organisms. The substrate at each station was composed mostly of sand with a
high moisture content. This is characteristic of a swamp but is not ideal
habitat for colonization by periphyton and macroinvertebrates.
DO concentrations are typically below the Virginia water quality standards
during the months of May through November. This is true upstream as well as
downstream from the Franklin STP and appears to occur even without the im-
pact of BOD loadings from Franklin. This phenomenon may be typical of en-
riched freshwater wetlands. However, during the winter months, DO concen-
trations may exceed 10 mg/1. Another survey conducted by SWCB showed that
there were only small changes in DO concentration with depth.
Representatives from 17 families of macroinvertebrates were observed during
a cursory investigation. These included mayflies, scuds, midges, operculate
and non-operculate snails, crayfish, flatworms,
The majority of these organisms were facultative at
ever, there were a few pollution sensitive forms at
3 was dominated by pollution sensitive varieties.
and a freshwater sponge.
Stations 1 and 2. How-
Station 1, and Station
Twelve (12) species from seven families of fish were observed during the
June 1982 study. Several top predators were present including the bowfin,
D-14
-------
chain pickerel, largemouth bass and longnose gar. Other fish collected were
the American eel, shiners, pirate perch, yellow perch, and five species of
sunfish. None of the species are especially pollution sensitive. Results of
the fish population survey are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Results of Fish Population Survey in Blackwater River, 9 June 1982
1.
2.
3.
Station
Joyner's Bridge
Franklin STP
Cobb's Wharf
Number
Collected
19
51
44
No. of
Species
7
6
6
Diversity
d
2.30
2.35
2.35
Proporti
Omnivores
.000
.000
.000
on of
Carnivores
.157
.098
.114
Based on the EPA 304(a) criteria, low seasonal DO concentrations measured
in the river should present a significant stress to the biotic community.
Large fish tend to be less resistant to low DO yet large species such as
the largemouth bass, American eel and some sunfishes were present in an
apparently healthy condition. The explanation for this is unclear. The low
dissolved oxygen concentrations are near the physiological limit for many
species. Fish may be able to acclimate to low DO to a limited extent if the
change in oxygen concentration occurs gradually. The fact that fish are
present in a healthy condition suggests that there is a lack of other sig-
nificant stressors in the system which might interact with low DO stress.
It is worth noting that spawning probably occurs in most species before the
summer months when dissolved oxygen concentration become critically low.
The autotrophic index determinations show the Joyner's Bridge and Franklin
STP stations as having relatively healthy periphyton communities. In each
case over 80 percent of the periphytic community was autotrophic in nature.
Based on the autotrophic index , both of these stations were in better bio-
logical health than the most downstream station, Cobb's Wharf. At Cobb's
Wharf the autotrophic index characterized an autotrophic community which
was experiencing a slight decline in biological integrity (74 percent auto-
trophic as compared to greater than 80 percent upstream).
Chemical analyses conducted on water from the Blackwater River did not
reveal any alarming concentration of toxicants when compared to EPA Water
Quality Criteria Documents, although the zinc concentration at Station 1
was slightly above the 24-hour average recommended by EPA. One sample col-
lected by the USGS had a zinc concentration which was twice this number.
The source of this zinc is unknown. Any impact which exists from this pro-
blem should be sublethal, affecting growth and reproduction of primarily
D-15
-------
the most sensitive species. The actual impact of zinc concentrations at
Joyner's Bridge is unknown.
Analyses of the periphyton data as well as the water chemistry data indi-
cate that the Blackwater River is nutrient enriched. Some of this nutrient
load comes from inadequately protected crop lands and from domestic animal
wastes. The Franklin STP also contributes to higher nutrient concentra-
tions. Additionally, an SWCB report estimated that between river mile 20.0
and 6.0, 1,600 Ib per day of non-point source carbonaceous BOD (ultimate)
are added to the river. Consequently, these point and non-point sources
appear to be contributing to both organic enrichment and lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Blackwater River from river mile 2.59 to 20.90 has been characterized
as a nutrient enriched coastal river much of which is bordered by hardwood
wetlands. Periphytic, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities are healthy
with fair to good abundance and diversity. The major limitation to aquatic
life appears to be low DO concentrations which are enhanced by point and
non-point sources of nutrients and BOD. A secondary limitation may be ele-
vated zinc concentrations at Joyner's Bridge.
The primary difficulty in assessing the attainability of aquatic life uses
is locating a suitable reference reach to serve as an example of an unaf-
fected aquatic community. Originally, Joyner's Bridge (Station 1) was
selected for this purpose, but few major differences occur between popula-
tions at all three stations. However, the widespread non-point pollution in
Southeastern Virginia makes the location of an undisturbed reference reach
impossible. The only alternative, then, is to make the best possible judg-
ment as to what organisms might reasonably be expected to inhabit the
Blackwater.
In reference to the Blackwater River, it is probable that most fish species
are present that should reasonably be expected to inhabit the river, al-
though possibly in lower numbers. (No attempt has yet been made to assess
this with regard to algal and invertebrate communities.) However, based on
the 304(a) criteria, the low DO concentrations represent a significant
stress of the ecosystem and the introduction of additional stressors could
be destructive. It is also probable that higher oxygen concentrations dur-
ing winter months play a major role in reducing the impact of this stress.
Removal of point and non-point source inputs may alleviate some problems.
However, DO concentrations may still remain low. The increased effect of
oxygen concentrations should be an increase in fish abundance and increased
size of individuals. Diversity would probably be unaffected. Nevertheless,
no attempt has been made to estimate the magnitude of these changes.
Cairns (1977) has suggested a method for estimating the potential of a body
of water to recover from pollutional stress. Although this analysis is only
0-16
-------
semi-quantitative and subjective, it suggests that the chances of rapid
recovery following a disturbance in the Blackwater River are poor.
The absence of an undisturbed reference reach and the difficulty in quan-
tifying changes in dissolved oxygen, population structure, and population
abundance make a definite statement regarding attainability of aquatic life
uses difficult. However, to summarize, several points stand out. First, the
aquatic communities in the Blackwater River are generally healthy with fair
to good abundance and distribution. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are low
for about half of the year which causes a significant stress to aquatic
organisms. Oxygen concentrations are higher during the reproductive periods
of many fishes. Because of these stresses and the physical characteristics
of the river, the system does not have much resiliency or capacity to with-
stand additional stress. Although a quantitative statement of changes in
the aquatic community with the amelioration of DO stress has not been made,
it is probable that additional stresses would degrade the present aquatic
community.
The occurrence of low dissolved oxygen concentrations throughout much of
the Blackwater is, in part, a "natural" phenomenon and could argue for a
reduction in the DO standard. However, if this standard were reduced on a
year round basis it is probable that the aquatic community would steadily
degrade. This may result in a contravention of the General Standard of
Virginia State Law which requires that all waters support the propagation
and growth of all aquatic life which can reasonably be expected to inhabit
these waters. Because of the lack of resiliency in the system, a year round
standards change could irreversibly alter the aquatic community.
D-17
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Cuckels Brook
Bridgewater Township, New Jersey
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
Cuckels Brook, a small tributary of the Raritan River, is located entirely
within Bridgewater Township in Somerset County, New Jersey. It is a peren-
nial stream approximately four miles long, having a watershed area of ap-
proximately three square miles. The entire brook is classified as FW-2 Non-
trout in current New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Surface Water Quality Standards.
Decades ago, the downstream section of Cuckels Brook (below the Raritan
Valley Line Railroad, Figure 1), was relocated into an artificial channel.
This channelized section of Cuckels Brook consists of an upstream subsec-
tion approximately 2,000 feet in length and a downstream subsection approx-
imately 6,000 feet in length, with the Somerset-Raritan Valley Sewerage
Authority (SRVSA) municipal discharge being the point of demarcation be-
tween the two. The downstream channelized subsection (hereinafter referred
to as "Lower Cuckels Brook") is used primarily to convey wastewater to the
Raritan River from SRVSA and the American Cyanamid Company, which dis-
charges approximately 200 feet downstream of SRVSA. At its confluence with
the Raritan River, flow in Lower Cuckels Brook is conveyed into Calco Dam,
a dispersion dam which distributes the flow across the Raritan River. Ex-
cept for railroad and pipeline rights-of-way, all the land along Lower
Cuckels Brook is owned by the American Cyanamid Company. Land use in the
Cuckels Brook watershed above the SRVSA discharge is primarily suburban but
includes major highways.
B. Problem Definition
Lower Cuckels Brook receives two of the major discharges in the Raritan
River Basin. SRVSA is a municipal secondary wastewater treatment plant
which had an average flow in 1982 of 8.8 mgd (design capacity = 10 mgd).
The American Cyanamid wastewater discharge is a mixture of process water
from organic chemical manufacturing, cooling water, storm water, and sani-
tary wastes. This mixed waste receives secondary treatment followed by
activated carbon treatment. In 1982 American Cyanamid1s average flow was
7.0 mgd (design capacity 20 mgd). These two discharges totally dominate the
character of Lower Cuckels Brook.
Over 90 percent of the flow in Cuckels Brook is wastewater (except after
heavy rainfall). The mean depth is estimated to be between 1 and 2 feet,
and the channel bottom at observed locations is covered with deposits of
D-1R
-------
?
••:.:
Kioat^*
\
^
c\T
fm
lii%
s=.
;p
^
CO
< -i
CO <
\,
55
* 2
in
: /-.
• • t. -if
».• -
//' »
\
(£
CD
51
w o
e 5
*
§2
§s
CO s_
ujS
Si
o
"Z
So
il
Ii
10.
t5
*3
D-19
-------
black sludge, apparently derived from solids in the SRVSA and Cyanamid dis-
charges (primarily the SRVSA discharge). In contrast, the channelized sub-
section of Cuckels Brook above the SRVSA discharge is often only inches
deep with a bottom of bedrock, rubble, gravel and silt.
Cuckels Brook (including Lower Cuckels Brook) is classified as FW-2 Non-
trout in the NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards. The FW-2 classification
provides for the following uses:
1. Potable water supply after such treatment as shall be required by
law or regulation;
2. Maintenance, migration, and propagation of natural and established
biota (not including trout);
3. Primary contact recreation;
4. Industrial and agricultural water supply; and
5. Any other reasonable uses.
The attainment of these uses is currently prevented by the strength and
volume of wastewaters currently discharged to Cuckels Brook. The size of
the stream also limits primary contact recreation and other water uses , and
physical barriers currently prevent the migration of fish between Cuckels
Brook and the Raritan River.
C. Approach to Use Attainability
In response to an inquiry from EPA, Criteria and Standards Division, the
State of New Jersey offered to participate in a demonstration Water Body
Survey and Assessment. The water body survey of Cuckels Brook was conducted
by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Systems
Analysis and Wasteload Allocation; with assistance from the EPA Region II
Edison Laboratory.
The assessment is based primarily on the results of a field sampling pro-
gram designed and conducted jointly by NJDEP and EPA-Edison in October
1982. Additional sources of information include self-monitoring reports
furnished by the dischargers, and earlier studies conducted by the NJDEP on
Cuckels Brook and the Raritan River. Based on this assessment, NJDEP deve-
loped a report entitled "Lower Cuckels Brook Water Body Survey and Use
Attainability Analysis, 1983."
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A. Chemical Analysis
The major impact of the SRVSA discharge is attributed to un-ionized ammonia
and TRC levels, whose concentrations at Station 4, 100 feet below the dis-
charge point were 0.173 and 1.8 mg/1 respectively, which are 3.5 and 600
D-20
-------
times higher than the State criteria. The un-ionized ammonia concentration
of the Cyanamid effluent was low, but stream concentrations at Stations 6
and 7 were relatively high (though below the State criterion of 0.05 mg/1).
The Cyanamid discharge contained 0.8 mg/1 TRC. Concentrations at both Sta-
tions 6 and 7 were 0.3 mg/1 TRC, lower than at Station 4 but still 100
times the State criterion of 0.003 mg/1. The other major impact of the Cy-
anamid effluent was on instream filterable residue levels. Concentrations
at Stations 6 and 7 exceeded 1,100 mg/1, over three times the State crite-
rion (133 percent of background).
The effluents apparently buffered the pH of Lower Cuckels Brook which was
approximately pH 7 at Stations 4, 6 and 7, and the pH of the upstream
reference stations was markedly alkaline. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
decreased in the downstream direction despite low BODS concentrations both
in the effluents and instream. This suggests an appreciable sediment oxygen
demand in Lower Cuckels Brook. Dissolved oxygen levels were greater in the
two effluents than in the stream at Stations 6 and 7. The dissolved oxygen
concentration at Station 7 of 4.1 mg/1 nearly violated the State criterion
of 4.0 mg/1; this suggests the potential for unsatisfactory dissolved oxy-
gen conditions during the summer.
The results of the water body survey are generally in good agreement with
other available data sources. Recent self-monitoring data for both American
Cyanamid and SRVSA agree well with the data collected in this survey. In
particular they show consistantly high TRC concentrations in both efflu-
ents. High average dissolved solids (filterable residue) concentrations are
reported for the Cyanamid effluent. Total ammonia levels as high as 33.5
mg/1 NH3 (27.6 mg/1 N) were reported for the SRVSA effluent. The pH of the
Cyanamid and SRVSA effluents is sometimes more alkaline than the water body
survey values indicating that toxic un-ionized ammonia concentrations may
sometimes be higher than measured during the water body survey.
B. Biological Analysis
Fish and macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted in the channelized sub-
section of Cuckels Brook above the SRVSA discharge. Only three fish species
were found: the banded killifish, the creek chub and the blacknose dace.
One hundred and eighty-six (186) out of the total 194 specimens collected
were banded killifish. KiHi fish are very hardy and are common in both es-
tuarine and freshwater systems. The largest fish found, a creek chub, was
146 mm long.
The results of the macroinvertebrate survey are discussed in detail in a
separate report (NJDEP, 1982). Four replicate surber samples were collected
at Stations 1 and 2 above the SRVSA discharge. Diversity indices indicate
the presence of similar well-balanced communities at both stations. Species
diversity and equitability were 3.9 and 0.7 respectively at Station 1, and
4.3 and 0.7 respectively at Station 2. Productivity at Stations 1 and 2 was
D-21
-------
low, with mean densities of 59 and 89 individuals per square foot, respec-
tively. The majority of species found at both stations have organic pollu-
tion tolerance classifications of tolerant (dominant at Station 1) or fac-
ultative (dominant at Station 2).
Overall, the biological data indicate that the upstream channelized subsec-
tion of Cuckels Brook supports a limited fish community and a limited mac-
roinvertebrate community of generally tolerant species. The water quality
data indicates nothing that would limit the community. One possible limi-
ting factor is that, as a result of channelization, the substrate consists
of unconsolidated gravel and rubble on bedrock, which might easily be dis-
turbed by high flow conditions.
Both the chemical data and visual observations at various locations suggest
that virtually no aquatic life exists along Lower Cuckels Brook: not even
algae were seen. The discharges have seriously degraded water quality. Un-
ionized ammonia concentrations at Station 4 were close to acute lethal
levels, while concentrations of TRC were above acute levels at Stations 4,
6 and 7 (EPA, 1976). The sludge deposits which apparently cover most of the
bottom of lower Cuckels Brook could exert negative physical (i.e. smother-
ing) and chemical (i.e. possible toxics) effects on any benthic organisms.
No biological survey of the lower brook was made because of concern about
potential hazards to sampling personnel. Supplemental sampling of the sedi-
ments is planned to ascertain levels of toxics accumulation.
As part of their self-monitoring requirements, American Cyanamid performs
weekly 96-hour modified flow-through bioassays with fathead minnows using
unchlorinated effluent. Of 63 bioassays conducted between 1 May, 1981 and
31 August, 1982, results from eight bioassays had 96-hour LC50 values at
concentrations of effluent less than 100 percent (i.e. 26 percent, 58 per-
cent, 77 percent, 83.5 percent, 88 percent, 92 percent, and 95.5 percent).
These results suggest that the American Cyanamid effluent would not be ex-
tremely toxic if it were reasonably diluted by its receiving waters. Within
Lower Cuckels Brook, however, the effluent receives only approximately 50
percent dilution and the potential exists for toxic effects on any aquatic
life that may be present. These effects would be in addition to the toxici-
ty anticipated from the TRC concentrations which result from the chlorina-
tion of the effluent.
III. FINDINGS
Practically none of the currently designated uses are now being achieved in
Lower Cuckels Brook. The principal current use of Lower Cuckels Brook is
the conveyance of treated wastewater and upstream runoff to the Raritan
River. Judging from the indirect evidence of chemical data and visual ob-
servations, virtually no aquatic life is maintained or propagated in Lower
Cuckels Brook. It has been well documented that fish avoid chlorinated
waters (Cherry and Cairns, 1982; Fava and Tsai , 1976). Any aquatic life
that does reside in Lower Cuckels Brook would be sparse and stressed. Mig-
ration of aquatic life through Lower Cuckels Brook would probably only oc-
cur during periods of high storm water flow when some flow occurs over the
D-22
-------
un-named dam (Figure 1) which is designed to direct the flow of Cuckels
Brook toward Calco Dam. Calco Dam and its associated structures, including
the un-named dam, normally prevent the migration of fish between Cuckels
Brook and the Raritan River.
Lower Cuckels Brook currently does not support any primary or secondary
contact recreation. No water is currently diverted from Lower Cuckels Brook
for potable water supply, industrial or agricultural water supply, or any
other purpose.
Because Lower Cuckels Brook receives large volumes of wastewater and be-
cause there is practically no dilution, water quality in Lower Cuckels
Brook has been degraded to the quality of wastewater. Moreover, the bottom
of Lower Cuckels Brook has been covered at observed locations with waste-
water solids. As a result, Lower Cuckels Brook is currently unfit for aqua-
tic life, recreation, and most other water uses. The technology-based ef-
fluent limits required by the Clean Water Act are not adequate to protect
the currently designated water uses in Lower Cuckels Brook. SRVSA already
provides secondary treatment (except for bypassed flows in wet weather) ,
and American Cyanamid already provides advanced treatment with activated
carbon. Because the Raritan River provides far more dilution than does
Cuckels Brook, effluent limits which may be developed to protect the Rari-
tan River would not be adequate to protect the currently designated water
uses in Lower Cuckels Brook. The only practical way to restore water qua-
lity in Lower Cuckels Brook would be to remove the wastewater discharges.
However, there are several factors that would limit the achievement of cur-
rently designated uses even if the wastewater discharges were completely
separated from natural flow.
If it were assumed that the wastewater discharges and sludge were absent,
and that the seepage of contaminated groundwater from the American Cyanamid
property was insignificant or absent, then the following statements could
be made about attainable uses in Lower Cuckels Brook:
Aquatic Life - The restoration of aquatic life in Lower Cuckels Brook
would be limited to some extent by the small size and lower flow of the
stream, by channelization, and by contaminants in suburban and highway
runoff from the upstream watershed. Lower Cuckels Brook could support a
limited macroinvertebrate community of generally tolerant species, and
some small fish as were found in the reference channelized subsection
above the SRVSA discharge (Stations 1 and 2). Unless it were altered or
removed, the Calco Dam complex would continue to prevent fish migra-
tion .
Wildlife typical of narrow stream corridors could inhabit the generally
narrow strips of land between Lower Cuckels Brook and nearby railroad
tracks and waste lagoons. Restoration of aquatic life in Lower Cuckels
Brook would be expected to have little impact on aquatic life in the
Raritan River.
D-23
-------
Recreation - Lower Cuckels Brook would be too shallow for swimming
or boating, and its small fish could not support sport fishing.
The industrial surroundings of Lower Cuckels Brook, including
waste lagoons and active manufacturing facilities and railroads,
severely reduces the potential for other recreational activities
such as streamside trails and picnic areas, wading, and nature
appreciation. As Lower Cuckels Brook is on private industrial
property, trespassing along this brook and in the surrounding area
is discouraged.
It would appear unlikely that any of the landowners, or any
government agency, would develop recreational facilities along
lower Cuckels Brook or even remove some of the brush which impairs
access to most of the Brook. Recreation along Lower Cuckels Brook
would be limited, occasional, and informal.
Other Water Uses - Although water quality in Lower Cuckels Brook
would generally meet FW-2 Nontrout criteria, the volume of natural
flow in Lower Cuckels Brook would be insufficient for potable
water supply or for industrial or agricultural water use.
In general, Lower Cuckels Brook would become a small channelized
tributary segment flowing through a heavily industrialized area, free
of gross pollution and capable of supporting a modest aquatic community
and very limited recreational use.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This use-attainability analysis has discussed the present impairment of
the currently designated uses of Lower Cuckels Brook, the role of
wastewater discharges in such impairment, and the extent to which
currently designated water uses might be achieved if the wastewater
discharges were removed. Further analysis, outside the scope of this
survey, will be required: to document the costs of removing SRVSA and
American Cyanamid effluent from Lower Cuckels Brook, and to evaluate
the impact of the SRVSA and American Cyanamid discharges on the Raritan
River. These analyses may lead to the development of site-specific
water quality standards for Lower Cuckels Brook (designated uses
limited to the conveyance of wastewater and the prevention of
nuisances), or to the removal of the wastewater discharges from Lower
Cuckels Brook. In either case, effluent limits would be established to
protect water quality in the Raritan River.
D-24
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Deep Creek And Canal Creek
Scotland Neck, North Carolina
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The Town of Scotland Neck is located in Halifax County in the lower coastal
plain of North Carolina. The Town's wastewater, made up mostly of domestic
waste with a small amount of textile waste, is treated in an oxidation
ditch of 0.6 mgd design capacity. The treatment plant is located two-tenths
of a mile southwest of Scotland Neck off U.S. Highway 258, as seen in Fig-
ure 1. The effluent (0.323 mgd average) is discharged to Canal Creek which
is a tributary to Deep Creek.
Canal Creek is a channelized stream which passes through an agricultural
watershed, but also receives some urban runoff from the western sections of
Scotland Neck. It is a Class C stream with a drainage area of 2.4 square
miles, an average stream flow of 3.3 cfs , and a 7Q10 of 0.0 cfs. The Creek
retains definite banks for about 900 feet below the outfall at which point
it splits into numerous shifting channels and flows 800 to 1400 feet
through a cypress swamp before reaching Deep Creek. During dry periods the
braided channels of Canal Creek can be visually traced to Deep Creek. Dur-
ing wet periods Canal Creek overflows into the surrounding wetland and flow
is no longer restricted to the channels.
Deep Creek is a typical tannin colored Inner Coastal Plain stream that has
a heavily wooded paludal flood plain. The main channel is not deeply en-
trenched. In some sections streamflow passes through braided channels, or
may be conveyed through the wetland by sheetflow. During dry weather flow
periods the main channel is fairly distinct and the adjacent wetland is
saturated, but not inundated. During wet weather periods the main channel
is less distinct, adjacent areas become flooded and previously dry areas
become saturated.
B. Problem Definition
The Town of Scotland Neck is unable to meet its final NPDES Permit limits
and is operating with a Special Order by Consent which specifies interim
limits. The Town is requesting a 201 Step III grant to upgrade treatment by
increasing hydraulic capacity to 0.675 mgd with an additional clarifier, an
aerobic digestor, tertiary filters, a chlorine contact chamber, post aera-
tion and additional sludge drying beds. The treated effluent from Scotland
Neck is discharged into Canal Creek. The lower reaches of Canal Creek are
part of the swamp through which Deep Creek passes.
D-25
-------
5556 in
^80 tSCOTLAHC
Figure 1. Study Area, Deep Creek
and Canal Creek
D-26
-------
Deep Creek carries a "C" classification, but due to naturally low dissolved
oxygen and other conditions imposed by the surrounding swamp, it is felt
that reclassification to "C-Swamp" should be considered. Deep Creek should
be classified C-Swamp because its physical characteristics meet the C-Swamp
classification of the North Carolina Administrative Code for Classifica-
tions and Water Quality Standards. The Code states: Swamp waters shall mean
those waters which are so designated by the Environmental Management Com-
mission and which are topographically located so as to generally have very
low velocities and certain other characteristics which are different from
adjacent streams draining steeper topograpy. The C-Swamp classification
provides for a minimum pH of 4.3 (compared to a range of pH 6.0 to pH 8.5
for C waters) , and allows for low (unspecified) DO values if caused by nat-
ural conditions. DO concentrations in Deep Creek are usually below 4.0
mg/1.
C. Approach to Use Attainability Analysis
1. Data Available
1. Self Monitoring Reports from Scotland Neck.
2. Plant inspections by the Field Office.
3. Intensive Water Quality Survey of Canal Creek and Deep Creek at
Scotland Neck in September, 1979. Study consisted of time-of-
travel dye work and water quality sampling.
2. Additional Routine Data Collected
Water quality survey of Canal Creek and Deep Creek at Scotland Neck
in June 1982. Water quality data was collected to support a biologi-
cal survey of these creeks. The study included grab samples and flow
measurements.
Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from sites on Canal Creek
and Deep Creek. Qualitative collection methods were used. A two-
member team spent one hour per site collecting from as many habitats
as possible. It is felt that this collection method is more reliable
than quantitative collection methods (kicks, Surbers , ponars , etc.)
in this type of habitat. Taxa are recorded as rare, common, and
abundant.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A. Physical Factors
Sampling sites were chosen to correspond with sites previously sampled in a
water quality survey of Canal and Deep Creeks. Three stations were selected
on Canal Creek. SN-1 is located 40 feet above the Town of Scotland Neck
Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall. This site serves as a reference sta-
tion. The width at SN-1 is 7.0 feet and the average discharge (two flows
were recorded in the September 1979 survey and one flow in the June 1982
D-27
-------
survey) is 0.65 cubic feet per second. Canal Creek at SN-1 has been chan-
nelized and has a substrate composed of sand and silt. SN-4 is located on
Canal Creek 900 feet below the discharge point. This section of Canal Creek
has an average cross-sectional area of 11.8 feet and an average flow of
1.33 cubic feet per second. The stream in this section is also channelized
and also has a substrate composed of sand and silt. There is a canopy of
large cypress at SN-.4 below the plant, while the canopy above SN-1 is re-
duced to a narrow buffer zone. The potential uses of Deep Creek are limited
by its inaccessability in these areas.
A third station (SN-5) was selected on one of the lower channels of Canal
Creek at the confluence with Deep Creek 3200 feet upstream of the U.S.
Highway 258 bridge. Discharge measurements could not be accomplished at
this site during this survey because of the swampy nature of the stream
with many ill-defined, shallow, slow moving courses. Benthic macroinverte-
brates were collected from this site.
Three stations were chosen on Deep Creek. SN-6 is approximately 300 feet
upstream of SN-5 on Canal Creek at its confluence with Deep Creek and is a
reference site. SN-7 is located at the U.S. Highway 258 bridge and SN-8 is
located further downstream at the SR 1100 bridge. SN-7 and SN-8 are below
Canal Creek. There are some differences in habitat variability among these
three sites. The substrate at both SN-6 and SN-7 is composed mostly of a
deep layer of fine particulate matter. Usable and productive benthic hab-
itats in this area are reduced because of the fine particulate layer. It is
possible that the source of this sediment is from frequent overbank flows
and from upstream sources. Productive benthic habitats include areas of
macrophyte growth, snags, and submerged tree trunks. Discharge measurements
were not taken at any of these three sites during this survey.
B. Chemical Factors
Chemical data from two water quality surveys show that the dissolved oxygen
in Canal Creek is depressed while BOD_, solids and nutrient levels are ele-
vated. The 1982 study indicates, however, that the water quality is better
than it was during the 1979 survey. Such water quality improvements may be
due to the addition of chlorination equipment and other physical improve-
ments as well as to the efforts of a new plant operator.
Both above and below its confluence with Canal Creek, Deep Creek shows poor
water quality which may be attributed to natural conditions, but not to any
influence from the waste load carried by Canal Creek. Canal Creek exhibited
higher DO levels than Deep Creek.
C. Biological Factors
The impact of the effluent on the fauna of Canal Creek is clear. A 63 per-
cent reduction in taxa richness from 35 at SN-1 to only 13 at SN-4 indi-
cates severe stress as measured against criteria developed by biologists of
the Water Quality Section. The overwhelming dominance of Chi ronomus at SN-4
D-28
-------
is indicative of a low DO level and high concentrations of organic matter.
To what extent this condition is attributable to the effluent or to natural
swamp conditions is not clear. No impact to the benthos of Deep Creek was
discerned which could be attributed to the effluent.
III. FINDINGS
Deep Creek is currently designated as a class C warm water fishery but due
to naturally low dissolved oxygen concentrations may not be able to satisfy
the class C dissolved oxygen criteria. The DO criterion for class C waters
stipulates a minimum value of 4 ppm, yet the DO in Deep Creek, in both the
1979 and the 1982 studies, was less than 4 ppm. Thus from the standpoint of
aquatic life uses, Deep Creek may not be able to support the forms of aqua-
tic life which are intended for protection under the class C standards.
Because of prevailing natural conditions, there are no higher potential
uses of Deep Creek than now exist; yet because of prevailing natural condi-
tions and in light of the results of this water body assessment, the C-
swamp use designation appears to be a more appropriate designation under
existing North Carolina Water Quality Standards.
Canal Creek is degraded by the effluent from the Scotland Neck wastewater
treatment plant. The BOD fecal coliform, solids and nutrient levels are
elevated while the DO concentration is depressed. The reach immediately
below the outfall is affected by an accumulation of organic solids, by dis-
coloration and by odors associated with the wastewater.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The water body survey of Deep Creek and Canal Creek included a considera-
tion of physical, chemical and biological factors. The focus of interest
was those factors responsible for water quality in Deep Creek, including
possible deliterious effects of the Scotland Neck wastewater on this water
body. The analyses indicate that the effluent does not appear to affect
Deep Creek. Instead, the water quality of Deep Creek reflects natural con-
ditions imposed by seasonal low flow and high temperature, and reflects the
nutrient and organic contribution of the surrounding farmland and wetland.
It is concluded that the C-Swamp designation more correctly reflects the
uses of Deep Creek than does the C designation.
In contrast to Deep Creek, Canal Creek is clearly affected by the treated
effluent. Further examination would be required to determine the extent of
recovery that might be expected in Canal Creek if the plant were to meet
current permit requirements or if the proposed changes to the plant were
incorporated into the treatment process.
D-29
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Malheur River
Malheur County, Oregon
INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The Malheur River, in southeastern Oregon, flows eastward to
the Snake River which separates Oregon from Idaho. Most of
Malheur County is under some form of agricultural production.
With an average annual precipitation of less than 10 inches,
the delivery of irrigation water is essential to maintain the
high agricultural productivity of the area.
The Malheur River system serves as a major source of water for
the area's irrigation requirements (out of basin transfer of
water from Owyhee Reservoir augments the Malheur supply).
Reservoirs, dams, and diversions have been built on the
Malheur and its tributaries to supply the irrigation network.
The first major withdrawal occurs at the Namorf Dam and
Diversion, at Malheur River Mile 69. Figure 1 presents a
schematic of the study area.
Irrigation water is delivered to individual farms by a
complicated system of canals and laterals. Additional water
is obtained from drainage canals and groundwater sources. An
integral part of the water distribution system is the use and
reuse of irrigation return flows five or six times before it
is finally discharged to the Snake River.
B. Problem Definition
The Malheur River above Namorf Dam and Diversion is managed
primarily as a trout fishery, and from Namorf to the mouth as
a warm-water fishery. The upper portion of the river system
is appropriately classified. Relow Namorf Dam, however, the
river is inappropriately classified as supporting a cold-water
fishery, and therefore was selected for review. This review
was conducted as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's field test of the draft "Water Body Survey and
Assessment Guidance" for conducting a use attainability
analysis. The guidance document supports the proposed rule to
revise and consolidate the existing regulation governing the
development, review, and approval of water quality standards
under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
C. Approach to Use Attainability Analysis
Assessment of the Malheur River is based on a site visit which
included meetings with representatives of the Malheur County
Citizen's Water Resources Committee, the USDA-Soil
Conservation Service, the Oregon Department of Environmental
D-30
-------
MIDDLE FORK OF
MALHEUR RIVER
WARM SPRINGS
RESERVOIR
SOUTH FORK
MALHEUR RIVER
MALHEUR
RIVER
HARPER
SOUTHSIDE
CANAL
COTTONWOOD
8EULAH
RESERVOIR
»JUNTURA |NORTH FORK
MALHEUR RIVER
POLE CREEK
CREEK
LITTLE
VALLEY
CANAL
CLOVER
J-H CANAL
NEVADA
CANAL
OWYHEE
RIVER
VALE-
OREGON
CANAL
GELLERMAN-FROMAN
CANAL
SNAKE RIVER
SIMPLIFIED FLOW SCHEMATIC
MALHEUR RIVER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
- FIGURE I -
0-31
-------
Duality (OOEQ), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
and upon the findings reported in two studies:
Final Report, Two Year Sampling Program, Malheur County
Mater Quality Management Plan,MaiheurCountyPlanning
Office, Vale, Oregon, 1981.
Bowers, Hosford and Moore, Stream Surveys of the Lower
Owyhee and Malheur Rivers, A Report to the Maiheur County
Water Resources Committee~j Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, January, 1979.
The first report, prepared under amendments to Section 208 of
the Clean Water Act, contains extensive information on the
quantity, quality and disposition of the areas' water
resources. The second document gives the fish populations
found in the lower 69 miles of the Malheur River during June
and July, 1978. Information in the ODFW report is
incorporated in the 208 report. Additional fisheries
information supplied by ODFW was also considered.
A representative of OOEO, Portland, and the Water Ouality
Standards Coordinator, EPA Region X, Seattle, Washington,
agreed that the data and analyses contained in these two
reports were sufficient to re-examine existing designated uses
of the Malheur River.
II ANALYSES CONDUCTED
Physical, chemical, and biological data were reviewed to
determine: (1) whether the attainment of a salmonid fishery was
feasible in the lower Malheur; and (2) whether some other
designated use would be more appropriate to this reach. The
elements of this review follow:
A. Physical Factors
Historically, salmonid fish probably used the lower Malheur
(lower 50 miles) mainly as a migration route, because of the
warm water and poor habitat. The first barrier to upstream
fish migration was the Nevada Dam near Vale, constructed in
1880. Construction of the Warm Springs Dam in 1918, ended the
anadromous fish runs in the Middle Fork Malheur. The
construction of Reulah Dam in 1931, befell the remainder of
anadromous fish runs on the North Fork Malheur. Finally, the
construction of Brownlee Reservoir in 1958 completely blocked
salmonid migrants destined for the upper Snake River System.
D-32
-------
With the construction of the major irrigation reservoirs on
the Malheur River and its tributaries, the natural flow
characteristics in the lower river have changed. Instead of
high early summer flows, low summer and fall flows and steady
winter flow, the peak flows may occur in spring, if and when
the upstream reservoirs spill. Also, a high sustained flow
exists all summer as water is released from the dams for
irrigation. A significant change limiting fish production in
the Malheur River below Namorf is the extreme low flow that
occurs when the reservoirs store water during the fall and
winter for the next irrigation season.
Two other physical conditions affect the maintenance of
salmonids in the lower Malheur. One is the high suspended
solids load carried to the river by irrigation return flows.
High suspended solids also occur during wet weather when high
flows erode the stream bank and re-suspend bottom sediments.
The seasonal range of suspended solids content is pronounced,
with the highest concentrations occurring during irrigation
season and during periods of wet weather. Observed peaks in
lower reaches of the river, measured during the two-year 208
Program, reached 1300 mg/1, while background levels rarely
dropped below 50 mg/1. A high suspended solids load in the
river adversely affects the ability of sight-feeding salmonids
to forage, and may limit the size of macroinvertebrate
populations and algae production which are important to the
salmonid food chain. A second factor is high summer water
temperature which severely stresses salmonids. The high
temperatures result from the suspended particles absorbing
solar radiation.
B. Biological Factors
The biological profile of the river is mainly based on
fisheries information, with some macroinvertebrate samples
gathered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
in 1978. During the site visit, the participants agreed
additional information on macroinvertebrates and periphyton
would not be needed because the aquatic insect numbers and
diversity were significantly greater in the intensively
irrigated reach of the river than for the upper river where
agricultural activity is sparse.
Although the Malheur River from Namorf to the mouth is managed
as a warm water fishery, OOFW has expended little time and few
resources on this stretch of the river because it is not a
productive fish habitat. Survey results in summer of 1978
showed a low ratio of game fish to rough fish over the lower
69 miles of the Malheur River.
D-33
-------
In the section between Namorf and the Gellerman-Froman
Diversion Dam there was little change in water quality
although water temperatures were elevated. Only three game
fish were captured but non-game fish sight-feeders were
common. Low winter flows over a streambed having few deep
pools for overwinter survival appears to limit fish production
in this reach of river.
In the stretch from the Gellerman-Froman Diversion to the
mouth, the river flows through a region of intensive
cultivation. The river carries a high silt load which affects
sight-feeding fish. Low flows immediately below the
Gellerman-Froman Dam also limit fish production in this area.
C. Chemical Factors
A considerable amount of chemical data exist on the Malheur
River. However, since the existing and potential uses of the
river are dictated largely by physical constraints, dissolved
oxygen was the only chemical parameter considered in the
assessment.
The Dissolved Oxygen Standard established for the Malheur
River Basin calls for a minimum of 75 percent of saturation at
the seasonal low and 95 percent of saturation in spawning
areas or during spawning, hatching, and fry stages of salmonid
fishes. One sample collected at Namorf fell below the
standard to 73 percent of saturation or 8.3 mg/1 in November,
1978. All other samples were above this content, reaching as
high as 170 percent of saturation during the summer due to
algae. Data collected by the ODEO from Malheur River near the
mouth between 1976 and 1979 showed the dissolved oxygen
content ranged from 78 to 174 percent saturation. the
dissolved oxygen content in the lower Malheur River is
adequate to support a warm-water fishery.
Ill FINDINGS
A. Existing Uses
The lower Malheur River is currently designated as a salmonid
fishery, but it is managed as a warm water fishery. Due to a
number of physical constraints on the lower river, conditions
are generally unfavorable for game fish, so rough fish
predominate. In practice, the lower Malheur River serves as a
source and a sink for irrigation water. This type of use
contributes to water quality conditions which are unfavorable
to salmonids.
D-34
-------
B. Potential Uses
Salmonid spawning and rearing areas generally require the
highest criteria of all the established beneficial uses. It
would be impractical, if not impossible in some areas, to
improve water quality to the level required by salmonids.
However, even if this could be accomplished, high summer
temperatures and seasonal low flows would still prevail.
While salmonids historically moved through the Malheur River
to spawn in the headwater areas, year-round resident fish
populations probably did not exist in some of these areas at
the time.
The Malheur River basin can be divided into areas, based upon
differing major uses. Suggested divisions are: (1) headwater
areas above the reservoirs; (2) reservoirs; (3) reaches below
the reservoirs and above the intensively irrigated areas; (4)
intensively irrigated areas; and (5) the Snake River.
In intensively irrigated areas, criteria should reflect the
primary use of the water. Higher levels of certain parameters
(i.e., suspended solids, nutrients, temperature, etc.) should
be allowed in these areas since intensively irrigated
agriculture, even under ideal conditions, will unavoidably
contribute higher levels of these parameters. Criteria,
therefore, should be based on the conditions that exist after
Rest Management Practices have been implemented.
IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Malheur River flows have been extensively altered through the
construction of several dams and diversion structures designed to
store and distribute water for agricultural uses. These dams, as
well as others on the Snake River, to which the Malheur is
tributary, block natural fish migrations in the river and, thus,
have permanently altered the river's fisheries. In addition,
water quality below Namorf Dam has been affected, primarily
through agricultural practices, in a way which severely restricts
the type of fish that can successfully inhabit the water. One
important factor which affects fish populations below Namorf is
the high suspended solids loading which effectively selects
against sight-feeding species. Other conditions which could
affect the types and survival of fish species below Namorf include
low flow during the fall and winter when reservoirs are being
filled in preparation for the coming irrigation season, as well
as high suspended solids, and high temperatures during the summer
irrigation season.
Realistically, the Malheur River could not be returned to its
natural state unless a large number of hydraulic structures were
removed. Removal of these structures would result in the demise
of agriculture in the region, which is the mainstay of the
D-35
-------
county's economy. Furthermore, removal of these structures is out
of the question due to the legal water rights which have been
established in the region. These water rights can only be
satisfied through the system of dams, reservoirs, and diversions
which have been constructed in the river system. Thus, the
changes in the Malheur River Basin are irrevocable.
Physical barriers to fish migration coupled with the effects of
hiqh sediment loads and the hydraulics of the system have for
years established the uses of the river. Given the existing
conditions and uses of the Malheur River below the Namorf
Diversion, classification of this river each should be changed
from a salmonid fishery, a use that cannot be achieved, to
achievable uses which are based on the existing resident fish
populations and aquatic life to reflect the present and highest
future uses of the river. Such a change in designated beneficial
uses would not further jeopardize existing aquatic life in the
river, nor would it result in any degradation in water quality.
D-36
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Pecan Bayou
Brownwood, Texas
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
Segment 1417 of the Colorado River Basin (Pecan Bayou) originates
below the Lake Brownwood Dam and extends approximately 57.0 miles to
the Colorado River (Figure 1). The Lake Brownwood Dam was completed in
1933. Malfunction of the dam's outlet apparatus led to its permanent
closure in 1934. Since that time, discharges from the reservoir occur
only infrequently during periods of prolonged high runoff conditions in
the watershed. Dam seepage provides the base flow to Pecan Bayou
(Segment 1417). The reservoir is operated for flood control and water
supply. The Brown County WID transports water from the reservoir via
aqueduct to Brownwood for industrial distribution, domestic treated
water distribution to the Cities of Brownwood and Bangs and the
Brookesmith Water System, and irrigation distribution. Some irrigation
water is diverted from the aqueduct before reaching Brownwood.
Pecan Bayou meanders about nine miles from Lake Brownwood to the
City of Brownwood. Two small dams impound water within this reach, and
Brown County WID operates an auxilliary pumping station in this area to
supply their system during periods of high demand.
Two tributaries normally provide inflow to Pecan Bayou. Adams
Branch enters Pecan Bayou in Brownwood. The base flow consists of
leaks and overflow in the Brown County WID storage reservoir and
distribution system. Willis Creek enters Pecan Bayou below Brownwood.
The base flow in Willis Creek is usually provided by seepage through a
soil conservation dam.
The main Brownwood sewage treatment plant discharges effluent to
Willis Creek one mile above its confluence with Pecan Bayou. Sulfur
Draw, which carries brine from an artesian salt water well and
wastewater from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Co., enters
Willis Creek about 1,700 feet below the Brownwood sewage treatment
plant. Below the Willis Creek confluence, Pecan Bayou meanders about
42.6 miles to the Colorado River, and receives no additional inflow
during dry weather conditions. Agricultural water withdrawals for
irrigation may significantly reduce the streamflow during the growing
season.
The Pecan Bayou drainage basin is composed primarily of range and
croplands. The stream banks, however, are densely vegetated with
trees, shrubs and grasses. The bayou is typically 10-65 feet wide, 2-3
feet deep, and is generally sluggish in nature with soft organic
sediments.
D-37
-------
01 2 3 4 MILES
ssassi
SCALE
Figure 1
PECAN BAYOU SEGMENT MAP
D-37A
-------
B. Problem Definition
The designated water uses for Pecan Bayou include noncontact
recreation, propagation of fish and wildlife, and domestic raw water
supply. Criteria for dissolved oxygen (minimum of 5.0 mg/1),
chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids (annual averages not to
exeed 250, 200, and 1000 mg/1, respectively), pH (range of 6.5 to 9.0)
fecal coliform (log mean not to exceed 1000/100 ml), and temperature
(maximum of 90°F) have been established for the segment.
Historically, Pecan Bayou is in generally poor condition during
summer periods of low flow, when the Brownwood STP contributes a
sizeable portion of the total stream flow. During low flow conditions,
the stream is in a highly enriched state below the sewage outfall.
Existing data indicate that instream dissolved oxygen
concentrations are frequently less than the criterion, and chloride
and total dissolved solids annual average concentrations occasionally
exceed the established criteria. The carbonaceous and nitrogenous
oxygen deficencies in Pecan Bayou. The major cause of elevated
chlorides in Pecan Bayou is the artesian brine discharge in to Sulfur
Draw.
Toxic compounds (PCB, DDT, ODD, DDE, Lindane, Heptachlor epoxide,
Dieldrin, Endrin, Chlordane, Pentachlorophenol, cadmium, lead, silver,
and mercury) have been observed in water, sediment and fish tissues in
Pecan Bayou (mainly below the confluence with Willis Creek). It has
been determined that the major source was the Brownwood STP, but
attempts to specifiy the points of origin further have been
unsuccessful. However, recent levels show a declining trend.
C. Approach to Use Attainability
Assessment of Pecan Bayou is based on a site visit which included
meetings with representatives of the State of Texas, EPA (Region VI and
Headquarters) and Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., and upon information
contained in a number of reports, memos and other related materials.
It was agreed by those present during the site visit that the data
and analyses contained in these documents were sufficient for an
examination of the existing designated uses of Pecan Bayou.
11. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
An extensive amount of physical, chemical, and biological data has
been collected on Pecan Bayou since 1973. Most of the information was
gathered to assess the impact of the Brownwood STP on the receiving
stream. In order to simplify the presentation of these data, Pecan
Bayou was divided into three zones (Figure 1): Zone 1 is the control
area and extends from the Lake Brownwood Ham (river mile 57.0) to the
Willis Creek confluence (river mile 42.6): Zone 2 is the impacted area
and extends 9.0 miles below the Willis Creek confluence.
D-38
-------
A. Physical Evaluation
With the exception of stream discharge, the physical
characteristics of Pecan Bayou are relatively homogeneous by zone.
Average width of the stream is about 44-50 feet, and average depth
ranges from 2.1 to 3.25 feet. The low gradient (2.8 to 3.9 ft/mile)
causes the bayou to be sluggish (average velocity of about 0.1 ft/sec),
reaeration rates to be low (l<2 of 0.7 per day at 20°C), and pools to
predominate over riffles (96% to 4°'). Stream temperature averages
about 18°C and ranges from 1-32°C. The substrate is composed primarily
of mud (sludge deposits dominate in Zone 2), with small amounts of
bedrock, gravel and sand being exposed in riffle areas.
Rase flow in Pecan Bayou is provided by dam seepage (Zone 1) and
the treated sewage discharge from the City of Brownwood (Zones 2 and
3). Median flow increases in a downstream direction from 2.5 cfs in
Zone 1 to 17.4 cfs in Zone 3. Significantly higher mean flows (118 cfs
in Zone 1 and 125 cfs in Zone 3) are the result of periodic high
rainfall runoff conditions in the watershed.
B. Chemical Evaluation
Existing chemical data of Pecan Bayou characterize the degree of
water quality degradation in Zone 2. Average dissolved oxygen levels
are about 2.0 mg/1 lower in the impact zone, and approximately 50% of
the observations have been less than 5.0 mg/1. 6005, ammonia,
nitrite, nitrate, and phosphorus levels are much higher in the impact
zone as compared to the control and recovered zones. l)n-ionized
ammonia levels are also higher in Zone 2, but most of the
concentrations were below the reported chronic levels allowable for
warm water fishes. None of the levels exceeded the reported acute
levels allowable for warm water fishes, and less than 4% of the levels
were between the acute and chronic levels reported. Total dissolved
solids, chlorides and sulfates were higher in Zones ? and 3, mainly as
a result of the brine and sewage discharges into Sulfur Draw and Willis
Creek.
PCB, DOT, ODD, DDE and Lindane in water, and PCB, DDD, and DDE,
Heptachlor epoxide, Dieldrin, Endrin, Chlordane, and Pentachlorophenol
in sediment have been detected in Zone 2. PCB, DDT, DDD, and DDE
concentrations in water have exceeded the criteria to protect
freshwater aquatic life. The Rrownwood STP was the suspected major
source of these pesticides. Most of the recent levels, however, show a
declining trend. PCB was detected also in Zones 1 and 3.
Heavy metals have not been detected in the water. Heavy metals in
the sediment have shown the highest levels in Zone 2 for arsenic (3.7
mg/kg), cadmium (1.1 mg/kg), chromium (17.4mg/kg), copper (9.5 mg/kg),
lead (25.1 mg/kg), silver (1.5 mg/kg), zinc (90 mg/kg), and mercury
(0.18 mg/kg).
D-39
-------
C. Biological Evaluation
Fish samples collected from Zone 1 are representative of a fairly
healthy population of game fish, rough fish and forage species. Zone 2
supported a smaller total number of fish which were composed primarily
of rough fish and forage species. A relatively healthy balance of game
fish, rough fish and forage species reappeared in the recovered zone.
Macrophytes were sparse in Zones 1 and 3. They were most abundant
in Zone 2 below the Willis Creek confluence and were composed of
vascular plants (pondweed, coontail, false loosestrife and duckweed)
and filamentous algae (Cladophora and Hydrodictyon). Macrophyte
abundance below Willis Creek is most likely due to nutrient enrichment
of the area from the Brownwood STP.
Zone 1 is represented by a fairly diverse macrobenthic community
characteristic of a clean-water mesotrophic stream. Nutrient and
organic enrichment in Zone 2 has a distinct adverse effect as
clean-water organisms are replaced by pollution-tolerant forms. Some
clean-water organisms reappeared in Zone 3 and pollution-tolerant forms
were not as prevalent; however, recovery to baseline conditions (Zone
1) was not complete.
Net phytoplankton desnities are lowest in Zone 1. Nutrient and
organic enrichment in Zone 2 promotes a marked increase in abundance.
Peak abundance was observed in the upper, part of Zone 3. The decline
below this area was probably caused by biotic grazing and/or nutrient
deficiencies.
Fish samples for pesticides analyses have revealed detectable
levels of PCB, DDE and DDD in Zone 1. Fish collected from zone 2
contained markedly higher amounts of DDE, ODD, DDT, Lindane and
Chlordane than Zones 1 or 3. PCB in fish tissue was highest in ZOne 3,
and measureable concentrations of DDE and DDD have also been observed.
Concentrations of total DDT in whole fish tissues from Zone 2 have
exceeded the USFDA Action Level of 5.0 mg/kg for edible fish tissues.
Species representing the highest concentrations.
Computer modeling simulation were made to predict the dissolved
oxygen profile in the impact zone during the fish spawning season. The
results indicate that about three miles of Pecan Bayou in April and May
and about 4 1/2 miles in June will be unsuitable for propogation,
considering a minimum requirement of 4.0 mg/1. The model predicts a
minimum D.O. of 0.8 mg/1 in April, 1.2 mg/1 in May, and 0 mg/1 in
June.
0-40
-------
D. Institutional Evaluation
Two institutional factors exist which constrain the situation that
exists in Pecan Bayou. These are the irrigation water rights and the
Brownwood sewage treatment plant discharge permits. Although the
sewage treatment plant discharge permits will expire and the problems
created by the effluent could be eliminated in the future, there is a
need for the flow provided by the discharge to satisfy the downstream
water rights used for irrigation. Currently, there are eight water
users on Pecan Bayou downstream of the Brownwood STP discharge with
water rights permits totaling 2,957 acre-feet/year. Obviously, the 0.1
cfs base flow which exists in Pecan Bayou upstream of the STP discharge
is not sufficient to fulfill these downstream demands. Therefore, it
appears that the STP flow may be required to supplement the base flow
in Pecan Bayou to meet the downstream demands for water unless it could
be arranged that water from Lake Brownwood could be released by the
Brown Co. WID #1 to meet the actual downstream water needs.
Modeling studies show that although there would be some
improvement in water quality as a result of the sewage treatment plant
going to advanced waste treatment (AWT), there would still be D.O.
violations in a portion of Pecan Bayou in Zone 2. The studies also
show that there is minimal additional water quality improvement between
secondary and advanced waste treatment, although the costs associated
with AWT were significantly higher than the cost for secondary
treatment. In this case, the secondary treatment alternative would be
the recommended course of action.
III. FINDINGS
A. Existing Uses
Pecan Bayou is currently being used in the following ways:
0 Domestic Raw Water Supply
0 Propagation of Fish and Wildlife
0 Noncontact Recreation
0 Irrigation
0 City of Brownwood STP discharge
use designation)
(not an acceptable or approved
Use as a discharge route for the City of Brownwood's sewage treatment
plant effluent has contributed to water quality conditions which are
unfavorable to the propagation of fish and wildlife in a portion of
Pecan Bayou.
B. Potential Uses
The Texas Department of Water Resources has established water uses
which are deemed desirable for Pecan Bayou. These uses include:
noncontact recreation, propagation of fish and wildlife, and domestic
raw water supply.
n-41
-------
Of these uses, propagation of fish and wildlife is unattainable in
a portion of Pecan Bayou due to the effects of low dissolved oxygen
levels in the bayou primarily during the spawning season. If the
Brownwood sewage treatment plant effluent could be removed from Pecan
Bayou, the persistently low dissolved oxygen conditions which exist and
are unfavorable to fish spawning could be alleviated and the
propagation of fish and wildlife could be partially restored to Pecan
Bayou.
Public hearings held on the proposed expansion of the sewage
treatment plant indicate a reluctance from the public and the City to
pay for higher treatment levels, since modeling studies show minimal
water quality improvement in Pecan Bayou between secondary and advanced
waste treatment. In addition, an affordability analysis performed by
the Texas Department of Water Resources (Construction Grants) indicates
excessive treatment costs per month would result at the AWT level.
It appears that the elimination of the waste discharge from Pecan
Bayou is not presently a feasible alternative, since the Brownwood STP
currently holds a discharge permit and the water rights issue seems to
be the overriding factor. Therefore, in the future, the uses which are
most likely to exist are those which exist at present.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the findings from the use attainability analysis are
listed below:
0 The designated use "propagation of fish and wildlife" is
impaired in Zone 2 of Pecan Bayou.
0 Advanced Treatment will not attain the designated use in Zone
2, partially because of low dilution, naturally sluggish
characteristics (X velocity 0.1 ft/sec) and as a result, low
assimlitive capacity of the bayou (K.2 reaeration rate 0.7 per
day at 20°C).
° Downstream water rights for agricultural irrigation are
significant.
0 Dissolved oxygen levels are frequently less than the criterion
of 5.0 mg/1 in Pecan Bayou.
0 Total DDT in whole fish from Zone 2 exceeded the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration's action level of 5.0 mg/kg for edible fish
tissues.
0 Annual average chloride concentrations in Pecan Bayou are
occasionally not in compliance with the numerical criteria.
D-42
-------
Dissolved oxygen levels less than 5.0 rtig/1 (about 50% of the
measurements) observed in Zone 2 of Pecan Bayou result from the organic
and nutrient loading contributed by the Brownwood STP and the
corresponding low waste assimilative capacity of the bayou. As
previously mentioned, the major source of toxics found in the water,
sediment and fish tissues was also determined to be the Brownwood STP.
PCB and DDT in water have exceeded the criteria to protect freshwater
aquatic life in Zone 2. Although the toxics appear to be declining in
the water and sediment, the levels of total DDT found in whole fish
exceed the U. S. Food and Drug Administration's action level (5.0 mg/k)
for DDT in edible fish tissue. Investigations are underway by the
Texas Department of Water Resources to further evaluate the magnitude
of this potential problem.
Primarily as a result of the oxygen deficiencies and possibly be
cause of the presence of toxic substances, the designated use
"propagation of fish and wildlife" is not currently attained in Zone 2
of Pecan Bayou. These problems could be eliminated only if the
Brownwood STP ceased to discharges into Pecan Bayou because even with
advanced waste treatment the water quality "of the receiving stream is
not likely to improve sufficiently to support this designated use.
Other treatment alternatives such as land treatment or overland flow
are not feasible because of the current discharge is necessary to
satisfy downstream water rights for agricultural irrigation. If the
flow required to meet the water rights could be augmented from other
sources, then the sewage treatment plant discharge could be eliminated
in the future.
The annual average chloride level in Pecan Bayou are occasionally
not in compliance with the established criterion. The primary source
has been determined to be a privately owned salt water artesian well.
Since efforts to control this discharge have proved futile, some
consideration should be given to changing the numerical criterion for
chlorides in Pecan Bayou.
In conclusion, it appears that either the Brownwood STP discharge
into Pecan Bayou should be eliminated (if an alternative water source
could be found to satisy the downstream water rights) or the numerical
criterion for dissolved oxygen and the propogation of fish and wildlife
use designation should be changed to reflect attainable conditions.
D-43
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
Salt Creek
Lincoln, Nebraska
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The Salt Creek drainage basin is located in east central Nebraska.
The mainstem of Salt Creek originates in southern Lancaster County and
flows northeast to the Platte River (Figure 1). Ninety percent of the
1,621 square mile basin is devoted to agricultural production with the
remaining ten percent primarily urban. The basin is characterized by
moderately to steeply rolling uplands and nearly level to slightly
undulating alluvial lands adjacent to major streams, primarily Salt
Creek. Drainage in the area is usually quite good with the exception
of minor problems sometimes associated with alluvial lands adjacent to
the larger tributaries. Soils of the basin are of three general
categories. Loessial soils are estimated to make up approximately 60
percent of the basin, glacial till soils 20 percent, and terrace and
bottomland soils 20 percent.
Frequent high intensity rainfalls and increased runoff from land
used for crop production has, in past years, contributed to flood
damage in Lincoln and smaller urbanized areas downstream. To help
alleviate these problems, flood control practices have been installed
in the watershed. These practices, including several impoundments and
channel modifications to the mainstream of Salt Creek, were completed
during the late 1960's. Channel realignment of the lower two-thirds of
Salt Creek has decreased the overall length of Salt Creek by nearly 34
percent (from 66.9 to 44.3 miles) and increased the gradient of the
stream from 1.7 feet/mile to 2.7 feet/mile.
Salt Creek is currently divided into three classified segments:
(upper reach) LP-4, (middle reach) LP-3a, and (lower reach) LP-3b.
(Figure 1). Segments LP-4 and LP-3b are designated as Warmwater
Habitats whereas segment LP-3a is designated as a Limited Warmwater
Habitat.
B. Problem Definition
"Warmwater Habitat" and "Limited Warmwater Habitat" are two sub-
categories of the Fish and Wildlife Protection use designation in the
Nebraska Water Quality Standards. The only distinction between these
two use classes is that for Limited Warmwater Habitat waters,
reproducing populations of fish are "...1-imited by irretrievable man-
induced or natural background conditions." Although segment LP-3a
is classified Limited Warmwater Habitat and segment LP-3b as Warmwater
Habitat, they share similar physical characteristics. Since the
existing fisheries of both segments were not thoroughly evaluated when
the standard was revised, it is possible that the use designation for
one or other segments is incorrect. This study was initiated to
determine (1) if the Warmwater Habitat use is attainable for segment
LP-3a and (2) what, if any, physical habitat or water quality
constraints preclude the attainment of this use.
D-44
-------
SCALt
LP-3b
_
LP-3a
KSt
USGS Station
O Fish Sampling Site
(Maret, 1978)
|' 1 ' WNTON
Macroinvertebrat.:
Sampling Site
(Pesek, 1974)
Figure 1 . Monitoring sites from which data were used for Salt Creek
attainability study. ............•»««,.
D-45
-------
C. Approach to Use Attainability Analysis
The analytical approach used in this study was a comparison of
physical, chemical and biological parameters between the upper, middle,
and lower Salt Creek segments with emphasis was on identifying limiting
factors in the creek. The uppermost segment (LP-4) was used as the
standard for comparison.
The data base used for this study included United States
Geological Survey (USGS) and Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control (NDEC) water quality data outlined in the US EPA STORET system,
two Master of Science theses by Tom Pesek and Terry Maret, publications
from the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and USGS and personal
observations by NDEC staff. No new data was collected in the study.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A review of physical, chemical and biological information was
conducted to determine which aquatic life use designations would be
appropriate. Physical characteristics for each of the three segments
were evaluated and then compared to the physical habitat requirements
of important warm water fish species. Characteristics limiting the
fishery population were identified and the suitability of the physical
habitat for maintaining a valued fishery was evaluated. General water
quality comparisons were made between the upper reach of Salt Creek,
and the lower reaches to establish water quality differences. A water
quality index developed by the NDEC was used in this analysis to
compare the relative quality of water in the segments. In addition,
some critical chemical constituents required to maintain the important
species were reviewed and compared to actual instream data to determine
if water quality was stressing or precluding their populations.
The fish data collected by Maret was used to define the existing
fishery population and composition of Salt Creek. This data was in
turn used to determine the quality of the aquatic biota through the use
of six biotic integrity classes of fish communities and the Karr Index
tentative numerical index for defining class boundaries.
Macroinvertebrate data based on the study conducted by Pesek was
also evaluated for density and diversity.
III. FINDINGS
Chemical data evaluated using the Water Quality Index indicated
good water quality above Lincoln and degraded water quality at and
below Lincoln. Non-point source contributions were identified as a
cause of water quality degradation and have been implicated in fish
kills in the stream. Dissolved solids in Salt Creek were found to be
considerably higher than in other streams in the State. Natural
background contributions are the major source of dissolved solids load
to the stream. Water quality criteria violations monitored in Salt
Creek during 1980 and 1981 were restricted to unionized ammonia and may
D-46
-------
have adversely impacted the existing downstream fishery. Toxics which
occasionally approach or exceed the EPA criteria are chromium and
lindane. Since EPA criteria for both parameters are based on some
highly sensitive organisms which are not representative of indigenous
populations typically found in Nebraska, the actual impact of these
toxics is believed to be minimal.
Channelization was found to be a limiting factor in establishing a
fishery in middle and lower Salt Creek. Terry Maret, in his 1977
study, found that substrate changes from silt and clay in the upper
non-channelized area to primarily sand in the channelized area causing
substantial changes in fish communities. The Habitat Suitability Index
(HSI) developed by the Western Energy and Land Use Team of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service was used to evaluate physical habitat impacts
on one important species (Channel Catfish) of fish in Salt Creek. The
results indicated that upper Salt Creek had the best habitat for the
fish investigated and middle Salt Creek had the worst. These results
support the conclusion that middle Salt Creek lacks the physical
habitat to sustain a valued warm water fishery. The Karr numerical
index used to evaluate the fish data revealed that none of the stations
rated above fair, further indicating the fish community is
significantly impacted by surrounding rural and urban land uses.
Analysis of the abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates
indicated that the water quality in Salt Creek became progressively
more degraded going downstream. Stations in the upper reaches were
relatively unpolluted as characterized by the highest number of
taxa, the greatest diversity and the presence of "clean-water"
organisms.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the evaluation of the physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of Salt Creek, the following conclusions were drawn by
the State for the potential uses of the various segments:
1) Current classifications adequately define the attainable uses for
upper and middle Salt Creek.
2) The Warmwater Habitat designated use may be unattainable for lower
Salt Creek.
3) Channelization has limited existing instream habitat for middle Salt
Creek. Instream habitat improvement in middle Salt Creek could
increase the fishery but would lessen the effectiveness of flood
control measures. Since flood control benefits are greater than any
benefits that could be realized by enhancing the fishery, instream
physical habitat remained the limiting factor for the fishery.
4) Existing water quality does not affect the limited Warmwater Habitat
classification of middle Salt Creek.
D-47
-------
5) Uncontrollable background source impacts on existing water quality
and the effects of channelization on habitat may preclude attainment
of the classified use.
The recommendations of the State drawn from these conclusions are
as follows:
1) Keep upper section classification of Warmwater Habitat and middle
section classification of Limited Warmwater Habitat.
2) Consider changing the lower section to a Limited Warmwater Habitat
because of limited physical habitat and existing water quality.
D-48
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
South Fork Crow River
Hutchinson, Minnesota
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The South Fork Crow River, located in south-central Minnesota,
drains a watershed that covers approximately 1250 square miles. This
river joins with the North Fork Crow to form the mainstem Crow River
which flows to its confluence with the Mississippi River (Figure 1).
Within the drainage basin, the predominant land uses are agricultural
production and pasture land. The major soil types in the watershed are
comprised of dark-colored, medium-to-fine textured silty loams, most of
which are medium to well drained in character.
The physical characteristics of the South Fork Crow River are
typical of many Minnesota streams flowing through agricultural lands.
The upper portions of the river have been extensively channelized and
at Hutchinson a forty foot wide, 12 foot high dam forms a reservoir
west of the city. Downstream of the dam the river freely meanders
through areas with light to moderately wooded banks to its confluence
with the North Fork River Crow River. The average stream gradient for
this section of the river is approximately two feet per mile and the
substrate varies from sand, gravel and rubble in areas with steeper
gradients to a silt-sand mixture in areas of slower velocities.
The average annual precipitation in the watershed is 27.6 inches.
The runoff is greatest during the spring and early summer, after
snowmelt, when the soils are generally saturated. Stream flow
decreases during late summer and fall and is lowest in late winter.
Small tributary streams in the watershed often go dry in the fall and
winter because they have little natural storage and receive little
ground water contribution. The seven-day ten year low flow condition
for the South Fork below the dam at Hutchinson is approximately 0.7
cubic feet per second.
B. Problem Definition
The study on the South Fork Crow River was conducted in order to
evaluate the existing fish community and to determine if the use
designations are appropriate. At issue is the 2B fisheries and
recreational use classification at Hutchinson. Is the water use
classification appropriate for this segment?
C. Approach to Use Attainability
The analysis utilized an extensive data base compiled from data
collected by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and United States Geological
Survey (USGS). No new data was collected as part of the study. The
USGS maintains partial or continuous flow record stations on both forks
D-49
-------
9 >—. ; »
iA_>L }
aoa r* ^~"«./
*Y
/
D-50
-------
and the mainstem Crow River with a data base of physical and chemical
parameters available on STORET. The USGS data was used in the physical
evaluation of the river. MPCA has a water quality monitoring data base
on STORET for five stations in the Crow River watershed. The MPCA data
plus analytical data from a waste load allocation study on the South
Fork below Hutchinson was used in the chemical evaluation of the river.
MDNR fisheries and stream survey data, a MDNR report on the analysis of
the composition of fish populations in Minnesota rivers, and personal
observations of MDNR personnel was used to evaluate the biological
characteristics of the river.
The analytical approach used by the MPCA sought to 1) compare
instream fish community health of the South Fork to that of the North
Fork, the mainstem Crow River, and other warm water rivers in the State
and 2) evaluate physical and chemical factors affecting fisheries and
recreational uses. The North Fork of the Crow River was used for
comparison because of sufficient fisheries data, similar land uses and
morphologies, similar non-point source impacts and the lack of any
significant point source dischargers.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
Physical, chemical and biological factors were considered in this
use attainability analysis to determine the biological health of the
South Fork and to define the physical and chemical factors which may be
limiting. A general assessment of the habitat potentials of the South
Fork Crow River was performed using a habitat evaluation rating system
developed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. In
addition, the Tennant method for determining instream flow requirements
was also employed in this study.
Fish species diversity, equitability and composition were used to
define the biological health of the South Fork relative to that of the
North Fork, the mainstem Crow and other warmwater rivers in Minnesota.
Water quality monitoring data from stations above and below the point
source discharges at Hutchinson were used to compare beneficial use
impairment values pertaining to the designated fisheries and
recreational uses of the South Fork Crow River. A computer data
analysis program developed by EPA Region VIII was used to compute these
values.
III. FINDINGS
The comparison of species diversity values for the North Fork and
mainstem Crow River to the South Fork showed higher values for the
North Fork and mainstem Crow. On the other hand, the South Fork had
higher species equitability values. The percent species composition
compared favorably to Peterson's (1975) estimates for median species
diversity for a larger Minnesota river. Recruitment from tributaries,
marshes, lakes and downstream rivers has given the South Fork a
relatively balanced community which compares well to other warmwater
rivers in the State. The calculated species diversity and equitability
indices coupled with the analysis of species composition indicated that
the South Fork of the Crow River does support a warmwater fishery with
evidence of some degree of environmental stress.
D-51
-------
The MPCA employed the Wisconsin habitat rating system and the Tennant
method designated to quantify minimum instream fisheries flow
requirements to identify any physical limiting factors. Based on the
Wisconsin habitat evaluation assessment, habitat rating score were
fair. The limiting factors identified via this assessment were: 1)
lack of diverse streambed habitat suitable for reproduction, food
production and cover and 2) instream water fluctuations (low flow may
be a major controlling factor).
The State utilized EPA Region VIII's data analysis program to
express stream water quality as a function of beneficial use. The
closest downstream station to Hutchinson had the highest warmwater
aquatic life use impairment values. Warmwater aquatic life use
impairment values declined further downstream indicating that the point
source dischargers were major contributors to this use impairment.
However, primary contact recreational use impairment values were high
throughout the stream. This led the State to believe that the
impairment of primary contact recreational use is attributable to
non-point sources.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The State concluded from the study that: 1) the South Fork of the
Crow River has a definite fisheries value although the use impairment
values indicate some stress at Hutchinson on an already limited
resource and 2) although the South Fork of the Crow River has a
dominant rough fish population, game and sport fish present are
important component species of this rivers' overall community
structure.
From these conclusions the State recommended that the South Fork
of the Crow River retain its present 2B fisheries and recreational use
classification. Furthermore, efforts should continue to mitigate
controllable factors that contribute to impairment of use. The effort
should entail a reduction of marsh tilling and drainage, acceptance and
implementation of agricultural BMP's and an upgrade of point source
dischargers in Hutchinson.
D-52
-------
WATER BODY SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
South Platte River
Denver, Colorado
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
Segment 14 of the South Platte River originates north of the Chatfield Lake at
Bowles Avenue in Arapahoe County and extends approximately 16 miles, through
metro Denver, in a northerly direction to the Burlington ditch diversion near the
Denver County-Adams County line. A map of the study area is presented in Figure
1. Chatfield Lake was originally constructed for the purposes of Flood control
and recreation. The reservoir is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
is essentially operated such that outflow equals inflow, up to a maximum of 5,000
cfs. In addition, water is released to satisfy irrigation demands as authorized
by the State Engineers Office. There is also an informal agreement between the
State Engineers Office and the Platte River Greenway Foundation for timing
releases of water to increase flows during periods of high recreational use. The
Greenway Foundation has played an important role in the significant improvement
of water quality in the South Platte River.
There are several obstructions throughout Segment 14 including low head dams,
kayak chutes (at Confluence Park and 13th Avenue), docking platforms, and weir
diversion structures which alter the flow in the South Platte River. There are
four major weir diversion structures in this area which divert flows for
irrigation; one is located adjacent to the Columbine Country Club, a second near
Union Avenue, a third upstream from Oxford Avenue, and a fourth at the Burlington
Ditch near Franklin Street.
Significant dewatering of the South Platte River can occur due to instream
diversions for irrigation and water supply and pumping from the numerous ground
water dwells along the river.
Eight tributaries normally provide inflow to the South Platte River in Segment
14. These include Big Dry Creek, Little Dry Creek, Bear Creek, Harvard Gulch,
Sanderson Gulch, Weir Gulch, Lakewood Gulch, and Cherry Creek.
There are several municipal and industrial facilities which discharge either
directly to or into tributaries of the South Platte River in this reach. The
major active discharges into the segment are the Littleton-Englewood wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP), the Glendale WWTP, the City Ice Company, two Public
Service company power plants (Zuni and Arapahoe), and Gates Rubber.
The South Platte River drainage basin in this area (approximately 120,000 acres)
is composed primarily of extensively developed urban area (residential,
industrial, commercial, services, roads), parks and recreational areas, gravel
mining areas, and rural areas south of the urban centers for farming and
grazing.
D-53
-------
LEGEND
Municipal Docnarq*
• Industrial Oaclvorgi
Figure 1
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER CTUDY AREA MAP
P-R4
-------
In the study area, the South Platte River is typically 50-150 feet wide and 1-16
feet deep (typically 1-2 feet) and has an average channel bed slope of 12.67 feet
per mile, with alternating riffle and pool reaches. The channel banks are
composed essentially of sandy-gravelly materials that erode easily when exposed
to high-flow conditions. The stream banks are generally sparsely vegetated with
trees, shrubs, and grasses (or paving in the urban centers.)
B. Problem Definition
The following use classifications have been designated for Segment 14 of the
South Platte River:
0 Recreation - Class 2 - secondary contact
0 Aquatic Life - Class 1 - warm water aquatic life
0 Agriculture
0 Domestic Water Supply
Following a review of the water quality studies and data available for Segment 14
of the South Platte River, several observations and trends in the data have been
noted, including:
0 Fecal coliform values exceeded the recommended limits for recreational
uses in the lower portion of Segment 14.
0 Un-ionized ammonia levels exceeded the water quality criterion for the
protection of aquatic life in the lower portion of the segment.
0 Levels of total recoverable metals (lead, zinc, cadmium, total iron,
total manganese, and total copper) have been measured which exceed the
water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life.
Although the exact points of origin have not been specified, it is generally felt
that the source of the ammonia is municipal point sources, and the sources of the
metals are industrial point sources.
In addition, the cities of Littleton and Englewood have challenged the Class I
warm water aquatic life use on the basis that the flow and habitat are unsuitable
to warrant the Class I designation, and they have also challenged the
apporopriateness of the 0.06 mg/1 un-ionized ammonia criteria on the basis of new
toxicity data. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in November, 1982
approved the Class I aquatic life classification and the 0.06 mg/1 un-ionized
ammonia criteria.
C. Approach to Use Attainability
Assessment of Segment 14 of the South Platte River was based on a site visit (May
3-4, 1982) which included meetings with representatives of the Colorado
Department of Health, EPA (Region VIII and Headquarters) and Camp Dresser & McKee
Inc., and upon information contained in a number of reports, hearing transcripts
and the other related materials. Most of the physical, chemical and biological
data was obtained from the USGS, EPA (STORET), DRIJRP, and from
D-55
-------
studies. It was agreed that there was sufficient chemical, physical and
biological data to proceed with the assessment, even though physical data on the
aquatic habitat was limited.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A. Physical Factors
Streamflow in the South Piatte River (Segment 14) is affected by several factors
including releases from Chatfield Dam, diversions for irrigation and domestic
water supply, irrigation return flows, wastewater discharges, tributary inflows,
pumping from ground water wells in the river basin, evaporation from once-through
cooling at the two power plants in Segment 14, and natural surface water
evaporation. Since some of these factors (particularly ground water pumping,
evaporation and irrigation diversions) are variable, flow in the South Platte
River is used extensively for irrigation and during the irrigation season
diversions and return flows may cause major changes in streamflow within
relatively short reaches. During the summer, low-water conditions prevail
because of increased evaporation, lack of rainfall, and the various uses made of
the river water (e.g. irrigation diversions). Municipal, industrial, and
storm-water discharges also contributes to the streamflow in the South Platte
River.
Natural pools in the South Platte River are scarce and the shifting nature of the
channel bed results in temporary pools, a feature which has a tendency to greatly
limit the capacity for bottom food production. There are approximately 3-4 pools
per river mile with the majority being backwater pools upstream of diversion
structures, bridge crossings, low head dams, docking platforms, drop-off
structures usually downstream of wastewater treatment plant outfalls, kayak
chutes, and debris. The hydraulic effect of each obstruction is generally to
cause a backwater condition immediately upstream from the structure, scouring
immediately downstream, and sandbar development below that. These pools act as
settling basins for silt and debris which no longer get flushed during the high
springs flows once Chatfield Lake was completed.
In the plains, channels of the South Platte River and lower reaches of
tributaries cut through deep alluvial gravel and soil deposits. Sparse
vegetation does not hold the soils, so stream bank erosion and channel bed
degredation is common during periods of high flow, particularly during the spring
snowmelt season. The high intensity - low duration rainstorms which occur during
the summer (May, June, and July) also temporarily muddy the streams.
An evaluation of the physical streambed characteristics of Segment 14 to
determine the potential of the Segment to maintain and attract warm water aquatic
life was conducted by Keeton Fisheries Consultants, Inc. The study concluded
that the sediment loads in this reach of the South Platte River could pose a
severe problem to the aquatic life forms present, however, further study needs to
be conducted to substantiate this conclusion. Furthermore, some gravel mining
operations have recently been discontinued thus the sediment problem may have
been reduced.
The temperature in the South Platte River is primarily a function of releases
from the bottom of Chatfield Lake, the degree of warming that takes place in the
shallow mainstream and isolated pools, and the warming that occurs through the
mixing of power plant cooling water with the South Platte River.
D-5b
-------
B. Chemical Factors
Water quality conditions in the South Platte River are substantially affected by
municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, irrigation return flows and other
agricultural activities, and non-point sources of pollution (primarily during
rainfall-runoff events). Irrigation and water supply diversions also exert a
major influence on water quality by reducing the stream flow, and thereby
reducing the dilution assimilative capacity of the river.
0 Dissolved oxygen levels were above the 5.0 mg/1 criteria acceptable for
the maintenance of aquatic life.
0 Average concentrations of un-ionized ammonia exceeded the State water
quality criteria of 0.06 mg/1 NH3-N only in the lower portion of
Segment 14 (north of Speer Blvd.)
0 Average total lead concentrations exceeded the water quality criteria of
25 ug/1 in Big Dry Creek, Cherry Creek, and the South Platte River
north of Cherry Creek, ranging from 30-72 ug/1.
0 Average total zinc concentrations exceeded the criteria of 11 ug/1 at all
the DRURP sampling stations, ranging from 19-179 ug/1.
0 Average total cadmium concentrations exceeded the criteria of 1 ug/1 in
Beer Creek, Cherry Creek and several sites in the South Platte, ranging
from 2.2-3.6 ug/1.
0 Average total iron concentrations exceeded the criteria of 1,000 ug/1 in
Cherry Creek and several locations on the South Platte River, ranging
from 1129-9820 ug/1.
0 Average soluble manganese concentrations exceeded the criteria of 50
ug/1 in the South Platte River north of (and including) 19th Street and
in Cherry Creek, ranging from 51-166 ug/1.
0 Average total copper concentrations equalled or exceeded the criteria of
25 ug/1 at all but two of the DRURP sampling sites, ranging from 25-83
ug/1.
C. Biological Factors
Several electrofishing studies have been conducted on the South Platte River in
recent years. Most of the sampling took place in the fall with the exception of
the study in the spring (1979). The data was reviewed by Colorado Department of
Health personnel and it was generally agreed that the overall health of the
existing warm water fishery is restricted by temperature extremes (very cold and
shallow during the winter and low flow and high temperatures during the summer),
P-57
-------
the lack of sufficient physical habitat (i.e. structures for cover including
rocks and dams, and deep pools) and the potentially stressful conditions created
by the wastewater discharges (i.e. silt and organic and inorganic enrichment).
Following a review of the physical, chemical, and biological data available on
the South Platte River, it was concluded that a fair warm water fishery could
exist with only modest habitat improvements and maintenance of the existing
ambient water quality and strict regulation prevent overfishing. With large
habitat and water quality improvements, brown trout could potentially become a
part of the fishery in Segment 14 of the South Platte River.
III. FINDINGS
A. Existing Uses
Segment 14 of the South Platte River is currently being used in the following
ways:
0 Irrigation Diversions and Return Flows
0 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply
0 Ground Water Recharge
0 Once-through Cooling
0 Municipal, Industrial, and Stormwater Discharges
0 Recreation
0 Warm Water Fishery
The irrigation diversions, water supply, ground water recharge, and cooling uses
have primarily affected the flow in the South Platte River, resulting in
significant dewatering at times. Irrigation return flows and wastewater
dishcharges, on the other hand, exert their effects on the ambient and storm
water quality in the River. These previous uses ultimately affect the existing
warm water fishery and how the public perceives the river for recreation
purposes.
R. Potential Uses
With the exception of a potential for increased recreation and the improvement of
a limited warm water fishery, it is anticipated that the existing uses are likely
to exist in the future. The increased recreational use will result from future
Platte River Greenway Foundation projects. The improvement of a limited warm
water fishery may come about in the future as the result of habitat improvements
(pools, cover) control of toxic materials (un-ionized ammonia, heavy metals,
cynanide), and the prevention of extensive sedimentation. However, the success
of the fishery would rely on strict fishery regulations to prevent overfishing.
D-58
-------
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the findings from the use attainability analysis are listed below:
o
There is evidence to indicate that a warm water aquatic life community
does exist and the potential for an improved fishery could be attained
with slight habitat modifications (i.e. cover, pool).
0 Elevated un-ionized ammonia levels were exhibited in the lower portion of
Segment 14, although this cannot be attributed to the Littleton-Englewood
WWTP discharge upstream. However, at the present time there is no basis
for a change in the existing un-ionized ammonia criterion, particularly
if EPA's methodology for determining site specific criteria becomes
widely accepted.
0 Increased turbidity exists in the South Platte River during a good
portion of the fish spawning season, which represents a potential for
problems associated with fish spawning.
0 Increased sedimentation and siltation in the South Platte River could
pose a potential threat to the aquatic life present; however, this
condition might be reduced if Chatfield Lake could be operated to provide
periodic flushing of the river.
0 Elevated levels of heavy metals were observed in water and sediment
samples, which could potentially affect the existing aquatic life.
0 Insufficient data existed to determine the possible effects of chlorine
and cyanide on the aquatic life present.
0 Fecal coliform levels were extremely high in the lower portion of the
South Platte River and Cherry Creek during periods of both low and high
flow. The source in the South Platte River is apparently Cherry Creek,
but the origin in Cherry Creek is unknown at this time.
On the basis of the preceding conclusions and recommendations, the warmwater
fishery use classification and the un-ionized ammonia criterion (0.06 mg/1)
recommended for Segment 14 of the South Platte should remain unchanged until
there is further evidence to support making those changes.
D-59
-------
CHAPTER 4
GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING SITE-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Contents
Page
Purpose and Application 4-1
Rationale 4-2
Definition of Site 4-4
Assumptions 4-6
Procedures-Summary 4-7
Recalculation Procedure 4-8
Indicator Species Procedure 4-12
Resident Species Procedure 4-18
Heavy Metal Speciation and Plant and Other Data 4-20
Appendix A: BIOASSAY TEST METHODS A-l
Appendix B: DETERMINATION OF STATISTICALLY
SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT LC50 VALUES B-l
Appendix C: CASE STUDIES C-l
Norwalk River, Connecticut C-8
North Coast Region of California C-16
Iowa River, Iowa C-21
Un-Named Tributary to Mulbery Creek, North Carolina. . . . C-31
-------
Purpose and Application
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance for the
development of water quality criteria which reflect local environmental
conditions. These site-specific criteria may be utilized as a basis
for establishing water quality standards to protect the uses of a
specific water body.
Water quality criteria must be based on a sound scientific
rationale in order to protect a designated use. EPA is not advocating
that States use site-specific criteria development procedures for
setting all criteria as opposed to using the national Section 304(a)
criteria recommendations.jy Site-specific criteria are not needed in
all situations. When a State considers the possibility of developing
site-specific criteria, it is essential to involve the appropriate EPA
office at the start of the project so that agreement can be reached
concerning data currently available, additional data needs, the best
source for generating the new data, the best testing procedure to be
used, the schedule to be followed, and quality control and quality
assurance provisions. This early planning is also essential if it
appears that the data generation and testing may be conducted by a
party other than the State or EPA. The State and EPA need to apply the
procedures judiciously and must consider the complexity of the problem
and the extent of knowledge available concerning the fate and effect of
the pollutant under consideration. If site-specific criteria are
developed without early involvements of EPA in the planning and design
of the task, the State may expect EPA to closely scrutinize the results
before granting any approval to the formally adopted standards.
The procedures described in this chapter represent the first
attempts at describing acceptable methods for developing site-specific
criteria. EPA will be monitoring their implementation and developing
additional procedures in the future. These procedures periodically
will be revised to reflect field experiences and additional research.
_]_/ National water quality criteria for toxic pollutants were published
as guidance under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, Nov. 28,
1980, (45 FR 79318). Site-specific criteria are criteria that are
intended to be applicable to a given localized site.
4-1
-------
Rationale
National water quality criteria for aquatic life may be
underprotective or unnecessarily stringent if: (1) the species at the
site are more or less sensitive than those included in the national
criteria data set or (2) physical and/or chemical characteristics of
the site alter the biological availability and/or toxicity of the
chemical. Therefore, it is appropriate that the individual
Site-Specific Guidelines procedures address each of these conditions
separately, as well as the combination of the two. Table 1 lists the
chemicals for which national criteria are presently available.
Site-specific critera development may be justified because species
at a given site may be more or less sensitive than those represented in
the national criteria document. For example, the national criteria
data set contains data for trout, salmon, penaeid shrimp, and other
aquatic species that have been shown to be especially sensitive to some
materials. Because these or other sensitive species may not occur at a
particular site, they may not be representative of those species that
do occur there. Conversely, there may exist at a site, untested
sensitive species that are ecologically important and would need to be
protected.
In addition, differences in physical and chemical characteristics
of water have been demonstrated to ameliorate or enhance the biological
availability and/or toxicity of chemicals in freshwater and saltwater
environments. Alkalinity, hardness, pH, suspended solids and salinity
influence the concentration(s) of the toxic form(s) of some heavy
metals, ammonia, and other chemicals. For some chemicals, hardness or
pH-dependent national criteria are available for freshwater. No
salinity-dependent criteria have been derived because most of the
saltwater data for heavy metals has been developed in high salinity
waters. However, in some estuarine sites where salinity may vary
significantly, the development of salinity-dependent site-specific
criteria may be appropriate.
The effect of seasonality on the physical and chemical character-
istics of water and subsequent effects on biological availability
and/or toxicity of a chemical may also justify seasonally dependent
site-specific criteria. The major implication of seasonally dependent
criteria is whether or not the "most sensitive" time of the year
coincides with that time for which the flow is the basis for waste
treatment facilities design or NPDES permits. That is, if the physical
and chemical characteristics of the water during low flow seasons
increases the biological availability and/or toxicity of the chemical
of concern, the permit limitations may be more restrictive than if the
converse relationship were to apply.
4-2
-------
TABLE 1
FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER NATIONAL CRITERIA LIST
(x = criteria are available)
(0 = criteria will be available in 1984)
Chemical Freshwater Saltwater
Aldn'n
Ammonia
Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane
Toxaphene
Arsenic(III)
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromium(VI)
Chromium(III)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium(IV)
Silver
Zinc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n
X
X
X
-
X
0
0
X
X
X
X
X
4-3
-------
Definition of Site
Since the rationale for the Site-Specific Guidelines is usually
based on potential differences in species sensitivity, physical and
chemical characteristics of the water, or a combination of the two, the
concept of site must be consistent with this rationale.
A site may be limited to that area affected by a single point
source discharge or can be quite large. If water quality effects on
toxicity are not a consideration, the site will be as large as a
generally consistent biogeographic zone permits. In this case, for
example, large portions of the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Michigan, or the
Ohio River may each be considered as one site because their respective
aquatic communities may not vary substantially. Unique populations or
less sensitive uses within sites may justify a designation as a
distinct site (subsite). When sites are large, the necessary data
generation can be more economically supportable.
If the selected species of a site are toxicologically comparable
to those species in the national criteria data set for a material of
interest, and physical and/or chemical water characteristics are the
only factors supporting modification of the national criteria, then the
site would be defined on the basis of expected changes in the
material's biological availability and/or toxicity due to physical and
chemical variability of the site water.
Two additional considerations in defining a site are: 1) viable
communities must occur, or be historically documented, in order to
select resident species for use in deriving site-specific criteria, and
2) the site must contain acceptable quality dilution water if site
water will be required for testing (to be discussed later in these
Guidelines).
For the purpose of the Site-Specific Guidelines, the term
"selected resident species" is defined as those species that commonly
occur in a site including those that occur only seasonally (migration)
or intermittently (periodically returns or extends its range into the
site). It is not intended to include species that were once present in
that site and cannot return due to physical habitat alterations.
Selection of a resident species should be designed to account for
differences between the sensitivities of the selected resident species
and those in the national data set. There are several possible
reasons for this potential difference. The principal reason is that
the resident communities at a site may represent a more or less narrow
mix of species due to a limited range of natural environmental
conditions (e.g., temperature, salinity, habitat, or other factors
affecting the spatial distribution of aquatic species). The number of
resident species will generally decrease as the size of the site
decreases.
4-4
-------
A second potential reason for a real difference in sensitivity
could be the absence of most of the species or groups of species (e.g.,
families) that are traditionally considered to be sensitive to certain,
but not all, chemicals (e.g., trout, salmon, saltwater penaeid shrimp,
and Daphnia magna). Predictive relative species sensitivity does not
apply to all materials, and the assumption that sensitive species are
unique rather than representative of equally sensitive untested species
is tenuous. A final reason could be that the resident species may have
evolved a genetically based greater resistance to high concentrations
of a material, but no data have been presented to demonstrate such a
genetic difference. A few instances of increased resistance have been
suggested but may be due to an acclimation of individual organisms to a
stream. However, such an acclimation, should it occur, would be
transitory.
4-5
-------
Assumptions
There are numerous assumptions associated with the Site-Specific
Guidelines which also apply to and have been discussed in the National
Guidelines. A few need to be emphasized. The principal assumption is
that the species sensitivity ranking and toxicological effect end
points (e.g., death, growth, or reproduction) derived from appropriate
laboratory tests will be similar to those in site situations. Another
assumption is that the protection of all of the site species all of the
time is not necessary because aquatic life can tolerate some stress and
occasional adverse effects.
Another assumption of the Site-Specific Guidelines which follows
directly from the National Guidelines is that criteria should be
developed to protect the use of aquatic organisms, as well as the
organisms themselves. For example, some of the national criteria were
developed specifically to protect aquatic organisms from accumulating
tissue residue levels of toxics which would harm wildlife predators or
exceed FDA action levels. The Site-Specific Guidelines have provided
procedures which enable such criteria to be -adjusted to reflect local
considerations, such as the fat content of resident species.
It is assumed that the Site-Specific Guidelines are an attempt to
more correctly protect the resident aquatic life by accounting for
toxicological differences in species sensitivity and/or water quality
at the sites. Modification of the national biological data base and
use of bioassay data obtained on resident species in either laboratory
or site water must always be scientifically justifiable and consistent
with the assumptions, rationale, and spirit of the National
Guidelines.
Site-specific and national criteria are not intended or assumed to
be enforceable numbers. The criteria may be used by the States to
develop enforceable water quality standards and/or water quality based
effluent limits. The development of standards or limits should also
take into account additional factors such as the use of the site, as
well as social, legal, economic, and institutional considerations.
Many factors may impact the site, the environmental and analytical
chemistry of the chemical, the extrapolation from laboratory data to
field situations, and the relationship between the species for which
data are available and the species in the body of water which is to be
protected.
4-6
-------
Procedures
0 Summary
There are three procedures described in these Site-Specific
Guidelines for developing site-specific criteria. The procedures for
the derivation of a site-specific criterion are:
A. The recalculation procedure to account for differences in
resident species sensitivity to a chemical.
B. The indicator species procedure to account for differences in
biological availability and/or toxicity of a chemical caused by
physical and/or chemical characteristics of a site water.
C. The resident species procedure to account for differences in
resident species sensitivity and differences in the biological
availability and/or toxicity of a chemical due to physical
and/or chemical characteristics of a site water.
The following is the sequence of decisions to be made before any
of the above procedures is initiated:
1) Define the site boundaries.
2) Determine from the national criterion document and other sources
if physical and/or chemical characteristics are known to affect
the biological availability and/or toxicity of the material of
interest.
3) If data in the national criterion document and/or from other
sources indicate that the range of sensitivity of the selected
resident species to the material of interest is different from
that range for the species in the national criterion document
and variation in physical and/or chemical characteristics of the
site water is not expected to be a factor, use the recalculation
procedure (A).
4) If data in the national criterion document and/or from other
sources indicate that physical and/or chemical characteristics
of the site water may affect the biological availability and/or
toxicity of the material of interest, and the resident species
range of sensitivity is similar to that for the species in the
national criterion document, use the indicator species procedure
(B).
5) If data in the national criterion document and/or from other
sources indicate that physical and/or chemical characteristics
of the site water may affect the biological availability and/or
toxicity of the material of interest, and the resident species
range of sensitivity is different from that for the species in
the national criterion document, use the resident species
procedure.
4-7
-------
Recalculation Procedure
The recalculation procedure allows modifications in the national
acute toxicity data set on the basis of eliminating data for
species that are not resident at that site. When the
elimination of data for this recalculation procedure for the
site-specific Final Acute Value results in not meeting the
national minimum data set requirements, additional resident
species acute testing in laboratory water is required before
this procedure can be used.
Rationale
This procedure is designed to compensate for any real difference
between the sensitivity range of species represented in the
national data set and species found at a site.
Conditions
- If acute toxicity data for resident species are
insufficient to meet the minimum data set requirements of
the National Guidelines, additional acute toxicity data in
laboratory water for untested resident species would be
needed before a calculation of the site-specific criterion
could be made.
- Certain families or organisms have been specified to be
represented in the National Guidelines acute toxicity
minimum data set (e.g., Salmonidae in freshwater and
Penaeidae or Mysidae in saltwater). If this or any other
requirement cannot be met because the family or other group
(e.g., insect or benthic crustacean in freshwater) is not
represented by resident species, select a substitute(s)
from a sensitive family represented by one or more resident
species and meet the 8 family minimum data set requirement.
If all the families at the site have been tested and the
minimum data set requirements have not been met use the
most sensitive resident family mean acute value as the
site-specific Final Acute Value.
- Due to the emphasis this procedure places on resident
species testing when the minimum data set has not been
met, there may be difficulty in selecting resident species
compatible to laboratory testing. Some culture and/or
handling techniques may need to be developed.
- No chronic testing is required by this procedure since the
national acute-chronic ratio will be used with the
site-specific Final Acute Value to obtain the site-specific
Final Chronic Value.
4-8
-------
- For the lipid soluble chemicals whose national Final
Residue Values are based on Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) action levels, adjustments in those values based on
the percent lipid content of resident aquatic species is
appropriate for the derivation of site-specific Final
Residue Values.
- For lipid soluble chemicals, the national Final Residue
Value is based on an average 11 percent lipid content for
edible portions for the freshwater chinook salmon and lake
trout and an average of 10 percent lipids for the edible
portion for saltwater Atlantic herring. Resident species
of concern may have higher (e.g., Lake Superior siscowet, a
race of lake trout) or lower (e.g., many sport fish)
percent lipid content than used for the national Final
Residue Value. An adjustment for these differences may be
necessary.
- For some lipid soluble chemicals such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) and DDT, the national Final Residue Value
is based on wildlife consumers of fish and aquatic
invertebrate species rather than an FDA action level
because the former provides a more stringent residue level
(see National Guidelines for details). Since the data base
on the effects of ingested aquatic organisms on v/iidlife
species is extremely limited, it would be inappropriate to
base a site-specific Final Residue Value on resident
wildlife species. Consequently, site-specific
modifications for those chemicals is based on percent lipid
content of resident species consumed by humans.
- For the lipid soluble chemicals whose national Final
Residue Values are based on wildlife effects, the limiting
wildlife species (mink for PCB and brown pelican for DDT)
are considered acceptable surrogates for resident avian and
mammalian species (e.g., herons, gulls, terns, otter,
etc.). Conservatism is appropriate for those two
chemicals, and no less restrictive modification of the
national Final Residue Value is appropriate. The
site-specific Final Residue Value would be the same as the
national value.
Details of Procedure
- If the minimum data set requirements are met as defined in
the National Guidelines or through substitution of one or
more sensitive resident family(ies) for non-resident
family(ies) or group(s) required in the National
Guidelines, calculate a site-specific Final Acute Value
using all available resident species data in the national
document and/or from other sources. If all the families at
the site have been tested and the minimum data set
4-9
-------
requirements have not been met, use the most sensitive
resident family mean acute value as the site-specific Final
Acute Value.
- If the minimum data set requirements are not met, satisfy
those requirements with additional testing of resident
species in laboratory water.
- If all species in a family at the site have been tested,
then their Species Mean Acute Values should be used to
calculate the site-specific Family Mean Acute Value and
data for non-resident species in that family should be
deleted from the calculation. If all resident species in
that family have not been tested, the site-specific Family
Mean Acute Value would be the same as the national Family
Mean Acute Value.
- To derive the site-specific maximum concentration divide
the site-specific Final Acute Value by 2, as prescribed in
the National Guidelines.
- Divide the site-specific Final Acute Value by the national
Final Acute-Chronic Ratio to obtain the site-specific Final
Chronic Value.
- When a site-specific Final Residue Value can be derived for
lipid soluble chemicals controlled by FDA action levels,
the following recalculation equation would be used:
site-specific Final Residue Value =
^__ FDA action level
(mean normalized BCF from criterion document) (appropriate % lipids)
where the appropriate percent lipid content is based on
consumed resident species. A recommended method to
determine the lipid content of tissues is given in Appendix
A.
- For PCB and DDT whose national Final Residue Values are
based on wildlife consumers of aquatic organisms, no
site-specific modification procedure is appropriate.
- In the case of mercury (a non-lipid soluble material), a
site-specific Final Residue Value can be derived by
conducting acceptable bioconcentration tests with edible
aquatic resident species using accepted test methods given
in Appendix A. For a saltwater residue value, a bivalve
species is required, (the oyster is preferred) and for a
freshwater value, a fish species is required. These taxa
yield the highest known bioconcentration factors for
metals. The following recalculation equation would be
used:
4-10
-------
site-specific Final Residue Value =
FDA action level
site-specific BCF
- The lower of either the site-specific Final Chronic Value
and the site-specific Final Residue Value becomes the
site-specific maximum 30-day average concentration unless
plant or other data indicate that a lower value is
appropriate.
Limitations
- Whatever the results of this recalculation procedure may
be, a decision should be made as to whether the numerical
differences, if any, are sufficient to warrant changes in
the national criterion.
- The number of families used to calculate any Final Acute
Value significantly affects that value. Even though the
four lowest Family Mean Acute Values (most sensitive
families) are most important in that calculation, the
smaller N (total number of families) is, the lower the
Final Acute Value. Consequently, if none of the four most
sensitive families are changed or deleted, any reduction in
N will result in a lower Final Acute Value. Changes in or
deletions of any of the four lowest values, regardless of
whether N is changed, may result in a higher or lower Final
Acute Value.
- Site-specific or national Final Residue Values based on FDA
action levels may not precisely protect aquatic life, since
the FDA action levels are adverse (i.e., loss of
marketability).
- Bioaccumulation, except in field studies, does not add to
the laboratory-derived bioconcentration factors because the
laboratory procedures preclude food chain uptake.
Consequently, some residue levels obtained by laboratory
studies of bioconcentration (direct uptake of the chemical
from water) may underestimate potential effects encountered
at a site. The magnitude of site-specific bioconcentration
factors obtained in the laboratory, therefore, may be
insufficient to protect the public from the effects of the
ingested chemical of concern.
4-11
-------
Indicator Species Procedure
° Definition
This procedure is based on the assumption that physical and/or
chemical characteristics of water at a site may influence
biological availability and/or toxicity of a chemical. Acute
toxicity in site water and laboratory water is determined using
species resident to the site, or acceptable non-resident
species, as indicators or surrogates for species found at the
site. The difference in toxicity values, expressed as a water
effect ratio, is used to convert the national maximum
concentration for a chemical to a site-specific maximum
concentration from which a site-specific Final Acute Value is
derived.
This procedure also provides three ways to obtain a site-
specific Final Chronic Value. It may be (1) calculated (no
testing required) if a Final Acute-Chronic Ratio for a given
chemical is available in the national criteria document. This
ratio is simply divided into the site-specific Final Acute Value
to obtain the site-specific Final Chronic Value; (2) obtained by
performing two acute and chronic toxicity tests which include
both a fish and invertebrate species (resident or non-resident)
in site water. Acute-chronic ratios are calculated for each
species, and the geometric mean of these ratios is then divided
into the site-specific Final Acute Value to obtain the
site-specific Final Chronic Value; and (3) obtained by
performing chronic toxicity tests with at least one fish and one
invertebrate (resident or non-resident) in both laboratory water
and site water and calculating a geometric mean chronic water
effect ratio which is used to modify the national Final Chronic
Value.
0 Rationale
This procedure is designed to compensate for site water which
may affect the biological availability and/or toxicity of a
chemical. Major factors affecting aquatic toxicity values of
many chemicals, especially the heavy metals, have been
identified. For example, the carbonate system of natural waters
(pH, hardness, alkalinity, and carbon dioxide relationships) has
been the most studied and quantified with respect to effects on
heavy metal biological availability and/or toxicity in
freshwater. The literature indicates that in natural systems
organic solutes, inorganic and organic colloids, salinity, and
suspended particles also play an important but less quantifiable
role in the biological availability and/or toxicity of heavy
metals to aquatic life. This procedure provides a means of
obtaining a site-specific Final Chronic Value for a chemical
when the acute-chronic ratios in the national criteria document
are thought to be inapplicable to site-specific situations.
4-12
-------
0 Conditions
- There is no reason to suspect that the resident species
sensitivity is different from those species in the national
data set.
- The toxic response seen in the tests used in the
development of the national water quality criterion would
be essentially the same if laboratory test water required
in this procedure had been used instead.
- Differences in the toxicity values of a specific chemical
determined in laboratory water and site water may be
attributed to chemical (e.g., complexing ligands) and/or
physical (e.g., adsorption) factors that alter the
biological availability and/or toxicity of the chemical.
- Selected indicator species directly integrate differences
in the biological availability qnd/or toxicity of a
chemical. They provide a direct measure of the capacity of
a site water to increase or decrease toxicity values
relative to values obtained in laboratory water.
- National Final Acute-Chronic Ratios for certain chemicals
can be used to establish site-specific Final Chronic
Values.
- A site-specific acute-chronic ratio, obtained in site water
testing, reflects the integrated effects of the physical
and/or chemical characteristics of water on toxicity
values.
- The water effect ratio concept used in this procedure for
modifying national Final Acute Values to site-specific
situations is also applicable to modifying national Final
Chronic Values to site-specific situations.
0 Details of Procedure
- Test at least two indicator species, a fish and an
invertebrate, using laboratory dilution water and site
dilution water according to acute toxicity test procedures
recommended in Appendix A. Test organisms must be drawn
from the same population and be tested at the same time and
most importantly, except for the water source, be tested
under identical conditions (i.e., temperature, lighting,
etc.). The concentration of the chemical in the acute
toxicity tests must be measured and be within the
solubility limits of the chemical. Therefore, species
selected for testing should be among the more sensitive to
the chemical of interest.
4-13
-------
Compare the laboratory and site water LC50 values for each
indicator species to determine if they are significantly
different (P<0.05) (see statistical procedure in Appendix
B). If the L.C50 values are not different, then the
national maximum concentration is the site-specific maximum
concentration. If the LC50 values are different, calculate
the water effect ratio for each species according to the
following equation:
Water Effect Ratio = Site Water LC50 Value
Laboratory Water LC50 Value
Determine if the two ratios are statistically different
(P< 0.05) (see Appendix B).
If the two ratios are not statistically different calculate
the geometric mean of the water effect ratios. The
site-specific maximum concentration can be calculated by
using this geometric mean water effect ratio in the
following equation: site- specific maximum concentration =
water effect ratio x the national maximum concentration (or
x the national maximum concentration adjusted to a water
characteristic of the laboratory water when appropriate).
If the two ratios are different, additional tests may have
to be conducted to confirm or refute the data. In such
cases professional judgment is appropriate in determining
if some or none of the ratio data can be used to modify the
national maximum concentration.
The site-specific maximum concentration is multiplied by
the 2 to obtain the site-specific Final Acute Value which
is used to calculate the site-specific Final Chronic
Value.
If the national Final Acute-Chronic Ratio for the chemical
of interest was used to establish a national Final Chronic
Value, the site-specific Final Chronic Value may be
calculated using the acute-chronic ratio in the following
equation:
Site-Specific Chronic Value =
Site-Specific Acute Value
Final Acute/Chronic Ratio
If the national Final Acute-Chronic Ratio was not used to
establish a national Final Chronic Value, the national
Final Chronic Value may be used as the site-specific Final
Chronic Value, or it may be measured by performing 2 acute
and 2 chronic tests, (Appendix A) using site water. Test
at least one fish and one invertebrate species, and conduct
4-14
-------
using site water of similar quality. These data are used
to calculate an acute-chronic ratio for each species. If
these ratios are within a factor of 10, the geometric mean
of the 2 acute-chronic ratios (the site-specific Final
Acute-Chronic Ratio) is used to calculate the site-specific
Final Chronic Value using the following equation:
Site-Specific Final Chronic Value =
Site-Specific Final Acute Value
Site-Specific Final Acute-Chronic Ratio
After an acute-chronic ratio is determined for one species
and if that ratio is within the range of the values used to
establish the national acute-chronic ratio, it is
recommended that the site-specific ratio be used in
recalculating the national ratio. This recalculated ratio
would then be used as the site-specific Final Acute-Chronic
Ratio in the above equation.
A site-specific Final Chronic Value can be obtained by
testing indicator species for chronic toxicity. Test at
least two indicator species, a fish and an invertebrate,
using laboratory dilution water and site dilution water
according to chronic toxicity test procedures recommended
in Appendix A. For each species, use organisms from the
same population, conduct tests at the same time and most
importantly (except for the water source) under similar
conditions (e.g., temperature, lighting). The
concentration of the chemical in the toxicity tests must be
within the solubility limits of the chemical. To avoid
solubility problems, species selected for testing should be
among the most sensitive to the chemical of interest
(screening tests may be necessary).
Compare the laboratory and site water chronic values for
each of the indicator species to determine if they are
significantly different (limits of chronic values do not
over!ap).
If for a species the chronic values are not different, the
water effect ratio = 1.0.
If the chronic values are different, calculate the water
effect ratio for each species according to the following
equation:
Chronic Water Effect Ratio =
Chronic Value in Site Water
Chrome Value in Laboratory Water
Calculate the geometric mean of the water effect ratios for
the species tested.
4-15
-------
If the mean water effect ratio is not different from 1.0,
the national Final Chronic Value is the site-specific Final
Chronic Value.
If the water effect ratio is different from 1.0, the site-
specific Final Chronic Value can be calculated by using the
following equation: site-specific Final Chronic Value =
Chronic Water Effect Ratio x the national Final Chronic
Value (or the national Final Chronic Value adjusted to a
quality characteristic of the laboratory water when
appropriate).
The site-specific Final Chronic Value is used in the
determination of the site-specific 30-day average
concentration. The lower of the site-specific Final
Chronic Value and the recalculated site-specific Final
Residue Value (as described in the Recalculation Procedure)
becomes the site-specific 30-day average concentration
unless plant or other data (including data obtained from
the site-specific tests) indicates a lower value is
appropriate. If a problem is identified, judgment should
be used in establishing the site-specific criterion.
0 Limitations
If filter feeding organisms are determined to be among the
most sensitive to the chemical of interest from the
national criteria document and/or other sources, and
members of the same group are important components of the
site food web, a member of that group, preferably a
resident species, should be tested in order to discern
differences in the biological availability and/or toxicity
of the chemical of interest due to ingested particulates.
Site water for testing purposes should be obtained under
typical conditions and can be obtained at any time of the
day or season. Storm or flood impacted water is
unacceptable as test water in the acute tests used to
calculate water effect ratios and acute-chronic ratios but
is acceptable test water for short periods of time in
long-term chronic tests used to calculate these ratios.
There are some special cases when storm impacted water is
acceptable in acute toxicity testing for use in criteria
development. For example, an effluent discharge may be
allowed only during high water periods, or a non-point
source of a chemical pesticide may be of most concern
during storm-related runoff events.
Site water must not be influenced by effluents containing
the chemical of interest or effluents that may impact the
material's biological availability and/or toxicity. The
site water should be used as soon as possible after
4-16
-------
collection in order to avoid significant water quality
changes. If diurnal water quality cycles (e.g., carbonate
systems, salinity, dissolved oxygen) are known to markedly
affect a chemical's toxicity, use of on-site flow-through
testing is suggested; otherwise transport of water to
off-site locations is acceptable. During transport and
storage, great care should be taken to maintain the
original quality of the water; however, certain conditions
of the water may change and the degree of these changes
should be measured and reported.
Seasonal site-specific criteria can be derived if
monitoring data are available to delineate seasonal periods
corresponding to significant differences in water
characteristics (e.g., carbonate systems, salinity,
turbidity).
The frequency of testing (e.g. the need for seasonal
testing) will be related to the variability of the physical
and chemical characteristics of site water as it is
expected to affect the biological availability and/or
toxicity of the material of interest. As the variability
increases, the frequency of testing will increase.
With the exception that storm or flood impacted water may
be used in chronic toxicity tests, the limitations on the
use of indicator species to derive a site-specific Final
Chronic Value are the same as those for site-specific
modifications of a national Final Acute Value.
4-17
-------
Resident Species Procedure
0 Definition
Derivation of the site-specific maximum concentration and site-
specific 30-day average concentration would be accomplished
after the complete acute toxicity minimum data set requirements
have been met by conducting tests with resident species in site
water. Chronic tests may also be necessary.
0 Rationale
This procedure is designed to compensate concurrently for any
real differences between the sensitivity range of species
represented in the national data set and for site water which
may markedly affect the biological availability and/or toxicity
of the material of interest.
0 Conditions
Develop the complete acute toxicity minimum data set using site
water and resident species.
0 Details of Procedure
- Complete the acute toxic.ity minimum data set test
requirements by testing resident species in site water and
derive a site-specific Final Acute Value.
- The guidance for site water testing has been discussed in
the indicator species procedure.
- Certain families of organisms have been specified in the
National Guidelines acute toxicity minimum data set (e.g.,
Salmonidae in fresh water and Penaeidae or Mysidae in salt
water); if this or any other requirement cannot be met
because the family or other group (e.g., insect or benthic
crustacean) in fresh water is not represented by resident
species, select a substitute(s) from a senstive family
represented by one or more resident species and meet the 8
family minimum data set requirement. If all the families
at the site have been tested and the minimum data set
requirements have not been met, use the most sensitive
resident family mean acute value as the site-specific Final
Acute Value.
- To derive the site-specific maximum concentration divide
the site-specific Final Acute Value by two.
- The site-specific Final Chronic Value can be obtained as
described in the indicator species procedure. An exception
4-18
-------
is that a chronic water effect ratio should not be used to
calculate a Final Chronic Value.
- The lower of the site-specific Final Chronic Value and the
recalculated site-specific Final Residue Value (as
described in the Recalculation Procedure) becomes the
site-specific 30-day average concentration unless plant or
other data (including data obtained from the site-specific
tests) indicates a lower value is appropriate. If a
problem is identified, judgment should be used in
establishing the site-specific criterion.
Limitations
- The frequency of testing (e.g., the need for seasonal
testing) will be related to the variability of the physical
and chemical characteristics of site water as it is
expected to affect the biological availability and/or
toxicity of the material of interest. As the variability
increases, the frequency of testing will increase.
- Many of the limitations discussed for the Recalculation and
Indicator Species procedures would also apply to this
procedure.
4-19
-------
Heavy Metal Speciation
The national criteria for metals are established primarily using
laboratory data in which reported effect concentrations have been
analyzed primarily as total, total recoverable, or acid extractable
metal concentrations. Metals exist in a variety of chemical forms in
water. Toxicological data have demonstrated that some forms are much
more toxic than others. Most of the toxicity appears to reside in the
soluble fraction and, potentially, in the easily labile, nonsoluble
fraction. The national criteria values may be unnecessarily stringent
if applied to total metal measurements in waters where total metal
concentrations include a preponderance of metal forms which are highly
insoluble or strongly complexed. Derivation of criteria based on metal
forms is not possible at this time because adequate laboratory or field
data bases do not exist in which metal toxicity is partitioned among
the various metal forms. Analysis of total and soluble metal
concentrations when soluble metal is added to site water may indicate
that the metal is rapidly converted to insoluble forms or to other
forms with presumed low biological availability. Under these
circumstances, derivation of a site-specific criterion based on
site-water effect in either the indicator or resident species
procedures will probably result in less stringent criteria values.
Use of the indicator species or resident species procedures is
encouraged for derivation of site-specific criteria for those metals
whose biological availability and/or toxicity is significantly affected
by variation in physical and/or chemical characteristics of water.
Measurement of both total recoverable and soluble metal concentrations
during toxicity testing is recommended.
Plant and Other Data
In the published criteria documents, no national criterion is
based on plant data or "Other Data" (e.g., flavor impairment,
behavioral, etc.). For some chemicals, observed effects on plants
occurred at concentrations near the criterion. The Site-Specific
Guidelines procedures do not contain techniques for handling such data,
but if a less stringent site-specific criterion is derived, those data
may need to be considered.
4-20
-------
Appendix A: TEST METHODS
The following procedures are recommended for conducting tests with
aquatic organisms, including fishes, invertebrates, and plants. These
procedures are the state-of-the-art based on currently available
information. Because all details are not covered in the following
procedures, experience in aquatic toxicology, as well as familiarity
with the pertinent references listed, is needed for conducting these
tests satisfactorily.
In all site-specific criteria determinations, proper Quality
Assurance/Quality Control procedures should be planned and followed.
EPA has published guidance in this area in Guidance for Preparation of
Combined Work/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Water Monitoring (OURS
QA-1) May 27, 1983.
Requirements concerning tests to determine the toxicity and
bioconcentration of a chemical in aquatic organisms are given in the
National Criteria Document Guidelines.
A. ACUTE TESTS:
American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.
15th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
1134 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1980. Standard
practice for conducting acute toxicity tests with fishes,
macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. Standard E 729-80, American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. 25 p.
American Society for Testing Materials. 1980. Standard practice
for conducting static acute toxicity tests with larvae of four
species of bivalve molluscs. Standard E 724-80, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. 17 p.
B. PLANT TESTS:
American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.
15th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
1134 p.
Lockhart, W. L. and A. P. Blouw. 1979. Phytotoxicity tests using
the duckweek Lemna minor, pp. 112-118, IN: Toxicity tests for
freshwater organisms. E. Scherer (ed.), Can. Spec. Pub!. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 44. (Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply
and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 059.)
A-l
-------
Joubert, G. 1980. A bioassay application for quantitative toxicity
measurements, using the green algae Selenastrum capricornutum.
Water Res. 14: 1759-1763.
Miller, W. E., J. C. Greene, and T. Shiroyama. 1978. The
Selenastrum capricornutum Printz algal assay bottle test -
Experimental design, application, and data interpretation
protocol. EPA-600/9-78-018, Environmental Research
Laboratory-Corvallis, Corvallis, Oreg. 125 p.
Steele, R. L., and G. B. Thursby. A toxicity test using life stages
of Champia parvulas [Rhodophyta]. Presented at the Sixth
Symposium "on Aquatic Toxicology. Sponsored by the American
Society for Testing and Materials Committee E-47 on Biological
Effects and Environmetal Fate. 13-14 October 1981. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Marine algal assay
procedure; bottle test. Eutrophication and Lake Restoration
Branch, National Environmental Research Center, Corvallis, Ore.
43 p.
C. FISH LIPin ANALYSIS PROCEDURE:
Approximately 10 g tissue is homogenized with 40 g anhydrous
sodium sulfate in a Waring blender. The mixture is transferred to a
Soxhlet extraction thimble and extracted with a 1:1 mixture of
hexane and methylene chloride for 3-4 hours. The extract volume is
reduced to approximately 50 ml and washed into a tared beaker, being
careful not to transfer any particles of sodium sulfate which may be
present in the extract. The solvent is removed in an air stream and
the sample is heated to 100° C for 15 minutes before weighing the
sample.
The lipid content is calculated as follows:
*, lipid = total residue - tare weight x 100
tissue weight
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory-Duluth, Duluth, MN 55804.
D. BIQCONCENTRATION FACTOR (BCF) TEST:
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard
practice for conducting bioconcentration tests with fishes and
saltwater bivalve molluscs. J. L. Hamelink and J. G. Eaton
(Task Group Co-chairmen). American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft.)
Veith, G. D., D. L. DeFoe, and B. V. Bergstedt. 1979. Measuring
and estimating the bioconcentration factor of chemicals in
fish. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36: 1040-1048.
A-2
-------
E. CHRONIC TESTS:
American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1980.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.
15th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
1134 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard
practice for conducting toxicity tests with early life stages
of fishes. S. C. Schimmel (Task Group Chairman). American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest
draft).
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard
practice for conducting Daphm'a magna renewal chronic toxicity
tests. R. M. Comotto (Task Group Chairman). American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest
draft).
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard
practice for conducting Daphnia magna chronic toxicity tests in
a flow-through system. W. J. Adams (Task Group Co-chairman).
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Penn.
(latest draft.)
American Society for Testing and Materials. Proposed standard
practice for conducting life cycle toxicity tests with
saltwater mysid shrimp. Susan Gentile and Charles McKenny
(Task Group Co-chairman). American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn. (latest draft.)
A-3
-------
Appendix B: DETERMINATION OF STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT
LCBO VALUES
The following problems are addressed and examples are given:
(1) how to determine if two LCBO values are statistically significantly
different, and
(2) how to determine if the difference between two pairs of LC50 values
is statistically significant.
To determine if two LC50 values are statistically significantly
different (at pj
-------
To compare two pairs of LC50 values several different procedures are
possible. The procedure that follows shows one way to compare the
ratios of the LCBO values. Specifically, the variable that is examined
is the difference of the ratio of LCFSO values:
LC50
site 1
ioge LC50s.te 2
LCR0
lab 1
2.
(As stated before, it is necessary to work in the metric in which the
analysis was performed. Since the Trimmed Spearman-Karber estimate is
usually obtained from an analysis of the logarithm of the dose, the
ratio above should be of the logarithms of the LC50 values.)
The following four steps may indicate whether or not the
difference is significant (at p< .05) without calculating the
confidence interval of the difference:
(1) Obtain the 95% confidence limits for both LC50 values.
(2) If the confidence intervals do not overlap the two values are
different.
(3) If one confidence interval encompasses the other the values are not
different.
(4) If the confidence intervals partly overlap the values may be
different. To ascertain if they are different further statistical
analysis must be done.
If the above four steps do not indicate whether or not the
difference of the ratios is statistically significant, the confidence
interval of the difference should be examined. If the confidence
interval of the difference brackets zero, the difference is not
statistically significant; if the confidence interval does not cover
zero, the difference is statistically significant.
An example is given in Tables 2a-2c. Table 2a gives the estimated
LC50 values with 95% confidence intervals for two sets of site and lab
measurements. These results were obtained from Table 2b which gives
the results in natural log units based on the Trimmed Spearman-Karber
Method of estimation.
Table 2c demonstrates how to determine if the difference is
statistically significant. In this example, the difference is not
significant. Note that this result means that there is no evidence
that there is a difference; it does not mean that two ratios are
necessarily identical.
R-2
-------
References:
Hamilton, M.A., R.C. Russo, andR.V. Thurston. 1977. "Trimmed
Spearman-Karber Method for Estimating Median Lethal
Concentrations in Toxicity Rioassays". Environ. Sci. Techno!.
11(7): 714-719. Correction 12(4): 417 (1978).
Ku, H.H. 1966. "Notes on the Use of Propagation of Error
Formulas". J. of Research of the National Bureau of Standards
C. Engineering and Instrument 70C: 331-263--341-273.
B-3
-------
Tables la-c Analysis of Lab and Site LC50 Values
Table la LC50 Values
Source Estimated LC50 95% Confidence Interval
Lab 75 (55,104)
Site 130 (100,169)
Table IB Loge LC50 Value
Source Log pLC50 Variance
Lab 4.32 .0256
Site 4.87 .0169
Table Ic Calculation of Ratio of Site to Laboratory LC50 Values* and
95% Confidence Intervals
(i) Ratio = loge LC50 site/loge LC50 lab = 4.87/4.32 = 1.13
(ii) Variance of ratio =
/ logJ-C50 .]\2 variance logJ-C5Q .. + variance log LC50,,.
/ e siL s\ e site e i a D
lo9eLC50lab
:/4.87
(4.32J
2 .0169. + .0256
(4.87)2 (4^l2T2~
= .0026
(iii) Confidence limit = 2 x (variance of difference)V2
= 2 x (.0026)1/2 = jo
(iv) Confidence interval = ratio _+ confidence limit
= 1.13 i .10 = (1.03, 1.23)
(v) Since the confidence interval does not bracket one, the ratio
of site to laboratory LC50 values is statistically significant at
C <.05.
* Mote that in this example the ratios are of loge LC50 values since
the Trimmed Spearman-Karber Method of estimating LC50 values was
used. This method estimates the LC50 based on the logarithm of the
concentration, so the logarithm of the LC50 should be used here.
B-4
-------
Tables 2a-c Analysis of the Lab and Site LC50 Values for Two Species
Table 2a LC50 Values
Source Estimated LC50
Species 1 Lab 75
Site 130
Species 2 Lab 60
Site 90
Table 2b Loge LC50 Values
Source LogpLC50
Species 1
Species 2
Lab
Site
Lab
Site
4.32
4.87
4.10
4.50
95% Confidence Interval
(55,104)
(100,169)
(48, 75)
(67,122)
Variance
.0256
.0169
.0121
.0225
Table 2c Calculation of Difference of Ratios Between Field and Site
LC50 Values* and 95% Confidence Intervals
(i) Difference =
= 4.87
"4732
4.50 = 1.13 - 1.10 = .03
* Note that in this example the ratios are of loge LC50 values since
the Trimmed Spearman-Karber Method of estimating LC50 values was
used. This method estimates the LC50 based on the logarithm of the
concentration, so the logarithm of the LC50 should be used here.
B-5
-------
(ii) Variance of difference =
variance.
1ogeLC50site 1U variance/ 1ogeLC50site 2
lo9eLC50lab 1 / ( T°9eLC50lab 2
(where variance °^e site is found as
logeLC50lab
in Table Ic (ii)).
= .0026 + .0022 = .0049
(iii) Confidence limit = 2 x (variance of difference)^/?
= 2 x (.0049^/2 = .14
(iv) Confidence interval = difference _+ confidence limit
= .03 jh .14 (-.11, .17)
(v) Since the confidence interval does bracket zero, there is not
enough evidence to reject the hypothesis that the ratios are
different.
B-6
-------
Appendix C: CASE STUDIES
Background
The Site-Specific Criteria Guidance describes protocols for
developing site-specific water quality criteria, an activity which EPA
expects will be done by the States in only a limited number of
instances based on need and resource constraints. These protocols are
designed to take into account the sensitivity of local aquatic life as
well as local environmental effects on pollutant toxicity. EPA wanted
to evaluate the utility of these procedures, to develop field
experience with the new techniques, and to introduce States to the
concept of setting appropriate site-specific water quality
criteria.V
The proposed protocols were field-tested at numerous sites located
throughout the United States. EPA initially solicited the nomination
of candidate sites from all ten EPA Regions to apply the site-specific
criteria development protocols. In turn, the EPA Regional offices, in
cooperation with their respective States, jointly selected candidate
sites. The sites selected for field testing the protocols appear in
Table 1. Participation in the demonstration project was entirely
voluntary on the part of the States and was not designed to require any
changes in State water quality standards or individual permits.
Findings
The protocol field-tested at most of the sites was the Indicator
Species Procedure. This procedure entails a three phase testing
program which includes water quality sampling and analysis, a
biological survey, and conducting paired acute toxicity tests in both
site and laboratory dilution water.
EPA developed an ambitious schedule to conduct these field tests
because of the many candidate sites that were selected and a desire to
have some results available for discussion at the series of public
meetings held to discuss the proposed revisions to the water quality
standards regulation. The desire to generate as much data as possible
at each site to field-test the protocol was compromised with both time
and cost restrictions, factors which normally will be considered and
planned for by any State wishing to develop site-specific criteria for
use in their standards.
The basic concept of site-specific criteria development is only one
of several means by which a State may adopt water quality criteria
as a part of State water quality standards. In most instances,
States will adopt the EPA recommendations for water quality criteria
issued periodically under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act.
C-l
-------
A wide range of sites were chosen to obtain practical experience
on the feasibility, resources, and technical merit for implementing
site-specific studies.
One of the first sites where the Indicator Species Procedure was
field tested was at the Norwalk River, near Georgetown, Connecticut.
This pilot study was conducted by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection in cooperation with the USEPA. For details of
the methodology used and a site description, see Page C-8. This was an
attempt by the State of Connecticut to derive site-specific water
quality criteria. It allowed the State an opportunity to evaluate the
potential for using the site-specific protocols in establishing
site-specific criteria for its waters.
The State of Connecticut felt that this site-specific criteria
development study was successful in that it resulted in systematically
derived, site-specific criteria for this particular segment of the
Norwalk River. This project was to evaluate and adjust water quality
criteria for which a substantial data base already existed. The data
gathered in this exercise could also be incorporated into the State's
ambient monitoring network data base used in establishing final
effluent limitations, (Dunbar and Pizzuto, 1982). Participation in
this project also allowed the State of Connecticut an opportunity to
better evaluate the relative merits of a comparative toxicity testing
approach.
The California State Water Resources Control Board also
participated in a site-specific case study. It attempted to develop
site-specific water quality criteria for the BEE ester of 2,4-D in the
North Coast Region of California. This project was to develop a
site-specific water quality criterion for a pollutant where there was
no National criterion and a limited data base. For details of the
methodology used and a site description, see Page C-16. This site-
specific criteria development study provided the State of California
with a full aquatic life toxicity data base for 2,4-D esters. This
project also gave the State of California much experience in working
with EPA's criteria development protocols.
Seasonal variations in water quality criteria are also of concern
and a study to investigate this concern was incorporated in one of the
pilot studies. During the winter of 1981 and summer of 1982, with the
cooperation of the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality, EPA
initiated another site-specific criteria development project on the
Iowa River in MarshalItown, Iowa. This study was an attempt to
evaluate ammonia toxicity during summer and winter conditions. (The
Iowa DEQ maintains a summer and winter ammonia standard). For details
of the methodology used and a site description, see Page C-21. The
site-specific study will eventually lead to the incorporation of the
site-specific protocol into Iowa's water quality standards program.
C-2
-------
The State of North Carolina also tested the site-specific criteria
development concept. For details of the methodology used and a site
description, see Page C-31. Their Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development committed substantial resources to the collection
and interpretation of data for the case study in Mulberry Creek. North
Carolina not only explored the site-specific protocol but did a
comparative analysis of the results with other existing information and
guidance on the applicability of the water quality criterion. Based
upon this experience, they have determined that the promulgation of
site-specific criteria should become an integral part of the State's
water quality standards program.
Important limitations of the protocols which should be considered
when conducting these procedures were identified in the case studies.
1. In many cases, only two species were tested in both site and
laboratory waters. The number of different species necessary
for testing to establish a true water effects ratio may exceed
this minimal requirement in many situations. Based upon this
and other scientific analysis, the minimum data base has been
changed in the final protocol.
2. A major assumption in the protocol was that acute toxicity
effects observed could be extrapolated to predict
concentrations of pollutants associated with chronic toxicity.
After field-testing these protocols, EPA has determined that
there may be a need for some chronic toxicity testing at each
site to verify these extrapolated chronic toxicity
concentrations. A new short term chronic toxicity test to be
conducted in a reasonable time period and with reasonable
resources is under development by EPA.
3. The proposed protocol was not specific enough in providing
guidance on measuring certain factors which can have an impact
on the bioavailability and toxicity of the pollutants. While
water hardness was measured in most cases, other parameters
such as pH, D.O., salinity and temperature were not uniformly
measured.
4. The protocol did not account for seasonal differences and due
to time and resource constraints, the protocol was field tested
only one time at each site except in MarshalItown, Iowa.
Seasonal changes may influence the persistence, fate, and
bioavailability of toxicants as well as the presence or absence
of sensitive life stages. The final protocol will encourage
seasonal testing.
5. While the protocol did provide general guidance for the
location of sampling stations, in many cases sampling sites
were not comparable in slope, habitat characteristics, and
other parameters. A program to assist EPA Regional Staffs and
State officials is being developed to improve guidance in this
area.
C-3
-------
Recommendations
The case studies published in this document constitute a variety
of examples available from the series of field tests conducted using
the site-specific guidelines. Several of the case studies are not
included here. After scientific review they were found to have several
technical shortcomings including the need for additional field work,
significant deviations from the site-specific guidelines, or the
results were too ambiguous to allow proper interpretations. However,
complete reports, for all site-specific case studies, are available
from EPA upon request from the name and address listed in the
introduction of this Handbook, with the exception of the California
study. More details on the California project are available from the
California State Water Resources Control Board, Toxics Special Project,
P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95801. Each case study report contains a
section with specific recommendations as to how the individual study
could have been improved. These recommendations will also benefit the
design of future site-specific studies.
Future Activities
EPA continues to investigate alternative protocols for
establishing site-specific criteria.
One such procedure is a metal detoxification mechanism which EPA,
assisted by experts in the field, hopes to develop into a protocol and
eventually field test. EPA plans to investigate this procedure at
sites which have previously been studied as well as new candidate
sites. This will provide additional information which should allow EPA
to evaluate the suitability of this technique for site-specific
criteria development.
Another protocol EPA plans to investigate is the "chemical model"
for use in establishing site-specific water quality criteria. This
procedure would help to derive site-specific criteria for metals from
estimates and/or measurements of the chemical speciation of metals in
site water. The effect of speciation on metal toxicity would be
quantified without need of actual on-site bioassay data.
EPA will monitor the use of all protocols and revise them from
time to time to reflect State/EPA experiences in their application.
Conclusion
Problems were encountered with these field studies due to the
large number of studies conducted under time and resource constraints.
The overall project was generally considered successful in meeting the
primary objectives which were: (1) a field-test of the proposed
site-specific protocols and, (2) a learning experience for EPA and the
States. The final protocol incorporates the new scientific information
which resulted from the field studies and therefore, makes the protocol
more practical and useful. One State has already formally incorporated
C-4
-------
the Indicator Species Procedure into its water quality standards
program. Others have indicated that they intend to use the procedure
on a case-by-case basis in setting permit limits. The consensus is
that with additional data development and more explicit guidance, the
Indicator Species Procedure provides a realistic mechanism for
developing site-specific water quality criteria.
C-5
-------
References
Dunbar, L.E. and E. Pizzuto Jr. 1982. Derivation of Site-Specific
Water Quality Criteria - Norwalk River at Georgetown, Ct. State of
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
C-6
-------
Table 1: Site-Specific Criteria Development Case Studies
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
State
Connecticut
New Jersey
Maryland
North Carolina
Georgia
Michigan
Minnesota
Texas
Louisiana
Site
Norwalk River
Wai kill River
Piney Run
Mulberry Creek
Suwannee Creek
Flint River
Crow River
Leon River
Selzer Creek
Source
wire manufacturer
metal finisher
POTW
mirror finishing
tannery
POTW
POTW
POTW
battery processing
Pollutants
Lead, Zinc
Nickel, Chromium
Ammonia,
Chlorine
Copper
Ammonia
Cadmium, Copper
Cyanide, Copper
Cadmium, Chromiui
Lead
Oklahoma
Mingo Creek
Skeleton Creek
VII
VIII
IX
X
Iowa
Nebraska
Montana
Cal ifornia
Washington
Marshal town
Mill Creek
Salt Creek
Prickly Pea
North Coast
Spokane Riv
plant
airplane parts
manufacturer
Oil refinery, POTW,
Fertilizer manu-
facturer
POTW
Machine tools
manufacturer
suspected POTW
mining, smelters
Zinc, Chromium
Zinc, Chromium
Ammonia
Cyanide
Lindane
Copper, Zinc
2,4D esters
Zinc
C-7
-------
SITE SPECIFIC CRITERIA MODIFICATION
Norwalk River
Georgetown, Connecticut
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The Norwalk River Basin encompasses 64.2 square miles of southwestern
Connecticut and includes a small area of Westchester County, New York. The
Upper Norwalk watershed, where this study was conducted, covers an area of
18.5 square miles and includes the region extending from the headwaters of the
Norwalk River to its confluence with Cornstock Brook.
There are two point source discharges of sewage upstream of the study
area. Prior to discharge, this waste undergoes secondary treatment. The POTW
of the town of Ridgefield discharges roughly 400,000 GPD of treated sewage
near the headwaters of the Norwalk, 13.5 stream miles upstream of the study
site. A second POTW discharges (35,000 GPD) to the Norwalk River 9 miles
upstream of the study area. An area of failed septic systems near the smaller
sewage discharge also contributes to the pollutant loading of the river.
Although water quality is degraded somewhat in the immediate vicinity of
these pollutant sources, as the river flows southward towards Long Island
Sound it recovers to support a valuable recreational trout fishery. There are
no industrial point source discharges of metals upstream of the study area.
Within the study area itself, the Gilbert and Bennet Manufacturing
Company discharges treated process water to the Norwalk River at a point below
Factory Pond in Georgetown, Connecticut (Figure 1). Gilbert and Benentt is a.
wire drawing operation (cleaning, drawing, and coating of metal wire). Waste-
water is primarily generated during the wire cleaning process. The NPDES
permit for the company specifies an allowable daily discharge of up to 1.96 kg
of lead, 2.78 kg of zinc, and 3.68 kg of iron. The wastewater treatment
system of the Gilbert and Bennett Company consists of pH neutralization and
equalization followed by precipitation and clarification of the effluent
before discharge to the river. The treated wastewater is discharged intermit-
tently to the river.
B. Problem Definition
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) nominated
the Norwalk River site because of high metal loading to the river (.ulributed
to the Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Co.) and occasional vic^tion of
national water quality criteria. The Gilbert and Bennett NPDES permit was
also due for renewal. A "desk-top" evaluation by DEP indicated that the
aquatic community would show evidence of impact downstream of the point of
release. In this evaluation, acute and chronic national criteria for lead and
zinc were compared with calculated instream concentrations of the same metals.
Calculations were made at seven-day, ten-year low flow (1.34 cfs) and at
average annual flow (22.5 cfs). In order to evaluate the effect of site water
C-8
-------
Bl
BRANCHVILLE
DISCHARGE OUTFALL
GILBERT AND BENNETT
GEORGETOWN
KEY
B« BIOLOGICAL SURVEY STATION
C» WATER QUALITY SURVEY STATION
MAP NOT* TO SCALE
RAILROAD
BRIDGE
FIGURE 1 STUDY AREA : NORWALK RIVER
(Dunbar and Pizzuto, 1982)
C-9
-------
on the toxicity of lead and zinc, EPA and State water quality officials
decided to use a site-specific criteria modification protocol.
C. Approach to Criteria Modification
The decision to use a site-specific criteria modification procedure is
usually made (1) after analyzing data obtained from a water body survey and
assessment conducted in conjunction with a use attainability analysis (USEPA,
1982) or (2) after examining data available to state or local water quality
management officials. In this study on the Nbrwalk River, macroinvertebrate
surveys and water chemistry analyses were performed in conjunction with bio-
assay experiments.
The indicator species approach was chosen for this study. This procedure
accounts for differences in bioavailability of a compound and therefore the
effective toxicity of a chemical as a function of site water quality para-
meters (e.g., pH, hardness, alkalinity, presence of other contaminants, etc.).
This approach requires testing of a sensitive invertebrate and fish in both
site and reconstituted laboratory dilution water.
Acute toxicity tests were conducted with laboratory reared Daphnia magna
and rainbow trout (as surrogates for sensitive organisms found at the site).
These organisms were exposed to lead and zinc in Norwalk River water and a
laboratory prepared reference water. The difference in measured toxicity with
laboratory and site water, expressed as a water effect ratio, can then be used
to modify the national criteria document Final Acute Value; to obtain a site-
specific Final Acute Value. In addition to the tests required by the indi-
cator species procedure, the toxicity of the Gilbert and Bennett wastewater
effluent as a whole was evaluated.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
Analysis of Water Chemistry
Based on a preliminary, qualitative, biological survey, the stream was
divided into control, impact, and recovery zones and four chemical sampling
stations (C,, C-, C^, and C^) were identified. C^ and ^ were in the control
zone. C, is the upstream control station. Co is the downstream control
station. C, was located in the impact zone and C. was in the recovery zone
(Figure 1).
ISCO® automatic water samplers were placed at each station and used to
sample ambient levels of toxic metals. Samples were taken every hour for a
period of four days. Three consecutive samples were combined to form three-
hour composites. All samples were analyzed for .cadmium, chromium, copper,
nickel, iron, lead, and zinc. Grab samples of efflren . were taken at random
intervals during periods of active discharge of wascetfater from the Gilbert
and Bennett facility. These samples were analyzed in the same manner as the
compo s i te s amples.
Analysis of Biota
Benthic populations were sampled at five locations (B^, 82, B.J, B^, B^)
to assess the impact: of the discharge on the stream community. Four Surber
C-10
-------
samples were collected at each of the five locations (Figure 1). B, is the
upstream control zone or reference station. "&* *s tne downstream control
station and was the primary reference point for the purpose of impact evalua-
tion. B, and B, are in the impact zone, and B- is in the recovery zone.
Physical substrate, stream velocity, and water depth were similar at each
location. Organisms were sorted in the field, preserved in 70% ethanol and
returned to the laboratory for identification and enumeration.
Toxicity Testing
Ninety-six hour acute toxicity tests (static with measured concentrations
of toxicant) were conducted with laboratory reared rainbow trout (Salmo
gairdneri) and 48-hour acute toxicity tests (static with measured concentra-
tions) were conducted with laboratory reared Daphnia magna. Lead and zinc
concentrations were measured in the test waters at the beginning of the test,
after 48 hours, and at 96 hours (in the study with rainbow trout). Measured
LC^Q values were calculated based on concentrations at test termination.
Toxicity tests were conducted in Norwalk River water and reconstituted
water using lead, zinc, and Gilbert and Bennett effluent as the toxicants.
Norwalk River water was withdrawn from station Cj and was transported along
with the effluent back to the laboratory.
III. FINDINGS
Water Chemistry
Analysis of effluent samples from the Gilbert and Bennett waste treatment
system indicates that lead, cadmium, and copper are present at levels which
could exceed the EPA acute and chronic water quality criteria under low flow
conditions. Lead concentrations averaged twice the maximum limit allowed by
DEP in their technology based permits. Zinc concentrations were only 20% of
the limit specified in the Gilbert and Bennett NPDES permit. Cadmium is not
currently listed in the discharge permit.
Mean instream concentrations of lead, zinc, and cadmium were lower in the
control zone than in the other sampling locations. Levels of cadmium and
copper exceeded the acute criteria at all sampling locations, including the
control zone. Note, however, that a diverse, stable biological community was
observed to exist in the control zone. The highest levels of lead were
detected just below the discharge. Maximum zinc and iron concentrations were
monitored just above the outfall. These levels above the outfall are not
natural, but were later found to be due to an undetected discharge from the
Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Co.
Biota
Forty-four taxa were collected at the Branchville location (B,). Most of
the species collected can be classified as sensitive or facultative with
respect to pollution tolerance (Weber, 1973; Gaufin, 1973; Roback, 1974).
Species diversity was also high (a Shannon Diversity index of 3.4) indicating
acceptable water quality and aquatic habitat.
Oil
-------
At station 82, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of taxa and
individuals. Total number of organisms decreased from 889 at B, to 415 at
B2. The number of taxa decreased from 44 to 15, and the Shannon Diversity
index fell to 1.0. This impact may be associated, in part, with the impound-
ment located a short distance upstream. Impoundment effects might include
elevation in water temperature, reduction in downstream drift of organisms and
detritus, or an increase in suspended algae.
Impacts of the effluent were observed at stations 83 and B^. Samples
from station B~ were collected within the discharge plume 15 m below the point
of discharge. The total number of organisms present was less than half that
collected at 82, yet the number of taxa and overall community composition
remained unchanged. The total number of organisms collected at B/ just below
the mixing zone was lower than that at station B,. This difference was
probably not significant, however. The number of taxa present was higher at
B,, but the community structure remained essentially unchanged.
At station Be (500 m downstream from the discharge) a dramatic increase
was observed in the total number of organisms present. A greater number of
organisms were found here than at any of the other four stations sampled.
Community composition and total number of taxa remained unchanged from station
B,. The increased abundance of organisms at station Be indicated a reduction
in the effects of the discharge from that observed at stations B, and B^.
While the benthic community at Be did not return to (recover to) conditions
present in the control zone B,, it was comparable to the downstream control
station at 82 which was the primary reference control station used for impact
evaluation.
Toxicity Testing
Static bioassays were conducted exposing Daphnia magna to zinc. Based
upon measured concentrations, 48-hour LCc^ values and 95% confidence intervals
(in parentheses) were determined: 0.90 (0.74-1.1) mg/1 for river water and
0.40 (0.38-0.48) mg/1 for laboratory reconstituted water. Salmo gairdneri
exposed to zinc resulted in 96-hour LC^Q values and 95% confidence intervals
of 1.5 (1.2-1.5) mg/1 for river water and 1.0 (0.85-1.2) mg/1 for laboratory
water. From these data it appears that zinc is less toxic in Norwalk River
water than in laboratory water.
Static bioassays conducted with lead (based on measured concentrations)
yielded results similar to that of the zinc test. Forty-eight hour LCgQ
values for _D. magna (exposed to lead) were 1.3 (0.95-1.9) mg/1 in river water
and 0.32 (0.29-0.36) mg/1 for laboratory water. Bioassays with S_. gairdneri
yielded LCcg values less than 9.6 mg/1 for river water and 2.6 (1.9-3.6) mg/1
for laboratory water. The effective toxicity of lead is thus reduced in river
water.
Total lead measurements taken after bioassays were terminated (96 hours
for trout and 48 hours for Daphnia) indicated a large difference between
nominal and measured concentrations, particularly at high dose levels. It
appears that lead solubility was reduced at the pH and hardness of test
waters. In addition, the solubility of lead seemed more greatly reduced in
laboratory water than in Norwalk River water. Measured concentrations at test
termination averaged 7.2% and 49% of nominal concentrations in laboratory and
C-12
-------
river waters, respectively. ^50 values for lead that are based on these
measured concentrations are a conservative estimate of toxicity.
In static bioassays in which S. gairdneri were exposed to effluent from
the Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Co., the following LCgQ values (based on
measured concentrations) were determined: 60% (46-77) in river water and 68%
(60-77) in laboratory water. These tests indicate that there is no signifi-
cant difference in toxicity of the effluent in river water and site water.
However, the no discernable effect concentration for trout was found to be
slightly lower in laboratory water (22%) than in river water (36%). This does
suggest a possible water effect, i.e., the river water may mitigate the toxic-
ity of the effluent to a small degree.
Effluent from the Gilbert and Bennett plant was not sufficiently toxic to
J). magna to allow calculation of an U^Q value. The no discernable effect
concentration for Daphnia was slightly lower in the laboratory water (13%)
than in the river water (36%) indicating that the effluent may be less toxic
in Nbrwalk River than in laboratory water.
Calculations of the Water Effect Ratio
The indicator species approach to developing site-specific criteria is
based on the calculation of a water effect ratio (below). The ratio accounts
for the difference in the apparent toxicity of a toxicant between site water
and laboratory or reference water. The total water effect ratio for a given
toxicant is defined as the geometric mean of the water effect ratios for all
species tested (USEPA, 1982).
Site Water LC
Water Effect Ratio = T , „ „ r-^
Lab Water LC Q
Measured LCc^ values for a toxicant must be significantly different in the
dilution waters to calculate a water effect ratio. Statistical significance
is assumed when the 95% confidence intervals for the LCtjQ values do not
overlap.
The State decided to calculate a conservative water effect ratio for
zinc. That is, the ratio was based only on data for j^. gairdneri, the species
with the smaller water effect ratio, rather than on the geometric mean of the
ratios for both j>. gairdneri and _D. magna.
Zinc Water Effect Ratio = }*;?*? mg/.J" =1.50
1.00 mg/1
). magna data were used to calculate a water effect ratio for lead.
Lead Water Effect Ratio = „,. B' ,. = 4.06
0.32 mg/1
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Gilbert and Bennett Manufacturing Company, a wire drawing operation,
discharges lead, zinc, and other metals to the Norwalk River. Ambient in-
stream levels of the contaminants are occasionally in excess of national water
quality criteria. The result of both a "desk-top" evaluation of metal load-
ings to the river and a preliminary biological survey indicated deterioration
of water quality and adverse impact to the biota in the vicinity of the dis-
C-13
-------
charge. As a result, EPA and State water quality officials decided to conduct
a study based upon EPA site-specific criteria modification procedures. The
purpose of the study was to determine the effect of Norwalk River water on the
apparent toxicity of lead and zinc. Both of these metals are present in the
effluent of the Gilbert and Bennett wastewater plant and are specified in this
company's NPDES permit. Macroinvertebrate surveys and water chemistry
analyses were conducted in conjunction with laboratory bioassay experiments.
Analysis of the results of the biological survey indicated that the reach
of stream above the discharge and Factory Pond is able to support a diverse,
stable, aquatic community. Examination of the downstream stations revealed
that a change in the aquatic community occurred downstream from Factory Pond
from unknown causes, and further changes attributed to the discharge occurred
downstream from the reference point. Impact was primarily measured in terms
of organism abundance.
The results of the chemical survey parallel that of the biological
assessment. Waters of the control zone contained the lowest metal concentra-
tions and exhibited the best overall water- quality of all the sampling
stations. The national acute water quality criteria for copper and cadmium
were exceeded in the control zone. However, a diverse, stable biological
community was present. Cadmium concentrations also exceeded the national
criterion at the remaining stations. Zinc, copper, lead, and iron concentra-
tions were also elevated at the remaining stations. The impact of these
metals at sampling stations B«-Bc was demonstrated in the biological survey.
Analysis of the toxicity tests indicate that Norwalk River water reduces
the effective toxicity of lead and zinc. The extent to which the river water
reduces toxicity may be examined by calculating a water effect ratio. A water
effect ratio of 1.50 was calculated for zinc and a ratio of 4.06 was calcu-
lated for lead.
Grl4
-------
References
Dunbar, L.E., and E. Pizzuto Jr. 1982. Derivation of Site-Specific Water
Quality Criteria - Norwalk River at Georgetown, CT. State of Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection.
Gaufin, A.R. 1973. Use of aquatic invertebrates in the assessment of water
quality. Biological Methods for the Assessment of Water Quality, ASTM
STP 528, Amer. Soc. for Test, and Materials, pp. 96-116.
Roback, S.S. 1974. Insects. In: C.W. Hart and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.).
Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New
York. pp. 313-376.
USEPA. 1982. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Office of Water Regulations
and Standards.
Weber, C.I. (ed.). 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measur-
ing the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. EPA 670/4-73-1.
C-15
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA MODIFICATION
North Coast Region of California
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The forested regions of Northern California particularly the
northwest corner of the Klamath River basin comprise the site for this
study.
B. Problem Definition
The timber industry in the North Coast Region of California uses
2,4-D in aerial spraying. In January 1982, the North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board adopted Basin Plan amendments to control the dis-
charge of 2,4-D esters that result from spraying in the North Coast
Region. The State Water Resource Control Board reviewed these amendments
and recommended discharge limits. A two number limit for 2,4-D esters was
developed according to the EPA methodology for deriving water quality cri-
teria. The two number limit, based on toxicological information on the
propylene glycol butyl ether ester (PGBEE, the predominant form used in
the North Coast Region) consisted of a 40 ppb instantaneous maximum limit
and a 24-hour average not to exceed a 2 ppb (total acid concentration).
Recently the manufacturer of PGBE announced they will no longer be
producing or marketing this product. Industry representatives have
indicated that the new product of choice is the butoxy ethyl ester (BEE).
Representatives of the timber industry subsequently petitioned the State
Water Resources Control Board to have new water quality criteria developed
for BEE. The State Water Resources Control Board reviewed the available
toxicity data for BEE, but did not have sufficient information to calcu-
late new water quality criteria. The purpose of this study was to derive
acute and chronic toxicity data for 2,4-D BEE, using resident North Coast
organisms, for the development of site-specific water quality criteria.
C. Approach to Criteria Modification
The resident species spproach was chosen for this study. In this
procedure a new minimum data base of acute and chronic toxicity values is
derived in site water. This procedure is designed to adjust for any
differences between the sensitivity range of species in the national data
set and species resident to the site, as well as any differ'mcis in site
water which may affect the toxicity of a chemical (USEPA 1982,.
Acute toxicity tests were conducted under flow-through conditions
with juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhyncus tshawytscha), steelheads (Salmo
gairdneri) and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). These organisms were
exposed to PGBEE and BEE individually in filtered American River water.
Static toxicity tests were also conducted with steelheads exposed to BEE
to evaluate differences which might result from flow-through and static
tests (All existing toxicity tests for BEE except one were conducted under
static conditions). In addition, a 90 day chronic embryo larval study was
C-16
-------
conducted with the chinook salmon. Results of this test are still being
analyzed and will not be discussed as part of this summary.
In conjunction with the toxicity tests, the California State Water
Resources Control Board will be conducting an intensive field sampling
survey in the spring and fall of 1983. The intent of the survey is to
characterize the discharge of 2,4-D and break down products during
spraying and the first rainstorm following the spray period.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
Bioassays were conducted with three juvenile salmonid species
important to the North Coastal area of California, the chinook salmon
(Oncorhyncus tshawytscha), steelheads (Salmo gairdneri) and rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdneri). Chinook salmon and steelhead smolts were obtained 4
days prior to testing from stock at the California Department of Fish and
Game's Nimbus Hatchery. Rainbow trout fry were obtained one week prior to
testing from stock at the California Department of Fish and Game's Hot
Creek Hatchery. Fish were maintained at the test lab in 1,000 liter circ-
ular tanks and fed up to 96 hours before testing. Sand filtered American
River water was used in all of the toxicity tests.
Ninety-six hour flow-through tests were conducted with each of the
organisms exposed to PGBEE and BEE individually. Ten to 25 fish were
placed in each test chamber and 2 test chambers per concentration were
used. Fish loading factors were within the recommended limits for flow-
through tests (ASTM 1980). Grab samples were withdrawn from each test
chamber for analysis of total 2,4-D acid af 48 hours. Water samples were
analyzed for concentrations of 2,4-D esters at 0, 48, and 96 hours.
Dissolved oxygen and temperature were also measured daily. Hardness and
alkalinity were measured once during the tests and pH was measured twice.
Total 2,4-D acid concentrations were determined by esteration of
the acid with gas chromatography and a Ni 63 electron capture detector
(Olson et. al. 1978). The detection limit was 5 ug/liter total 2,4-D
acid. BEEE and PGBEE ester concentrations of 2,4-D were determined by
repeating the hexane extraction and then combining the extracts. The
extracts were concentrated with granular Na SO, . The concentrated extract
was analyzed using gas chromatography ana a Ni 63 electron capture
detector. Detection limits were 10 ug/1 for both esters.
Static tests were conducted with steelheads in 20-liter glass
aquaria. Tests were conducted for 96 hours and chemical analyses were
performed as for the flow-through tests.
LC50 values were calculated with the binomial test. In
flow-through tests these were based on measured concentrations. Static
LC50 values were based on initial 2,4-D ester concentrations. Ester
concentrations decreased below detection limits (10 ug/1) with 24 to 48
hours after the tests were begun.
017
-------
III. FINDINGS
Chinook salmon LC50 values and 95 percent confidence intervals in
BEE .tests were 1375(1306 - 1444) and 481(456 - 506) for total acid and
ester respectively. Steelhead BEE LC50 values and 95 percent confidence
intervals were 1400(914 - 1816) and 489(343 - 635) for total acid and
ester respectively. Rainbow trout BEE LC50 values and 95 percent confi-
dence intervals were 575(561 - 585) and 465(451 - 479) for total acid and
ester respectively.
Chinook salmon PGBEE LC50 values and 95 percent confidence inter-
vals were 1180(72 - 2288) and 318(18 - 618) for total acid and ester
respectively. Steelhead LC50 values and 95 percent confidence intervals
were 1610(1305 - 1915) and 434(352 - 516) for total acid and esters
respectively. Rainbow trout LC50 values and 95 percent confidence
intervals were 565(551 - 579) and 355(258 - 452) for total acid and ester
respectively.
LC50 values for static tests with BEE conducted under two differ-
ent loading factors with steelheads were 2200 ug/1 for total acid and 1800
ug/1 as BEE (loading factor 4.2 g/1). Tests with a higher loading factor
(8.8 g/1) were 3850 ug/1 as total acid and 3150 ug/1 as BEE.
Analysis of the LC50 values indicate that PGBEE may be 23%
slightly more toxic than BEE. In addition, it was determined that static
toxicity tests grossly underestimate BEE toxicity. This is due to the
hydrolysis of BEE to a less toxic form by the fish. Hydrolysis was
influenced by the fish loading factor.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The California State Water Resources Control Board is attempting
to set site-specific water quality criteria for the BEE ester of 2,4-D
which is used by the timber industry as an herbicide in their aerial
spraying program in the North Coast Region of California. The criteria
modification study was designed to provide a substantial toxicity data
base using resident North Coast species.
Acute toxicity tests were conducted with juvenile chinook salmon,
steelheads and rainbow trout. These organisms were exposed to PGBEE and
BEE individually in filtered American River water. Static toxicity tests
were also conducted with steelheads exposed to BEE to evaluate differences
which might result from flow-through and static tests. In addition a 90
day chronic embryo larva*. study was conductei fith the chinook salmon.
Results of this test are still being analyzed ^.id will not be discussed as
part of this summary..
Analysis of the LC50 values indicate the PGBEE may be 23% slightly
more toxic than BEE. In addition, it was determined that static toxicity
tests grossly underestimate BEE toxicity. This is due to the hydrolysis
of BEE to a less toxic form by the fish. Hydrolysis was influenced by the
fish loading factor.
C-18
-------
More details on this project are available from John Norton,
California State Water Resources Control Board, Toxics Special Project,
P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California, 95801 (916) 322-4506.
019
-------
REFERENCES
American Society of Testing and Materials. 1980. Standard Practices
for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with Fishes, Macroin-
vertebrates, and Amphibians. ASTM Committee E-35,
Publication No. E729 - 80.
Olson, B., T. Sneath, and N. Lain. 1978. Rapid, simple procedures
for the simultaneous gas chromatographic analysis of four
chlorophenoxy herbicides in water and soil samples.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 26: 640 - 643.
USEPA. 1982. Water Quality Standards Handbook (Draft). Office of
Water Regulations and Standards.
C-20
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA MODIFICATION
Iowa River
Marshalltown, Iowa
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
The Iowa River is a typical slow moving midwestern stream located in
central Iowa (Figure 1). It meanders in an easterly direction through the
northern part of Marshalltown, Iowa. The stream channel ranges from 30 - 40 m
in width and stream velocity ranges from 0.1 - 0.75 m/sec.
The substrate in the Iowa River consists of shifting sand with small
patches of gravel. Adjacent land use consists of agricultural development.
Riparian vegetation offers considerable cover to much of the stream reach.
The Marshalltown POTW is an activated sludge plant which discharges its
treated effluent to the Iowa River. The POTW is the only major point source
discharge to the Iowa River in the vicinity of Marshalltown. The influent to
the plant is a mixture of domestic, pretreated industrial, and untreated muni-
cipal wastewater. The average discharge from the POTW is 0.25 m /sec. (7.5
cfs) and remains fairly constant 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Ammonia
is a constituent routinely identified in the effluent and is of particular
concern in this study.
B. Problem Definition
The Marshalltown POTW currently exceeds the. state ammonia standard (2.0
mg/1 total ammonia-summer 5.0 mg/1 total ammonia-winter) and EPA national
criterion for unionized ammonia under certain environmental conditions (low
flow, high temperatures). It has been estimated that the number and severity
of the violations will increase as the city grows. The Marshalltown POTW is
thus one of a number of Iowa wastewater plants that has been identified for
the installation of advanced treatment facilities for ammonia removal. Con-
currently, the State of Iowa is evaluating its ammonia standard to determine
if it is adequate or overly stringent for the protection of aquatic life. As
a result, state and EPA water quality officials decided to apply site-specific
criteria modification procedures to the Iowa River to evaluate seasonal influ-
ences and the effect of site water quality on the toxicity of ammonia as well
as the applicability of the national ambient water quality criteria for
ammonia on the Iowa River.
C. Approach t; criteria Modification
The decision to use a site-specific criteria modification procedure is
usually made after analyzing (1) data obtained from a water body survey and
assessment conducted in conjunction with a use attainability analysis (USEPA
1982), or (2) data available to state or local water quality management
officials. In this study on the Iowa River, complete biological surveys and
water chemistry analyses were conducted in conjunction with field bioassay
experiments.
C-21
-------
^
s.
>
33
v>
I
r~
i-
O
s
t-0<2
> -n C
CO ? S
Ml
H r~ _
11
H
0
MARSI
POTW
o
o
z
O O
NJ -•
I?
X -n
m r
0 C
— m
Z
H
•o
r-
C
m
O
C
3
m
O
§
m
a
CO
H
O
H
m
68
(fl
(Si
o
n
(->•
CD
rt
rt
00
CD ? Z
o 5 -<
a O m
.> 03 a
H F r
O
Z
C-22
-------
The indicator species approach was chosen for this study. This proce-
dure accounts for differences in bioavailability of a compound in different
waters. Therefore, the effective toxicity of a chemical as a function of site
water quality parameters (e.g., pH, hardness, alkalinity, presence of other
contaminants, etc) is examined. The approach requires testing of a sensitive
invertebrate and fish in both site water and reconstituted laboratory dilution
water.
Acute toxicity tests were conducted during the winter portion of this
study with the channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) . Channel catfish were
exposed to ammonia in site water taken from the Iowa River (this test was
conducted by the field crew and repeated by state personnel), and in a 3:1
mixture of river water to nonchlorinated effluent. The purpose of the 3:1
mixture was to simulate the instream conditions at low flow. Acute toxicity
tests were conducted during the late summer with channel catfish, (Ictalurus
p_u_nctat_ug_) bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus) and a mayfly ( S t enonema terrn--^
inatum). These organisms were exposed to ammonia in Iowa River water, a
laboratory prepared reference water, 3:1 mixture of river water to nonchlor-
inated effluent and a 3:1 mixture of river water to chlorinated effluent. The
difference in measured toxicity with laboratory water and site water is
expressed as a water effect ratio. This ratio can be used to modify the
national ambient water quality criteria document Final Acute Value and to
obtain a Site-Specific Final Acute Value for ammonia in the Iowa River.
II. ANALYSIS CONDUCTED
A- Analysis of Water Chemistry
Based on an inspection of the study area, the river was divided into a
control, two impact zones and a recovery zone. Sampling stations were iden-
tified in each of the zones. The Control Zone Station (Station 1) was located
approximately 50 meters upstream from the confluence with the POTW outfall.
The first Impact Zone Station (Station 2) was located in the effluent plume
approximately 50 meters downstream from the outfall. The second Impact Zone
Station (Station 3) was located approximately 800 meters downstream from the
confluence of the POTW discharge with the river and immediately downstream
from the area of complete mixing. The Recovery Zone Station (Station 4) was
located approximately 3.2 kilometers downstream from the discharge.
Due to the freezing temperatures and icy conditions only a limited chem-
ical survey was conducted as part of the winter study. A series of grab
samples were taken above and below the POTW discharge in order to characterize
the POTW plume. Samples were analyzed for total ammonia, nitrates, nitrites,
Kieldahl nitrogen, and filterable and nonfilterable residues.
ng the later summer phase, field samples were collected at each
station and analyzed for nitrite, ammonia, Kjeldahl nitrogen, total and
filterable residue, biochemical and chemical oxygen demand, cyanide, and total
and dissolved organic carbon. Depth, velocity ,\ temperature, specific con-
ductance, dissolved oxygen and pH were also measured at each station.
C-23
-------
Grab samples were taken to measure variations in ammonia concentrations
instream and in the POTW effluent. Samples were collected weekly from August
19 - October 13, 1982 while the periphyton and macroinvertebrate samplers were
allowed to colonize.
B. Analysis of Biota
Fish, periphyton, and invertebrates were sampled as part of the bio-
logical survey. No attempts to collect organisms were made during the winter.
Due to the shifting sand substrate in the Iowa River, artificial substrates
were used to sample the invertebrate populations. Ten modified Hester-Dendy
Multiplate Samplers were placed at sampling Stations 1-4 and allowed to
incubate for five weeks. During this period of time the POTW was not chlor-
inating its effluent. After five weeks one-half of the substrates were
removed and these substrates represent nonchlorinated effluent samples. The
remaining substrates were allowed to incubate for an additional 19 days during
which time the POTW resumed chlorination. These substrates represent the
chlorinated samples.
The organisms collected were preserved and returned to the laboratory
for identification. All organisms were identified to the lowest possible
taxon. Because of the shifting sand substrate and flow variations, several
substrates became partially or totally buried in the sand, limiting the
habitat available for colonization. Unfortunately many of these buried
samplers were in the Control Zone. As a result, the comparison of diversity
and equitability between zones was more meaningful than a comparison of total
numbers.
Artificial substrates were also placed in the Iowa River to sample the
periphyton community. The samplers consisted of six, glass microscope slides
secured in a plastic frame. The substrates were suspended from floats at a
uniform depth at each sampling station. The substrates were left in the
stream for a period of 17 days during which time the POTW was not chlorinating
its effluent. When chlorination resumed fresh substrates were placed in the
river as in the nonchlorinated phase. Samples were preserved in Lugols solu-
tion and analyzed according to Weber (1973). All algal types present were
counted, but only diatoms were identified to species. Slides were also
analyzed for chlorophyll content and ash free dry weight. Shannon-Weaver
diversity indices and equitability values for the nonchlorinated and chlor-
inated portions of the study were calculated.
Fish collections were conducted by the Iowa Conservation Commission.
The fish were collected using a 230 volt boatmounted electroshocker and a
thirty foot (1/4 inch mesh) minnow seine. Three individual runs of approxi-
mately 100 meters were taken with the electroshocker and one pull with the
s~Ine was taken in each sampling zone. All fish were counted and identified
to the species level.
c- Toxic ityJTest ing
Winter bioassays were conducted with the channel catfish while late
summer tests were conducted with channel catfish, bluegills, and mayflies.
Juvenile catfish were obtained from the Lake Rathbun Fish Hatchery Rathbun,
Iowa. Bluegills each, weighing 0.5 - 2 gm were obtained from the Fairport Fish
C-24
-------
Hatchery. Mayflies were collected from the Iowa River approximately 12 km
downstream from Marshalltown.
Ninety-six hour flow-through tests were conducted with the fish and the
mayflies in site water from the Control Zone and in a 3:1 mixture of river
water to effluent water (nonchlorinated and chlorinated effluent). Ammonia
concentrations were measured every 12 hours for the duration of the test.
Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured in con-
junction with each ammonia analysis.
Ninety-six hour static renewal tests were conducted with the fish and
the mayflies in a laboratory reference water. Test solutions were renewed
every 12 hours due to the volatility of ammonia. Ammonia, temperature, pH,
and dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured at the beginning and end of
the 12-hour volume replacement period. Throughout the tests, ammonia
concentrations never fell below 80 percent of initial concentrations.
Field analysis of ammonia concentrations in the test chambers was con-
ducted using an Orion Specific Ion Electrode. A new standard curve was pre-
pared prior to each analysis. In addition, split lab and field samples were
collected in triplicate at 0 hours, 48 hours and 96 hours during the tests and
analyzed by the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory. Ammonia concentra-
tions were measured within 24 hours after the laboratory received the samples.
III. FINDINGS
A. Water Chemistry
Results of the physical and chemical measurements indicate that the
study reach was characterized by generally uniform habitat and moderate
riparian canopy. Stream velocity averaged 0.75 m/sec at all stations and
depth averaged 60 cm. The stream substrate was dominated by unstable sandy
conditions.
Analyses of water quality (grab samples) indicate that most chemical
parameters were stable and within normal expected ranges throughout the study
reach. Dissolved oxygen concentrations remained at or above saturation
although there was a significant increase in biological oxygen demand down-
stream from the POTW when the effluent was bypassed following primary
clarification. The stream was generally turbid however. When bypassing
occurred, nonfilterable solids increased. Except for ammonia, all toxics were
below detection limits or below their respective water quality criteria
values.
Winter grab samples taken in the vicinity of the discharge plume indi-
cate that ammonia concentrations rapidly attenuate within the effluent plume.
By the time complete mixing of effluent and river water had occurred, all
measured nitrogen compounds had fallen to near Control Zone concentrations.
Analysis of weekly grab samples revealed that unionized ammonia concen-
trations were occassionally in excess of 0.2 mg/1 in the effluent plume. At
the point of complete mixing concentrations were generally below 0.02 mg/1.
-------
B. Biota
Analysis of the invertebrate samples from nonchlorinated and chlorinated
study phases indicated that Impact and Recovery zones could be defined, but
too few samples were recovered to quantify the Control Zone. Total number of
organisms did not differ significantly in either of the Impact or Recovery
Zones, but diversity and equitability values were lower at Impact 1 (nonchlo-
rinated and chlorinated).
Mayfly percent relative abundance (PRA) demonstrated a difference
between nonchlorinated and chlorinated conditions. The PRA in Impact 1,
Impact 2, and the Recovery Zone decreased dramatically from the nonchlorinated
to the chlorinated samples. This is thought to be an avoidance reaction to
residual chlorine, but cannot be confirmed since residual chlorine was not
measured.
Periphyton diversity and equitability values for nonchlorinated and
chlorinated samples do not decline in the Impact Zones. However in both sets
of samples a shift in species dominance can be observed in the Impact Zones.
In the nonchlorinated study, Gomphonema o^ivaceum was the dominant species in
the Control, Impact Zone 2, and Recovery zones. This species is character-
istic of sites that have experienced inorganic nutrient enrichment. However,
it normally occurs where biodegradat£on is complete. In the Impact Zone 1, an
area of high biodegradation, G. o1ivac eum numbers are sharply reduced.
Nitzchia pa lea, a good indicator of organic pollution and Cyclotella st_r_i.ata_,
which is stimulated by slight increases in salts, are the dominant taxa at
this station (USEPA 1974).
In the chlorination study the diatom Nitzchia dissipata is the dominant
diatom in the Control Zone. This species is common to water with high dis-
solved oxygen (USEPA 1974) . This species is not as common in the Impact and
Recovery Zones. The dominant species at the Impact 1 Station (Nitzchia palea)
is common to zones of organic degradation and low dissolved oxygen (USEPA
1974).
Analysis of chlorophyll concentrations, ash free dry weight and auto-
trophic indices indicate that the Iowa River is affected by organic enrichment
throughout the study reach especially at the Impact 1 Station. The acidifica-
tion ratios (chlorophyll a to pheophytin a) in the nonchlorinated and chlorin-
ated studies were the lowest at the Impact 1 Station. Ash free dry weights
were highest at the Impact 1 Station. The autotrophic index at all stations
in both studies was greater than 100 which is indicative of an area affected
by organic pollution (Weber 1973).
Fish collected in the Control Zone were diverse in number of species as
well as trophic position in the community. There were a relatively high
proportion of carnivores (i.e., centrarchids and ictalurids) and planktivores
(i.e., clupeides). At Impact 1 the number of planktivores and carnivores is
as reduced from Control populations. The reduction or absence of carnivores
in the fish community is an indication of a system degraded by poor habitat or
water quality (Karr 1982). The failure of these organisms to also success-
fully inhabit Impact 2 and the Recovery Zone suggests chronic water quality
degradation or a general shift in the habitat or trophic structure of the Iowa
River.
C-26
-------
C. Toxici t y Te s t ing
LC50 values and 95 percent confidence intervals were estimated by the
binomial, probit, and moving average methods. Mean ammonia concentrations,
based on all field measurements taken during each test were used in the LC50
calculations. Determination of unionized ammonia concentrations were based on
the average temperature and pH measured during each test.
Winter total ammonia LC50 values and 95 percent confidence intervals
(binomial method mg/1) for catfish were 40.99 (38.8 - 47.6), 41.3 (36.1 -
45.1), and 43.0 (37.0 - 72.1) for Site Water Test 1, Site Water Test 2, and
3:1 river water to nonchlorinated effluent tests respectively. Winter
unionized ammonia LC50 values and 95 percent confidence intervals were 0.49
(0.38 - 0.70), 0.49 (0.31 - 0.66), and 0.43 (0.23 - 0.83) for Site Water Test
1, Site Water Test 2, and 3:1 river water to nonchlorinated effluent tests
respectively. The LC50 values did not vary significantly in these tests.
Late summer total ammonia LC50 values and 95 percent confidence inter-
vals (binomial method in mg/1) for the channel catfish were 27.3 (21.4 -
35.9), 18.5 (7.4 - 27.4), 27.7 (13.9 - 32.9), 25.0 (13.7 - 32.6) for the lab
water, site water, chlorinated effluent and nonchlorinated effluent tests
respectively. Late summer unionized ammonia LC50 values and 95 percent confi-
dence intervals were 0.61 (0.56 - 0.75), 0.69 (0.36 - 0.84), 1.4 (0.68 - 1.6),
1.2 (0.63 - 1.5) for the lab water, site water, chlorinated effluent, and
nonchlorinated effluent tests respectively. The LC50 values did not vary
significantly in these tests, although LC50 values from the effluent tests
appear to be somewhat higher than the site water and lab water tests.
It was not possible to determine LC50 values for all of the mayfly
tests. Total ammonia LC50 values and 95 percent confidence intervals (probit
method in mg/1) were 7.2 (0 - 20.0) and 79.8 (25.9 -oo ) for the site water and
nonchlorinated effluent tests respectively. Unionized ammonia LC50 values and
95 percent confidence intervals for these same tests were 0.35 (0 - 0.72) and
3 (1.19 - °° ). These tests indicate that mayflies were as sensitive or less
sensitive to ammonia than catfish.
Forty-eight hour bluegill LC50 values for total ammonia and 95 percent
confidence intervals (probit method mg/1) were 20.6 (16.7 - 25.2) and 8.7
(4.3 - 12.3) for laboratory and site water respectively. Corresponding forty
eight hour LC50 values and 95 percent confidence intervals for unionized
ammonia were 0.48 (0.41 - 0.56), and 0.45 (0.27 - 0.57) for lab water and site
water respectively. Although total ammonia values appear to differ signi-
ficantly in these tests, unionized ammonia LC50 values (the most toxic frac-
tion) do not vary significantly.
Ninety-six hour bluegill LC50 values for total ammonia and 95 percent
confidence intervals (probit method mg/1) were 16.1 (13.0 - 19.4), 13.0 (10.1-
15.6), and 16.7 (14.8 - 18.9) for laboratory water, chlorinated effluent, and
nonchlorinated effluent respectively. Corresponding 96 hour LC50 values and
95 percent confidence intervals for unionized ammonia are 0.40 (0 - <*• ), 0.63
(0.48 - 0.75), and 0.77 (0.68 - 0.87) for laboratory water, chlorinated
effluent and nonchlorinated effluent respectively. These LC50 values do not
vary significantly.
C-27
-------
D. Calculation of the Water Effect Ratio
The indicator species approach to deriving site-specific criteria is
based upon the calculation of a water effect ratio (below). This ratio
accounts for the difference in the apparent toxicity of a contaminant in site
water and a laboratory or reference water. The total water effect ratio for a
given toxicant is defined as the geometric mean of the water effect ratios for
all species tested.
Site Water LC50
Water Effect Ratio = Lab Water LC50
Measured LC50 values for a toxicant must be significantly different in the
dilution waters to calculate a water effect ratio. Statistical significance
is assumed when the 95 percent confidence intervals for the LC50 values do not
overlap. When the confidence intervals do overlap, the water effect ratio is
equal to one.
On the basis of these tests, the confidence intervals of the dilution
waters overlap, therefore the water effect ratio is, in effect, equal to one.
A water effect ratio equal to one would not result in any modification of the
national criteria values.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A Water Quality Criteria Modification demonstration project was con-
ducted to evaluate the appropriateness of the acute criterion for ammonia in
the Iowa River at Marshalltown, Iowa. On-site bioassays were conducted during
winter and late summer in a mobile laboratory positioned upstream from the
Marshalltown POTW which discharges to the Iowa River. A chemical survey of
the Iowa River was conducted to determine instream concentrations of ammonia
and other potential pollutants. In addition, a biological survey was con-
ducted to evaluate periphyton, macroinvertebrate and fish community structure
upstream and downstream from the confluence with the discharge canal.
Results of this investigation indicated that there were some trends in
the number of species and individuals in the fish, invertebrate and periphyton
communities downstream from the POTW outfall. However, the only obvious
differences occurred in the samples collected from Impact Zone 1. At this
station there was a substantial shift in relative abundance in the
invertebrate community as compared to uptream and downstream from the outfall.
However, whether this was the result of physical habitat or water quality
limitations remains unclear.
On-site bioassays were designed to test the toxicity of ammonia to indi-
genous fish and invertebrate species in upstream (Control Zone) water, 1/4
non-chlorinated effluent and 3/4 Control Zone water, 1/4 chlorinated effluent
and 3/4 Control Zone water and a standard reconstituted laboratory water.
Tests were also conducted during winter and late summer to evaluate the
influence of seasonal temperature differences on ammonia toxicity.
Results of these tests indicated no significant difference between
laboratory water and site water. However, significant differences occurred
028
-------
between the winter and late summer tests, and between tests with Control Zone
water and 1/4 effluent: 3/4 control zone water tests.
These differences were attributed to differences in test temperature and
pH which occurred between the two testing regimes. Although the EPA draft
water quality criteria document (USEPA 1983) incorporates a correction factor
for pH differences, evidence exists here that various temperatures may also
cause significant difference in test results.
C-29
-------
REFERENCES
JRB Associates. 1983. Demonstration of the Site-Specific Criteria Modifica-
tion Process: Iowa River, Marshalltown, Iowa. Prepared for Criteria
and Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
Contract 68-01-6388.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities.
Fisheries 6(6):21-27.
USEPA. 1974. Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of Freshwater
Diatoms. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-670/4-74-005.
USEPA. 1982. Water Quality Standards Handbook (Draft). Office of Water
Regulations and Standards.
USEPA. 1983. Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and
Its Uses: Ammonia (Final Draft). Office of Research and Development,
Duluth, Minnesota.
Weber, C,I. 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the
Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. National Environmental
Research Center. EPA-670/4-73-001.
C-30
-------
SITE SPECIFIC CRITERIA MODIFICATION
Un-Named Tributary to Mulbery Creek
North Wilkesboro, North Carolina
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Site Description
Site specific work was conducted on a small un-named tributary (UT) which
flows into Mulberry Creek near North Wilkesboro. Two mirror plating plants--
Carolina Mirror and Gardner Mirror—discharge effluents containing copper and
possibly silver into UT about two miles above its confluence with Mulberry
Creek.
UT begins, as a small spring, about nine-tenths of a mile north of Carolina
Mirror. It is characterized by a series of riffles and pools, and falls about
70 feet in elevation before reaching the north edge of Carolina Mirror. The
bottom is rocky, with occasional sediment deposits. The water is clear and
colorless and becomes well aerated as it flows through the riffles.
The flow in UT is carried in a natural channel about 1.9 miles further to its
confluence with Mulberry Creek. The lower reaches of UT are shallow, but rela-
tively wider than near the discharge points. The channel bed in this section
is covered with small stones and leaf packs which provide a more suitable habi-
tat for benthic macroinvertebrates than the sediment layer observed in the vi-
cinity of Carolina Mirror.
Mulberry Creek is considerably larger than UT, being some twenty-five feet
wide and one to one-and-a-half feet deep. Its flow passes over a large riffle
just before the confluence, so would be well aerated at this point.
B. Discharge Treatment
Carolina Mirror and Gardner Mirror treat their process wastewaters to remove
both copper and silver. Silver which is recovered in the treatment process is
recycled through the mirror plating line. Any silver in the effluent occurs at
concentrations below the 50 ug/1 detection limit of the analytical procedures
used by the State. Copper is less successfully removed, and may often be found
in the final effluent at concentrations greater than the 40 ug/1 detection lim-
it.
C. Approach to Criteria Modification
In response to inquiries from EPA, the State of North Carolina nominated sever-
al sites that it thought would be suitable for a test of the criteria modifica-
tion protocol. The North Wilkesboro site was selected and an initial site
visit conducted in September, 1981. A schematic diagram of the study area is
presented in Figure 1.
031
-------
Carolina
Mirror 1(2)1—
Gardner Mirror
Highway 268
Area stream
Un-named
tributary. UT
Sampling
Station
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF DEMONSTRATION SITE
FIGURE 1
C-32
-------
The site visit was attended by representatives of the State of North Carolina,
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development; EPA, Criteria and
Standards Division; EPA, Athens laboratory; Camp Dresser & McKee; and Har-
brldge House. A cursory biological survey was conducted of UT and of Mulberry
Creek. Subsequent discussion of the site enabled development of a Work Plan by
the State.
Based on the Work Plan, the State Invested considerable effort In characteriz-
ing the water chemistry of the Carolina Mirror effluent and the receiving
waters (UT and Mulberry Creek) and in conducting bioassays and a biological
survey of the receiving water.
II. ANALYSES CONDUCTED
A. Water Chemistry Analysis
A summary analysis of the mirror-plating effluents was provided by the State.
While silver concentrations in grab samples were below detection levels, cop-
per levels were often high in the vicinity of the discharges. Measured copper
concentrations, which ranged as high as 140 ug/1 are quite a bit higher than
the allowable instantaneous value of 6.3 ug/1, at a hardness of 26 mg/1, which
would be calculated according to the national criteria document for copper.
High levels for conductivity, suspended solids, phenol, and MBAS (methylene-
blue active substances, i.e., detergents) were also detected in the vicinity
of the discharges. As would be expected, measured concentrations drop appre-
ciably after UT joins Mulberry Creek, and, in general Mulberry Creek does not
appear to be affected (from the standpoint of water chemistry) by the efflu-
ents carried by UT.
B. Biological Monitoring
State biologists visited the demonstration site a number of times in order to:
collect water samples for chemical analysis; sample the biota to determine spe-
cies diversity, evenness and richness; identify resident fish; collect resi-
dent fish and macroinvertebrates for toxicity testing; obtain site water for
the toxicity tests; and to collect fish for tissue analysis. Based on a quali-
tative survey, rosyside dace and creek chub were selected for toxicity test-
ing, and a sufficient number of fish collected to perform these tests.
Duplicate kick samples of benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from six
stations. The macroinvertebrates were identified, and this information analy-
zed by the State. According to criteria developed by biologists with the Divi-
sion of Environmental Management, the 65 percent reduction in taxa richness
seen below the discharge point is an indication of severe stress on the ben-
thos. A biotic index of 4.4 below the discharges as well as the reduction in
number of intolerant organisms (Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera) from 12 to 1
also indicates poor conditions. However, biologic conditions had improved by
the confluence, and there is no apparent adverse effect in Mulberry Creek be-
low the confluence.
033
-------
C. Toxicity Tests
Effluent samples from both Carolina Mirror and Gardner Mirror were collected
for toxicity testing. The results indicated to the State that there was little
acute toxicity to Daphnia pulex during the 48-hour test period. The test was
repeated, with similar results. An in-situ "bioassay" was also conducted using
common shiner collected from a nearby stream. Fish cages were placed in UT and
checked after a six day period. All the fish were still alive and apparently
healthy in the cage placed just above the confluence. The results of these
tests suggest that there is little acute toxicity associated with the mirror
plant effluents and their presence in UT water. However, the limited array of
macroinvertebrates found above the confluence suggests that there may be a tox-
ic fraction in the mirror plating effluents which becomes concentrated in UT
sediment.
Static, 48-hour, acute toxicity tests were performed on five species of aqua-
tic fauna considered members of the upper piedmont biota. Three of these were
vertebrate species (fathead minnow, rosyside dace and creek chub) and two were
invertebrates (Daphnia pulex and Ephemera simulans). All test organisms were
acclimated in site water for at least four days. The site water had been col-
lected from UT above Carolina Mirror and transported to the laboratory for use
both in acclimation and as bioassay dilution water.
Replicate tests were performed on all test species except the mayfly (Ephe-
mera) which could not be found in adequate numbers. A probit analysis using
the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was performed to determine LC50 values.
III. FINDINGS
To some extent, whether or not the mirror plating discharges have a signifi-
cant impact on UT becomes a value judgment. While the benthic survey shows a
significant change in macroinvertebrate populations immediately below the dis-
charges, there appears to be some recovery by the time flow reaches the con-
fluence of UT and Mulberry Creek. There is no discernable adverse affect on
Mulberry Creek due to UT. Based on the in-situ "bioassay" conducted near the
confluence, it would appear that fish too are not adversely affected by the
mirror plating effluents.
It is assumed in this demonstration that the only pollutant of consequence be-
ing released to UT is copper. The national criteria value for copper at a hard-
ness of 26 mg/1 (as measured in UT) is 6.3 ug/1 , a value which is considerably
less than concentrations measured in the vicinity of the discharges. High cop-
per levels are probably not unusual. If the aquatic life of UT has not been
severely affected by the frequent occasions when in-stream copper concentra-
tions exceed the national criteria (as suggested by the benthos above the con-
fluence, and the results of the in-situ bioassay), we may then consider modify-
ing the copper criteria, for UT specifically, to a value which reflects site
water effects on toxicity.
034
-------
The national data base used to develop Individual water quality criteria com-
prises the results of 96-hour vertebrate bioassays and 48-hour invertebrate
bioassays. Unfortunately, the bioassays conducted as part of this demonstra-
tion are all 48-hour tests and thus should not be compared with the 96-hour
results in the national data base. Nevertheless, it will be instructive to
develop a modified copper criterion for UT, while emphasizing that this is
done for the purpose of illustration only.
A. Water Effect Ratio Method
A site specific criterion for UT may be derived by adjusting the national cri-
terion value by the ratio of site water bioassay results to laboratory water
results. The geometric mean of the ratios is 2.5, as seen in Table 1.
For total recoverable copper, the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic
life, as derived using the Guidelines, should not exceed the numerical value
in micrograms per liter given by:
exp [0.94 x In(Hardness) - 1.23] (1)
The hardness of UT water after receiving the two mirror plating discharges is
26 mg/1. The instantaneous maximum copper concentration calculated by Equation
1 is 6.3 ug/1. Adjustment of the national criterion value (6.3 ug/1) by the
ratio of site water to laboratory water results yields a site specific copper
criterion of:
(6.3 ug/l)(2.5) = 15.8 ug/1 (2)
B. Resident Species Calculation
The national criterion for a given pollutant is determined analytically or
graphically according to a procedure prescribed by EPA's Office of Research
and Development. The procedure is described in detail in the Federal Register
of November 28, 1980. The minimum data base discussed in this early presenta-
tion of the criteria calculation method has been revised such that the defini-
tion of minimum data base will be left to the discretion of the states.
The information required for a site specific calculation is displayed in Table
2 and in Figure 2. In the procedure, In LC50 values are grouped into intervals
defined by the LC50 for the most sensitive species in the national data base
for copper. The natural log of the LC50 of the most sensitive species (Daphnia
pulicaria, LC50 of 0.23 ug/1) is -1.47. Each interval has a width of 0.25 log
units, thus the boundaries of these intervals become -1.47, -1.22, -0.97,
4.03, 4.28.
C-35
-------
TABLE 1. ACUTE TOXICITY TESTS
48-HOUR LC5Q FOR COPPER
(ug/1)
Test Site Lab
Organism Water Water
Fathead* 64 21
Mayfly 49
Daphnia* 30 14
Creek Chub* 26
Rosy Side Dace 26
Geometric Mean 36.4 17.1 2.5
Arithmetic Mean 39.0 17.5 2.6
National Copper Data Base
TABLE 2. INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR RESIDENT SPECIES CALCULATION
Site Water
Organism LC5Q In LC5Q Percent!le
Rosyside Dace 26 3.26 20
Creek Chub 26 3.26 40
Daphnia 30 3.40 60
Mayfly 49 3.89 80
Fathead 64 4.16 100
C-36
-------
5.0 -I
4.0-
O
u>
o
3.0-
2.0
Fathead
Mayfly
Daphnia
Rosyside Dace
Creek Chub
PLOTTING POINTS
In LC50 PERCENTILE
3.26
3.40
3.89
4.16
40
60
80
100
20
r
40
r
GO
8O
I
IOO
PERCENTILE
GRAPHICAL DERIVATION OF COPPER CRITERIA
BASED ON RESIDENT SPECIES TOXICITY TESTS
FIGURE 2
037
-------
The lowest two In LC50 values fall in the interval 3.03 to 3.28. The geometric
mean In LC50 of 3.26 represents the fortieth percentile. The next interval,
3.28 to 3.53, includes the In LC50 for Daphnia only. The table of plotting
points shown in Figure 1 is generated in this manner.
Once the points are plotted, a straight line is drawn through the two points
representing the most sensitive species in the array. Since the derived cri-
terion is intended to protect all but the most sensitive 5 percent of resident
aquatic life, a line drawn at the fifth percentile will indicate the concentra-
tion which should not be exceeded in order to protect 95 percent of aquatic
life in the receiving water. In this illustration the fifth percentile corres-
ponds to an In LC50 of 3.0, or a copper concentration of 20.1 ug/1 .
C. Comparison of Criteria
The criteria developed in this investigation are compared in Table 3.
TABLE 3. ALTERNATIVE COPPER CRITERIA, ug/1
National Criteria 6.3
Ratio Method Modification 15.8
Resident Species Modification 20.1
It is interesting to note that the site water LC50 values indicated by the bio-
assays for copper, which cover a range from 26 ug/1 to 64 ug/1 (see Table 1),
are higher (less restrictive) than the modified criteria values developed by
the ratio method and the resident species method. While the modified values
may appear rather high at first—especially in contrast to the highly conserva-
tive values that the States have become accustomed to, which reflect an appli-
cation factor of 0.1—it must be remembered that they reflect both the mitiga-
ting effect of site water on a toxic pollutant, and they reflect a procedure
which is designed to protect 95 percent of the aquatic life in a stream. On
the other hand, the method in which an arbitrary application factor is used to
adjust laboratory water bioassay results does not take site specific factors
into consideration, and may be so conservative that a criterion cannot realis-
tically be met.
The resident species recalculation procedure is labor intensive and could re-
quire a considerable effort to collect a sufficient number of fish or other
organisms for the required site water toxicity tests. While the results of the
resident species recalculation method might be felt to carry more weight than
a ratio method modification performed with hatchery fish, the ratio method re-
quires less manpower and less time to complete.
C-38
-------
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Toxicity test results are the most important element in the site specific cri-
teria modification protocol investigated in North Wilkesboro. While the ben-
thic survey and the water chemistry analysis provide necessary insight into
the biological health of the receiving water, and may point out problems that
would not be reflected in the bioassays, it is the bioassay results which pro-
vide a basis for modifying a national criterion number to reflect local condi-
tions.
The national criteria numbers are based on toxicity tests run in laboratory
water and, thus, may not adequately represent site water effects. A site spe-
cific criterion is most easily developed by adjusting the national criterion
number to reflect the differences observed in parallel sets of toxicity tests,
one set using site water as dilution water, the parallel set run in convention-
al fashion using laboratory water as dilution water.
There is a pronounced site water effect seen in the bioassays which points to
the conclusions that: 1) the toxicity of copper to aquatic life (fathead min-
now and Daphnia) is mitigated by water from UT, and 2) that an adjustment to a
less stringent copper criterion may therefore be justified.
Whether such an adjustment should be based directly on the analyses presented
in this report would be controversial since the procedures followed were not
strictly in accord with the criteria modification protocol under investiga-
tion. Whether or not to base an adjustment on the findings of this study would
fall on the judgement of the State.
c-39
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1984 0 - 430-744
------- |