WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
REGION 6
-------
WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
REGION 6
-------
CONTRIBUTORS
Wate.fi Vi.vj.A4.on
Jim Lazofichak
Anna. Cft.othe.fiA
Ron Lau,&te.ft.
Billy Black
Ax.le.ne. Gaine.t>
Ralph Evan*
Je.ft.fiy Sande.ft.A
Bonnie. Ve.VoA
S-teue Bu.ike.tt
Han.tu.ng
Re,g
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Region VI Water Management System - Summary 1
Water Management System (WMS) for the 1980s 3
Region VI Pilot Project Plan 4
Draft Work Plan for WMS Pilot Project: Arkansas. ... 8
Screening Criteria for Determination of
"Significant" Stream Violations 11
Proposed Methodology for Ranking Stream Segments for WMS .... 12
Data Reguirements and Sources for WMS 13
Monitoring Station Map 15
Major Discharger Map . 15
WMS-NPS Map of Arkansas 16
Appendix 24
-------
REGION VI WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
SUMMARY
Introduction
Region VI is embarking on a new, yet old, approach to water quality management.
The objective is to direct State and Federal resources to the worst water
quality problems first. This "wors±_-first" method is different from previous
programs because it is based stfictly on water quality standards or criteria,.
In the past, systems have been largely technology-based.
The objective of this management system is to have a un±OM_Stajte_ajid_£e^e.ral
a p_p_rj}a.cn_f0£_jmaJ.y_zin.g-w.a.te.r-~ q ua-l~tty_a n.d_fjD.r_cor.Ke.c±.ijig_the_w.o.ics±_pj:QbleJms
f-ips-t— w44h^th.e_.mos,t_ef.f-i-G4.ent-ui.n.ves,tment of resources. Success will depend
upon the ability of EPA to incorporate this system in all its Divisional
Offices, and then to work with the States in a cooperative effort towards
better water quality management.
Procedure
The Region VI Water Management System has the following steps:
1. Identify, from Federal and State programs, stream segments, lakes, bays,
and estuaries not meeting State water quality standards (WQS) and in the
absence of State toxic standards, those segments (as identified in the
State WQS) exceeding Federal Toxic Criteria.
2. Identify, from Federal and State programs, sources (point, nonpoint and
natural) of pollutants by segments causing (or potentially causing) vio-
lations of State WQS and/or exceedance of Federal Toxic Criteria.
3. Rank stream segments and lakes from worst to least order of water quality
problems.
4. Identify existing Federal and State programs responsible for correcting
these problems.
5. Focus ,and intensify Federal and State resources in the order of worst-
first problems identified in Step 3.
Major Benefits
1. Provides method to clearly identify and rank most significant water quality
problems in State, Region or Nation.
2. Provides framework to judge accountability for managing and tracking
environmental programs.
-------
Pilot Project
A WMS pilot project plan was designed and tested for one State in Region VI,
Arkansas. The following pages show the elements of the plan in detail.
Documentation of some of the key steps in the pilot project, as well as an
explanation of the maps used in the presentation are also included in this
package.
-------
WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (WMS) FOR THE 1980s
STORET Data
Water Quality Indices
208 Program and Environmental Profiles
305(b)
Federal Water
Quality Criteria
Permit Data
WMS for 1980s
Identify Non-Compliant
Stream Segments
2. Locate major/minor discharge
by stream segment
Identify Non-Compliant
discharge
Identify Impaired Uses and
Parameters Violated
Use Information to Focus
EPA Programs on the "Real"
Water Quality Problems
Safe Drinking
Water Act
Water Quality
i" " " " "Standards Revisions '
^
1 1
208 NPS 314
1 1
f
1 II I I
106 3P5(b) 201 205(g) RCRA
1 1 1 1 1
•
1 1
OTHER FEDERAL
UIC PROGRAMS
1 (FmHA, etc.)
9
Protection of Surface
Source for Drinking
Water
MMS
Priority List
Permit Issuance
Enforcement
Actions
New & Existing
Non-Municipal
Permits
Permit Issuance
Enforcement
Actions
404 Permits
Permit Issuance
Enforcement
Actions
-------
REGION VI PILOT PROJECT PLAN
Streams
A. Ambient Water Quality Data and Standards
For each State a report will be prepared that identifies stream seg-
ments by monitoring station which do not meet water quality standards.
The following information will be provided:
1. Criteria _for defining significant violations of water quality
standards or Federal Toxic Criteria (FTC)
2. List of monitoring stations which have significant water quality
standard violations or exceed EPA criteria for toxics. Indicate
which standards have been violated.
3. List of use categories of each segment with violations. Indicate
which uses are impaired.
4. Calculation of number of river miles in each noncompliant seg-
ment. Indicate number of river miles in State which are in vio-
lation of standards for each parameter.
5. Criteria for ranking monitoring stations by severity of problem.
List of stations by rank.
6. Map displaying above findings.
B. Point Sources
For each State provide the following information for the noncompliant
stream segments:
1. List of names, locations, and NPDES limits for each discharger.
Include both major and minor industrial and municipal dischargers.
2. Construction grant status for municipal dischargers.
3. NPDES permit compliance status for dischargers. Make notation
of dischargers not meeting 1983 goals.
4. Map of dischargers. Display all information gathered in 2 and
3, above.
C. Nonpoint Sources (NPS)
Review State water quality management plans for documented NPS
problems. Where possible, determine the following information
for each State:
1. Type of pollutants contributed by NPS categories and water uses
which may be adversely affected.
-------
2. Categories of NFS on each noncompliant stream segment.
3. Total number of river miles affected by NPS in each non-
compliant segment.
4. Map of NPS categories on noncompliant segments. Make
special notation where needs exist for BMP's and/or im-
plemented BMP's.
D. Determine Causal Relationships
1. Map likely correlation between noncompliant segments and non-
compliant dischargers, and dischargers that will not meet 1983
limits. Include possible NPS causes.
2. Map noncompliant streams with compliant dischargers that may
or may not have NPS problems.
3. Discuss the frequency and extent of noncompliant dischargers
causing standards violations; of standards violations on
streams without noncompliant dischargers.
4. Draw conclusions from above analysis. Give notation to un-
known causes of water quality standards violations.
II. . Lakes _and Reservoirs
A. Follow general procedures outlined under stream section I.A-D for
lakes and reservoirs with the following variations:
A.4 Estimate percent of lake area affected by standards violations.
List standards violated.
A.5 Map noncompliant lakes and portions affected.
B. Same procedure as I.B.
Cl. Determine number of noncompliant lakes affected by NPS.
D. Same procedure as I.D.
III. Bays and Estuaries for Texas and Louisiana
A. Follow general procedures outlined in stream sections l.A-D for bays
and estuaries with these variations:
A.4 Determine portions of bays and estuaries with water quality
violations. List parameters violated.
A.5 Map areas of bays and estuaries with parameter violations.
B. : Same procedure as I.B.
-------
C. Same procedure as I.C.
D. Same procedure as I.D.
IV. Wetland Status
A. Discussion by State of critical wetland areas and why these particular
wetlands were chosen. The following information will also be included
by State:
1. List of critical or sensitive wetlands.
2. Map showing critical or sensitive wetlands.
3. List of major and minor municipal and industrial dischargers in
or near wetlands.
4. Map showing location of wetlands and dischargers.
5. List of known or potential wetland areas with NPS problems.
6. Map showing location of NPS impacts.
7. List of existing and potential dredge and fill activities in
wetland areas.
t
8. Trends in wetland improvement or destruction.
9. Discussion of point source and NPS impacts on wetlands.
V. Groundwater Status
A. A discussion of groundwater drinking water resources by State. The
significance of quality impacts and quantity impacts due to excessive
withdrawal. The following information will be provided by State:
1. Location of major and minor groundwater sources of drinking water.
2. Location of hazardous waste sites near drinking water aquifers.
3. Location of injection well sites near drinking water aquifers.
4. Location of recharge zones.
5. Status of water quality in streams or lakes in 4 above.
6. Maps showing 1-5 above.
B. Discussion of national groundwater strategy and how this strategy
will be incorporated in the Water Management System.
-------
VI. Action Plan
A. State priority list of problem areas across different aquatic
habitats (Sections I-V).
B. Identification of sources and methods used to develop the priority
list in A.
C. Identification of funding sources and strategy to maximize resources
in order of worst/first problems identified in A above (106, 201,
208, 314, etc.).
D. Identification of Federal and State enforcement capabilities to
handle priority problems (hazardous waste regulations, enforcement
regulations, pretreatment regulations, etc.).
E. Alternate plan for achieving Regional priorities if State(s) choose
not to participate (i.e., funding redirection).
-------
DRAFT WORK PLAN FOR WMS PILOT PROJECT: ARKANSAS
Task
I.
II.
Test
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
XIV.
—
Beginning
Date
1/26
1/26
1/26
2/2
2/9
1/26
2/9
2/16
2/18
2/9
-•
Due.
Date
1/30
1/30
2/6
2/6
2/13
2/17
2/20
2/23
3/6
Task Description *
Team Meeting
List agencies and WQS
List stream segments, etc.
Pre-test of entire system
Team Meeting
Compilation of required STORET data
Prepare WQ matrix for all stream
segments. Note dates and number
of violations
Prepare policy guidelines for deter-
mination of significant violation
List and map all segments in violation
Team meeting to discuss progress to
date
Preparation of groundwater section as
part of RAC hazardous waste siting
study"
Assignment
Water
Water
Water/ RAC
S&A
Water
Water/RAC
List: Water
Map: RAC
RAC
.RAC
- • •
VII. A,B 2/23
1,2,4
3/6
List and map all municipal and Water/Enf
industrial discharges on streams
in violation. List NPDES permits
for dischargers
List construction grant status for Water
non-compliant municipal dischargers
List non-compliant industrial . Water
dischargers
VII. A.B-3 3/9
C
3/13
Analyze loading and violations for
cause and effect. List point sources
likely to be responsible.
Water/RAC
* Refer to task outline for more detail.
8
-------
Task
Beginning Due
Date Date
VIII. 1.4 2/23
3/6
Task Description
List land use and NFS which may
affect segments in violation
Assignment
Water
NOTE: Task VIII will run concurrently with VII.
VIII. 2,3 2/23
3/9
3/6
List likely composition of NPS runoff
and loading. Compare WQS violations
and NPS loading for possible cause
effect
Team Meeting
Water/RAC
IX. 1
3/9
3/13
List segments with violations and
corresponding point and non-point
sources
Water
IX. 2
3/9
3/13
Indicate cause and effect or lack
thereof for standard violations
Water/RAC
3/16
3/20
Determine trends in WQ - illustrate Water
graphically (rough)
Establish ranking criteria Water/RAC
Develop priority list according Water/RAC
to criteria
List sources of pollution corres- Water
ponding to priority list
XV-XVIII.
3/23
3/23
3/27
Team Meeting
Identify Federal/State Programs
List streams ranked worst/first
within programs
Propose alternates
Water
Water/RAC
Water/RAC
3/30
4/3
4/3
Draft of Policy
Team Meeting
-------
Beginning Due
Task Date Date Task Description Assignment
4/6 4/10 Final Policy
4/13 4/24 Internal Review
State Review
4/27 5/15 Prepare final draft
graphics preparation
cartography
5/18 5/29 Preparation of final copy
6/12 Submittal of final draft
10
-------
Steps:
SCREENING CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF
"SIGNIFICANT" STREAM VIOLATIONS
"WMS Pilot Project
1. Using STORET standard program, search for violations of state standards
during the most recent five year period. Printout includes statistical
summary of violations as well as dates and magnitudes of violations.
2. Whenever flow data were listed, disregard all violations which were re-
corded when the stream was below the 7-day, 10-year low flow condition.
3. For any calendar year during which there was only one violation of TDS,
Sulfate, Chloride, or Fecal Coliform, disregard that one violation.
(Note: The standard for these parameters ello'.-.'S 10% of the samples to
be above a stated limit. A minimum of two violations per year approxi-
mates this condition since samples were collected at most stations ap-
proximately 10-12 times per year.)
4. Disregard any measured violation that is so close to the standard that
the ability of the test equipment or methodology to differentiate be-
tween the violation and the standard must be questioned, (e.g., the
test for dissolved oxygen may not be precise enough to distinguish
between a reading of 4.9 and 5.0.) These "precision screens" are
taken from Standard Methods and are as follows:
Parameter Variance
DO - . 1 mg/1
Fecal Coliform + 10% of Standard
Temperature + . 1° C
Turbidity + 10% of Standard
pH + . 1 S.U.
TDS, Chi, Sulfate + 5% of Standard
5. After eliminating violations described in Steps 2-4, list all stations
which report standard violations for more than 5.5% of all samples over
the five year period.
11
-------
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR RANKING STREAM SEGMENTS FOR WHS
A key step in completing the- Water Management System pilot study is ranking the
stream segments according to overall water quality factors. The suggested
•methodology is an adapatation of the approach used in the 1980 State of Texas
Water Quality Inventory. Scoring is based on the number of observations, the
number of violations, the severity of the violations and the stream clasifi-
cations. Weights are assigned to indicate the relative importance of the
parameters..
Stream segments will be ranked in descending order according to the following
procedure:
SCORE + (DO + FC + TOT P + Turb + pH + Temp + DS) x USE
Where:
Weights /n^
-------
DATA REQUIREMENTS AND SOURCES FOR WMS
•
I. Step: Determine stream segments with significant violations
Data System: STORET
Division: Surveillance and Analysis
Elements:
1. Monitoring station, identification number
2. Stream segment name
3. Hydrologic unit
4. State planning basin
5. Use type
6. Summary of violation of State water quality standards
for five year period of record
7. Dates and magnitudes of violations
II. Step: List and map industrial and municipal dischargers.
Data System: IFD File (Industrial Facilities Database)
Division: Surveillance and Analysis
Elements:
1. Faci1i ty name
2. NPDES permit number
3. Major or minor designation
4. Standard Industrial Classification number
5. Latitude-longitude (where available)
6. County and city code
7. Hydrologic unit and REACH number
8. Receiving stream
13
-------
III. Step: Determine construction grant status for municipal dischargers
•
Data System: Grants Information Control System (GICS)
Division: Water
Elements:
1. Applicant name
2. Grant I.D. t
3. Construction grant step number
(Note: For a limited number of major municipal dischargers,
a Cross Reference File has been created that can
match grant identification numbers with NPDES permit
numbers.)
IV. Step: Determine compliance status for major industrial and municipal
dischargers
Data System: Permit and Compliance System
"Special Major Parametric Compliance List"
Division: Enforcement
Elements:
1. Discharger name
2. NPDES number
3. Type (municipal - non-municipal)
4. Parameter in violation
5. Month of violation
6. Type of violation (7- or 30-day)
V. Step: Plot all hazardous waste sites in State
Data System: HAZSIT
Division: Enforcement
Elements:
1. Site name
2. HAZSIT number
3. City
4. County
5. Latitude-longitude (where available)
-------
MONITORING STATION MAP
This map represents each monitoring station in Arkansas that has recorded
significant water quality problems during 1975-1980. Red dots indicate
State stations; yellow dots show USGS stations.
As indicated on the key, only conventional pollutants were analyzed. All
data were retrieved from the STORET system. The violations were screened
according to the criteria presented earlier. Every red or yellow station
has at least one significant standard violation. The actual parameters
violated are noted next to the station.
MAJOR DISCHARGER MAP
Major municipal and industrial dischargers were recorded in the Industrial
Facilities Database file. They are indicated on the map by green dots
(municipal) and purple dots (industrial). Industrial dischargers are fur-
ther identified by a four digit Standard Industrial Classification number.
Noncompliance status is indicated by an "NC" next to facilities that were
not in compliance with their NPDES permit limits for at least one month
out of calendar year 1980. Only violations of permit limits which could
cause violations of conventional pollutants were considered, (i.e.,
exceedance of BOD permit limits could lead to a violation of a DO standard.)
Construction grant status is indicated by small numbers next to municipal
facilities. The funding phases are:
1 -- planning
2 — design
3 — construction
-------
WMS-NPS MAP OF ARKANSAS
The numbered sites (red areas) shown on the Arkansas WMS-NPS map were
developed using the Arkansas Statewide Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution
Priorities List. The Arkansas statewide list had projects listed by NPS
category. To keep sites to a minimum we combined projects that had more
than one type of NPS category to one site. Further description of
the red areas is on Table 1 and page 17.
Clean Lakes projects (noted in blue) were provided by the Arkansas
project officers. Six of the lakes are funded Phase I Clean Lakes
Projects; the others were studied under Clean Lakes Classification and
Inventory grant. They are potential Phase I projects. See Table 2
for more detail.
Problem areas noted in green were taken from Nonpoint Source Pollution
Assessment Summaries for each river basin (June 1979). If a problem was
clearly stated as common to the planning basin, the NPS category was
marked by a green dot and written next to the segment number. If it
was only a problem for a particular watershed the NPS category was
written in the approximate location of that watershed. Further ex-
planation is on Table 3.
16
-------
Explanation of Map Symbols, Abbreviations,
and Nonpoint Source Site Symbols
- No past or current funding
- Funding provided for a portion of NFS categories at site
- Funding provided for all NPS categories at site
Non-point Source Categories
A - Agriculture
C - Construction runoff
F - Silviculture
H - Hydrologic modification
M - Mining
R - Roadside erosion
S - Septic tank
U - Urban runoff
W - Waste disposal (Residual waste)
17
-------
Table 1. Explanation of red areas on Arkansas NPS map
Map
Symbol
46M
74W
13A
15ASMH
18 UC
-
79W
85H
1A
8AUFC
23UC
78W
7AS
32 F
24URC
30FR
3 IF
Priority
46
74
13
15,39,50,88
18,68
74
79
85
1
8,20,34,70
23,64
78
7,38
32
24,55,62
30,54
31
Project
- (Agency)
Magnolia (S)
Hempstead Co. Haz.
W.L.F. (S)
McKinney Bayou
(A-T)
Sulphur River
(A-T)
Days Creek (A-T
Hempstead Co. Haz.
W.L.F. (S)
Texarkana (A-T)
Red River (A-T)
Lake Chicot (S)
Bayou Bartholomew
(SARPC)
Pine Bluff/
Whitehall (SARPC)
Pine Bluff Dumps
(SARPC)
Jefferson Co.
(SARPC)
Ouachita Mountains
(S)
Pulaski /Saline Co.
(M)
Year
78/79
S-78/79,
80
78/79,81
78/79,80
80
81 -A, U
W-80,81
S-80
C-78/79
& 81
Lake Winona-2201 80
Upper Alum Fork (S)
Lake Winona-2202
78/79
NPS
Category
M
W
A
A,S,M,H
U,C
W
W
H
A
A,U,F,C
UC
W
A,S
F
U,R,C
F,R
F
Segment
1A
1A(1B, 2G)
IB
IB
IB
IB (see 1A)
IB
IB
2A
2B
2B (3C)
2B
3C
2
2C (3C)
2C
2C
40S
40
Lower Alum Fork
(S)
Lake Norrell (M)
S
2C
18
-------
Map
Symbol
43M
44M
45M
47M
83H
42M
81H
49M
SOW
12 AW
6A
16AUC
17UCH
76W
14AUC
22USC
Priority
43
44
45
47
83
42
83
74
81
49
80
12,75
6
16,29,71
17,61,86
76
23,64
24,55,62
14,27,72
22,36,66,
Project
(Agency) Year
* Hurricane Creek (M) 78/79
80,81
Lost Creek (S)
Hampton, Lignite (S)
El Dorado (S)
Ouachita River (S)
Cove Cr. /Chamber! in
Cr. (S)
Ouachita River (S)
Hempstead Co. Haz.
W.L.F.
Arkansas River
Jefferson Co. (SARPC)
Jefferson Co. 80,81
(SARPC)
Bayou Meto (M) 81
Forche Bayou (M) 81
Arkansas River (M) A-81
Fourche Creek (M) U 78/79
Little Rock Mun.
Sludge (S)
Pine Bluff/
Whitehall (SARPC)
Pulaski/Saline Co. C-78/79
(M) 81
Big Maumelle River
(M)
White Oak Bayou S-78/79
NPS
Category
M
M
M
M
H
M
H
W
H
M
W
A,W
A
A,U,C
U,C,H
W
U,C
U,R,C
A,U,C
U,S,C
Segment
2C
2C
20
20
2D (2F)
2F
2F (see
2G (see
2D)
1A)
all segments
3A, 3B,
2B, 3C
3B
3C
3C
3C
3C
3C (see
3C (see
3D
3D
3C
2B)
2C)
(M)
19
-------
Map
Symbol
26USC
52 M
59R
4A
9AR
11AR
19UC
25UC
28UC
33FS
63CW
87H
10AR
48M
51M
82H
3A
2A
53R
Priority
26,41,71
52
59
4
9,57
11,58
19,67
25,65
28,69
33,37
63,77
87
10,56
48
51,82
82
82
3
2
53
53
Project
(Agency) Year
- Little Maumelle S-78/79
River (M)
Pope Co. Coal (S)
Blue Mountain ( A)
Animal Waste Feed 81
(A)
Ozark Lake (A)
Lock X. Dam #13
(A)
Massard Creek U-80
(Ft. Smith) (A) C-81
Van Buren (A) C-81
Moutainburg (A) C-81
Crawford/Sebastian
Counties (A)
Fort Smith (A) C-81
Lee Creek (A)
Lower Poteau River
(A)
James Fork River
(A)
White River (S)
White River (S)
White River (S)
Wetlands, Prairie 80
Co. (S)
Indian Creek (S) 81
Roadway Erosion (S)
Roadway Erosion (S)
NPS
Category
u,s",c
M
R
A
A,R
A,R
U,C
U,C
U,C
F,S
C,W
H
.A,R
M
M,H
H
H
A
A
R
R
Segment
3D
3F
3G
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
3H
31
31
4A (4B & 4D)
4B (see 4A)
4D (see 4A)
4D
4E
41 (J, K)
40 (see 41)
20
-------
Map
Symbol
53R
35S
5A
Priority
53
35
5
Project
. (Agency)
Roadway Erosion (S)
Beaver Res. (S)
L'Anguille River
NPA
No Priority
21
60
84
Year
80
Pesticides (S)
Noble Lake
Not Shown on Map:
Every Municipality
in State
Every Municipality
in State
Every Army COE Res.
in State
80
NPS
Category
R
S
A
U
C
H
Segment
4K (see 41)
4K
5B
2B
Project (Agency)
S - State (Ark. Dept. of Pollution Control and Ecology)
A - Arkhoma RPC
A-T - Ark-Tex COG
M - Metroplan
SARPC - Southeast Ark. RPC
Note: NPS categories shown in the NPS category column are those shown on
the Arkansas Statewide NPS Pollution Priorities List
21
-------
Table 2. Future, Past, and Present Clean Lake Projects (shown in blue
on WMS NPS Map) • •
No.
Cl
C2
C3
C4 .
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
Cll
C12
CIS
Project
Lake Wallace
Calion Lake
Lake Enterprize
Lake June
Lake Lou Emma
Lake Bailey
Lake Chi cot
Old Town Lake
Reynolds Lake
Newport Lake
Pine Bluff
Hamilton
Maumelle
NPS Category Segment
2B
2D
2B
1A
3H
3G
2A
A 4A
A 5C
U AC
U & S 3C
U 2F
A 3D
oo
-------
Table 3. Recognized NPS Problem Areas (in green)
Basin
1C
ID
2B
2C
2E
3C
3C
3D
3D
3H
31
3J
4C
4D
4E
4F
4G
41
4K
5B
5C
Watershed
5327
5204
1606
2302
5015
4801
4610
4506, 4503
3901
3206
2507
NPS
W
F
M
A -
M -
A,
W
A -
W
M
M
A -
A
A
A -
M
M
A -
M
A
W
Category
Feedlot
Saline
U
Feedlot
-
Feedlot
Feedlot
Feedlot
23
-------
APPENDIX
• Elements of Water Management System
• Worksheet Examples
• Stream Rank by Monitoring Station
• Plan for Ambient Water Monitoring Data
Evaluation
24
-------
Elements of the Water Management System
*
The following pages outline the procedure by which problems are to be
identified and ranked for streams, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, bays, and
groundwaters. Section VI is an action plan designed to implement the
system and to identify the mechanisms available for corrective actions
at both the State and Federal level.
I. Stream Water Quality Problems
For each State in Region 6, a brief discussion will be provided that
identifies and justifies the top stream quality problems of that State
(i.e., worst problem segments, parameters, and impacted uses). This dis-
cussion will include procedures used to determine significant water
quality standards violations, exceedance of Federal Toxic Criteria, and
rankings of stream segments (or monitoring stations) in order of worst
to least water quality problems.
A. For each State, a list of stream segments will be provided that
identifies those segments not meeting water quality standards.
Each stream segment on this list not meeting standards will have
the following information:
1. A listing of State water quality standards that were violated
or Federal Toxic Criteria exceeded (status of TOC levels in drinking
water segments).
2. A list of uses on each of these noncompliant stream segments.
Identification of which uses are injured by parameters from 1 above
(special emphasis will be given to drinking water segments).
3. Number of river miles in each of the noncompliant stream seg-
ments and the number of river miles impacted by the parameters in
1 above.
4. Maps showing degree of compliance with WQS and/or Federal Toxic
Criteria.
B. For each State, the following information concerning sources of pol-
lutants will be provided:
1. Number of major and minor municipal dischargeres for each State.
2. Names, location, and NPDES limits for each major and minor mu-
nicipal dischargers by stream segment.
3. Maps showing locations of major and minor municipal dischargers
with special notations for noncompliant dischargers and dischargers
not meeting 1983 goals.
-------
-2-
4. Construction grant status of noncompliant municipal dischargers.
5. Number of major and minor industrial dischargers for each State.
6. Name, type, location, and NPDES limits for each major and minor
industrial discharger by stream segment.
7. Maps showing locations of major and minor industrial dischargers
with special notations for noncompliant dischargers and dischargers
not meeting 1983 goals.
C. A description will be provided for each State that identifies the
major nonpoint source (NFS) categories causing stream quality problems
in that State. Where possible, the following information, by stream seg-
ment within each State, will be provided:
1. Total number of river miles impacted by NPS in each noncompliant
stream segment.
2. Categories of NPS impacting 1 above.
3. Location and category of NPS activities causing water quality
impacts.
4. Map(s) showing location of these NPS with special notation show-
ing needs for BMPs and/or implemented BMPs.
5. Types of pollutants contributed by NPS categories above and
uses impacted.
D. Correlation (if any) between the location of noncompliant dischar-
ger^) and/or impacted NPS areas with identified noncompliant stream set-
ments. The following information will be provided:
1. Map(s) showing where violations of WQS and/or exceedance of
Federal Toxic Criteria are due to noncompliant dischargers (NPDES
limits and/or 1983 goals) and/or NPS. Notation will be given to
unknown causes of WQS violations.
2. Trends in water quality over the last 3-5 years by stream seg-
ment illustrated by tables, graphs, and/or maps.
3. Discussion concerning the frequency and extent of noncompliant
dischargers causing standards violations.
4. Number of noneompliant stream segments with compliant dischar-
gers, but may or may not have NPS problem areas.
5. Conclusions documented by above analyses.
-------
-3-
II. Lake/Reservoir Water Quality Problems
For each State in Region 6, a brief discussion will be provided that
identifies and prioritizes the top problem lakes within each State and
brief description of problems and uses impaired on these lakes. A de-
scription of the procedures used to determine compliance with State WQS
and/or exceedance of Federal Toxic Criteria will also be included.
A. For each State, a list of lakes havinq water quality problems and/or
violations of WQS will be provided. Each problem lake will have the
following information:
1. A list of water quality standards that were violated or Federal
Toxic Criteria exceeded (status of TOC on drinking water lakes).
2. A list of uses on each of these noncompliant lakes. Identify-
ing which uses are injured by parameters from 1 above (special em-
phasis will be given to drinking water lakes/reservoirs).
3. Estimation, if possible, of what percent of the lake (in area)
is impacted by the parameters in 1 above.
4. Maps showing noncompliant lakes/reservoirs and the portion(s)
of the lake/reservoir impacted.
B. For each State, the following information concerning point sources
of pollutants will be provided:
1. Names, location, and NPDES limits for each major and minor munic-
ipal dischargers by lake/reservoir.
2. Name, type, location, and NPDES limits for each major and minor
industrial discharger by lake/reservoir.
3. Map(s) showing location of major and minor municipal and indus-
trial dischrgers with special notations for noncompliant dischar-
gers and dischargers not meeting 1983 goals.
4. Construction grant status of noncompliant municipals.
C. A description will be provided for each State that identifies the
major NPS categories causing lake quality problems in that State.
Where possible, the following information, by lake or reservoir-, within
each State, will be provided:
1. Number of noncompliant lakes/reservoirs impacted by NPS.
2. Categories of NPS impacting areas in 1 above.
-------
-4-
3. Location and category of NFS causing water quality impacts.
4. Map(s) showing location of these NPS-with special notation show- •
ing needs for BMPs and/or implemented BMPs.
5. Types of pollutants contributed by NPS categories above and uses
impacted.
>
D. Correlation (if any) between the location of noncompliant dischar-
ger(s) (NPDES limits and/or 1983 goals) and/or impacted NPS areas with
identified noncompliant lakes/reservoirs. The following information
will be provided:
1. Map(s) showing where violations of WQS and/or exceedance of
Federal Toxic Criteria in lakes are due to noncompliance dischar-
gers (NPDES limits and/or 1983 goals) and/or NPS. Notation will be
given to unknown causes of WQS violations.
2. Trends in water quality over the last 3-5 years by lake/reser-
voir illustrated by tables, graphs, and/or maps.
3. Discussion concerning the frequency and extent of noncompliant
dischargers causing standards violations.
4. Number of noncompliant lakes/reservoirs with compliant dischar-
gers, but may or may not have NPS problem areas.
5. Conclusions documented by above analyses.
III. Bay and Estuary Water Quality Problems
For the States of Louisiana and Texas, a discussion will be presented
that identifies and prioritizes the problem bays and estuaries. A brief
description will be included of problem parameters and uses impaired.
A. For Louisiana and Texas, a list of bays and estuaries having WQS
violations will be provided. Each problem area will have the following
information:
1. A list of water quality standards that were violated or Federal
Toxic Criteria exceeded.
2. A list of uses and special notation to which uses are being
injured by parameters in 1 above.
3. What portion of the bay or estuary is impacted by the parameters
in 1 above.
4. Maps showing bays or estuaries with standards violations.
-------
-5-
*
B. For Louisiana and Texas, the following information concerning sources
of pollutants will be provided:
1. Names, location, and NPDES limits for each major and minor munic-
ipal dischargers by bay or estuary.
2. Map(s) showing location of major and minor municipal dischargers
with special notations for noncompliant dischargers and dischargers
not meeting 1983 goals.
3. Construction grant status of noncompliant municipals.
4. Name, type, location, and NPDES limits for each major and minor
industrial discharger by bay or estuary.
5. Map(s) showing locations of major and minor industrial dischar-
gers with special notations for noncompliant dischargers and dis-
chargers not meeting 1983 goals.
C. Description of NPS problems in bays or estuaries of Texas and
Louisiana. The following information will be included:
1. Number of bays and estuaries impacted by NPS.
2. Categories of NPS impacting areas in 1 above.
3. Location and category of NPS potentially causing water quality
impacts.
4. Map(s) showing location of these NPS with special notation
showing needs for BMPs and/or implemented BMPs.
5. Types of pollutants contributed by NPS categories above and
uses impacted.
D. Correlation between noncompliant dischargers and/or NPS impacts and
bays and estuaries not meeting WQS. The following information will be
provided:
1. Map(s) showing where violations of WQS are due to noncompliant
dischargers and/or NPS. Notation will be given to unknown causes
of WQS violations.
2. Trends in water quality over the last 3-5 years for each bay
and estuary illustrated by tables, graphs, and/or maps.
3. Discussion concerning the frequency and extent of noncompliant
dischargers causing standards violations.
-------
-6-
4. Number of noncompliant bays or esturaries with compliant dis-
chargers, but may or may not have NPS problem areas.
• 5. Conclusions documented"by above analyses.
IV. Wetland Status
A. Discussion by State of critical wetland areas and why these particu-
lar wetlands were chosen. The following information will also be included
by State:
1. List of critical or sensitive wetlands.
2. Map showing critical or sensitive wetlands.
3. List of major and minor municipal and industrial dischargers in
or near wetlands.
4. Map showing location of wetlands and dischargers.
5. List of known or potential wetland areas with NPS problems.
6. Map showing location of NPS impacts.
7. List of existing and potential dredge and fill activities in
wetlands areas.
8. Trends in wetland improvement or destruction.
9. Discussion of point source and NPS impacts on wetlands.
V. Groundwater Status
A. A discussion of groundwater drinking water resources by State. The
significance of quality impacts and quantity impacts due to excessive
withdrawl. The following information will be provided by State:
1. Location of major and minor groundwater sources of drinking
water.
2. Location of hazardous waste sites near drinking water aquifers.
3. Location of injection well sites near drinking water aquifers.
4. Location of recharge zones.
5. Status of water quality in streams or lakes in 4 above.
6. Maps showing 1-5 above.
-------
-7-
B. Discussion of national groundwater strategy and how this strategy
will be incorporated in the water management system for Region 6.
VI. Action Plan
A. Regional and State priority lists of problem areas across different
aquatic habitats (Sections I-V).
B. Identification of sources and methods used to develop the priority
list(s) in A.
C. Identification of funding sources and strategy to maximize resources
in order of worst/first problems identified in A above (106, 201, 208,
314, etc.).
D. Identification of Federal and State enforcement capabilities to
handle priority problems (hazardous waste regulations, enforcement regula-
tions, pretreatment regulations, etc.).
E. Alternate plan for achieving Regional priorities if State(s) choose
not to participate (i.e., funding redirection).
-------
2/23 A/
-------
STAT/GA/
'R/cACH
P.O.
Coh
T"bS
*A R. 1)
r'f
55
3.0
Ad
5-t-
5.3
'juiphur /?•
56
3-0
R
Red
(/fed
/ 6 139
iv •; «--•
HMOlOb
n
bo
300.8'
Red (=?.
Fork Crf c-k'
c/ec-,1 /?. 50)
94
U
16/23
1114 050.1.
.
M
38
350^
TV \ •<
1 C j -58
I
tloo
£7
M'/fe
1x4
£47-0
-------
o
ff
(-0
3. DOM'S Crz&k
tat- ?>
3.
A
-------
STREAM RANK BY. MONITORING
Station
Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Planning Basin
2D
4B
4K
5C
4H
5C
4K
IB
4G
3H
3J
3J
4A
4A
4G
38
5B
3B
4H
4K
31
4H
5A
5D
Station
Coffee Creek
Bayou Deview
White R.
Pemiscot
Spring R.
St. Francis R.
West Fork White
Days Cr.
Strawberry R.
Arkansas R.
Osage Cr,
Butler Cr.
Big Cr.
Illinois R.
Current R.
Bayou 2 Prairie
L'Anguille
Bayou Meto
Spring R.
Kings R.
Poteau R.
S. Fork Spring R.
St. Francis
Tyronza R.
Monitoring
QUA 11A
WH 26
WH 52
FRA 05A
WH 06A
FRA 07
WH 51
RED 04A
WH 24
ARK 38
ARK 41
ARK 2
WH 37
ARK 40
WH 04
ARK 21
FRA 10
ARK 22
WH 22
WH 9A
ARK 14
WH 23
FRA 02A
FRA 09
Score
19,795
7,074
1,655
1,511
1125
1103
946
835
713
674
644
543
522
520
498
473
408
395
394
387
370
356
351
348
-------
Rank
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Planning Basin
4B
2D
2F
3J
1C
3J
3J
3C
6C
4C
3J
3G
IB
3B
2F
2D
2F
41
4C
4F
2C
31
2B
5C
4H
5B
1A
Station
Bayou Deview
Champagnolle Cr.
Ouachita R.
Barron Fork
Rolling Fork Cr.
Flint Cr.
Illinois R.
Arkansas R.
Mississippi zone 1
Village Cr.
Sager Cr.
Petit Jean
Sulphur R.
Bayou Meto
Ouachita R.
Smackover Cr.
Caddo R.
White R.
Cache R.
White R.
Sabine R.
James Fork
Bayou Bartholomew
St. Francis
Spring R.
L'Anguille
Bayou Dorcheat
Monitoring
USGS 777
USGS 362.3
USGS 3565
ARK 07
RED 23
ARK 04
ARK 06
USGS 2636.2
Miss 04A
USGS 747
ARK 05
ARK 35
RED 05
ARK 23
USGS. 3565
QUA 27
OUA 23
WH 47
USGS 777.74
USGS 605
OUA 26
ARK 15
OUA 33
FRA 08
WH 21
USGS 479.42
RED ISA
Score
339
314
313
308
297
292
281
280
278
270
264
264
256
251
250
242
227
220
217
213
208
205
204
199
195
192
191
-------
Rank
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
.61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
Planning Basin
1C
1C
2G
4C
2D
1A
5C
4B
3G
2A
2A
41
3D
4E
4F
5C
6C
31
2C.
3D
3J
4G
2F
4H
4K
4C
6A
Station
Little River
Cossatat R.
Little MO. R.
Cache R.
Moro R.
Bode aw Cr.
Little R.
Cache R.
Petit Jean
Big Bayou
Boeuf R.
Crooked Cr.
Cadron R.
Mid Fork Little Red.
White R.
St. Francis
Mississippi zone 1
Poteau R.
Saline R.
Arkansas R.
Little Suger
Black R.
Ouachita R.
Eleven Point R.
White R.
Cache R.
Mississippi zine 2
Monitoring
RED 02
RED 22
USGS 3602.5
USGS 775
QUA 28
RED 27
FRA 06
USGS 777.9
ARK 34
QUA 32
ARK ISA
ARK 48A
ARK 18
WH 43
WH 46
USGS 478
USGS 320
ARK 14
QUA 10A
ARK 30
Ark 1
QUA 30
WH 05B
USGS 496.91
WH 32
USGS 2654,5
Score
183
182
177
170
168
166
161
153
152
151
151
147
141
140.5
140
128
127
127
123
122
118
116
108
108
108
107
101
-------
Rank Planning Basin Station Monitoring Score
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95. •
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105
2G
3F
2F
3E
3G
2D
2F
4F
4C
41
2B
4G
4G
3D
. IB
1C
IB
4G
3J
IB
4C
4B
4E
2D
2D
3A
3A
Little MO. R.
Arkansas R.
Ouachita R.
Fourche La Fave
Blue Mountain
Brushy Cr.
Ouachita R.
Nor Fork Cr.
. Cache R.
Crooked Cr.
Bayou Bartholomew
- Black R.
Buffalo R.
Arkansas R.
RED R.
Saline R.
Red R.
Black R.
Spavinaw
Red R.
White R.
Bayou Deview
Little Red R.
Bayou Loutre
Tulip Cr.
Arkansas R.
Arkansas R.
USGS 3615
ARK 32
QUA 29
ARK 36
USGS 2590
USGS 3601.82
QUA 06
USGS 600
WH 27
WH 48A
QUA 13
USGS 725
WH 49
ARK 29
RED 25
RED 21
RED 25
ARK 3A
USGS 3370
USGS 745
WH 33
OUA 05
USGS 361.85
ARK 20
ARK 24
95
93
93
88
82
76
75
-------
Rank
106.
107..
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
Planning Basin
2C
3F
IB
2G
3G
4A
4A
2G "
3H
2G
4C
4E
4K
4A
2F
2D
Station
Hurricane Cr.
Arkansas R.
Red R.
Self Cr.
Petit Jean
White R.
White R.
Little MO. R.
Arkansas R.
Little MO. R.
White R.
Little Red R.
White R.
White R.
Cypress Cr.
Ouachita R.
Monitoring
QUA 31
ARK 31
USGS 3415
USGS 360.55
ARK 34
WH 31
USGS 778
QUA 35
ARK 33
OUA 22
WH 34
WH 41
WH 10B
WH 36
USGS 360.61
OUA 08
Score
18
8
6
5.5
5
4
4
3
-------
Ambient Monitoring Section Plan for Ambient Water
Monitoring Data Evaluation
In order to effectively analyze water monitoring data which is submitted
to STORET, each State in Region 6 will be evaluated no less than semi-
annually. This will allow our available resources to be directed to one
State each month.
Our evaluation of each State will focus on the water quality standards
and river segments of major importance. The most recent six months of
STORET data for specific ambient monitoring stations will undergo analysis
using recently developed computer programs, STORET programs, and the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS).
Using the Standards Programs (STORET), a list of sites in the State with
significant violations of parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, fecal
coliform, pH, temperature, total dissolved solids, total suspended
solids, and turbidity will be compiled.
The data of importance will then be plotted against time to show any
trends which may develop using the Trends Program (STORET)(Figure 1).
This program .will also give the statistical significance of any trends.
The above two evaluations using the Standards and Trends Programs will
be sufficient for monitoring the ambient conditions and detecting signifi-
cant changes. Any deleterious change which is detected will warrant
further analyss using the MSP and Reach Programs.
Using the MSP Program -(STORET) we will plot parameter standards versus
stream miles (Figure 2). This will reveal downstream changes in
parameters which will aid in detecting point sources and the extent of
violation effects.
The preliminary draft 1982 State Section 305(b) Guidance urges data
compilation for usage in the River Reach file (STORET) for water moni-
toring strategy. The Reach Program will enable us to correlate vio-
lations with any point source dischargers. This program will draw a map
on which water quality stations, municipal and industrial dischargers
are listed (Figure 3). We may also indicate those dischargers which are
in and out of compliance. .From the analysis of the above-programs we
can construct-summary tables for segments, basins and hydrologic units
which lists major violations, trends, and dischargers out of compliance
(Table 1.) These data will be maintained for significant stations,
providing a consise summary, on a continuous basis, of ambient conditions.
-------
o.o. i
STA. S
30^05 1
D.C*'
fe
5
H
FIGURE 2.
:H
!«.
iSt
30
ife * 20 I
f*.it_es
Ae-cooi
UUi - C?sO2.O3
Q -\Ajecter
A - m^ci JJPDES dli
" ''
|\IPOcS
- A«,r
D \SCri ABSgS
At2.-O07.LS
D.O.
DM
TVP
XMD
ZQ
YcS
SC5
SJL 2C
T£GCfSy of
-------
Summary of Statistical Analysis System (SAS) Capabilities
for Use in Data Analysis
For Basic Water Monitoring Analysis the Statistical Analyses System (SAS)
will have limited use.. SAS will be good for plotting trends, however,
EPA's "Standards" and "Trends" program will also do much of the same
analysis. We may use SAS Chart and Plot procedures as described below
and other applications to BWM analyses are shown in #3, 4, 5 and 6. SAS
will be a greater aid in Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) analyses.
1. Sort
Arrange data by type, or in order of numeric value.
2. Print
Arrange data in easy to read, report style- variables in order,
columns, with titles.
3. Chart and Plot
Arrange data in histogram (vertical or horizontal bar graphs) with 2
variables compared by number or frequency.
EXAMPLE :
10
to
D.O.
5
M
3
,^
1
•
•
,*,
"
_,
n
-
•*
H
n n
O.O.
TOS
TSS TOTAU-"
Sec,
D-0.
-------
-2-
•
4. Frequencies and Crosstabulations
Summarize importance or incidence of each variable in comparison to
totals.
EXAMPLE: STR&ATA VIOLATIONS -TRuorrY fc. -D.O.
Sc^ FREQ com FRcO %
Soo 1 2. lO.S
?t>v 5 -7 2.G'2-
3 iO \<^.?
DO
5. Means (similar to STORE! Standard Program)
Summarize data
Number of samples, mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum
value, standard error of mean, sum, variance, coefficient of
variation.
Now one may use SORT, PRINT, CHART, PLOT and FREQUENCY programs
with this summarized data.
6. Correlations
Get correlation coefficient to measure strength of the relationship
between two variables.
Q.O.
PLOW \.oo O.8(
D.O- O^^ I.OO
OHS °'c'^
-------
-3-
7. Analysis of Variance - not of much use for Basic Water Monitoring (BWM)
data, but excellent for SPR data. We can check the factors involved
in variability, such as differences between stations, or cruises,
or parameters.
8. Regression
Show relationship between variables.
Linear relationships; for example if you wanted to study the dependence
of a population of organisms on time, the output would print:
1. analysis of variance table
2. miscellaneous statistics
a. significance of model
b. R = shows how much variation in population
accounted for by the model.
c. coefficient of variation - amount of variation in
population.
d. Standard deviation
3. Etc.
These will tell you how well the model fits your data. You may look
at the model further by analyzing the residuals and predicted values
This will probably not be needed in our analyses.
The above regression analysis attempts to account for changes in population
due to time. You may do multiple regressions to enter in other factors
influencing population, such as salinity.
If you do a multiple regression with several variables you would also
run a stepwise regression to find which variables were most important.
EXAMPLE:
OQ. SA-iNfTV Tc/AP TQC
1000 2-S 2X 30 It
1) ^ ^O 1.1 \3o •
5 L3 (2 1-6
A stepwise regression would show which of the above variables was most
significant in the model predicting number of organisms.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: JWB I 9 KK2
SUBJECT: Region VI Water Management System Report
FROM: Tim S. Stuart, Chief
Monitoring Branch (WH-553)
TO: Robert B. Elliot, Chief
Water Quality Management Branch (6W-Q)
Thank you for sending us a copy of your Region VI Water Management System
(WMS) report. Although we believe the general process is a step forward toward
the goal of efficient and effective use of water quality management resources,
we continue to have strong concerns with various technical aspects of the WMS
approach. We feel it is very important that less weight be given to fixed
stations and to comparisons with chemical water quality standards.
Specifically:
~?
ambient fixed-stations are not always located where one would expect
problems and often have inconsistent and incomplete parametric coverage.
Also, there is generally a lack of information on the duration of
violations.
most States lack site-specific water quality criteria and the measured
chemical levels do not give a valid measure of the impairment of use.
other types of data should be used, if possible, to help locate and
prioritize areas. Such data would include biological stream data,
bioassay results, WLA results, dilution screening studies, etc. The
system as described does not allow for the incorporation of such
relevant data.
Therefore, the analyses outlined in the WMS report are not sufficient to
set rigid priorities or identify designated use impairments. The approach is
adequate insofar as it is one limited method for suggesting where there is a
potential use impairment of a particular water-body, but a field investigation
would usually still be necessary to determine actual site-specific impacts.
Recent policy initiatives in the Office of Water have refocussed attention to
designated uses of waters and measuring their impairment using an array of
biological and chemical measures.
If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please
call me on FTS-426-7766.
cc: Water Division Directors
Environmental Services Division Directors
Fred Leutner (WH-553)
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
A SEGMENT REPORT FROM THE REGION VI
STREAM SEGMENT SYSTEM
DATE: 11/01/33
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
STREAM SEGMENTS AND STANDARDS DIRECTORY
FOR THE STATE OF AR
SEGMENT NUMBER SEGMENT DESCRIPTION
AR08010100008
AR08020203000
AR08020203001
AR08020203008
AR08020203010
AR09020203014
AR08020203021
AR08020204003
AR08020204005
AR08020205004
AR08020301001
AR08020302001
AR08020302002
AR08020302021
AR08020303001
AR08020304003
AR08020401001
AR08020402003
AR08030100012
AR08040101001
18040101025
1040101033
AR08040102000
AR08040102001
AR08040102002
AR08040102007
AR08040102010
AR080401020H
AR08040102018
AR08040102028
AR08040102999
AR08040103000
AR08040103008
AR08040103010
AR08040103019
AR08040103Q19
AR08040103022
AR08040103031
AR08040201001
AR08040201002
AR08040201003
AR08040201006
AR08040202000
AR08040202999
AR08040203004
^^8040203010
MISSISSIPPI RIVER ZONE i MISSOURI LIME TO ARKANSAS RIVER
SIG UITCH SLUUGH
SAUT FRANCIS RIVER MOUTH TO 36DF.GRE6S NORTH LATITUDE
SAtiJi FHAMCIS RIVER MOUTH TO 36 DEGREES NORTH LATITUDE
TYRQfcZA RTVfeiH BELOW DYESS
SAUT FRANCIS SIVER (36D£GR£ES M LATITUDE To 36 DEGREES 30 MINUl
STRAIGHT SLOUGH DITCH
RIGHT MAr
-------
AN EXAMPLE OF SUMMARY TABLE
REPORTING CRITERIA
3050
,,0.0
1
'
tfHBL.
30
13
0
6
2
2
1
0
0
i
id
f.A
^*« •
11
K>
r
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
n
VI
i
IS
15
0
5
3
1
1
0
0
! % •
&
•?(. •
fv •
' 18
» i
12'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
ounom
HiHnm
4^
*il
0
55
511
33
5.7
30
-, • -•
-•
*IO
mm
'• £.4
,35
0
69
511
33
5.7
3D
•
-H
KAJtnOI
0.D
3*Q
0
110
511
33
5.7
30
-
.zo
CUT
mmmi
5.99
4,99
«,
0
.
—
-
199
i+
,,
%.
nu :
ti.
i:
11 !
50
38 i
3
30
aul
12! !
m !
1000 i
^ '
2t=i
W
jftjjflg
t
li^
iffi;!
1 01!
13 !
2.5]
0.191
1.1 :
l.b ;
iU
-^
2.7 i
IT"]
10 j
l8Mj
•I
T!
-------
DATEJ 10/31/83
SEGMENT NUMBER & DESCRIPTIONS ARJU10206001
SEGMENT USES;
FWP
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY_
REGION 6
3THEAM SeGrtEwTS AND STANDARDS SUMMARY
PQURCHE.LA FAVf HJVER 8EI-OW NIMROD LAKE
|LU CODES UNITS
>
;
-------
- VKRSJUN Qt' APK9 19«3
,S. KPA REGIllU 6 Kr-VTRHoiMKNTAL ANALYSIS SECTION
U1U0206001 Fo'IRCHiS LA FAVE RIVER BELOW NIMRQO LAKE
VP'SCR DW5 IWS ARR
CYPA/AM8NT/STHEAM
STN l.SUMMAR
050130 ARK36 07263150 3E1
34 58 42.0 092 38 54.0 2
FOURCHF LAFAVE RIVER NR BIGELOW ARK
05105 ARKANSAS PERRY
SW LOWER MISSISSIPPI 101091
ARK. RIV. VAN BUREN TO MOUTH
1116APCC
0000 FEET DEPTH CLASS 00 CSN-RSP 0212744-01
SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS ON SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM 79/10/02 TO 81/09/15
OOOlO 00060
WATEH STREAM
Tt-'WP FLOW
CENT CFS
J*.
19.
33.
33,
33.
24 0
50 0,0
oq *********
1 0
4. 0,
00 0.0
00 0,0
00 0,0
00071
TURB
HLGE
JCU
22
36.91
30,00
4
18.
55.00
70,25
110.00
00299
00
PROBE
MG/L
23
7.441
6,600
4
17.
4.150
4.662
4.900
00400 00608 00619 00665
PH NH3+NH4- UN-IONZD PHOS-TOT
N DISS NH3-NH3
SU MG/L . MG/L MG/L P
22 21 19 22
6,916 0,064 0.0003 0,072
6,895 0.060 0.0002 0.050
0006
0. 0. 0. 27.
0,0 0,0 0.0 0,110
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,127
0,0 0,0 0,0 0,140
00940
CHLORIDE
TOTAL
MG/L
22
19,3
6,5
0
o.
0,0
0,0
0,0
009
SULFA
S04-T
MG/
2
9.0
6,0
0
0,0
0,0
0.0
1 OF VALUES
.'BAN ~"
ED I AN
0 OF VIOLS
ERCENT VIOL
JNIMUM VIOL
"•i
EAN VIOL
AXIMUM VIOL
IN" CRITERIA********* 0.400 **##**#*» 5,000
AX CRITERIA , 32.20 ********* 50.00 *********
6,000 ****************** ********* ********* *********
9,000 ********* 0,0500 0,100 250,0 250.0
AN EXAMPLE OF A STAND RETRIEVAL REPORT FROM THE REGION VI
STREAM SEGMENT SYSTEM IN PVS=T FORMAT
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 83/10/31 - STAND - VERSION OK APR,
VIOLATIONS WITH SMPPHHTING PARAMETERS
U.S. EPA REGION- 6 e*'VlROME'JTAL ANALYSIS SECTION
AR11U0206001 FflMPCHE LA FAVE RIVER BELOW NIMRQD LAKE
WP SCH OWS IWS AGR "
1963
050130
34 58 42,0 092
FUURCHE LAFAVE
OblOS ARKANS
SW LO*FR MISSI
ARK, RIV, VAN
1116APCC
0000 FEET DE
DATE
79/10/30
80/01/15
80/04/15
80/05/13
80/06/10
80/07/08
80/08/05
80/09/02
80/09/30
81/06/09
81/08/18
TIME
1150
0915
1450
1320
1400
1345
1430
1405
1340
1420
1330
00010 00060
WATER STKEAM
TE«P FLO'V
CENT CF5
19.00
7.00
12.00
22.00
29.00'
33..)**
30.00
29.00
71.00
29.00
23.00
00071
TURB
HLGE
JCU
58,00*
58,00*
44.00
110,00*
43.00
30,00
25.00
13,00
55.00*
00299
DO
PROBE
MG/L
4.800*
8.800
9.300
6.600
4.800*
5,400
4,150*
6,300
5.100
6.600
4,900*
00400
PH
su
6,870
6.720
6,540
6.600
6,800
7,300
7.410
7.140
6.630
6.940
00608
NH3+NH4-
N DISS
MG/L
0,130
0,060
0,070
0.040
0,060
0.080
0.020
0.100
0
UN-
NH
M
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
EXAMPLE OF A STAND RETRIEVAL REPORT FROM THE REGION VI
STREAM SEGMENT SYSTEM IN PSA=T FORMAT
-------
AN EXAMPLE OF THE CRITERIA MATRIX FROM THE REGION VII
VFRSTDN OF THP WATFR QllAI TTV TMHPY PDHCDAM
•>
)
00040
00050
00060
00070
00080
00090
00100
00110
00120
00130
00140
' 00150
00160
00170
00180
00190
00200
00210
"00220
00230
00240
00250
00260
00270
OT^OO
00310
00320
00330
00340
00350
00360
00370
00380
00390
00400
00410
00420
00430
00440
00450
00460
00470
00480
00490
00500
00510
00520
00530
00570
00580
00590
00600
00610
CODE
00008
00010
00020
00026
00059
00061
00076
00080
00090
00095
00116
00299
00300
00302
00310
00311
00324
00335
00340
00400
00403
00410
00425
00430
00435
00500
00505
00510
00515
00530
00608
00610
00615
00619
00620
00623
00625
00630
00631
00665
00666
00671
00680
00685
00690
00720
00722
00745
00900
00915
00916
00920
00925
00927
00929
00930
00940
00945
00951
01000
DESC
LABNO
UTEMP
ATEMP "
TOXCD
FLOW
FLOW
TURB
COLOR
OXRED
CONDU
INTEN
UNK
DO
IOD
BOD 5
BOD5D
BOD20
CODLO
CODHI
PH>F
PHfL
ALKAL
HC03
COS
ACIDI
TS
TVS
TFIXR
TDS
NFS
DINH3
NH3
N02
AMMON
N03
DISKN
TKN
N0283
DIN03
TP
DISTP
DIORP
TOC
TIC
TC
CN
CN CL
S
HARDN
DISCA
CA
MG
DISMG
MG
NA
DISNA
CL
S04
F
DISAS
USE 1
*******
32.2
*******
*******
" *******
*******
50
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
5
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
6.0-9.0
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
0,05
*******
*******
0.05
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
*******
*******
*******
*******
* * * ^ ^ T ^
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
USE 2
*******
32.2
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
6.0-9.0
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
0.5
*******
*******
USE 3
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
******* *******
******* *******
*******
11.0
*******
*******
*******
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
250
250
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
USE 4
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******'
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
USE 5
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*.*_*****
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
USE 6
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
"*******"
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
"**"****"*"
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
USE.. 7
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
**#****" "
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
-------
"ATHYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OFj
VERSION OF THE WATE
A VALUE OF ZERO IN THE MINIMUM, AVERAGE, AND MAXIM
CONCENTRATION OF ZERO OR SOME VALUE BELOU THE DETECTION LIMIT.
REPORT FROM THE REGION VII
\LITY INDEX PROGRAM
CATEGORIES "MAY SIGNIFY A
REPORTING PERIOD 790101-810930
1116APCC 050130
FOURCHE LAFAVE RIVER NR B
IMPAIRMENT TO FISH & WILDLIFE PRESERV'N
MULTIPLE OF EXCEEDENCE CRITERIA
STORET
CODE
10
76
300
400
400
00619
630
1002
1027
1034
1042
1051
1092
70300
71900
PRAM
DESC
UTEMP
TURB
DO
PH»F
PH»F
AMMON
N02&3
AS
CD
CR
CU
PB
ZN
TDS
HG
•
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT
1
1 21 1
111 1
77533224 12 4
1 2 1
111 1163
1
1
AVG
VIOU7 FXC/ SEV USE IMPAIRMENT VALUE =
CRIT CRIT DBS INDEX
NOV DEC tOB
33
30
32
31
31
29
2 4 33
17
25
16
2 23
18
22
33
2
3.48
1.02~32.2 ".03 .03"
1.40 50 . .13 .18
1.05-5 il5 7T5
6.0-9.0
•
6.0-9.0 "
0.05
2.20 0.05 .87 " 1.71"
440
1.O8 1.5 .16 TT7
21
2.08 12 .4/ — T97
74
1 .01™ 180 ' ~, 04 .'04
1.02 500 .03 .03
-------
CONTINUED
REPORTING PERIOD 790101-810930
1116APCC 050130
FOURCHE LAFAVE RIVER NR B
IMPAIRMENT TO FISH & UILDLIFE PRESERV'N
AVG
STORET
CODE
10
76
300
400
400
00619
630
1002
1027
1034
1042
1051
1092
70300
71900
PRAM
DESC
UTEMP
TURB
DO
PH.F
PH»F
AMMON
N02&3
AS
CD
CR
CU
PB
ZN
TDS
HG •
MINIMUM
1
13
4
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
.000
.000
.100
.320
.320
.000
.010
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
AVERAGE
18
34
7
6
6
0
0
2
0
3
12
15
38
75
0
.69
.06
.71
.80
.80
.00
.15
.58
.38
.37
.39
.61
.54
.78
.00
MAXIMUM
33
110
13
7
7
0
0
18
3
11
83
37
183
511
0
.00
.00
.00
.41
.41
.00
.61
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
VIOL/
CRIT
1.02
1.40
1.05
2.20
1.08
2.08
1.01
1.02
CRIT
32.2
50
5
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
0.05
0.05
440
1.5
21
12
74
180
500
.0017
EXC/
OBS
.03
.13
.15
.87
.16
.47
.04
.03
SEV
INDEX
.03
.18
.15
1.91
.17
.97
.04
.03
USE IMPAIRMENT VALUE'
3.48
-------
AN EXAMPLE OF
RANKING Fl
"TABLE 2 . SUMMARY of IMPAIRMENT VALUES RANKED ACCORDING TO USE.
'AIRMENT VALUE
:GION VIII
bit. 2KJHI.OUI
HHIt KlVKh uMJIk Dltl.llli
bb. WI
i*I.AH
VI. JICl'I.OOl 1)111,141
TKII Hii.t ri'trf AT »HI<;CII
ouoob2
CIII.UHAIUI
K.AOLI. HIVtK A I
59. IIVMl-ll
KAC.l-t: Hl»tH AT u
bO.
0»Ol|U
AI< CIM.
61. IIVIII'I'
llt.AVKK ClttLK AT AVIM-, (.11,
b2. 2ICIH.OOI Ii0ol44
, HUARlrili filHK MlVKk IllJ.Uk ASH M
6J. 2ICOI.OUI OllllUbJ
lllMI. AT KlIIITII
64.
^IClll.lllll
. KIVHI H
O00l4b
6S. 2ICIibuill O0ol4n
CHVSTAI. IMV'm IIKAII ilUIJIil
66. IIV?r.|tn
HAI Ai'llMTK tVKth Ht.AK t'AriACIIUTt Cll.
ri7.
.»•«•>'> Jt>uO
AT t-HAcnuvt, cu.
bH. IIJhHIi u'»o- i.KAIi I'K I'KijUt, l'o.
69. IIV'illll 0*«l52bliU
il I ttUh HIVKH Hi- AH llHAf.D JUMCT1
'10. '.tlCHbOOl OOWO'IH
EA.Si HlVth AT Cul'H.. Hllll TAKM'M
71.
TlillICIII ClUltK At i;
72. 2ICIII.KOI
INI' I All LVt.tr. n^ hit
000141
UTir AQUATIC
iui' i. in:
1. fcAVH« bMlH tATKH
2.01
U4
1.21
119
1.51.
105
2.17
72
0.0
197
O.hf
U4
o.o
I*V
J.H4
49
1.97
H7
7. If
2H
l.bii
lUlt
'..ll
J1
/I..Z9
7
il.ll
4
1. II
114
I.HU
•III
». MO
U'l
2. Hb
H2
J.IO
37
l.hb
82
l.tfw
7H
Lit-
119 •
(l.O
1U9
I.Ob
•>*
li.O
17}
l.2o
lio
l.ll
117
2.4h
. .....SJ. ....
o.7b
1J7
2.04
«b
H.97
1*
ll.fct
in
H.bS
I41*
1 .24
107
O.hH
14*
.1.0.1
411
1'iini.ic i'nii.Ai;f ;;; CO'.PAH »
*ATH< l.'iHUACT CliMlACt
ttut't'i.it.s UM'hKAMU'i i-t:rm:ATinH
. 17.14
29
17.14
. .. a>..
7. 94
99
9.12
•"B9
l.ll
147
10.92
- 6H
0.0
179
1 J.5/
4b
II. 2b
Jh
1.1. Hb
41
17. 411
'*
I7.S-I
25
I.M
I4B
l.1»
144
O.SJ
Ift'l
17. Hi
!«•
II. 6.1
2.1
1 7 . '1 «
22
J..IM
411
?.9S»
b4
I.OS
IDS
2."4
••?«
O.O
104
O.UU
114
r..«
Ibl
O.«l^
ill
l.b!.
t\
4.2/
J'l
I.4M
»*
0.9J
112
li. H.
lil
il.7o
I/I
O.bO
KS
v.»i
n
l.bil
M'l
1.1:.
•IS
O.ll
S5
O.ll
S6
II. O
57
(l.O
b«
0.0
bl
0.0
60
O.O
0|
O.O
02
0.0
«J
0.0
64
0.0
•.*
O.O
06
0.0
67
(l.O
nN
O.n
»
n
ll'Kli.AI ln»
0.0
Ib7
O.I.
IbH
0.0
lb«»
0.0
16V
".«'
If. 7
o.o
loO
0.0
Ih*
li.4|
bH
O.U
I7J
O.I)
IM
II. 0
lib
I..O
17 1.
0.0
179
O.I.
lM«
o.ii
Inn
O.ll
Ibl
"-•'
Inh
li."
ln^
t.ivr:.Ti>r.
O.O
bS
O.ll
•jfc
O.ll
b'l
O.ll
bl
0.0
b'«
II. 1.
ni.
0.0
I.I
0.0
•>>
• l.O
'.1
• l.O
"4
•l.O
«.s
O.ll
II"
O.O
(•1
.1.11
».H
I..I.
04
.. . II
l»
II..I
II
• I.I.
If
/S.9t,
il
/1.1V
«.»•
19. Vb
121
14. Ou
114
I.I!
Idl
ll.7n
IIH
I..H
'/..«»
l«*.i*H
kl
/I.Hil
11
-------
10-SOUTHCENTRAL - LOWER MISSISSIPPI
MAJOR BASIN
10-01
UPPER ARKANSAS R.-COLO.
11 - COLORADO
RIV. MAJOR
BASIN
.
^-^ L^->^ . '
•'" '-
10-05
WHITE RIV.
LOWER MISS. R. CAIRO
ARK. RIV. ^
I VAN BUREN TO MOUTH ~)
.-'TULSA Tb> \\J~\\J (
VVAN BUREN '
SOUTH CANADIAN RIV. ABOVE TEX.-
OKLA. STATEI LINE
I2-02 \
|0~ 20 /
CALCASIEU
12- WESTERN GULF
MAJOR BASIN
MAJOR RIVER BASIN BOUNDARY
MINOR RIVER BASIN BOUNDARY
NUMBERS FOR STORET
REGION VI BOUNDARY
MAJOR AND MINOR RIVER BASINS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Water Programs
-------
rn :—:s
Jeqn
Water Monitoring Strategy
September 1, 1983
I. PURPOSE
To formulate a comprehensive, coordinated strategy for water monitoring
activities in Region 6 which carries out the objectives of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) while addressing Regional and State concerns.
II. OBJECTIVE
To redirect and strengthen monitoring programs so resources are more ef-
ficiently utilized and data is produced of sufficient quality to support accruate
assessments and decisions in response to specific program needs.
III. INTRODUCTION
The following strategy identifies all water monitoring are^s of concern.
Water quality monitoring and data analysis are necessary to*identify and charac-
terize water quality problems, revfse water,quality standards.^develop site-
specific water quality based controls, enforce permits and measure the results
of abatement actions. Monitoring programs should be constructed to allow for
sound scientific decisions and be well balanced to meet data needs. The pro-
cedures for developing monitoring programs should be described in the State (£?_.
IV. MONITORING ISSUES
Several aspects of the monitoring process will be emphasized in future
programs.
A. The Continuing Planning Process (CPP)X
The CPP is required under Section 303(e)(3)(A-H) of the CWA. ^CPP
guidance states that the CPP should include State processes for developing
monitoring systems, establishing water quality standards, developing total
maximum daily loads (TMDL) and wasteload allocations (WLA), developing
solutions to control water quality problems and their implementation, and
evakfating the effectiveness of control programs at improving water quality.
B. Standards-To-Permits Process' (STPP),1
The STPP focuses on water quality-limited waters and water quality
cpjitcxxL-jneihods. This is an essential part of a Water Quality Management
Plans (WQM) and is described in the CPP. Pollution control of point and
NPS can be achieved through water quality standards, TMDL/WLA, ambient
monitoring and NPDES. The major elements of the STPP and their inter-
connection is as follows:
X
1. Identify and prioritize water quality-1imi ted (WQL) segments
2. Establish priority water body, list, incorporating WQL segments
3. Implement monitoring program
-------
4. Review and revise (or reaffirm) standards, using monitoring
data, habftat analyses, and pollution control alternatives.
5. Develop control requirements
6. Incorporate control reaulcements into WQM plans.
7. Issue water quality-based permits, make construction grant
decisions, implement NPS controls.
8.
C. Data Management and Analysis
Place increased emphasis on proper data management so that scien-
tifically sound water management decisions are possible. Evaluated
monitoring data should be compiled in the 305_(bj_ report. .Analyses of
data are critical and should be conducted with rigorous statistical
methods. Trend evaluation should be performed to assess fulfillment of
CWA objectives, e.g., restoration and maintenance of water quality
uses, 305b, and standards compliance. The 305(b) report addresses
implementation of 303(d,e) priority waters, and needs in management of
water quality problems (controls and resources).
D. Priority Waters
Each State's list of priority waters, as addressed in_3Q3(d). is
expected to be an effective management tooO^r dirprting avfljiflhlp
mpjiitQring_andJr(m_/]AlLA resources IncTudingcont ruction grants, NPDES
permits, enforcement, 106 and 205(j) activities. The process for de-
vejojpjjvg priority waters should be descrlb&d^ln^the CPP. Important
fa£tO£§_ in identifying priorities are the use to be protected, the
severity of use-impairment, and the cost/benefit relationship. These
waters will be a major element of 106, 205(j), and 305(b) reports.
E. Biological Monitoring
for use in intensive studies of use-attainability, use-impairment.
effluent toxicity, and WLA/TMDL. Rjplpgir.al monitoring is perhaps the
rnngj"
However, djje tojiatural and seasonal variation, its use in monthly
fi_xed station mnnitfPf"LtLg-jU-imt— i^^i^^-g-f^--i-e-i-Ant - Tissue sampling
for the presence of toxicants can be useful in fixed station monitoring
programs, as well as intensive studies.
V. MONITORING COMPONENTS
A ba-LajicjexLjietwack^of fixed station, ijvtensi ve^iucyeys and compliance/
mnnit.nring Is necessary t^~"satisfy all needs in an efficient manner.
Data collection should be restructured to evaluate parameters and sample
frequencies with improved QA/QC procedures.
A. Fixed Station Monitoring
Fixed stations are comprised of EPA's Basic Water Monitoring Program
(BWMP) stations and State stations. Stations are located at sites on water
bodies determined to be of key importance.
-------
Those Issues which must be addressed in the network are:
1. RriPJiity water coverage
2. Sample fj^quency
3. Parameters of significance, i.e., standards, area pollutants,
"lise~H"Tn-attators~ -
4. Point ancfponpoint sources
5. Wafer uses
6. Human and aquatic biota exposure
7. Resources
8. Co£p_erative monitoring
B. Intensive Surveys
Increased realization of the benefits of intensive surveys has led to
greater emphasis on conducting these studies in critical areas, as resources
permit.
1. Components of surveys
Since these studies are the basis of important management de-
cisions, water quality evaluations, and future actions, there is an
increased responsibility to properly design studies to satisfy the needs
of all parties.
a. sample site location
b. sample frequency
c. parameter coverage
d. sample methodology
e. biological monitoring
1) tj_sjs.ue analysis, or
2) fish/benthic diversity, or
3) toxicity tests
f. data analysis
2. Areas of sjJJiv_ey_applicjibillty
a. WLA/J.MDL - permits, construction grants
b. use atiaj.oa.bj.lity or impairment
c. site sj3gc.i-fic criteria modification
d. problem check
e. fojjktvtup study
C. Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance and enforcement monitoring plays a key role in the
overall monitoring strategy, particularly the standards-to-permit
process (IV. B.). In addition to routine effluent monitoring, ambient
fncgd -stations are often placed above and below dischargers. For more
thorough studies, i.nt.ejisive surveys are conducted to determine point
source effects on rerervTng waters.
-------
Increased emphasis is being placed on usage of acute and short-term
ghronic toxicity tests for effluent toxicity comparisons. Toxic±ty_te_sts,
instrgam biological surveys and residual analyses are suggested for deter-
mining in-stream effects.
VI. SUMMARY
Increased emphasi^, in future monitoring programs,jy}ll be placed on
well developed CPP, STPP, data management/ analysis, priority waters and
logical monitoring in intensive surveys. Since the States differ in their
resources, capabilities, and philosophies, the role of EPA assistance and
usage of this monitoring strategy will vary.
------- |