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 unOM_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
            TGCfSy 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  (36DGRES 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 193
 ,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
TEP 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
PHF
PHF
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
PHF
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: HltH AT  u

 bO.
                          0Ol|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
     fatO_ 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.  Cop_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.  Toxicty_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.

-------