Using Environmental Indicators for Surface
Water Quality Planning and Management:
Region 5 Pilot Study
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Region 5 Environmental Sciences Division
December 1991
-------
Using Environmental Indicators for Surface
Water Quality Planning and Management:
Region 5 Pilot Study
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Region 5 Environmental Sciences Division
December 1991
-------
CONTENTS
FIGURES
TABLES
ACRONYMS
GLOSSARY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview
1.2 The 305(b) Process and Environmental Indicators
1.3 Water Quality Planning and Management
1.4 Related Studies and Initiatives
2. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL WATERS
2.1 Overview
2.2 Methods for Quantifying Surface Water Resources
2.11 Mechanical Methods
2.12 Digital Methods
2.13 USGS Digital Line Graphic Database
2.14 The Reach File
2.3 State Methods, Estimates, and Future Plans
2.3.1 niinois
2.3.2 Indiana
2.3.3 Michigan
2.3.4 Minnesota
2.3.5 Ohio
2.3.6 Wisconsin
-------
2.4 Findings and Recommendations
2.4.1 Rivers and Streams
2.4.2 Lakes
2.4.3 Wetlands
2.4.4 Recommendations
3. ASSESSMENT OF DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT
3.1 Overview
3.2 State Assessment Approaches for Aquatic Life Use Support
3.2.1 Illinois
3.2.2 Indiana
3.2.3 Michigan
3.2.4 Minnesota
3.2.5 Ohio
3.2.6 Wisconsin
3.3 Findings and Recommendations
4. SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS
4.1 Overview
4.2 State Surface Water Monitoring Programs
4.3 Capacity of Surface Water Monitoring Programs to Support Planning and
Management
4.4 Trend Assessment
4.4.1 Illinois
4.4.2 Indiana
4.4.3 Michigan
4.4.4 Minnesota
4.4.S Ohio
4.4.6 Wisconsin
4.5 Findings and Recommendations
-------
5. ASSESSMENT-RELATED DATA MANAGEMENT
5.1 Overview
5.2 Findings - Assessment-Related Data Systems in Region 5
5.2.1 Hydrographic Data
5.2.2 Assessment Results
5.2.3 Other Findings
5.3 Recommendations
6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING AND USING ENVIRONMENTAL
INDICATORS
6.1 Overview
6.2 Water Resource Evaluation
6.2.1 Water Resource Status
6.2.2 Water Resource Trends
6.3 Problem Identification and Characterization
6.3.1 Problem Identification
6.3.2 Problem Characterization
6.4 Management Strategy Development, Implementation and Evaluation
6.5 Communication of Results to the Public and Legislators
6.5.1 State Biennial 305(b) Reports
6.5.2 Citizen Monitoring Activities
7. REFERENCES
-------
FIGURES
1-1. Continuum of Measures of Environmental Program Effectiveness
1-2. Information Provided by an "Ideal" Indicator for Water Resources Planning and
Management
1-3. Surface Water Quality Management is an Increasingly Complex and Information-
Intensive Task from Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change (1987)
1-4. Proposed Spatial Resolution of EMAP's Inland Surface Water Program, Based on
Aggregated Omemik Ecoregions from Surface Waters Monitoring and Research
Strategy - Fiscal Year 1991
1-5. General Approach for Identifying Indicators from Surface Waters Monitoring and
Research Strategy • Fiscal Year 1991
1-6. Indicator Approach for EMAP - Surface Waters Showing Candidate Indicators and
Top-Down Approach to Problem Identification and Diagnosis of Probable Cause
from Surface Waters Monitoring and Research Strategy - Fiscal Year 1991
1-7. Location of Proposed Study Units for the National Water-Quality Assessment
Program (from Leahy, P.P.. et al., 1990)
1-8. Schedule of First Cycle of Study-Unit Investigations, by Dominant Activity, for the
National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Fiscal Years 1991-2002 (from Leahy,
P.P., et al.. 1990)
2-1. Percentage of River Miles Supporting Designated Uses in Region 5 States
3-1. Aquatic Life Use Designations by State
3-2. Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses for Rivers and Streams by State
3-3. Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses for Lakes by State
3-4. Aquatic Life Use Support Assessment Flow Chan for Fish, Habitat and Water
Quality Data — Illinois
3-5. Prioritization of Data Use in the Biological Stream Classification Process - Illinois
from Biological Stream Characterization (1989)
3-6. Criteria for Determining Use Attainment for Ohio's Rivers/Streams
3-7. Use Attainment/Clean Water Act Goal Assessment Process for Ohio Lakes
-------
FIGURES (Contd.)
3-8. Designated Use Support Assessment for Wisconsin Lakes
4-1. niinois Fixed Station Network and Great Lakes Areas of Concern
5-1. State Use of 305(b)-Related Data Systems
5-2. Example of Hydrologic Traces in EPA Reach File Version 3 (RF3) Map of USGS
Topographic Quadrangle near Raleigh, North Carolina
-------
TABLES
1-1 Water Quality Planning and Management Objectives: Examples of Program
Activities and Supporting Data
1-2 Challenges, Obstacles, and Recommendation Areas Presented in Surface Water
Monitoring: A Framework for Change (1987)
1-3 The Ten Recommendations from Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection (1990)
2-1 Estimates of Total Stream and River Miles for Region 5 States
2-2 Methods Used by Region 5 States to Determine Total Lake Acreage, and Reported
Values
2-3 Wetland Totals for Region 5 States from Dahl, 1990
3-1 Fish Contaminant Concentration from Each Use Category (from State 1990 305(b)
Reports)
4-1 Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs
4-2 Indiana Surface Water Monitoring Programs
4-3 Michigan Surface Water Monitoring Programs
4-4 Minnesota Surface Water Monitoring Programs
4-5 Ohio Surface Water Monitoring Programs
4-6 Wisconsin Surface Water Monitoring Programs
4-7 Fixed Station Chemical Monitoring Programs by State
5-1 State Use of WBS and RF3
-------
ACRONYMS
AWQMN = Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
BIOS = National biological information management system (subset of STORE!)
BPJ = Best professional judgment
DIG = Digital Line Graph
DO = Dissolved oxygen
EMAP = Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency
ERFB = Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch
FDA = Food and Drug Administration
FINS = Rsh Information System (Ohio)
FORTRAN = FORmula TRANslation, a computer programming language
FY = Fiscal year
GIS = Geographic information system
GLEAS = Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment Section
IBI - Index of biotic integrity
ICI = Invertebrate community index
IDEM = Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IEPA = Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Iwb = Index of well-being
LCI - Lake Condition Index (Ohio)
MBI = Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
MDDM = Mapping and Graphical Display Manager
MDNR = Michigan Department of Natural Resources
MIDGES = Microinvertebrate Data Generation and Evaluation System (Ohio)
MIRIS = Michigan Resource Information System
MPCA - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NAWQA » National Water-Quality Assessment Program
NCC = National Computer Center
NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NWI = National Wetlands Inventory
OH EPA = Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
-------
OPPE • Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
ORD - Office of Research and Development
OW - Office of Water
OWOW • Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
PIBI - Potential Index of Biotic Integrity
RF3 - Reach File Version 3
RTI • Research Triangle Institute
SAB - Science Advisory Board
STORE! - STORage and RETrieval System
TSI • Trophic Status Index
USGS - U.S. Geological Survey
UTM - Universal Transverse Mercator (coordinate system)
WBS - Water Body System
Wl DNR • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WQAS - Water Quality Analysis Software
WQI • Water quality index
WQSS - Water Quality Surveillance and Standards Branch (Indiana)
-------
GLOSSARY
Ambient Monitoring: All forms of monitoring conducted beyond the immediate influence
of a discharge pipe, including sampling of sediments and living resources.
Aquatic Community: An association of interacting populations of aquatic organisms in a
given waterbody or habitat.
Assessed Waters: Waterbodies for which the State is able to make use support decisions
based on actual information. Such waters are not limited to waters that have been directly
monitored — it is appropriate in many cases to make judgments based on other information.
Benthic Fauna (or Benthos): Organisms attached to or resting on the bottom, or living in
the bottom sediments of a waterbody.
Biological Assessment: An evaluation of the biological condition of a waterbody using
biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident biota in surface waters.
Biological Criteria (or Biocriteria): Numerical values or narrative expressions that
describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a
given designated aquatic life use.
Biological Integrity: Functionally defined as the condition of the aquatic community
inhabiting unimpaired waterbodies of a specified habitat as measured by community
structure and function.
Biological Monitoring: The use of a biological entity as a detector and its response as a
measure to determine environmental conditions. Toxicity tests and biological surveys are
common biomonitoring methods.
Biological Survey (or Bfosurvey): Consists of collecting, processing and analyzing
representative portions of a resident aquatic community to determine the community
structure and function.
Community Component: Any portion of a biological community. The community
component may pertain to the taxomonic group (fish, invertebrates, algae), the taxonomic
category (phylum, order, family, genus, species), the feeding strategy (herbivore, omnivore,
carnivore) or organizational level (individual, population, community association) of a
biological entity within the aquatic community.
Designated Uses: Uses specified in water quality standards for each waterbody or segment
whether or not they are being attained.
-------
Evaluated Waters: Waterbodies for which the use support decision is based on
information other than current site-specific ambient data, such as data on land use, location
of sources, predictive modeling using estimated input variables, and surveys of fish and
game biologists.
Fixed Station Monitoring: The repeated long-term sampling or measurement of
parameters at representative points for the purpose of determining environmental quality
characteristics and trends.
Geographic Information System: A computerized system for combining, displaying, and
analyzing geographic data. A CIS produces maps for environmental planning and
management by integrating physical and biological information (soils, vegetation.
hydrology, living resources, etc.) and cultural information (population, political boundaries,
roads, bank and shoreline development, etc.).
Impact: A change in the chemical, physical or biological quality or condition of a
waterbody caused by external sources.
Impairment: A detrimental effect on the biological integrity of a waterbody caused by an
impact that prevents attainment of the designated use.
Intensive Survey: The sampling or measurement of parameters at representative points for
a relatively short period of time within a limited geographic area to determine
environmental quality conditions, causes, effects, or cause-and-effect relationships of such
conditions.
Major Contribution to Impairment: A cause/source makes a major contribution to
impairment if it is the only one responsible for less than full support, or if it predominates
over others.
Minor Contribution to Impairement: A cause/source has minor contribution to
impairment if it is one of multiple causes/sources responsible for less than full support and
others predominate.
Moderate Contribution to Impairement: A cause/source makes a moderate contribution
to impairment if it is one of multiple causes/sources responsible for less than full support
and none predominate.
Monitored for Toxicants: If ambient monitoring information is collected that is capable
of indicating the presence of toxic substances. This measure includes waters so monitored
but for which no toxicants were found
G-2
-------
Monitored Waters: Waterbodies for which the use support decision is principally based
on current site-specific ambient data believed to accurately portray water quality conditions.
NASQAN: The National Stream Quality Accounting Network, operated by the U.S.
Geological Survey, encompassing more than 300 monitoring stations around the country at
which many water-quality characteristics are measured at regular intervals.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: A contributory factor to water pollution that cannot be traced
to a specific spot; e.g., pollution resulting from water runoff from urban areas, construction
sites, agricultural and silviculture! operations.
NPDES: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, a permit program under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act that imposes discharge limitations on point sources.
basing them on a control technology's effluent limitation capabilities or on local water
quality standards.
Point Source Pollution: Pollution discharged through a pipe or some other discrete source
from municipal water treatment plants, factories, confined animal feedlots, or combined
sewers.
Population: An aggregate of interbreeding individuals of a biological species within a
specified location.
Regions of Ecological Similarity: A relatively homogeneous area defined by similarity of
climate, landform, soil, potential natural vegetation, hydrology, or other ecologically
relevant variable. Regions of ecological similarity help define the potential for designated
use classifications of specific waterbodies.
River Reach: A river or stream segment of a specific length. Most reaches extend
between the points of confluence with other streams.
Threatened Waters: Waters that fully support their designated uses but that may not fully
support uses in the future (unless pollution control action is taken) because of anticipated
sources or adverse pollution trends.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The total allowable pollutant load to a receiving
water such that any additional loading will produce a violation of water quality standards.
Water Quality Criteria: Scientifically-derived values (based on bioassays) that establish
in-stream concentrations of chemicals which will be protective of the ecosystems even if
excursions of die criteria occur. EPA develops criteria to protect aquatic life and human
health.
G-3
-------
Water Quality-Limited Segment: A stretch or area of surface waters where technology-
based effluent limitations in NPDES permits for direct discharges are not sufficient to
prevent violations of water quality standards. In such cases, new permit limitations are
based on ambient water quality considerations.
Water Quality Standard: A government regulation establishing water quality conditions
which must be met in a waterbody to support the desired uses of that water. The standard
includes both a designated use (e.g., protection of aquatic life) and numerical criteria (e.g.,
copper of 5.6 micrograms/liter) that, if not exceeded, will protect that use.
Water Resource Assessment: Determines the condition of a waterbody using biological
surveys, chemical-specific analyses of pollutants in waterbodies, toxicity tests, and physical
habitat assessment methods.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream, river, lake, estuary, or coastal zone.
G-4
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Joseph Abe of OPPE's Strategic Planning and Management Division/Environmental Results
and Forecasting Branch and Wayne Davis of Region 5's Environmental Sciences
Division/Monitoring and Quality Assurance Branch served as co-managers of the pilot
study and were principal authors and editors of this document Other co-authors providing
technical support under EPA contract 68-W9-0080 were consultants Thomas Flanigan and
Andy Schwarz of Clayton Environmental Consultants and Michael McCarthy of Research
Triangle Institute.
Other significant contributors and reviewers include Chris Yoder, Roger Thoma, and Ed
Rankin of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Joel Cross of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Bridges. Dennis Clark and John Winters of the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Greg Goudy, Jack Wuycheck and
Ralph Vednalz of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Sylvia McCollor and
Louise Hotka of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Joe Ball, Lee Liebenstein
and Carol Tiegs of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Special thanks is also
given to Kim Devonald, Chief, OPPE's Environmental Results and Forecasting Branch,
Elizabeth Jester, (Chief) and her staff, OW's Monitoring Branch and Valerie Jones, Chief,
Region 5's Monitoring and Quality Assurance Branch for their management oversight and
contributions.
-------
b^*rls+^
1. INTRODUCTION
This report marks the beginning of the third phase of a three-phase Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) project to develop a series of environmental indicators for surface
waters. Environmental indicators, in the context of this report, refer to a variety of
measures of environmental impact that can be used by EPA and State officials, and the
public, for ajumber of purposes including: identifying trends over time and space,
evaluating"program eitectiveness, targeting resources to areas with greatest potential
environmental impact, identifying emerging threats and targeting resources to areas of
potential or developing problems, and communicating results to the public and legislators
(Figure 1-1).
In the first phase of this project. EPA staff developed a preliminary list of measures that
could be used as indicators for freshwater, estuarine, and coastal environmental quality.
The Agency then conducted a workshop of Federal and State personnel to review, the list
and add or delete candidates as necessary. Workshop participants were asked to discuss
suitable goals for the use of surface water indicators and appropriate criteria to help
evaluate the indicators and to identify a set of measures for more detailed evaluation and
review. Background material for the workshop and a summary of the workshop
conclusions are provided in three documents: Resource Document for the Workshop on
Environmental Indicators for the Surface Water Program (March 28-29, 1989), Workshop
on Environmental Indicators for the Surface Water Program (March 28-29, 1989), and
Results: Workshop on Environmental Indicators for the Surface Water Program (July
1989).
In the project's second phase, EPA. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), and contractor personnel assessed the feasibility of reporting on the following
indicators identified at the workshop: designated use support, attainment of Clean Water
Act (CWA) goals, shellfish harvest area classifications, trophic status of lakes, toxic
contamination in fish and shellfish, biological community measures, and pollutant loadings
from point sources. These indicators were selected as most meaningful or practical for one
or more of the following purposes: status and trend reporting, overall water program
evaluation, and evaluation of the effectiveness of individual program components (e.g.,
point source regulation or toxic chemical controls). Evaluation criteria included: data
availability, data consistency/comparability, spatial and temporal representativeness,
relationship to ultimate impact, scientific defensibility, sensitivity to change, relationship to
risk, data collection and analytical costs, relationship to existing programs, and presentation
value. The results of that review are presented in Feasibility Report on Environmental
Indicators for Surface Water Programs (May 1990).
Now in the third phase of the project, EPA and State personnel are developing options and
recommendations for implementing a selected set of identified indicators at the national,
-------
idM-^
/VJa,^y.
2JLbv." JtAu^70s^ ^^^^ 0*0* "&1t* **$/&}
*<*- ... - /-^^*^*d^c^^SL^- L wf^4^ -ft~- ^--
Continuum of Measures of
O^ <£d»t—*-*/*
^/^L?Jt3P
FigUre 1-1.
Ay>A«^4.>-
Environmental Program Effectiveness
Activity Measures
Environmental Indicators
IMKXVXXVIXXXXXXXXXVVAAM
Actions by
Stales/EPA
Actions by
Sources
I
I
I
examples:
revise SIP,
issue permit,
issue grant
I
examples:
install control
equipment,
change
feedstock
'Quantified
Pollution
Prevention
Measures
Indirect Indicators
Direct Indicators $
1
fvt^
Emmission/
Discharge
Quantities
Ambient
Concentrations
I
f
I
f
Risk Estimates
Based on
Emissions
Data
Risk Estimates
Based on
Ambient Data
^Vt^ '
Uptake/
Body Burden
I
I
f
Risk Estimates
9
/"
^w« • « « .... ...... .............,^s
Health
Effects
Ecological
Effects
Body Burden
Data
•preferred data1
Theme 1 Managing Environmental Results Data to the nght are closer
10 the 'adverse ultimate imacts ol pollution' lhal the Slates and EPA are
charged wflh preventing or mitigating All else being equal, data further to the
j are better indicators ol environmental result than data further to the left
Theme 2. FPP"35121"0
Prevention Pollution prevention should
.
result in the same kinds of environmental improvements as all Agency
programs, so all these indicator types may be used to relied pollution
prevention successes However, to prove the results are due to pollution
prevention, data would needed on Ihe box marked with an asterisk
-------
regional, and State levels. At present, EPA assembles and reports on the quality of the
Nation's water resources through the Section 305(b) reports, using as the primary indicator
designated use attainment (see discussion in Section 1.2) for aquatic life and human health
concerns in each major category of waters (rivers and streams, lakes, estuaries, and some
coastal waters). One of the conclusions reached in the Feasibility Report on Environmental
Indicators for Surface Water Programs (May 1990) and supported by the Office of Water
(OW) is that the National Water Quality Inventory, and the State Section 305 (b) reports
from which water information is extrac.ted.and.summarized, are the best vehicles Jor
reporting on existing and proposedTenyironmentd indjcatoiifo "Unfortunately, detailed
information on how States conduct tEeir305(b7 assessments is not generally available
outside the States.
1.1 Project Overview
o-
To mark the beginning of the third phase of the indicators project. Region 5 and OPPE
initiated a joint pilot study in November 1990 to document how individual States conduct
their 305(b) assessments and use environmental indicators.
The project team, consisting of EPA Headquarters, Regional, State and contractor
personnel, identified and described for each Region 5 State: (1) methods for estimating total
waters, (2) approaches for assessing designated use, (3) current surface water monitoring
programs (especially those supporting status and trends), and (4) data management These
issues are addressed in Chapters 2 through 5 of the report Each chapter consists of a
general description of the issue and specific information from each of the six States.
Chapter 6 summarizes the study's findings and recommendations and draws conclusions
concerning the implementation of water-related environmental indicators. The first step in
preparing this report was to develop assessment questionnaires and monitoring network
profiles, and to fill out these forms to the extent possible using readily available
information (e.g., State 305(b) reports, EPA reports, data system documentation). Then
OPPE and Region 5 staff and contractor personnel met with officials in each State to
complete the assessment questionnaires and monitoring profiles.
Among the issues evaluated by the study were the following:
1. How do Region 5 States estimate the physical extent of surface water
resources within or on their boundaries and how will this change in the
future? (see Chapter 2)
2. What is each State's decision process for determining designated use support?
(see Chapter 3)
1-3
-------
3. What environmental indicators do States use to assess designated use
support? (see Chapter 3)
4. What monitoring programs do or could support the 305 (b) process and water
quality planning and management? (see Chapters 4 and 6)
5. What State monitoring programs provide status and trends information and
how were the programs designed? (see Chapter 4)
6. How does each State manage surface water monitoring data? (see Chapter 5)
7. To what extent does or could EPA's computerized Waterbody System
(WBS), or State WBS-compatible systems, support water quality planning
and management?
(see Chapters S and <5)
1.2 The 305(b) Process and Environmental Indicators
States collect, assess, and report information on a variety of designated uses for their
surface waters including the ability of the water to support aquatic fish and wildlife
populations and to support recreational, agricultural, industrial, and navigational uses. Each
State designates beneficial uses for individual waterbodies and establishes numeric and/or
narrative water quality criteria against which the ability of the waterbody to support their
designated uses is evaluated. Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the CWA, the States are
required to report on the degree to which assessed waters are fully supporting,
supporting but threatened, partially supporting, or not supporting their uses. States use a
variety of measures, including ambient chemical concentrations, estimates of pollutant loads
from point and nonpoint sources, toxicants in fish and shellfish, biological community
measures, trophic'status of lakes, and habitat structure, in making their use support
designations and evaluating causes of nonsupport The 305(b) reports include information
on the type of data used to make assessments (actual monitoring data or more subjective
evaluations), the sources and/or causes of water quality impairment, and the percentage of
total waters that are actually assessed. (Further discussion of 305(b) assessments is given
in Section 3.1).
One of the strengths of the use support framework is the independence it gives individual
States to set specific standards and designate uses for their own waterbodies. This
independence can cause difficulties, however, when the State-specific information is used to
support development of regional or national environmental indicators. Inconsistencies in
the decision-making framework used by each State to assess designated use and major
inconsistencies in the portions and amounts of ambient waters actually monitored or
evaluated, from State to State and in given States over time produce information that may
1-4
-------
not accurately reflect the status of the Nation's waters. Furthermore, there are considerable
misunderstandings and disagreements about the objectives of the 305(b) process, for
example:
1. Does the current 305(b) process provide information on water resources, and
progress to restore and protect those resources, that Congress intended?
2. Is there general agreement on the definitions of the terms "status" and
"trends"?
3. Is the 305(b) process meant to address State-specific issues in selected
geographic areas only, or is it also meant to provide broad-based, statistically-
representative information of water resources?
4. Is 305(b) information intended for State and national assessment of ambient
conditions, or is it intended simply to track progress of problem-specific
control efforts in targeted areas?
The Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) and OW managers and staff have
committed to identifying, clarifying, and resolving these issues of inconsistency and
uncertainty through a variety of mechanisms. OW established a National 30S(b)
Consistency Workgroup to develop more specific and consistent national guidance for the
States to use in developing their 1992 and subsequent 305(b) reports. Project staff from
OPPE and Region 5 have participated directly in the revision of the 1992 305(b)
Guidelines. In addition, OW and OPPE have and will continue to sponsor meetings and
workshops with Regional and State personnel to help clarify monitoring objectives and
develop strategies for using information gathered through the 305(b) process as
environmental indicators.
1.3 Water Quality Planning and Management
This section discusses the Region 5 pilot study in the broader context of water quality
planning and management
The four primary objectives of water quality planning and management are *^***^*-s"
1. Water Resource Evaluation;
2. Problem Identification and Characterization;
3. Management Strategy Development, Implementation, and Evaluation; and
4. Communication of Results to the Public and Legislators.
1-5
-------
These four goals, which are described in more detail in Table 1-1, parallel the
goals/objectives for environmental indicators noted earlier.
This pilot study focused on how water-related environmental data collected by Region 5
States, especially data supporting the 305(b) reporting requirements, currently support Water
Resource Evaluations and Problem Identification and Characterization. In addition, the
results of this study provide some information on use of the information to support
management objectives 3 and 4.
Comprehensive water resource planning and management depends on the spatial and
temporal analysis of a number of key variables including: the physical dimensions of the
resource (e.g., river and stream miles, lake acres, wetland acres, and shore miles);
quantitative hydrologic parameters; the biological, chemical and physical integrity of the
resource; stressors affecting resource integrity (e.g., agricultural and urban run-off); and the
uses and functions provided by the resource to humans and natural systems. Designated
use support, with some significant improvements, could become the principal conveyer of
this information to water resource managers, legislators and the general public (Figure 1-2).
I This study, to a large extent, identifies what changes are necessary to make designated use
J support a more useful, over-arching indicator to support water quality planning and
./^f management In particular, this study describes how designated use support, and a suite of
supporting environmental indicators (e.g., biological community measures, ambient
chemical concentrations, toxicants in fish) do or could support the management objectives
shown in Table 1-1.
1.4 Related Studies and Initiatives
The findings and recommendations in this report are intended to be useful to OW and the
States in planning the development and use of water-related environmental indicators. To
the extent possible, this report identifies and describes activities within and outside EPA
that may affect the 303(b) process and implementation of water-related environmental
indicators. Understanding the relationship between this study and related activities may
help ensure better use of available data, highlight important opportunities for improved
coordination, and enhance the usefulness of future data collection and analysis efforts. A
few important studies and programs especially relevant to this study are discussed below.
Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change (1987), prepared jointly by OW and
OPPE, identified major changes to EPA's surface water monitoring program that would be
required to support current and future information needs of water quality managers and
1-6
-------
Table 1-1. Water Quality Planning and Management Objectives: Examples of
Program Activities and Supporting Data
1. Water Resource Evaluation
Status: Physical. Chemical and Biological Characteristics of Resource
Hydrologic data and chemical data for water, sediment, and biota
Characterizing the physical extent of water resources
Biological community measures and habitat assessment
Development of reference site values
Trends: Spatial and Temporal Changes in Status
Site or waterbody-specific temporal changes in water chemistry (State followup monitoring)
Basin-wide intensive surveys
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
USGS's National Stream Quality Monitoring Network
2. Problem Identification and Characterization
Problem Identification
Impairment of biological community
Exceedance of water quality standards
Citizen complaints/ Discovery of fish kills
Source monitoring
Land-use surveys/ Habitat alteration
Cause-Effect Characterization
Wasteload allocation/ Integrated total maximum daily load development
Intensive survey
Facility inspections
Toxicity testing
3. Management Strategy Development, Implementation, and Evaluation
Management Strategy Development
Developing water-quality-based controls
Setting priorities
Tactical and strategic planning
Watershed-specific water quality management plans
Targeting rft.iuun.es
Management Strategy Implementation/Evaluation
Setting water quality standards
Permitting and enforcement actions
Installing best management practices for nonpoint source pollution
State monitoring to evaluate effectiveness of point and nonpoint controls
National Ambient Water Quality Network
4. Commnnkatioa of Results to Pnblk and Legislators
EPA's National Water Quality Inventory and Summary Report (biennial)
USGS's National Water Summary (annual)
NOAA's Shellfish Register (5-year)
Slate 305(b) reports to Congress (biennial)
State public information reports on water resources
Public involvement through citizen monitoring
Sources: (1) Surface Water Monitoring: A Framnrk far Change (1987); (2) pre-1991 version! of the National 305(b)
Guidelines; (3) F^'Htilira Haunt on Environmental Indicators for Surface Water Programs (1990} and (4) knowledge and
experience of individuals involved with (he Region 5 study.
1-7
-------
Figure 1-2. Information Provided By an "Ideal" Indicator
for Water Resource Planning and Management
EXAMPLES:
Aquatic Life Support
Recreation
Public Water Supply
Agriculture
Resource Uses
and Functions
CD
Designated Use
Support
Resource
Integrity
Stressprs
Affecting
Resource
Physical Data
Biological Data
Chemical Data
Agriculture
Water/Wastewater Mgmt
Manufacturing
Energy
Transportation
Mining
-------
planners. As suggested by Figure 1-3, information needs will increase significantly as EPA
and the States move toward integrated environmental management strategies. In many
ways, the Region 5 pilot study is a followup of this study, building on many of its findings
and recommendations. Table 1-2 presents the major challenges, obstacles, and
recommendations presented in the 1987 report
Several products or results from Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change are
directly or indirectly evaluated in the Region 5 pilot study. A fundamental finding of the
1987 study was that the Office of Water lacked a clear strategy for ensuring that State
surface water monitoring fulfilled basic information needs ~ both at the time of the study
and for the future. The lack of clearly defined management objectives and State
inconsistencies identified by the 1987 report prompted OW to initiate several actions,
including the preparation of profiles of State monitoring and assessment activities, to get a
sense of what data States collected and for what purposes. Unfortunately, OW was unable
to complete the work on the State monitoring profiles, in pan because there was concern
over the data collection burden placed on States. It is anticipated that the information
collected in the Region 5 study may help, to a limited extent, in continuing this effort by
documenting what data States collect and how the data are used to support planning and
management
Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change is one of several documents that
have encouraged the use of biological assessments of surface water resources at the State
level. This Region 5 pilot study examines the extent to which biological indicators, along
with physical and chemical indicators, are used to assess aquatic life support generally
considered the most useful measure of the overall integrity of surface water resources (see
Chapter 3 for State assessment approaches for aquatic life support and Chapter 4 for
summary information on monitoring programs).
The Framework for Change report also highlighted the importance of sound data
management to support better water quality planning and management Several EPA
systems, including the Waterbody System, Reach File 3, and STORET were influenced by
the 1987 report Chapter 5 of this Region S pilot study examines the extent to which these
systems are used and how they might be improved to enhance decision-making and
planning at the State, Regional, and national levels.
In September 1990, the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) issued a report entitled
Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection that
recommended fundamental changes to the Agency's approach to environmental planning
and management (Table 1-3).
1-9
-------
Figure 1-3. Surface Water Quality Management Is an
Increasingly Complex and Information-Intensive Task
Modified from Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change (1987)
Earlv 1970s
1976-84
1985-90
Bevond 1990
What
Chemical Data
Indicative of Water
Quality:
BOO and 00
Suspended and
Disolved solids
Bacteria
Nutrients
Temperature
PH
Priority Pollutants
Effluent Guideline
Chemicals
Pretreatment
Chemicals
Toxics Control
Strategy:
Water Quality-
Based Permits
Non-point Source
Assessments
Additional
Pretreatment
Chemicals:
Domestic Sewage
RCRA/TSCA/
FIFRA
Multimedia
Risk Management
Air
Grpundwater
Drinking water
Soil
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXV
Where
Surface, Marine,
and Estuanne
Water Columns
Municipal and
Industrial Sources
Sediments
Benthic Organisms
Fish Tissue
Sampling Matrices
Remain the
Same
Ecoystem
Analysis Begins
Ecosystem
Analysis
Matures
vxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxvvxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
How
Chemical
Analysis:
Ambient Fixed
Stations
Effluents
Improved
Chemical Analysis
Biological
Monitoring
Intensive
Surveys
Special Studies:
> Toxicology
• Bioaccumulation
> Acid Deposition
• Fisheries Survey
Further
Improvements in
Chemical Analysis
> New Analytical
Tests
> Lower Detection
Levels
• Ecosystem
Surveys
Rapid Assessment
Methods:
• Toxicity Testing
Integration of
Environmental
Data from
Multiple Sources
Use of Existing
Monitoring Data in
Program Planning
and Priority Setting
1-10
-------
Table 1-2. Challenges, Obstacles and Recommendations Presented in Surface Water
Monitoring: A Framework for Change (1987)
Challenges
1. Develop and Use Biological Testing Methods to Control Toxic Water Pollutants
2. Increase Use of Biological Monitoring to Characterize Aquatic Systems and Identify
Problems and Trends
3. Demonstrate That Pollutant Control Investments are Achieving Desired Results
4. Identify and Characterize Toxic, Conventional, and Anthropogenic Pollutants from
Nonpoint Sources
5. Expand Efforts to Identify and Control Pollution Problems in Near-Coastal and
Ocean Waters
Obstacles
1. Inadequate Methods and Resources for Characterization, Problem Identification, and
Trend Assessment in Inland, Near-Coastal, and Marine Waters
2. Inability to Assess the Effectiveness of Point Source Control and Nonpoint Source
Management Actions in Terms of Environmental Results
3. Insufficient Use of Existing Water-Related Data to Guide, Complement, or Avoid
New Monitoring
Recommendations
1. Issue Guidance on Efficacious Approaches to Characterization, Problem
Identification, and Trend Assessment
2. Accelerate the Development and Application of Promising Biological Monitoring
Techniques
3. Analyze the Feasibility of Requiring NPDES Permittees to Conduct Ambient
Follow-up Monitoring Studies
4. Continue and Expand Efforts to Improve Information on National Progress in Water
Pollution Control
S. Improve EPA and State Knowledge About Sources and Uses of Existing Water-
Related Data
6. Establish Central Coordination of EPA Activities to Integrate Water-Related Data
1-11
-------
Table 1-3
The Ten Recommendations
From Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection
(1990)
1. EPA should target its environmental protection efforts on the basis of opportunities
for the greatest risk reduction.
2. EPA should attach as much importance to reducing ecological risk as it does to
reducing human health risk.
3. EPA should improve the data and analytical methodologies that support the
assessment, comparison, and reduction of different environmental risks.
4. EPA should reflect risk-based priorities in this strategic planning processes.
5. EPA should reflect risk-based priorities in its budget process.
6. EPA - and the Nation as a whole - should make greater use of all the tools
available to reduce risk.
7. EPA should emphasize pollution prevention as the preferred option for reducing
risk.
8. EPA should increase its efforts to integrate environmental considerations into
broader aspects of publk policy in as fundamental a manner as are economic
concerns.
9. EPA should work to improve public understanding of environmental risks and
train a professional workforce to help reduce them.
10. EPA should develop improved analytical methods to value natural resources and
to account for long-term environmental effects in it economic analyses.
1-12
-------
Since its beginning, EPA has operated in a reactive mode, driven by a myriad of statutes
and regulations reflecting public perception of environmental risks. The SAB report,
recommends an integrated, anticipatory, risked-based approach that may allow EPA to deal
more effectively with existing and emerging environmental problems. Although this new
approach offers more effective environmental protection, it also poses new information
needs for water resource planners and managers. Some important opportunities, challenges.
and obstacles related to these new information needs are discussed in Chapter 6 of this
Region 5 pilot study.
In response to the need for better status and trends information on the Nation's ecological
resources, the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) initiated the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (U.S. EPA, 1991). EMAP is
designed to address the following objectives at a national or regional scale:
Estimate current status, extent, changes, and trends in indicators of the condition of
the Nation's ecological resources;
• Monitor indicators of pollutant exposure and habitat condition, and seek associations
between human-induced stresses and ecological conditions that identify possible
causes of adverse effects; and
• Publish annual statistical summaries and periodic interpretive reports on status and
trends to the EPA Administrator and the public.
Seven ecological resource groups makeup EMAP: agroecosystems, arid lands, forests, Great
Lakes, near coastal systems, inland surface waters, and wetlands. Figure 1-4 presents the
proposed spatial resolution of EMAP's inland surface water program, based on aggregated
Omernik ecoregions. Greater spatial resolution may be provided through cooperative
efforts with States and other federal agencies. EMAP networks are being designed
statistically to allow extrapolation from individual stations to entire ecosystems. EMAP
encompasses six primary activities:
1 Strategic evaluation, testing, and development of indicators of ecological
condition, pollutant exposure and habitat condition, and protocols for
collecting data on these indicators (see Figures 1-5 and 1-6);
2 Design and evaluation of a comprehensive and versatile integrated monitoring
framework;
3 Nationwide characterization of the extent and location of ecological
resources;
4 Demonstration studies and implementation of integrated sampling designs;
5 Development of data handling and quality assurance, as well as spatial
analysis and statistical, procedures for efficient analysis and reporting on
status and trends data; and
6 Assessments of the probable causes of environmental conditions and trends.
1-13
-------
Figure 1-4 Posed iSpatial Resolution of EMAP's Inland Surface Water
L,Based on A9Qregated Omernik Ecoregions
Waters Monitoring ana Research Strategy - Fiscal
*„
From
1991
I. MIIIICN HIIMMAIIU CUCUIH !((!*•
A. •.•-H'««'l««l SttliM
I. inii Imt KM S«llM
C. AplciH«(l JidiM
« Cflllil AM UflfH ftilMHUlUT FIKSIil mas Ul IMWUIK KCIII
Hi SIUIH CIIIIAl AM SMIHH NMM. Illil 1AM UK IUIOI
IV. SIMWM AMKIIIMAI PUHS KCIM
A l.rik>ri SKI in
I. Siilk.ii Sicli.i
• ICSUM IEIIC ICtMl
A. i««i «n
I >li< Sldltl
•I I1SMII FMISUI IOMUIIS IUMI
III. HIHI AllNVIAl AN CIASIAI flAMS IftlMi
A. C.ilni C«M«rw »iu«, I lui iiipr Allciid rii.i
I. IWMir (II)
-------
Figure 1-5. General Approach for Identifying Indicators
From Surface Water Monitoring and Research Strategy-Fiscal Year 1991
Biotie
Indicators
of Condition
Biological
Communities
(processes and
interactions altered
due to exposure to
modified chemical,
physical, and biological
habitats)
Endpoints
of Concern
Chemical Habitat
Physical Habitat
Biological Habitat
(alteration of these
habitats due to stresses)
Drlvi Policy
Policy
Directed
Toward
Impacting
\
Anthropogenic
Stresses
Context of these
decisions may
be resource class
specific or
regionally specific
Figure 1-6. Indicator Approach for EMAP-Surface Waters
Showing Candidate Indicators and the Top-Down Approach
to Problem Identification and Diagnosis of Probable Cause
From Surface Water Monitoring and Research Strategy-Fiscal Year 1991
ENDPOINTS
Trophic Sim
Fl stability
BloUc Intagrtty
EXPOSURE
INDICATORS
STRESSOR
INDICATORS
Fish
Habitat altaradan
watsr Quality
Totitity StaMty* Watar quality
dogradaOan
Physical haMM
01
Scmlaquatto
Vsrtabrataa
NuMant Loading* UndusaiUndcavsr
Camsminant Atmospheric deposition/
•millions
Chsmlcal sppllcsilon
••ttmstss
Flow/stsgs rscords
Stoeklng and harrsstlng
aMrpattonof
nadva spadss
Direction of Impact
Dlracilen of diagnosis
1-15
-------
One of the tasks in the Region 5 study was to ask States what they thought of EMAP,
including what they thought they would gain from the program and whether they would be
willing to assist in its implementation. This question was asked to identify potential
institutional relationships between EMAP and existing State surface water monitoring
programs to ensure maximum use of existing data and to improve its spatial and temporal
coverage. The study's findings and conclusions are discussed in Chapters 4 and 6.
In 1986. the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began the National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) Program to help support better decision-making and planning for the Nation's
water resources (Leahy, P. P., et al., 1990). The NAWQA began with a few pilot studies
of river basins and aquifer systems, and the final program will encompass 60 "study units"
(Figure 1-7). The goals of a full-scale NAWQA program are to
• Provide nationally consistent descriptions of current water quality conditions for a
large pan of the Nation's water resources;
• Define long-term trends (or lack of trends) in water quality over recent decades; and
• Identify and describe the relationship of current conditions and trends in water
quality to natural and human factors.
To meet these goals, the program will integrate information about water quality at different
spatial scales—local, study unit, and regional and national~and will focus on water quality
conditions that affect large areas or that recur locally.
The study-unit investigations will consist of intensive assessment activity of 4 to 5 years'
duration followed by 5 years of less intensive activity. Twenty study units will be in an
intensive data collection and analysis phase during each fiscal year (FY), and the first cycle
of intensive investigations covering the 60 study units will be completed in FY 2002
(Figure 1-8).
Chapter 6 describes potential opportunities for State monitoring programs, EMAP, and
NAWQA to complement one another. While these and other programs have worthwhile
goals and objectives in themselves, establishing better linkages among these programs could
significantly improve the implementation of water-related indicators at various spatial and
temporal scales. Relating environmental indicators and other data to the information needs
of water resource planners and managers is critical to the success of Federal and State
surface water programs. Chapter 6, to some extent, lays the framework for a strategy for
developing and using water-related indicators to support the planning and management
objectives shown in Table 1-1.
1-16
-------
Figure 1-7. Locations of Proposed Study Units for the National
Water-Quality Assessment Program
From Leahy, PP., et. al., 1990
CENTRAL
REGION
i
^-•
-J
WESTERN
REGION
SOUTHEASTERN
REGION
A
EXPLANATION
PROPOSED STUDY UNIT
and identification number
PROPOSED STUDY UNIT lo be
started m liscal year 1991
and KtenMicalion number
REGIONAL BOUNDARIES
500 MILES
500 KILOMETERS
-------
Figure 1-8. Schedule of First Cycle of Study-Unit Investigations, by
Dominant Activity, for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program,
Fiscal Years 1991-2002
From Leahy, P.P., et. al., 1990
00
First Group
of 20 Study
Units
Second
Group of 20
Study Units
Third Group
of 20 Study
Units
EXPLANATION
DOMINANT ACTIVITY
InianaVa data ootoctton and Interpretation
Completion Of reports
Low intensity sampltng
-------
2. METHODS FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL WATERS
2.1 Overview
Accurate and consistent quantification of surface water resources is essential to improving
designated use support as an environmental indicator. A total water estimate is the denominator
for calculating the percentage of waters known to be supporting designated uses. Without this
information, the relative proportions of designated use support categories (i.e., fully supporting,
partially supporting, and not supporting) cannot be consistently determined nor can meaningful
comparisons be made spatially (among States or nationally) and temporally (from one reporting
cycle to another) (Figure 2-1). It is also important to note that comparing waterbodies by overall
designated use is misleading because different waterbodies are designated for different uses (e.g.,
aquatic life support vs. industrial use). Because different criteria are often established for
different uses, it is more meaningful to compare waterbodies by the same designated use (see
Chapters 3 and 4).
Total water estimates also reveal the percentage of a State's waters being assessed and the extent
of the use of monitoring data versus evaluative information. Reliable estimates of total waters
give legislators, water quality planners, and the public a basis for evaluating the success of
pollution control efforts and the need for additional controls (see Table 1-1, Objective 3). For
example, to take action on a finding that 60 percent of the waters of a State are impaired by
agricultural sources, policymakers need to know that the basis for the percentage is sound and
defensible.
Estimates of total waters currently are not comparable among States because each State employs
its own methods of measurement Lacking a national database of accurate hydrologic features
each State selects its own criteria for including waterbodies in these estimates.
:|
Varying definitions of surface water resource categories (e.g., rivers and streams, lakes and
wetlands) among States are another source of inconsistent resource quantification. Even if
accurate and consistent quantification methods are employed, designated use support categories
will not be comparable if inconsistent definitions of resources categories are used. For example,
if one State includes intermittent streams with their inventory of total rivers and streams and
another State with similar hydrologic conditions does not, comparisons between the two States
could be misleading.
In FY91, a workgroup of representatives from several States, EPA Regions, and EPA
Headquarters recommended priority for developing of a consistent methodology for estimating
total State waters. This 305(b) Consistency Workgroup determined that the best currently
available estimates can be obtained using EPA Reach File Version 3. RF3 is a computer data
system based on the USGS 1:100,000 scale Digital Line Graph (DLG) database, and provides the
first national database of hydrologic traces with the detail needed to calculate reliable total State
water values. This use of RF3 data is described in Section 2.2. Section 5.2.1 provides a more
general description of RF3.
2-1
-------
Figure 2-1. Percentage of River Miles Supporting Designated Uses in
1990 - Region 5 States
N)
Source 1990 305(b) reports
-------
2.2 Methods for Quantifying Surface Water Resources
2.2.1 Mechanical Methods
States historically have relied on mechanical methods for estimating total waters. For rivers and
streams, these methods involve physical measurement of map traces using map wheels, dividers,
or rulers. A map wheel is a simple, hand-held device with a wheel at the bottom and a meter
that displays cumulative distance. The operator rolls the wheel along the stream trace, and the
resulting distance is converted to stream length according to the scale of the map. Dividers are
instruments with two sharp points that are set apart at a specified chord length. The operator
then "walks" the dividers along the stream trace and counts the number of chords. The chord
length is typically set using the map's scale, e.g., to 0.1 mile; the shorter the chord length, the
more precise the measurement.
Mechanical measurements can be quite accurate when performed on 1:24,000 scale USGS
topographic maps and subjected to good quality control. The State of North Carolina, for
example, measured all classified streams using triplicate map wheel readings; readings were
repeated until satisfactory agreement was achieved. The process was extremely time consuming
but results have been well accepted.
For lakes and wetlands, a planimcter is often used to measure size. A planimeter is a hand-held,
mechanical or electronic device with two arms. To measure the area of a lake, the end of one
arm is fixed on a point while the operator traces the shoreline with the other arm. As the moving
arm closes the shoreline trace, the planimeter displays a measurement of the area enclosed by the
trace. This area is then converted to the surface area of the lake. Another approach is to overlay
a map with a scaled, transparent grid; the number of grid units (dots or boxes) covering the
waterbody of interest is then used to calculate size.
Mechanical methods for measuring Great Lakes shoreline mileage and lake acreage are
straightforward However, the possibility of overlapping acreage may warrant further study.
2.2.2 Digital Methods
For over a decade it has been possible to convert stream traces into computerized data files.
Using an electronic pen or mouse, an operator typically follows the streams on a hydrologic or
topographic map; a program converts map coordinates at regular time or distance intervals along
the trace to digital location data. A computer program sums the distances between each point
to obtain stream length. This approach has been used with geographic information systems
(GISs).
2-3
-------
Automated optical scanning methods are also available. A scanner may pass over an entire
map's surface, interpreting it as a matrix of grid cells or pixels. Appropriate grid cells are
interpreted as stream traces.
Digital methods can also be used to calculate wetland size. The most detailed data are being
made available through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).
NWI maps show wetland boundaries at uniform scale under the Service's wetland classification
scheme. The maps can be digitized and wetland areas calculated using a CIS or other platform.
2.23 USGS Digital Line Graph Database
In a major national effort, USGS created the DLG database of all hydrologic features found on
its 1:100,000 scale map series. This is the most detailed scale available nationally in digital form
and includes an estimated 75 to 90 percent of the hydrologic features on the 1:24,000 scale
topographic map series. Most of the traces were actually digitized off the 1:24,000 scale maps,
so the accuracy of locational data is extremely high. The DLG database distinguishes
intermittent streams and ditches from perennial streams and rivers according to their visual
appearance on the USGS maps rather than any strict hydrologic criteria.
The DLG database was designed to draw detailed maps rather than to integrate information or
perform calculations (i.e., the traces are not networked). It has not been widely used by States
for estimating total waters. DLG data are not suitable for estimating lake and pond sizes without
considerable processing.
2.2.4 EPA Reach File
EPA Reach File Version 3 (RF3) is based on the DLG database and is housed on the EPA
National Computing Center (NCC) mainframe computer. RF3 contains additional connectivity
data linking DLG hydrologic traces into a true waterbody network. RF3 contains over 3 million
reaches or stream segments. The system is designed for routing and modeling applications and
serves as the primary integrator among the EPA national water databases. Other systems such
as STORET, the Waterbody System, and the Permit Compliance System can be linked with each
other by a common geographic locator, the Reach Number.
State-by-State estimates of total river and stream mileages using DLG have recently been
completed by Research Triangle Institute (RTT) for the EPA Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division. RF3 also makes it possible to calculate lake and pond acreage from the
DLG database; this work is underway. RF3 is expected to provide resolution to a minimum lake
size of approximately 1 acre. RF3 estimates for total lake acreage by State are to be completed
in the first quarter of FY92.
2-4
-------
Either the raw DLG traces or networked RF3 data files can be readily imported into GIS systems
and used in the GIS environment.
2.3 State Methods, Estimates, and Future Plans
Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 summarize the methods used, data sources, and the results of State total
waters estimates for rivers and streams, lakes, and wetlands in Region 5. For rivers and streams,
Table 2-1 provides DLG/RF3 estimates and values reported in the 1990 305(b) report to allow
comparison. These results are explained in the following sections, along with the State-specific
implications of using the RF3 estimates for total waters.
2.3.1 Dlinois
In the 1990 305(b) report, Illinois used a value of 14,080 miles for total river and stream size.
Since then, the 1989 Inventory of Illinois Surface Water Resources has been completed by the
Department of Conservation. The Illinois EPA plans to use the new estimate, 26,310 miles, in
the next 30S(b) report unless it is superseded by RF3 estimates. The State estimate is based on
mechanical measurements using 1:24,000 scale topographic maps and input from local resource
managers. Total lake acreage of 305,847 includes over 85,000 ponds or small lakes under 6
acres in size and 2,940 lakes greater than 6 acres in size.
The DLG/RF3 estimate of 33,009 miles for perennial streams and rivers is in reasonable
agreement with the new Illinois State estimate of 26,310. However, the DLG/RF3 estimate of
44,462 miles for intermittent streams and 2,341 for ditches/canals result in a grand total three
times the State estimate. If the same number of stream miles were assessed in 1992 as in the
1990 305(b) assessment, the percent of total stream miles assessed would be only about 16
percent using the DLG/RF3 estimate versus about 50 percent using the 26,310 figure. However,
Illinois staff recognize the higher level of accuracy of the DLG/RF3 mileages and will probably
have no problem in using them for 305(b) purposes. In fact, the DLG/RF3 estimates may be
seen as more desirable because all Illinois waterways are classified in the State water quality
standards, not just perennial streams.
The use of DLG/RF3 for total lake acreage may not cause significant problems for Illinois
because State estimates already include many small lakes. However, the State does not intend
to assess the thousands of ponds, borrow pits, and small lakes under 6 acres in size. State staff
raised the issue of whether a lower size cutoff would be appropriate for computing total waters.
Illinois, for example, has thousands of borrow pits left over from interstate highway construction
that have filled with water.
Two estimates of total wetlands were obtained. The 1990 305(b) report states that less than
1,750,000 acres remain, and Dahl (1990) reports 1,254,000 acres (Table 2-3).
2-5
-------
Table 2-1. Estimates of Total Stream and River Mileages for Region 5 States
I
a\
State Estimates
State Method
Illinois Mechanical
Indiana Unknown (probabl
Mileage Reported by
the State
^-pefenrnal streams)
y /iKfiTOQ) (includes
Perennial8
33.009
21.095
DLG/RF3 Mileages
Intermittent
44.462
8.409
Ditches/
Canals
3,341
6,169 <
Total
Michigan
mechanical with
extrapolation)
Unknown (probably
mechanical; 1940
estimates)
mi of ditches)
36.350
30.221
22.793
3.080
56,094
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Digitized from 1:24.000
and 1*2.500 maps
Mechanical (1960
estimates)
Mechanical using
1 24,000 topo maps
91,944 (includes
ditches)
25.165 (named or
included in WQS)«>
43.600 (mainly
perennial)
31.108
29,113
30.359
33,761
29.602
25.735
7,726
2,818
797
72,595
61.532
56.890
DLG-Digilal Una Graph
RF3-Reach Hte Version 3
WOS-Water Quatty Standards
a Includes the DLG categories "perennial streams' and "wide rivers"
»> Ohio also reports a total ol 43.917 mites of named or unnamed streams (including an estimate lor dlches); however. 29.113 miles is used
in the 305(b) tor total waters.
-------
Table 2-2. Methods Used by Region 5 States to Determine
Total Lake Acreage and Reported Values
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Method and Size of Lakes Included
Mechanical; includes over 80,000
lakes <6 acres in size
Mechanical
Mechanical: Michigan State University
Acreage Reported
305,847
105,540
840,960
report circa late 1960s; includes all
lakes/ponds >0.1 acres in size
Minnesota Mechanical: MN Department of Natural
Resources Inventory of Minnesota
Lakes; from planimetered aerial photos;
includes all lakes >10 acres
Ohio Mechanical; includes all 50,000 lakes
in Ohio; includes 66,000 acres of lakes
<5 acres in size
Wisconsin Mechanical; planimeter
3,411,200
200,000
957,288
Table 2-3. Wetland Totals for Region 5 States
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
1 990 Rsh and Wildlife
Service Estimates4
1 ,254,000
750,633
5,583,400
8,700,000
482,800
5,331,392
Source
IL Dept. of Conservation
NWI
NWI
University of Minnesota, 1981
NWI and OH Dept. of Natural
Resources
Wl Dept. of Natural Resources
• Dahl, 1990
2-7
-------
2.3.2 Indiana
Indiana estimates its total perennial streams and rivers at 10,000 miles and its total waterways
(including intermittent streams and ditches) at 90,000 miles. The State estimates were generated
some years ago and no references or detailed methods were provided for this project.
Presumably the estimates are based on mechanical measurements with some extrapolation from
part of the State to the entire State. The DLG/RF3 estimate of 21,095 miles for perennial
streams and rivers is more than twice the State estimate. In contrast, the DLG/RF3 estimate for
intermittent streams is about the same as the State estimate of 10,000 miles.
The greatest difference between State and DLG/RF3 estimates is in miles of ditches and canals.
This is significant because Indiana's water quality standards protect many drainageways as small
as roadside ditches. Most of the State's estimated 70,000 miles of ditches are too small to be
found on 1:24,000 scale topographic maps and hence are not included in DLG/RF3 estimates.
DLG/RF3 estimates almost certainly represent more accurate totals for perennial and intermittent
streams. Despite the differences in mileage estimates, Indiana staff have indicated that the use
of DLG/RF3 mileages for 30S(b) reporting will probably be acceptable to them. They recognize
that the 90,000-mile figure may not be suitable for use support purposes, because (by their
estimates) only about 10,000 miles of perennial streams and 10,000 miles of intermittent streams
are capable of supporting designated uses. The 90,000 mile figure is important in other ways,
because it enables the State to issue permits protective of very small waterways.
Indiana reports publicly owned inland lakes totalling 104,540 acres. The basis for this acreage
was not provided for the study.
Wetlands are estimated at 100,000 acres in the 1990 305(b) report. This is a crude estimate and
not based on detailed mapping. The current NWI estimate is 750,633 acres.
2.3 J Michigan
Michigan's estimate of 36,350 miles of total streams and rivers is believed to date back to the
1940s. The basis for this estimate and procedures used were not available for this project It
does not appear that this number accurately represents all classified waters of the State.
DLG/RF3 estimates were 30,221 miles of perennial streams, 22,793 miles of intermittent streams,
and 3,080 miles of ditches/canals.
Michigan will probably find RF3 estimates acceptable in principle. A potential problem for them
is that RF3 totals for ditches might include some channelized streams that are protected by water
quality standards, whereas most ditches are not protected. Another State-specific issue is that
Michigan distinguishes between "intermittent" and "ephemeral" streams; ephemeral streams
2-8
-------
contain water only during runoff events, and intermittent streams contain water at other times as
well. Intermittent streams are protected by standards; ephemeral streams are not. DLG/RF3
estimates are based on cartographic traces and cannot distinguish between the two types of
streams.
Michigan's estimate of 840,960 acres of lakes includes ponds as small as 0.1 acre. Staff are
concerned over the selection criteria for the lower cutoff in lake size to be used in RF3 estimates
of total waters. The State has not determined if an RF3 lower cutoff value of 1 acre would be
acceptable to Michigan; such a lower limit would capture all but the smallest ponds.
Michigan is completing a wetland inventory, which resides on the Michigan Resource
Information System (MIRIS), a CIS. Total size is estimated at 3,200,000 acres but may change
as MIRIS results come in. NWI estimates Michigan's wetlands at 5,583,400 acres.
2.3.4 Minnesota
Minnesota's total stream miles estimate of 91,944 comes from the digitized center traces of most
streams, rivers, and ditches shown on 1:24,000 and 1:62,500 scale topographic maps. All data
are referenced to the universal transverse mercator (UTM) zone 15-coordinate system. Separate
estimates for perennial and intermittent streams are not available. The 91,944 miles includes an
estimated 20,022 miles of ditches and canals.
Minnesota's total stream mile estimate serves as a good test of the DLG/RF3 estimates because
both were derived by digitizing stream traces from topographic maps. Minnesota's estimate
would be expected to be higher because of the map scales used; DLG/RF3 relied on 1:100,000
scale maps, which are believed to contain 75-90 percent of the hydrologic features on the
1:24,000 scale maps. Indeed, the DLG/RF3 estimate of 72,595 miles represents 79 percent of
Minnesota's estimate.
Minnesota will make a case for using its own total streams and rivers estimate since it contains
more detail than the DLG/RF3 estimate. DLG/RF3 has the advantage of distinguishing among
the different waterbody types (perennial stream, intermittent stream, wide river, ditch/canal), but
this is not significant to Minnesota because the State wants all potential receiving waters included
in total waters estimates.
Minnesota reports 3,411,200 acres of lakes greater than 10 acres in size. Lake estimates were
obtained using planimeters on aerial photographs and were checked against USGS topographic
maps. The State's reaction to RF3 total lake acreage will likely depend on the RF3 selection
criteria and results.
Minnesota's wetlands were estimated by Department of Natural Resources staff at roughly
5,000,000 acres. A 1981 University of Minnesota study reported a total of 8,700,000 acres (Dahl,
1990).
2-9
-------
2.3.5 Ohio
For total streams and rivers, the Ohio EPA uses an estimate of 25,165 miles. This was obtained
by measuring waterbodies large enough to be named on USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic maps
and/or designated in State water quality standards. These waters have been assigned aquatic life
use designations. This measurement agrees well with the DLG/RF3 value of 29,113 miles for
perennial streams and rivers.
Although not used for 305(b) purposes, there is also a 1960 State estimate of 43,917 miles, based
on measurements of all named streams and estimates for unnamed streams and ditches. Many
of these waters are not capable of supporting permanent aquatic communities. This estimate can
be compared with the DLG/RF3 total of 61,532 miles for all categories of streams, rivers, and
ditches/canals.
Ohio EPA plans to update their list of waters by adding any missing perennial stream segments
from RF3. Although they believe they have covered the universe of streams and rivers in their
total waters estimates, they are willing to use DLG/RF3 values for the sake of national
consistency, especially considering that these estimates agree reasonably well with their current
universe of waters.
The total wetland acreage of Ohio is being quantified by the Remote Sensing Program of the
Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service using LANDSAT data.
The inventory is scheduled for completion in 1991. Unpublished NWI data suggest a total
acreage of 5,583.400 (Table 2-3).
2.3.6 Wisconsin
Wisconsin determined total stream and river miles mechanically using 1:24,000 topographic
maps. Only perennial streams were measured, in an attempt to capture all streams with aquatic
populations. The State's estimate is 43,600 miles, compared with the DLG/RF3 perennial
streams total of 30,359 miles (70 percent of the State estimate). DLG/RF3 also calculates 25,735
miles of intermittent streams and 797 miles of ditches/canals for a total of 56,890 miles.
The State estimate may be more detailed for perennial streams. If EPA selects perennial waters
as the basis for 305(b) total waters, Wisconsin may seek to use its own estimate for total waters.
Wisconsin measured 957,288 acres of lakes using planimeters.
Wisconsin's wetlands are estimated at 5,331,392 acres from a 1985 Department of Natural
Resources inventory using aerial photographs.
2-10
-------
2.4 Findings and Recommendations
2.4.1 Rivers and Streams
A wide range of approaches and sources were used by the Region 5 States to estimate total
waters. In the case of rivers and streams, approaches range from digitization of stream traces
from detailed topographic maps (Minnesota) to limited mechanical measurements with
extrapolation (Indiana). Illinois and Wisconsin restrict their measurements largely to perennial
streams, while Indiana and Minnesota include intermittent streams and ditches in their estimates.
Ohio includes only streams that are named or included in State water quality standards.
Two categories of inconsistency in total waters estimates have been identified among the Region
5 States-inconsistency due to differences in measurement technique or level of detail and
inconsistency due to State policy or regulation. The first category of inconsistency is remedied
by using the best available national database of stream and lake sizes, RF3. An example of the
second type of inconsistency is discrepancy in the inclusion of intermittent streams and ditches
in State water quality standards and total waters.
An issues for States is that the use of RF3 total waters will significantly reduce the percentage
of total waters assessed. That is, the "unassessed" portions in Figure 2-1 will typically become
larger. This may give a negative impression about a State's monitoring program, even though
the State may be assessing a relatively high percentage of waters that are capable of supporting
aquatic life.
To help resolve this issue, the Region 5 States have set a goal of reporting use support separately
for each of the following categories: perennial streams, intermittent streams, canals/ditches, and
border streams. For each category, total assessed mileage will be reported, as well as mileage
supporting each designated use. This expanded level of reporting in the 1992 305(b) reports will
provide information at the Regional level on what types of waters are monitored and assessed.
A knowledge of what types of waters are being monitored, coupled with studies showing aquatic
life values for intermittent streams, may help guide the interpretation of "percent of waters
assessed" in the future 305(b) reports.
A recommendation is made in Section 2.4.4 that the 305(b) Consistency Workgroup look into
this issue based on the results of the analysis by Region 5 States. This review may find, for
example, that aquatic life support could be more viable as an indicator if States would give two
separate totals: waters with potential to support aquatic life, and total waters. In such a case,
the aquatic life waters might consist of perennial streams and selected intermittent streams,
ditches and canals.
2-11
-------
2.4.2 Lakes
The issues associated with lakes are less clear-cut because the RF3 estimates by State are not yet
available. RF3 is expected to include more lake acreage than most States have had the resources
to measure by hand. As such, RF3 totals will be an improvement for Region 5 States other than
Michigan and Minnesota, where highly detailed measurements have been made. The primary
question seems to be how to set the minimum lake or pond size to be included in the RF3 total
waters estimates. State-specific concerns remain to be defined. Illinois staff expressed concern
over including thousands of small borrow pits from highway construction that have filled up with
water. However, Illinois does include some ponds under 6 acres in its total lake acreage. Ohio
includes lakes/ponds under 5 acres in its estimate, while Michigan includes ponds under 0.1 acre,
and Minnesota drew the line at 10 acres. RF3 includes ponds down to the 1-acre size range.
No matter which lower size cutoff is selected for RF3, it will probably not suit all States. RF3
estimates for total lake acreage by State are to be completed in the first quarter of FY92.
2.4.3 Wetlands
Accurate and consistent totals for wetlands are probably years away for many States. Wetland
boundaries are subject to considerable interpretation. Ultimately, the most consistent and
complete source of wetland totals will be the NWI. However, States should be allowed to adjust
the NWI totals based on detailed ground truthing or other defensible considerations. ,
Prior to completion of the NWI, the current best estimates are probably found in a recent Report
to Congress entitled Wetland Issues in the United States, 1780's to 1980's (Dahl, 1990). The
State-by-State totals in this report represent the Service's best efforts to reconcile conflicting
datasets, and include NWI estimates and States estimates where appropriate. These wetland totals
are recommended for national use until better estimates are available (see Table 2-3).
2.4.4 Recommendations
• RF3 is the best available national database for calculating State total waters and
is detailed enough for most State applications. However, States should be given
the flexibility and tools to modify their RF3 databases to add further detail, and
to allow States that have digitized their waters to a greater level of detail than RF3
to report their own total waters. Minnesota is an example of such a State.
2-12
-------
The 305(b) Consistency Workgroup should review the results of the effort by
Region 5 States to summarize use support separately for perennial, intermittent
and border streams and ditches/canals (including miles of waters being monitored
and assessed in each category). The Workgroup should then consider options for
improving national reporting on miles supporting aquatic life.
EPA should resolve the issue of a lower size cutoff for lakes included in State
total waters. Not all RF3 impoundments are waters of the State--e.g., wastewater
lagoons or borrow pits have filled with water as a result of highway construction.
State support for RF3 total waters would be enhanced by more documentation
about how RF3 calculates total waters, cartographic coverage, etc. This
information will soon be available as a result of ongoing projects by the EPA
Office of Oceans, Wetlands and Watersheds (OWOW).
2-13
-------
3. ASSESSMENT OF DESIGNATED USE SUPPORT
3.1 Overview
At present, EPA reports on the Nation's surface water quality by compiling and summarizing
the biennial State reports called for under Section 305(b) of the CWA. As part of these
reports. States assess and report on a variety of designated beneficial uses for the waterbodies.
Under each State's water quality standards program, the State designates beneficial uses for
waterbodies (e.g., recreation, aquatic life protection) and establishes numeric and narrative
water quality criteria standards the State determines are needed to protect each use (U.S. EPA,
1983]). The extent to which the assessed waters meet or fail the established criteria determines
whether or not, and to what degree, the designated use is considered to be met. States also
report on whether the use support decision is based on actual monitoring data or more
subjective evaluations.
Surface waters may be designated for one or more uses including, but not limited to: domestic
water supply, aquatic fish and wildlife support, recreation, agriculture, industrial use,
navigation, and nondegradation waters. However, the most consistent designated use which
is reported by the States is the "aquatic life" use. Some States have tiered aquatic life uses
based upon habitat quality to more accurately determine their expectations for community-
based measures and numeric water quality standards (Figure 3-1).
States determine whether the designated uses are supported by compiling and interpreting data
on a variety of physical, chemical, and biological measures. Chemical and physical measures,
corresponding to properties for which water quality criteria have been adopted in State
standards, are the most common measures used to evaluate use support; however, biological
measures are becoming more common and necessary. EPA aggregates and summarizes the
State reports into a single national assessment it submits to the Congress (U.S. EPA, 1991).
In reporting on designated use support. States set water quality goals and measure progress in
meeting them. States report on the degree to which assessed waters are: fully supporting, fully
supporting but threatened, partially supporting, or not supporting their designated uses. In
addition, information provided on the causes and sources of pollution allows managers to
identify emerging and existing problems so that they can target their resources more
effectively. Information reported is used by the States in identifying problems, monitoring
compliance actions, setting control priorities, and educating the public.
The 305(b) reporting mechanism provides OW with a State-driven information system that
already serves as a source of indicator data and can be improved upon for future use. If
desired by OW, and agreed upon by the States, changes in the reporting system could allow
for more uniform collection of information needed to develop selected environmental
indicators. One of the major problems facing various Offices at EPA in developing indicator
programs is finding ways to compile and analyze the information available from various
3-1
-------
Figure 3-1. Aquatic Life Use Designations by State
Aquatic lisas
General
Exceptional
Warmwater
Warmwater
Ccldwater
Limned/modified
»• »Am»-
WaflnWBlBi
Limited
Indigenous
Hllnols
•
•
Indiana
•
Michigan
•
•
Minnesota
•
•
Ohio
•
•
•
•
•
Wisconsin
•
•
•
•
to
-------
sources. OW, through the biennial 305(b) reports and the computerized waterbody system
(WBS), akeady has such a system in place (Chapter 5 for discussion of WBS).
Unfortunately, the current value of the 305(b) reports as a source of environmental indicator
data is severely limited. There are large inconsistencies among States in how water quality
data are generated, analyzed, and reported. States assess different subsets of their waters
annually through site-specific and intensive surveys while the Fixed Station Networks provide
the only link from one year to the next In some instances, States even change their accounting
of total waters from one cycle to the next (see Chapter 2). One problem in using this
information for national reporting purposes stems from the considerable discretion that States
have under the law in developing their own water quality standards. State water quality
standards are comprised of a designated beneficial use of the waterbody, narrative or numeric
criteria established to ensure protection of that use, and an anti-degradation statement As a
result of these differences among States and in the type of information they provide to EPA
in their 305(b) reports, making comparisons between States or trying to assess national status
and trends is essentially impossible. The inconsistencies in sampling design and decision-
making from year to year make it difficult to assess trends even within individual States.
However, with the additional attention that EPA and the States are placing on the 305(b)
process (e.g., the National 305(b) Consistency Workgroup) these issues will be minimized in
the future.
This chapter describes the approaches of each Region 5 State in assessing aquatic life use
support Aquatic life support is a particularly useful environmental indicator because it
measures the overall integrity of surface waters and generally provides a surrogate measure of
attainment of most other designated uses. The types of biological, chemical, and physical
indicators used in State assessments of rivers, streams, and lakes and the manner in which they
are used are discussed in this chapter, and issues of spatial sampling design are discussed in
Chapter 4.
3.2 State Assessment Approaches for Aquatic Life Use Support
Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show the environmental indicators used by each Region 5 State to assess
aquatic life support for rivers and streams, and for lakes, respectively. These tables also
convey whether each indicator has a primary, secondary or supporting role in the assessments.
In general, best professional judgment (BPJ) is widely used in the assessment process,
highlighting the importance of documenting each State's decision process to help promote more
accurate, consistent, and reproducible assessments. Brief descriptions of the approaches used
by Region 5 States for assessing designated use secondary support for rivers and streams, and
lakes are provided in the following sections.
3-3
-------
Figure 3-2. Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses
for Rivers and Streams by State
<*>
Ud
Indicators
Water chemistry
Sediment
chemlstrv
Fish community
Macromvertabrate
Community
Fish tissue
UohMflft AMAliittMAiftft
Fish kite
Effluent chemistry
Atoxlcnv
UUnols
0
O
•
O
O
•
0
O
Indiana
•
O
O
O
•
O
O
0
Michigan
•
O
O
0
•
O
O
O
Minnesota
•
0
O
•
O
O
O
Ohio
O
O
•
•
O
•
O
O
Wisconsin
•
O
•
O
•
•
O
O
Ul
- Primary data type for assessments
O . secondary data type used to support assessments
-------
Figure 3-3. Indicators Used in Assessing Aquatic Life Uses
for Lakes by State
iraicBiorv
Trophic status
Water chemistry
Sediment
Amount of aquatic
Amount of
Hehklle
Fish tissue
contamination
Effluent chemistry
Atoxlcttv
niiiivta
•
o
0
•
•
IIIUMUM
•
O
o
o
o
o
•mail||ail
•
o
o
miiiiiaowia
O
•
WIIIW
•
o
o
o
o
o
vviavwiiaiii
•
O
o
o
I
en
- Primary data type for assessments
O • Secondary data type used to support assessments
-------
3.2.1 Illinois
Approach for Rivers and Streams
Assessments are performed by Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) staff in the
Planning Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control. Indicators used in assessments
include fish community data, habitat evaluation data, macroinvertebrate data, water chemistry,
sediment chemistry, and fish tissue contamination. Data sources include STORE! (See
Appendices), State biological data files, and Intensive Basin Survey Reports. Most of the work
is done by Regional Office Staff, including analysis of biological data. Headquarters staff of
the Section provide instruction and guidance and interpret physical/chemical water quality data.
Headquarters staff also combine Regional input to the State Waterbody System.
The use support decision algorithm is complex but well documented in the State's 305(b)
report. Predominant data types used are
• Fish community measures—through use of an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI);
• Habitat observations and measurements-through a Potential Index of Biotic Integrity
(PIBI); and
• Physical/chemical water chemistry—through use of the Region 10 Water Quality Index,
or WQI.
As shown in Figure 3-4. the Illinois approach gives greater weight to measured fish community
integrity (IBI) and potential integrity based on habitat (PIBI) than to water chemistry (WQI).
However, water chemistry data are always used where available, even though they can be
overridden by fish community data. The following text explains Figure 3-4.
If fish or habitat data are not available, the WQI is relied upon heavily. If all three types of
data are available, the following approach is applied:
Step 1 Determine if IBI alone indicates nonsuppon (IBI very low). If YES, waterbody
is not supporting uses.
Step 2 If IBI alone does not indicate nonsupport, determine if measured fish community
integrity exceeds that predicted by habitat only (i.e., if IBI exceeds PIBI). If
yes, then look at chemistry; if WQI is greater than SO then stream is achieving
partial/minor support; if WQI is less than SO, stream fully supports uses.
Step 3 If fishery potential based on habitat alone moderately exceeds actual IBI.
perform another WQI test to determine partial/minor, partial/moderate, or full
support If potential fish community integrity (based on PIBI) greatly exceeds
measured fish community integrity (IBI), this is taken as evidence that water
quality could be better, and increasingly higher WQIs are required for each level
of support.
3-6
-------
Figure 3-4. Aquatic Life Use Support Assessment
Flow Chart for Fish, Habitat, and Water Quality Data - Illinois
\
Yes
>
Is
IBI<23
k
No
Yes
Fish/Habitat
Assessment
Data Available
No
Is
WQI<30
No
Yes
1
r
1 Full
c
3-7
-------
If IBI indicates a level of support of partial or full, then the WQI generally is
used to distinguish between full or partial support. Only in extreme cases where
habitat potential (PEBI) greatly exceeds measured fish community integrity (IBI)
can water chemistry signal nonsupport
Step 4 If macroinvertebrate data are available, determine if they are sufficient to
override any of the above approaches. A rating system relates
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) to level of use support
Step 5 Determine if sediment data indicate elevated levels; if so, adjust use support
appropriately. Likewise determine if fish tissue shows elevated levels of
organochlorine compounds. If such compounds are routinely detected below
levels of concern, the stream is partially supporting uses; if consistently
exceeding Food and Drug Administration Action Levels, the stream is not
supporting uses.
Step 6 Determine if water column chemistry shows elevated levels of pesticides and
priority pollutants and adjust use support according to best professional
judgment Note: The IEPA approach does not employ toxicity testing results
and effluent chemistry.
Illinois EPA developed a Biological Stream Characterization (BSQ program to assist in the
management protection of their natural resources by adapting the multi-metric Index of Biotic
Integrity for use in Illinois and developing a stream habitat assessment procedure for predicting
biotic potential (IEPA 1989). Figure 3-5 illustrates how streams are classified within Illinois
for aquatic life protection; however, it is not clear how these classifications are used in water
quality standards programs or how biological criteria would be implemented. These
classifications have yet to be linked directly with the State's designated uses.
Although Illinois EPA attempts to integrate benthic macroinvertebrate community measures
into their assessments, diis effort is hampered by the reliance of a single metric - the
macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI). The BSC manual states that the MBI, or
macroinvertebrate narrative criteria are used only:
• When fisheries information is unavailable;
• On stream segments five miles in length, or longer; and,
• Only in the application of Class D or E Ratings.
In these cases, only the MBI itself is generally used to make decisions on use attainment, but
the State has acknowledged the need to expand the use of other benthic metrics such as those
used in EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (EPA 1989) and/or other State programs.
3-8
-------
Figure 3-5. Prioritization of Data Use in the Biological
Stream Characterization Process • Illinois
From Biological Stream Characterization (BSC), 1989
START:
ASSESS AVALABLE
BlOnC DATA
CAN
BI/ABI BE
CALCULATED?
NO BSC RATING
INTERNAL IEPA USE
CLASSES
D OR E ONLY)
| CLASSIFY STREAM SEGMENT
A
UNIQUE
AQUAT RES
B
HIGHLY
VALUED
C
MODERATE
D
LIMITED
RESTRICTED
RESOURCE
3-9
C
I
FINAL BSC
RATING
-------
Approach for Lakes
Assessments of lakes are performed by IEPA staff in the Planning Section of the Division of
Water Pollution Control. Assistance in data collection and identification of causes and sources
is provided by Areawide Planning Commissions (especially for Volunteer Lake Monitoring
Program lakes), the Illinois Department of Conservation District Fishery Managers and
Regional Administrators (based on 1977 fisheries questionnaires and updates), and the Illinois
State Water Survey (lakes monitored under the Lake WQ Assessment grant). Data used in lake
assessments include: measurements of Secchi transparency, total P. and chlorophyll a; other
water column measurements with State standards; field observations of impairment of aquatic
life and other uses; observations about potential for impairment due to urban or agricultural
runoff; and other professional judgment. Data sources include: the 1984 Section 314 Lake
Classifications report, data from lEPA's Ambient Lake Monitoring Program, data from Illinois'
Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, and data collected under Lake Water Quality Assessment
grants.
For Illinois, a "fully supporting" lake fully supports all designated uses; a "partially
supporting" lake has at least one use slightly to moderately impaired in a substantial portion
of the lake (e.g., fishing impaired by excessive weeds); and a "not supporting" lake has at least
one severely impaired use (e.g., widespread sedimentation blocks boating access).
Each lake is rated for severity of impairment according to statewide criteria. Illinois' Lake Use
Impairment Index combines ratings for (1) the Carlson Trophic State Index (Carlson ),
used by many States; (2) semiquantitative ratings of the amount of sediment; and (3)
semiquantitative ratings of the amount of aquatic macrophytes. In addition, water column and
sediment chemistry, biological data, field observations, and professional judgment are factored
into the use support determination according to a relatively complex, but well-documented
assessment algorithm. See Table 77 and Appendix J-4 of the 305(b) for details.
3.2.2 Indiana
h fr Rivr an^ Str*»am«
Assessments are performed by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM),
Office of Water Management, Water Quality Surveillance and Standards Branch (WQSS).
Indiana's 305(b) assessment process is in a state of flux as a result of two developments: the
expansion of the biological monitoring program to include basin surveys and the
implementation of the EPA Waterbody System for tracking assessment results. In the past, the
WQSS has requested input from Biological Monitoring and Survey and Inspection staff by
providing STORET retrievals and the assessment pages from the last 305(b) report for their
review. Presumably, a similar procedure will be followed for the 1992 report, except that
assessment results will be entered into the WBS instead of typed onto the assessment tables.
3-10
-------
Decision algorithms are documented in less detail in the Indiana 305(b) reports than in those
of most other Region 5 States. Indicators used in assessments include water column and
sediment chemistry, fish tissue contaminant data, discharge monitoring reports, fish kill reports,
fish community data, and macroinvertebrate data. Data sources include STORET, Compliance
Sampling Inspection, Department of Health fish consumption advisories, and State biological
data files. Indiana relies heavily on the approach for analyzing water chemistry data described
in the 1990 305(b) guidance (EPA 1990). The STORET retrievals generated for this purpose
are the basis for most assessment determinations. In addition to the above data types, fish kill
information is provided by the Emergency Response Section of the Office of Water
Management
The next most widely used data type is fish tissue contamination data (Indiana's monitoring
program emphasizes tissue monitoring to a large extent compared with other Region 5
programs). If the Indiana Department of Health has issued a fish consumption advisory, a
waterbody is considered partially supporting; if a fish consumption ban has been issued, a
waterbody is considered not supporting.
In the past, biomonitoring has, for the most pan, been limited to the CORE fixed-station
network, using in place samplers for macroinvertebrates and doing fish taxonomic work in
conjunction with tissue contaminant sampling. IDEM is now broadening its biomonitoring to
include the use of rapid bioassessment protocols for fish, macroinvertebrates, and habitat In
1990, Indiana sampled the Central Com Belt Plains Ecoregion in a cooperative project with
Region 5, and in the summer of 1991, the project continued with sampling the Huron Erie
Lake Plain and the Northern Indiana-Southern Michigan Tills Plain Ecoregions for biocriteria.
After the above data are accumulated and draft assessment tables completed by Biological
Monitoring and Survey and Inspection staff, several WQSS managers meet to review the
assessment results for each waterbody. At this time, results of the STORET analysis and
recommendations of other staff may be overruled by supplemental information or BPJ.
Approach for Lakes
Use support determinations are made by WQSS staff. Only six lakes are specifically
mentioned as not supporting or partially supporting designated uses. These determinations are
BPJ calls based on a review of available information (IDEM Lake Eutrophication Index values,
fish consumption advisories, fish kills, effluent data, and field observations of nuisance algae
or lack of aquatic life). All remaining lakes in Indiana are considered threatened because of
potential human impacts. Data used in assessments include: measurements of Secchi
transparency, total P, soluble P, organic N, nitrate, ammonia, DO. percent light transmission
at 3 feet, chlorophyll a, total plankton per liter, observations about potential for impairment due
to urban or agricultural runoff, and other professional judgment
3-11
-------
Trophic status assessments are also performed by WQSS staff. Data sources include: 1988-89
Section 314 Clean Lakes monitoring (110 lakes) and the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources Lake Enhancement Program. Indiana has established four trophic classes based on
the IDEM Lake Eutrophicadon Index. This index is the sum of "eutrophy points" assigned for
various measurements of the following parameters: Secchi transparency, total phosphorus,
soluble phosphorus, organic nitrogen, nitrate, ammonia, dissolved oxygen, percent light
transmission at 3 feet, chlorophyll a. total plankton per liter, and plankton counts from a 5-foot
depth including the beginning of the thermocline. The four trophic classes are
1. Highest quality lakes, uses not impaired by eutrophicadon;
2. Moderately productive lakes; uses seldom impaired;
• 3. Most productive, eutrophic, or hypereutrophic. swimming, boating, and fishing
uses sometimes impaired;
4. Remnant and oxbow lakes in an advanced state of senescence; some uses
impaired by size, depth, or accessibility.
According to the above descriptions, there should be a correlation between trophic class and
designated use support. Therefore, the 11 lakes falling within the trophic classes m and IV
presumably are not fully supporting designated uses, even though the 305(b) does not explicitly
state this.
3.2.3. Michigan
Approach for Rivers and Streams
Michigan's 305(b) reports require input and coordination from many State agencies. Indicators
used in assessments include: fish community, habitat evaluation data, macroinvertebrate
community data, water chemistry, fish tissue contamination, and effluent chemistry and
toxicity. Data sources include: STORET, Department of Public Health Fish Consumption
Advisory, List Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) biological surveys reports,
effluent toxicity test reports, discharge monitoring reports and compliance survey reports. Great
Lakes Area of Concern Remedial Action Plans, Michigan Waterbody System, and International
Joint Commission reports.
The reports themselves are prepared by staff of the Great Lakes and Environmental Assessment
Section (GLEAS) in the Surface Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. Stream assessments are done within GLEAS with input from the Fisheries
Division; lake assessments involve the Land and Water Management Division. The
3-12
-------
Department of Health also provides information on fish consumption advisories and other
public health problems.
The procedure for stream assessments has evolved from the approach used to construct 304(1)
lists in 1988. This procedure is not documented and is based largely on the BPJ of field staff
and GLEAS managers. There is no clear prioritizing of data types, although recent biological
data are considered the best data for aquatic life use assessments. A printout of the Michigan
Waterbody System for each waterbody is sent to the appropriate district biologist within
GLEAS (biologists are assigned to specific districts, although all biological staff work based
in Lansing). These printouts are grouped into three categories-waterbodies with past WQS
violations, waterbodies without a history of violations, and questionable waterbodies.
District biologists then update the WBS printouts based on new information, including ambient
chemical and biosurvey data, effluent data, and other types of information listed above. In
updating the printouts, biologists meet with the water quality staff (engineers, environmental
scientists, and fisheries biologists) in each district for input and review. Regarding STORET
data, Michigan does not have a standardized method for analyzing water chemistry data such
as the approach recommended in the prior 305(b) guidelines. Likewise, Michigan's
quantitative fish, macroinvertebrate, and habitat measures are not directly related to designated
use support
Michigan reports streams as either fully supporting or not supporting designated uses.
Michigan WBS contains almost entirely impaired waters (mainly 304(1) long-list waters).
There is no data system for information on streams that fully support uses. District biologists
and other staff start with organized information only for known impaired waters and add
waterbodies to the WBS as impaired waters are identified.
In 1990, Michigan DNR adopted GLEAS Procedure No. 15 entitled "Qualitative Biological and
Habitat Survey Protocols for Wadable Streams and Rivers" using fish, benthos, and habitat
multi-metric assessments. This procedure will greatly facilitate implementation of a biological
criteria program and assist with the determination of designated use attainment for individual
waterbodies. However, it is not yet clear how the State will precisely use the information
generated in this new program.
Approach for Lakes
Lake assessments are done by GLEAS and Land and Water Management Division who do
most of the Clean Lakes monitoring in the State. Lakes are either fully supporting, threatened,
or not supporting. Data used in assessments include measurements of Secchi transparency,
total P. and chlorophyll a, other water column measurements with State standards; field
observations of impairment of recreation, aquatic life and other uses; observations about
potential for impairment due to urban or agricultural runoff, and other professional judgment.
Data sources include Michigan nonpoint source assessment reports and ambient data from the
Clean Lakes program.
3-13
-------
Fully supporting lakes meet all designated uses and generally one of the following conditions:
• Located in an isolated area or on public land, without influence by nonpoint sources;
• Located in a developed area, but relatively insensitive to pollutant load due 10
hydrologic or physical/chemical characteristics; and
• Naturally eutrophic system.
Threatened lakes meet one or more of the following conditions:
• Designated uses met, but minor water quality impacts noted;
• Watershed has high levels of agricultural or urban development;
• Lake is sensitive to development impacts; and
• Lake is oligotrophic or mesotrophic, hence "protected" under Michigan Rule 98
(antidegradation).
Other than the above general descriptions, no other documentation is available on assessment
methods for inland lakes. Common reasons for nonsupport are fish consumption advisories
resulting from metals contamination and failure of coldwater-designated lakes to meet the
dissolved oxygen standard. Lake assessments are made by the district biologists in GLEAS
and lake specialists in the Land and Water Management Division based on a BPJ evaluation
of the above data types. In contrast to stream assessments, inland lakes assessments are stored
and managed using the EPA Waterbody System. Trophic status is determined based on the
Carlson Indexes for chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and Secchi depth.
3.2.4 Minnesota
Approach for Rivers and Streams
Minnesota, the "Land of 10,000 Lakes," actually contains 12,034 lakes covering 3,411.200
acres. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that much of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency's (MPCA) surface water monitoring efforts are directed toward lake resources. For
the 1990 305(b) reporting cycle, MPCA monitored 2,234,800 (65.6%) of their lake acres
and monitored only 4,684 (5.1%) of their 91.944 total stream miles. Pan of this
discrepancy is explained by the fact that one or two stations are used to assess an entire
lake while one stream station covers only a single reach. As shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3,
Minnesota relies heavily on monitored rather than evaluated data in making designated use
assessments. For future reports, however, MPCA would like to expand their use of
evaluated data to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the State's water resources.
3-14
-------
Of Minnesota's 91,944 stream miles, almost all (91,144 miles) are classified for fish and
wildlife support and recreational uses. These uses are analogous to "Fishable Use" and
"Swimmable Use." As detailed on p. 7 of the 1990 report, fishable use determinations are
based on "ambient standards for dissolved oxygen, pH (low and high), un-ionized ammonia,
total chromium and total copper, or on a fish consumption advisory." Fish consumption
advisories are based on fish tissue contamination data. MPCA considers water chemistry
data less than 10 years old and fish tissue data less than 5 years old to be monitored. Older
data are considered to be evaluated. The majority of fishable use determinations are based
on ambient chemical measures; about 10% are based on fish tissue data. Principal
indicators in assessments are water chemistry and fish tissue contamination. Data sources
include Minnesota's Fixed Station Ambient Network and Minnesota's Fish Tissue Analysis
Program.
Aquatic life use determinations are made as follows:
Step 1 If >25 percent of values violate water quality standards or if there is a fish
consumption advisory in place then the waterbody is not supporting.
Step 2 If >10 percent but <2S percent of values violate water quality standards then the
waterbody is partially supporting.
Step 3 If <10 percent of values violate water quality standards then the waterbody is
fully supporting.
In the future, MPCA plans to use biological community data in their use assessment
decision process. They are currently developing an Index of Biotic Integrity for the
Minnesota River watershed using fish community and habitat data. They plan to compare
site-specific biological data with reference site data to determine use support
Approach for Lakes
The "fishable" status of lakes is determined by fish tissue contamination data, and the
"swimmable" use status is determined by aesthetics and Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI)
derived by the work of Heiskary and Wilson (1988). For aquatic life use support,
assessments for lakes are based almost entirely on fish tissue contamination data (see Table
3-1). Data sources for decisionmaking include the Citizen's Lake Monitoring Program, the
Lake Assessment Program, the Fish Tissue Analysis Program, and the Ecoregion Reference
Lake Program.
3-15
-------
The relationships among TSI, use support status and trophic status are:
TSI
<40
40-50
51-59
60-65
>65
Use Support Status
Fully supporting
Fully supporting
Fully supporting, but
threatened
Partially supporting
Not supporting
Trophic Status
Oligotrophic
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
Eutrophic
Hypereutrophic
Impaired/Threatened
No
No
Threatened
Impaired
Impaired
Further discussion of Minnesota's use support assessments are documented on pages 17-29
of the State's 1990 305(b) report, and in Heiskary and Wilson (1988).
3.2.5. Ohio
Approach for Rivers and Streams
From 1974 to the present, Ohio EPA (OEPA) surface water assessments and standards have
evolved from a singular focus on water quality to a broader focus on the water resource as
a whole. To achieve this goal, OEPA moved from assessments based solely on water
chemistry data to integrated evaluations consisting of chemical, physical, and biological
assessments. OEPA believes this integrated approach is essential to accurate water quality
management. OEPA has found that "simple ambient water chemistry monitoring missed
nearly 50% of the waterbodies that were identified as impaired using a biosurvey-based
integrated approach (Rankin and Voder, 1990)." Chemical data are limited in assessing
nonchemical and non-toxic impacts to waterbodies. Indicators used in assessments include
fish community data, macroinvertebrate community data, habitat evaluation data, water
chemistry, sediment chemistry, effluent chemistry and toxicity. and fish tissue
contamination. Data sources include: integrated biosurvey-based assessments and fixed-
station monitoring.
In addition, OEPA personnel believe that by lumping together diverse impacts into one
measure, the 305(b) process places too much emphasis on "overall" use support.
"Calculation of overall use support tends to muddle efforts to estimate very different
problems in waterbodies!. There should be a delineation between human health risks and
aquatic life impacts. This would bring use support assessment up to the same relative level
3-16
-------
Table 3-1 Fish Contaminant Concentration for Each Use Category (from State 1990
305(b) Report) - Minnesota.
Contaminant
TCDD (ng/kg) PCS (ug/g) Hg (ug/g)
Fully supporting
(unrestricted
consumption)
Partially supporting
(moderate consumption)
Not supporting
(no consumption
advised)
not detectable
(<0.60)
detectable
(>0.6)
not detectable
(<0.05)
detectable
(>0.05)
0.0-0.15
0.16-2.80
>2.81
3-17
-------
at which EPA is regulating (Yoder, 1991)." Ohio's 1990 305(b) report focuses primarily on
attainment of aquatic life uses.
In assessing aquatic life uses, OEPA relies primarily on three biological indices (IBI,
Invertebrate Community Index [ICI], and index of well being [Iwb]) that are calibrated to
regional reference sites. For the 1990 report, OEPA monitored 4,169 (16.6 percent) of their
25,165 total stream miles. Because of the limitations of chemical data in assessing
nonchemical impacts, OEPA considers assessments based solely on fixed-station chemical
data alone to be evaluated. For the 1990 report, OEPA evaluated 3,273 (13.0 percent) of
their total stream miles.
If biological data were available, the following approach was used for making aquatic life
use support decisions (see Figure 3-6):
Step 1 ICI (macroinvertebrates), IBI (fish), and Iwb (fish) are calculated. If all three
indices meet ecoregion criteria then the waterbody is in full attainment of its
aquatic life use.
Step 2 If at least one of the indices does not meet ecoregion criteria and none of the
indices suggest severe toxic impact then the waterbody is in partial attainment of
its aquatic life use.
Step 3 If none of the indices meet ecoregion criteria or one of the indices suggests
severe toxic impact then the waterbody is in nonattainment of its aquatic life use.
If biological data were not available, the following approach was used for making aquatic
life use support decisions based on chemical data:
Step 1 If chronic (average) chemical criteria are not exceeded by the 10th percentile of
instream values and the mean is less then the criteria then the waterbody is in
full attainment of its aquatic life uses.
Step 2 If the chronic chemical criteria are exceeded by the 10th percentile of instream
values and the mean is less than the criteria or chronic chemical criteria are not
exceeded by the 10th percentile of instream values and the mean is greater than
the criteria then the waterbody is in partial attainment of its aquatic life use.
Step 3 If the chronic chemical criteria are exceeded by the 22th percentile of instream
values and the mean is less than the criteria or chronic chemical criteria are
exceeded by the 10th percentile of instream values and the mean is greater than
the criteria then the waterbody is in nonattainment of its aquatic life use.
3-18
-------
Figure 3-6. Criteria for Determining Use Attainment
for Ohio's Rivers/Streams
Vaa
OH** 3 biological
ICI
IBI
Iwb
All
Kite*
mart
ECOREGJON
Yaa
Full
ttalnmofl
10
Yaa
Chronic
Mmlcajcftf
and tha maan la
than I
cittod*
Non-
attaln
Chronic
erttoi
10th
psmnUtooflnstrMm
value* and tha maan la laaa
than tha crltarla QB chronic
chamlcal critarte U not
by tha 10th parcantlla of
Inatraam valuaa
and tha maan la
graatarthan
tha criteria
Non-
attainment
No
SaaOH305(b)
Tabla2-3f6r
additional
Information
ragardlng
chamlcal critaria
Source: l990Ohto Walar Rasouroe hwantory
-------
Approach for Lakes
In sharp contrast to their stream monitoring program, Ohio's lake programs suffer from a
lack of comprehensive monitored data. OEPA recognizes the need for a long-term
integrated monitoring program for lakes similar to their stream program. For the 1990
report. OEPA assessed 91,607 (78.1 percent) of their 117,361 total lake acres (i.e., publicly
owned lakes greater than 5 acres in size). The majority of these assessments, however, are
based on evaluated data (i.e., BPJ or monitored data greater than 10 years old).
Ohio lakes were assessed using the Ohio Lake Condition Index (LCI), a multimetric index
consisting of the 13 parameters listed under the following categories of lake condition:
• Biological conditions: IBI (not yet developed), nuisance growth of macrophytes,
fecal coliform bacteria, chlorophyll a, fish tissue contamination;
• Chemical conditions: nonpriority pollutants, priority organics (toxics), priority
metals (toxics), total phosphorus, acid mine drainage;
• Physical conditions: volume loss due to sedimentation, Secchi depth; and
• Public perception of lake condition: aesthetics.
All Ohio publicly owned lake acres are designated for public water supply use and the
aquatic life use-exceptional warmwater habitat For each designated use. a subset of the
LCI parameters is considered. To assess aquatic life use support, nonpriority pollutants,
priority organics, priority metals, total phosphorus. IBI, and acid mine drainage are
considered. To make an assessment based on LCI, more than 50 percent pf the appropriate
LCI parameters must have been assessed using monitored and/or evaluated data.
If sufficient data are available to make an assessment using the LCI, the following approach
is used (Figure 3-7):
Step 1 If one or more LCI parameters indicate impaired status or more than 50 percent
of the parameters indicate threatened status then the lake is in nonattainment of
its aquatic life use.
Step 2 If one or more LCI parameters indicate threatened status or the lake is
hypereutrophic (TSI >66) then the lake is in partial attainment of its aquatic life
use.
3-20
-------
Figure 3-7. Use Attainment/Clean Water Act Goal
Assessment Process for Ohio Lakes
From Ohio Water Resource Inventory, Volume Ult 1990
fciaart Water Act
Fiahaai* and
Swlmnubie
C UM *ntiy»i» "j
Public Water 1
Supply (PWS) 1
Aquatic Lit* I
Uaa (EWH) 1
la There
Mannered Date?
la Than Sulftelant Data
to Make an
-50%* AwJ* (Sa»
Tait)
HE>
Continuing
AtBMtmtnl
Pionu
\ or nwa LCl B«riin«l«r»
indcaia intMirM «aiut
tacad on manor** tftu OP
pvanwuf* rndcjta
suiui u»ad or
rraniioi«fl aaii
1 or rnoraLCl
paramaiari >ndieaia
impairad ftatui OR
mora than 90%
tutvi
UM
Non-
Go*/
i or mora LCI pa/amawr>
md«ata tftr««an«d ctatua
baud an moiuorM am OH
3 or mora pawnaian
mdfett a thraaiarad itatui
tatad on avaiuatad dtta
lormofOOtLd
Wfoatonod nttui
ORtaka*
hyoarautrapnc
uu
PlBiHty
Anamaa
Goal
AiT»nM Bui
Thraaunad
t]LCI
Dvamatar mtfenia*
on *vafu«MO <3«* *«0 af
r owamatara indcno
AltClparanataf*
mdcvt tui uao «atu*
AND i or more
on avstuatod &
Ofta*o«*utto»nc
ARamao But
Goat
Mtawod
Xaa
ful UM oavod on
momo»»d or avttuaiad dan
-------
Step 3 If all LCI parameters indicate full use support and one or more parameters
indicate threatened status based on evaluated data or if the lake is eutrophic
(TSI=48-66) then it is fully supporting, but threatened.
Step 4 If all LCI parameters indicate full use support then the lake is fully supporting its
aquatic life use.
3.2.6 Wisconsin
Approach for Rivers and Streams
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is the agency responsible for
performing use support assessments. Indicators used in assessments include water
chemistry, fish tissue contamination, macroinvertebrate community, fish community data,
and sediment chemistry. Data sources include the Fixed Station Monitoring Network, the
Biological Sampling Program, the Sediment Sampling Program, and the Fish Tissue
Monitoring Program. In the 1990 report WDNR personnel monitored 2,771 (6.4 percent)
of their 43,600 total stream miles. In addition, they evaluated 10,824 (24.8 percent) of their
total stream miles. Monitored data greater than 5 years old were considered to be evaluated
unless best professional judgment strongly indicated that no change had taken place.
WDNR personnel collect a variety of water quality data but have no formal decision pattern
for making use support assessments. Best professional judgment plays a major role in
making use support decisions, because WDNR is confident that their field personnel are
experts on the condition of their waterbodies. Listed below are the types of available data
and how they are used for 305(b) assessments. No data priority type is implied,
• Water chemistry: Ambient data are compared to State water quality standards.
Use attainment might be restricted when standards are exceeded, however,
attainment is not restricted based solely on chemical data.
• Fish tissue gnnfaminarinn* WDNR, in cooperation with the State Division of
Health, compares the edible portion of the fish to FDA Action Levels to issue
fish consumption advisories. If a fish consumption advisory is in place for one
species or specific size ranges among more than one species then the waterbody
is partially supporting. If consumption advisories are in place for most game
species and size ranges then the waterbody is not supporting.
3-22
-------
• Macroinvertebrate: WDNR personnel use a modified version of Hilsenhoff s
Biotic Index for assessing water quality. If the community is impacted, then data
are factored into the use assessment Macroinvertebrate data alone would not
change a use assessment
• Fish community: Collection procedures for fish communities are standardized
statewide, but assessment methodologies vary among districts. Some districts
use quantitative methods (e.g.. IBI) while others rely on qualitative assessments
(e.g., BPJ) for making use support decisions.
• Sediment contamination: Assessments based on sediment contamination are
subjective. There are no formal standards for sediments, but uses can be
restricted as a result of high levels of sediment contamination if BPJ recommends
such a restriction.
Approach for Lakes
According to the 1990 report (p. 87), "in terms of providing recreational opportunities for
its citizens, Wisconsin's lakes are the State's most vital water resource component The
historic focus, however, of federal and state clean water programs...has been the control of
pollutants to rivers and streams. As a result, lake protection and rehabilitation has been a
low priority." To remedy this situation, Wisconsin DNR personnel have encouraged public
involvement through the Self-Help Volunteer Monitoring program and initiated an EPA-
funded Lake Water Quality Assessment project in 1989.
All of Wisconsin's 957,288 lake acres are designated for fishing, swimming, and recreation
uses. For the 1990 report, DNR monitored 62,870 (6.6 percent) and evaluated 76,460 (8.0
percent) of their total lake acres. Data sources included the long-term Trend Monitoring
Program, the Self-help Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program, the Fish Tissue Monitoring
Program, and the 1983 Landsat Trophic Status Survey. Types of data used in lake
assessments include measurements of trophic status (Secchi depth, chlorophyll a,
phosphorus), fish tissue contamination data, aquatic macrophytes, algal biomass. and
dissolved oxygen (DO). Landsat trophic information (water clarity and chlorophyll a) is
available for all Wisconsin lakes and reservoirs greater than 20 acres with a maximum
depth of at least 8 feet Lakes with only Landsat data available were considered to be
evaluated. If actual lake sampling data were available than the lake was considered to be
monitored. For toe 1990 assessments, lakes fully supporting their uses but sensitive to
acidification, phosphorus input, or mercury contamination of sport fish were considered to
be threatened.
3-23
-------
The following approach is used for making use support decisions (see Figure 3-8):
Step 1 Use available trophic data to calculate Carlson's Trophic Status Index (TSI). If
TSI indicates the lake is hypereutrophic (TSI=7MOO) then the lake is
not supporting.
Step 2 If DO is not sufficient to support fish or if there is a severe fish consumption
advisory in place then the lake is not supporting.
Step 3 If TSI indicates that the lake is eutrophic (TSI=51-70) then it is partially
supporting.
Step 4 If DO somewhat supports fish, if there is a limited fish advisory in place, or if
there is a severe algal or plant problem then the lake is partially
supporting.
Step 5 If the lake is oligotrophic (TSI=0-40) or mesotrophic (TS 1=41-50) and the
conditions stated in the previous steps do not exist, then the lake is fully
supporting.
3.3 Findings and Recommendations
The Region 5 States support the use of direct environmental indicators for surface water
programs and specifically aquatic life use attainment as a direct indicator. The States all
utilize a suite of direct environmental indicators to measure aquatic life use attainment to
allow the best determinations regarding the status of a waterbody. The preference is to
utilize the use attainment status as the overall direct indicator because it integrates the
available data and allows for natural (or extreme man-made) differences in the expectations
of water resource quality for a given area or region.
The States rely predominantly upon biological community and habitat assessments and
water chemistry for aquatic life use attainment decisions in rivers and streams and focus on
Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI) for inland lakes supported by water chemistry and fish
tissue data. However, the varied level of complexity and heavy reliance upon specific data
types (e.g. water chemistry) for decision-making prevent the needed consistency and
accuracy to portray Regional conditions, or even conditions within a given State from year
to year.
Biological assessment programs within the States are rapidly evolving from simple single
index approaches into multi-metric indices and multi-assemblage approaches including
numerical habitat assessments. However, some States are having difficulty implementing
3-24
-------
Figure 3-8. Designated Use Support Assessment for
Wisconsin Lakes
Ollgotrophle
or
Meaotrophlc
DO to support fish?
Determine
TSI
Eutrophle
I
DO to support flsh?h-/J£
Fish advisory?
Severe algal or
plant problem?
FULL
USE
SUPPORT
PARTIAL
USE
SUPPORT
Hypereutrophlc
NON-
SUPPORT
See page 41 ol 1990 305(b) for details
No data type priority is implied
3-25
-------
some of these changes and therefore do not use their biological data consistently to make
aquatic life use support decisions. Some of the barriers to full implementation include
technical and resource limitations such as:
• Reliance upon a single biotic index to represent the macroinvenebrate
community,
• Shortage of staff in the field and laboratory to collect, identify, and interpret
the data,
• Lack of enough qualified staff to make taxonomic identifications resulting in
heavy reliance upon contractors and extended time-frames for report
completion,
• The perceived lack of commitment by EPA to support and promote the
implementation of biological criteria in State and Regional programs, and
• The uncertainty within the States regarding their overall support of EPA's
three basic biological criteria policy decisions: (I) the requirement to focus
on adoption of narrative biological criteria in FY93 and numerical biological
criteria in FY96, and (2) the policy of strict independent application which
the States feel is contradictory to an integrated assessment program, and (3)
the disallowance of instream biological community assessments as one
method for site-specific criteria development
To further the use of biological assessments and criteria to support aquatic life use support
decisions and the wider use of environmental indicators in the water programs, the project
team developed the following list of generic and specific recommendations shown below.
Recommendations
These recommendations should be implemented by working directly with the States and
Regions to issue guidance which directly meets State and EPA needs. Guidance should be
in the form of State-EPA technical training and workshops (e.g. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols, 305(b) workshops, etc.). improved annual State guidance under Section 106,
greater Regional involvement in State Water Quality Management Plan development, and
continued improvement towards consistent and accurate national guidelines on Section
305(b) reporting, biological assessment and criteria, and the myriad of other guidelines to
support the nonpoint source and clean lakes programs.
• Aquatic life use support should be the direct environmental indicator for
surface waters and be primarily based upon assessments of the fish, benthos,
and habitat This assessment should also include all other available
information such as chemical concentrations in water and sediments, physical
measurements, and lexicological endpoints. This recommendation supports
3-26
-------
those recommendations and conclusions made at the July 1991 conference in
Baltimore, Maryland -- Environmental Indicators: Policies, Programs and
Success Stories.
Greater consistency in the methods and approaches for determining use
attainment is necessary to use environmental indicators in State and Regional
305(b) programs.
EPA and the States should cooperatively develop the environmental
indicators (measures) which will directly support the assessment of
designated use attainment for aquatic life for both resource types
(rivers/streams and lakes).
EPA and the States should use the environmental indicators and measures
selected for aquatic life use attainment to meet EPA's requirements to adopt
biological criteria. Particular emphasis should be placed on wider use of fish
and benthic macroinvertebrate communities and habitat for use attainment
assessment
Biological criteria development for rivers and streams should utilize the
following multiple assemblage and multiple metric approach, at a minimum:
1. Fish community (assemblage) assessments using the Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) modified for that State or region, and any other tools
demonstrated to be successful such as the modified or original Index
of Well-Being. Each Region 5 State uses the IBI.
2. Benthic macroinvertebrate community (assemblage) assessments
should be based upon a multi-metric approach similar to that of
EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols. Ohio and other States have
already developed State-specific multiple metric indices.
3. Habitat assessments must be made based upon a numerical ranking
which each Region 5 State already uses. Habitat assessments must be
used not only to assess reasonable expectations for community
(assemblage) performance, but also to monitor habitat quality to
mitigate habitat degradation.
Designated use attainment methods for lakes should be evaluated for the
States to determine whether trophic status is the most significant indicator to
track for aquatic life support. This issue should be addressed through
interstate meetings within Region 5 and by the National 30S(b) Consistency
Workgroup.
3-27
-------
Interstate (and interregional) selection of references sites where major faunal
regions and ecoregions are in common should be initiated to encourage
greater consistency and cooperation among EPA and the States. A prime
example would be the northern Ohio River Basin covering Illinois. Indiana,
Ohio, and part of Pennsylvania.
Database management and specific information should be maintained on all
waterbodies assessed, not just those that are in non-attainment status.
Re-evaluate EPA's decisions to mandate adoption of narrative biological
criteria and focus efforts on increasing State's capabilities to develop
numeric biocriteria.
Re-evaluate EPA's policy to disallow States to use, or the flexibility to use.
effluent toxicity, water chemistry, biological community, and habitat
assessments in making designated use support decisions based upon site-
specific evaluations, if warranted, of the technical rigor of sample collection
methods, quality assurance, reliability in the data, interpretation tools, and
overall level of confidence in the data.
3-28
-------
4. SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS
4.1 Overview
Since the early 1970s, much of the State and EPA surface water monitoring and related
assessment activities (e.g., effluent chemical and toxicity testing) have supported a
technology-based regulatory system designed to control releases from large, obvious point
sources (especially municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities).
Unfortunately, the ability of State and EPA monitoring and assessment programs to support
the primary water quality planning and management objectives shown in Table 1-1 has
been limited because of this historical focus on point source monitoring. For example.
water resources impaired by nonpoint sources or habitat alteration may not be identified and
characterized adequately with a point-source-dominated monitoring and assessment
program. Furthermore, Federal and State efforts to collect data more supportive of
management objectives (e.g., broad-based status and trends) have often been stymied due to
resource constraints, inadequate coordination, or the low priority given to monitoring in
support of permitting, enforcement, and other administrative activities.
Environmental indicators, as shown in Figure 1-1, are intended to complement
administrative measures by conveying direct or indirect information on environmental
conditions resulting from, or independent of, management and protection actions.
Comprehensive, properly designed monitoring and assessment programs should convey and
administrative measures, environmental indicators, and other data (e.g., population land use
trends and projections) necessary to support water resource evaluation; problem
identification and characterization; management strategy development, implementation, and
evaluation; and communication of results to the public and legislators.
4.2 State Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Tables 4-1 through 4-6 summarize State monitoring programs for rivers, streams, and lakes.
Each table entry provides a general program description, comments on network design, type
and frequency of sampling, number of stations or samples, types of environmental
indicators collected, uses of data, and data analysis methods. More detailed information, in
the form of monitoring program profiles, is available in the appendices to this report.
4.3 Capacity of Surface Water Monitoring Programs to Support Planning and
Management
The "effectiveness" of monitoring and assessment programs should largely be measured by
the degree to which scientifically defensible data support the basic information needs of
4-1
-------
Data Uses and Data Analysis Methods NOted In Following Tables
Data Uses
1. Improving water quality goals and standards
2. Assessing use support and screening for existing/emerging problems
3. Identifying temporal or spatial trends
4. Investigating suspected water resource problems
5. Developing water-quality-based controls
6. Monitoring the effectiveness of point or nonpoint source controls
7. Setting priorities
8. Developing public support enough information transferal
9. Developing water quality baseline or reference levels
10. Other (see monitoring profile forms)
Data Analysis Methods
A. Comparison of ambient data to State water quality standards
B. Comparison of ambient data to "decision criteria" not incorporated into State
standards (e.g., lake trophic status, IBI)
C. Comparison of ambient data to ecoregional or site-specific criteria
D. Use of parametric statistical tests (e.g., regression, Student's Hest)
E. Use of nonparametric tests (e.g., Kendall's tau)
F. Use of water quality indices
G. Plots or tables of concentrations, loadings, or indices vs. time
H. Other (see monitoring profile forms)
4-2
-------
Table 4-1. Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program
Rfvera/Streama
1. Ambient Water
J'ViAiJftu AAVutatarinA
CJiMniy MuMonng
Network (AWQMN)
2. CORE
Subnetwork of
AWOUN
3. Pesticide
Subnetwork of
AirVUMN
4. Industrial
Solvents
Sub-network of
AWQMN
5. Intensive RWer
Basin Survey*
Type/
Frequency
F;
6-week
freq.
F;
program
for
frequency
F;
*» a.
•*"W*^eW»
Ireq. ApnV
Jury. 12-
week freq.
August-
March
F;
ft li.nnif
vrw^svi
frequency
1;
each basn
studied
every 10-
15 yean
• of
Stallone/
• of
Samples
208
stations
38 stream
stations
from
AWQMN
plus 3
Lake
Michigan
30
stations
from
AWQMN
31
stations
from
AWQMN
No. of
stations
varies; 4
basins
surveyed
inFT90
Program
Description
• Chemical network - parameters are pH.
T. conductivity, flow. D.O.. TSS. VSS.
NH3-N. NO3+NO2-N. total P. diss. P,
COO, fecal coWorm. turbidity, and 21
metals
• 7 parameters are used to calculate a WO
index for assessments
• MBuiiy cfwrntcai IHIIIVUIK
• Includes 3 Lake Michigan Stations
monitored by City of Chicago
• Onjanochtorina pesticidea and PCBs
• Frequency: twice yearly for water column
organic*; biennially for fish contamin;
triennlalty for sediment and
macrolnvertebrates
•Chemical network
• Parameters are IS homicides and
Mganophosphate insecticides. PCBs. and
wganocntodne pesticides
• 19 organic chemicals (e.g.. chloroform.
incruoroeuiyiene, Denzenej
•Multimedia sampling - water column
Cnijf*tl3tfy« ntVHlal, mawuiiirtjiwi* ui» aivu
fish populations, sediment and fish tissue
contaminants, and sediment type.
• Example: In the Kaskaskia Basin Survey
(1981-82). over 140 sites were sampled
Network Dealgn
• Network was revised in 1977 to:
establish baselines and trends in
representative land use areas
zones of PSs (except in major
population centers); identify
problems; and trigger intensive
surveys.
• Although sampling frequency has
declined and some stations have
been dropped, many have been
monitored for over 15 years.
• Estabished as required by EPA
under the National Water Quality
Surveillance System; no longer
required but IEPA stil maintains.
• Purpose was to measure baseline
WQ trends nationwide
agricuttural. 4 nonagriculiural
watersheds
•Begun in 1985
• Begun in 1988
•Stations located in urban areas
except for 1 control she.
• Sites selected to characterize
stream resources of the basin and
to provide data for permit
development
Data
Uees
2
3
9
2
9
5
9
4
Deta
Analyele
A.B.F
G.E
A.B.F
A.B.F
A.B.F
A.B
A.B
B
B
B
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
-------
Table 4-1. Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs (Continued)
Program
6. Fish Contaminant
Program
7. FacHy-retated
Stream Survey
& Special Surveys
Lakes
SArntaBAnt 1 flflfal
Monitoring Program
(ALMP)
(includes Clean
Lakes Program.
Trend Lafcea. and
Diagnostic
Evaluation Lakes)
Type/
Froojuortcy
F stream
stations
armuaiy;
Flake
stations
ill • ••!••>•!
1 turtiont
vary
1
1
1
iof
Stallone/
• of
73 stream
stations
lake
stations
(F);
approx.
361
stations
Approx.
94 stream
stations
in 88-89
hi 12
basins
Varies
20-40
takes per
year; 1 to
Sales
per take
Program
Description
• Composited fish fillet samples at all
stations; whole lish samples at 41 stations.
• Peslfcide/PCB analyses (20 parameters)
on al samples
• GCAIS wide scan on < 25 whole fish
samples
• Hg. dioxine as needed
• Results compared to FDA Action Levels
• Macrolnvertebrates. chemistry, flow.
habitat data ootected upstream and
downstream
• Includes enforcement cases, Pesticides
Study. Livestock Waste Monhorina
• Three types of lakes monitored
- dean Lakes Program Phase 1 and II (2
times per month May-Sept.; monthly or
bimonthly Oct. -Apr.)
- Trend lakes (6 times Apr.-Oct.)
- Diagnostic evaluation lakes (5 times
spring through fall)
. Parameters - DO. T. TSS. nutrients.
•hinmnhuH nttlOf ffittM IvMltfl ffafl addition
CLP lakes - phytoptenkton. benthos, fish.
wanatalion. sediment chemistry)
Network Design
throughout state on major streams
(Mississippi. Wabash. Kankakee.
Illinois. Fox rivers, e.g.)
• Includes sites with past
contamination problems
• Both main streams and tributaries
sampled during basin surveys
•Sites selected based on location of
discharges, closely linked to NPDES
•Varies according to type of survey
• CLP lakes selected by CLP
process
• Trend lakes are formed CLP lakes.
lakes representative of various
types of WQ; lakes where various
pollution controls implemented
of lakes needing controls or
effectiveness monitoring
Data
Uaes
4
6
2.4.5.6
.6
6
2
4
5
Analyala
B
B
A.B
A.B.r.la
B
B.F
B
B
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
-------
Table 4-1. Illinois Surface Water Monitoring Programs (Continued)
Program
Monitoring Program
11 Lake Michigan
Network
Type/
Frequency
F;
twin per
month
May-OcL
F
f of
Station*/
• of
Samples
176 lakes
in 1989;
3 or more
WOT pJW
85
stations
PioQFeWH
Description
• Citizen monitoring program involving
225 volunteers
• SeocM disk and field observations at all
lakes
• Nutrients and TSS at 30-50 lakes
•
• Conducted by City of Chicago
• Reported separately from 305(b)
Network Design
• Lakes selected according to citizen
interest, within areas served by
three regional planning commissions
Sites selected where public
recreation occurs and in vicinity ol
Chicago water supply intakes
Data
Uses
8
2
6
2
Data
Analyele
NA
B.F
B.F
A
PataUaaa
1.
2.
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Improving water quality goals and objectives
Assessing use support and screening for existing/emerging problems
Identlying temporal or spatial trends
Investigating suspected water resource problems
Developing water quaJty-besed controls
Monitoring the effectiveness of point or nonpoint source controls
Setting priorities
Developing public support through information transferal
Developing water quality baasine or leferenoe levels
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
10. Other (see monitoring profs* forms in Appendix)
A.
B
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Comparison of ambient data to state water quality standards
- *^ ^^ - -•-• rterla- not incorporated into Slate standards
or sto-specific oiteria
Use ^parametric statistical lasts (e.g.. regression. Student's T-test)
Use of nonparamelric tests (e.g.. KendaJTs tau)
Use of water quatty Indices
Plots or tables of concentrations, loadings, or Indices vs. time
Other (see monitoring profile forms in Appendix)
-------
Table 4-2. Indiana Surface Water Monitoring Programs
RlVer e/Str eeinS
1. Fixed Station WO
Monitoring Network
2. Fish and
Sediment Toxics
Monitoring Program
3. Biological
Monitoring Program
Lakes
4. Clean Lakes
Programs
Frequency
F;
monthly or
quarterly
(biennialy)
and
1
Fand
1
1
Stations/
• of
Samples
106
stations
23 CORE
(F)
22Fstos
biarmialy;
no. of
1 sites not
yet
decided
-100
lakes in
last 2-3
years, by
IDEM;
more by
IDNR
Description
• Monthly sampling at 91 sites
• Quarterly at IS sites
• 37 sites sampled quarterly (or toxics
• 41 sites sampled lor phytoplankton
• Parameters are adjusted for individual
sites frequently based on BPJ
• CORE is a subset of Fixed Station
Network
• 32 streams, 28 inland lakes, and Lake
Michigan sampled h 1988-89
• Fish, macninvertebrates. other aquatic
biota, sediment PCBs; chlorinated pest..
metals, omanics
• Small but developing program
• DEM samples macroinvertebrates; EPA
Region 5 assisting with flsh
• EPA Rapid Bbassessment Protocols
used
• Rotating basin surveys begun in 1991
• DEM coordinates the EPA CLP
monitoring (contracted to Indiana Univ.)
•IDEM plans 7 year sampling cycle
• DNR operates state-funded Lake
Enhancement Program
Network Design
• Network redesigned based on BPJ
in 1986; in part site selection based
on review of WO trends and
exceedances in 1979-1985
• Stream sites generally selected in
known areas of contamination (e.g..
having advisories)
• Lake sites selected to screen tor
problem areas or to fulfil EPA CLP
requirements
• Fixed sites wHI be analyzed for
trends
• Sites selected to validate toxitiry
test and effluent chemistry data, or
to evaluate hazardous waste sites,
or to fulfill CLP
• IDEM program based largely on
CLP priorities
•IDNR selects lakes independent of
CLP based on known or 'suspected
problems
Data
Uses
2
4
5
2
3
2
9
5
2
7
Data
Analysis
A
A
H
B
B.G
B.F
B.F
B.F
A.B
A.B
.£.
I
a\
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
fifl
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Improving water quality goals and objectives
Assessing use support and screening for existing/emerging problems
Identiving temporal or spatial trends
Investigating suspected water resource problems
Developing water quality-based controls
Monitoring the effectiveness of point or nonpoint source controls
Salting priorities
Developing public support through Information transferal
nevelnnkin water quality baseline or reference levels
Other (see monitoring profile forms in Appendix)
a Anafrria Methods
Comparison of ambient data to stale water quality standards
Comparison of ambient data to "decision criteria" not incorporated into State standards
Comparison of ambient data to ecoregnnal or site-sp^ic criteria
Use of parametric statistical tests (e.g.. regression. Student's T lest)
Use of nonparametric tests (e.g.. KendaTs lau)
Use of water quality indices
Plots or tables of concentrations, loadings, or Indices vs. time
Other (see monitoring profile forms in Appendix)
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
-------
Table 4-3. Michigan Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program
RhreraTStTMiM
1. Fixed Station
Monitoring Program
2. Fish
Contaminant
Program
3.Biosurveys
Type/
froojuoncy
Fandl;
monthly
Fandl
1
§ of
OA^..**^ •» • f
station 91
f of
Samptoa
53
•lotions
eanpled
every
MAAV ^
y/V^B| oE
50
stations
rotated
56
stations
in 1988;
990 fish
colectod
79 alas
hlBAA
fl ^KPV
Program
Description
• 8 CORE subnetwork has 20 permanent
sites. 17 on Great Lakes tributaries and 3
on inland rivers
• Urban subnetwork has 10 stations
upstream and 10 downstream of major
urban areas
• Detroit River subnetwork has 13 stations
• Fixed subnetworks (above) generally
sampled monthly lor 24-35 conventional
pollutants and inorganic chemicals, annually
tor 15 more inorganics
• Basin- Year Monitoring subnetwork -
approx. 75 rivets/streams per year on 5-
year rotating cycle. Major Great Lakes
tributaries, major inland streams; minor
G.L tributaries, minor inland streams.
First 2 categories sampled monthly during
the year.
• Fish tissue analyzed for organochbrine
pesticides, heavy metals, and industrial
_•- - -_•--•_
GMnNEeW
• Majority of sites on inland takes
• 3-5 rivers per year tested for biological
uptake by caged channel catfish (28-day
teat) at mouths of Great Lakes tributaries.
• Fish and macromvertebrates
communities' aquatic plant distribution and
abundance. Quantitative or qualitative.
iavtilnnn ranfal hlnaaaassfnwit nmbmfa
used.
• Two types: problem evaluation surveys
and bash surveys
Network Design
• Most fixed stations date back to
the 1970s; network was much
larger
• Current network selected to
monitor loads of most major
tributaries to Great Lakes.
• Stations at mouths ol major
tributaries are presumed to reflect
WQ of their basins.
• Comprehensive program begun in
1986 to determine status of fish in
Great Lakes, their major tributaries.
inland takes and streams
• Sites having consumption
advisories are included among fixed
stations
problemlD.
support permit issuance and
document basin WO
• Problem evaluation survey sites
selected in response to
known/suspected problems outside
the rotating basin cycle
Data
Uaea
6
2
7
2
6
4
3
2
9
1
Data
Analyele
A.B
A
A.B
B
B
B
B.G
B.F
B.F
B.F
B.F
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
-------
Table 4-3. Michigan Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
Lakao
4. Ambient Lake
Program
5. Volunteer Lake
(Self-help) Program
Type/
frequency
F
F
• of
Stations/
f of
Samples
50-60
lakes psr
year
160-175
lakes
Program
Description
• Sampled during spring overturn and
summer stratification
• Secchi depth, phosphorus, chlorophyll a,
field parameters
• Secchi depth only
• Mainly conducted by lake property
owners
Network Design
• 8 Lakes selected to update
previous classification efforts
• Viewed as a limited program
•MDNR proposing to monitor each
pubscaHy owned lake every 1 5-20
years
• Designed to monitor long-term
changes in WO
Dale
Uses
2
7
2
Data
Analysis
B
B
A
I
00
Improving water quatty goals and objectives
Assessing use support and screening for exteUng/emenjing problems
identifying temporal or spatial trends
Investigating suspected water resource problems
Developing water quafty-based controls
Monitoring the effectiveness of point or nonpoint source controls
Selling priorities
Developing public support through information transferal
Developing water quality baseline or reference levels
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
A. Comparison of ambient data to state water quatty standards
B Comparison of ambient data to "decision criteria* not incorporated into State standards
C. Comparison of ambient data to eeoregtonal or sfte-spediic criteria
D. Use of parametric statistical tests (e.g.. regression. Students T-test)
E. Use of nonparametric tests (e.g.. Kendaffa tau)
F. Use of water quality Indices
6. Plots or tables of concentrations, loadings, or indices vs. lime
H. Other (sea monitoring prafio forms in Appendix)
-------
Table 4-4. Minnesota Surface Water Monitoring Programs
PiOgfOjIII
Rlvere/Streame
1. Routine Water
Quality Monitoring
Program
ZFsjh Tissue
Analysis
3.BiotoQJcal
Community
Monitoring (under
development)
4.Use Attainability/
Wastetoad
Allocation Studies
S.CIean Water
Partnership
Program
& Residual Chlorine
Detection Surveys
(under
Type/
Frequency
F
Monthly;
9 months/
1
1
1
1
1
• of
Stations/
• of
Samples
70-75
stations
MCfUCing
19 CORE
stations
45 sites
in 1990
10 sites
in 1991
10 sites/
Program
Description
•Parameters include nutrients, bacteria.
BOO, and general chemistry components.
•Intensive surveys are also conducted at
3 new sites last year only
•Between 1970 and 1989, fish from 80
river locations and over 200 lakes were
•Fish filets are analyzed for PCBs. TCDD.
and mercury contamination
•Fish community and habitat characteristics
are assessed (or tBI
•Surveys conducted for 3 days two times
in the same season
•Water chemistry and flow measurements
taken
•At some sites, fish surveys are conducted
•Projects are of 2-5 year duration and
typteaty include a diagnostic study and an
Implementation plan
•4 visits/site (series of sampling stations at
a discharge fadaiy)
•Parameters: flow, temperature, residual
chlorine, turbidrtv. and color
Network Design
•Geographic representation
•3-year rotation - to focus on a
particular area of the state (3 areas:
South. Northwest. Northeast)
•Designed for several purposes:
trend, analysis, source id. and to id
watarbodies where fish
consumption could pose a human
health, wildlife, or aauatic life risk.
•MPCA b developing IB) tor
Minnesota River
•First a reference site is selected..
then other sites within watershed
are surveyed
•Assess impacts of a discharger on
a receiving stream
•Proposals by units of government
and citizens groups are ranked and
selected according to program
criteria
for facility planning where chlorine
information is useful
Dsta
Uses
2
2
5
4
1
2
6
2
4
5
6
4
Data
Analysis
A
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
H
H
A
vO
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
-------
Table 4-4. Minnesota Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
Lakee
Program
S.Ctoen Lake
MnntofU.fMi DMUtriBw
Monioring program
if*i UP\
(i*LMrj
9.Fnh Tissue
Analysis
10 Ecoregion
Reference' Lakes
Program
UJtcidRain
llnnitnrinn
T»p«/
•V» «••»•»»••
• ••*|1^H»J
^•Mi^H^H
1
F
UMahMltt.
VWHNf
F
lor 2-3
years
F
2-3 times/
year
tot
StalbftnB/
• of
Samples
HO lakes
2 »il*s/
k*e
over 500
Una
1 ska/
ate
12 lakes
fW «rrtn«lri
us scripi ran
Saochi disk component continues as part
of CLMP
•Information collected includes:
pnysJcaMohernJcaf data. take mofphofnerflc
data, trophic status data, summary of land
•SeccW depth Is monitored weekly from
June through September
•Participants also make ratings of
recreational suitability and physical
condition
•Between 1970 and 1989. 267 lakes
representing 1,689.090 acres were
sampled
•Fish filets are analyzed for PCBa. TCOD.
and mercury
Mnfcnaiy impacted takes on? sampled1 for ?
or 3 summers to develop comprehensive
baseline data of phosphorus
concentrations by ecoreoion
Ida btkiaAlnn of Ofmram and cuiffcntlif
about a dozen are assessed annually
•Sampled for prt and more oonstituents
commonlir assessed
Network Dsalgn
•Lakes where there is a strong local
interest in managing/characterizing
thelake
•Lakes are selected by citizens who
express interest In the program
•Heavily fished lakes where fish
consumption could pose a health
risk
Wkli/Mrttfllkr* ininAcfattd Jftk as tnont AAcfc
ecoregnn in the State
•Acid-sensitive lakes or lakes already
with low akaJinity and/or low color)
Data
Uaea
2
8
3
2
8
5
2
4
1
3
2
Data
Analysis
C
NA
E
B
NA
A
B
B
A
G
C
i
h-«
o
Improving water quality goals and obiecuves
Assessing use support and screening for existing/emerging problems
kfentirymg temporal or spatial trends
Investigating suspected water resource probfams
Developing water quality-based controls
Monitoring the effectiveness of point or nonpoint source controls
Setting priorities
Developing public support through information transferal
n~*lopmg water quality baaetne or reference levels
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10. OJneTfsee mon»ortofl~pfolik» forms In Appendix)
A. Comparison of ambient data to slate water quality standards
B Comparison of ambient data to "decision criteria' not incorporated into State standards
C. Comparison of ambient data to ecoregional or aita-specft: criteria
O. Use of parametric statistical lasts (e.g.. regression. Student's T-lest)
E. Use of nonparametric tests (e.g.. KendaTs tau)
F. Use of water quality indices
G. Plots or tables of concentrations, loadings, or indices vs. time
H nttuw (MM nwMiitnrinn nmli* tnrmn in Anmnrihl
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA • not appttcabto
-------
Table 4-5. Ohio Surface Water Monitoring Programs
Program
River a/Streama
1. Integrated
Biosurvey-Based
AsBessment*
2.Fixed Station
Monitoring
Type/
frequency
1
F
f of
Stations/
• of
Samples
150-250
sites
annualy
50-55
monthly
Program
Description
•Integrated assessments consist of
combinations of fish community.
macroinvertebrate community, physical
habitat, ambient water chemistry, sediment
chemistry, bioassay testing, and fish tissue
samplings
•For segments with bbsurvey. physical
habitat, and chemical data the biota is the
principal arbiter of aquatic life use
•3 biologic indices (IBI. tCI. two) are
compared to regional reference site criteria
tar use attainment decisions
•Assessments cover 600-1000 stream
mitos par year
•OH EPA feeb integrated assessments are
necessary for accurate water resource
manaoement
•Chemical data are collecled at NAWQMN
stations and State stations on 1 1 major
rivers as weft as on 12 large tributaries d
Lake Erie
•Data are combined with biological survey
results to assess use attainment, hi the
absence of bio-data, aquatic Hf e
assessments based only on Ined station
chemical data are considered as evaluated
towel data.
Network Design
•Sampling coverage concentrates
on: 1) streams and riven with major
permits due for reissuance. 2)
streams with documented or
OH EPA uses 5-year basin
approach to coordinate data
collection activities and permit
reissuanoa
•Sites are located on major rivers.
Lake Erie tributaries end at
NAWQMN stations
Data
Use*
2
3
4.5.6
3
2
Data
Analysla
C
A
B
G
A
F - Fixed Station
I- Intensive Survey
NA - not appteabte
-------
Table 4-5. Ohio Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
Lakea
a.Lake Water Quality
Assessments
Typ./
Frequency
• of
Stations/
• of
Samples
25lakM
between
1988 and
1990
reports
Program
Dsscrlptlon
OH EPA has developed a Lake Condition
Index (LCI) for assessing lakes
• LCI consists of 14 parameters:
BiOlnto1 Conditions: IBIr nuisance growth
of macrophytes. fecal colitorm bacteria.
ChlorophyU a. fish tissue contamination
pollutants., priority organics. priority
metato. sediment contamination, total
phosphorus, acid mine drainage
Phyaleri CandMona: Volume bss due to
sedimentation. Seochi depth
Puhife Ptfnotbn' Att»thettC8
•For 1990 report, al assessments were
hwiail nil MiakiotMl data ffaitt In H Ifvfc ft
monitored level data
Network Design
•All significant public lakes (i.e.. 417
lakes >5 acres and freely open to
the public for recreation)
Data
Uses
2
3
Dais
Analysis
B
10
Qata Uses
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Improving water quality goals and objectives
Assessing use support and screening lor existing/emerging problems
Identifying temporal or spatial trends
Investigating tutpt**f* water resource problems
Developing water quality-based controls
Monitoring the effectiveness of point or nonpolnt source controls
Setting priorities
Developing pubic support through Information transferal
Pewelopinn, water quality baseline or reference levels
Other (see monitoring prof to forms in Appendix)
F - Fixed Station
I • Intensive Survey
NA • not applicable
A Comparison of ambient data to state water quality standards
B Comterim of amtxert data to -decision criteria7 not Incorporated into State standards
C. Comparison of ambient data to ecoregfonal or sto-spedfeicntena
D. Use of parametric statistical tests (e.g.. regression, Student's T-test)
E. Use of nonparametric tests (e.g.. KendaTs tau)
F Use of water quality indices
G Plots or tables of concentrations, loadings, or Indices vs. time
H. Other (see monitoring protie forms in Appendix)
-------
Table 4-6. Wisconsin Surface Water Monitoring Programs
nu0fmi
Rlvere/Streama
1. Fixed Station
Network
2. Fish Tissue
Monitoring (toxics)
3. Biological
Sampling Program
4.Sedimant
Sampling (toxfca)
Lakaa
5.Long*feffi) Trend
Monitoring Program
Typa/
Fraquancy
P
Quartady;
aoma
monthly
1-80%
F-20%
1
1
f
Sdrnaa
annualy
§ ol
SUtlona/
f of
Samples
62
ataflona
1,500
400
samples
220
50 lakes
Program
Daacrlptlon
•Parameters include: pH. temperature.
conductivity, residue, total phosphorus.
dissolved phosphorus, ammonia. KjeUahl
nitrogen, chloride, chtoraphyl a and tecal
cotftorm. Great lakes tributaries also
analyzed lor calcium, sodium, sullata. and
•An average ol 1.500 samples (streams
and bkaa) are analyzed annualy from
streams, lakes and Great Lakes for PCBs,
melak) and priority polutants.
•About 400 macroinvartebrala samples are
analyzed annuaBy using a modified
HttsenhofTa Biotic Index
•Fish oommuniies are coBactad at selected
sites and analyzed using a variety of
analyzed for metals, pesticides. PCBs,
priority poUulants, and dkmin/furans.
•This program b the backbone of WTs lake
program
•1 chemical she per lake; several biological
OJtMpOf Iflto
^eWllfMltyiO. llUllHfllW, ^ajBjuu U0|Mllc
cMOfOpnyii a. oactsna. macfoinveneDraiAs.
macrophyta. plankton, fish surveys
Network Design
•Historically, most stations were
located to assess point sources.
•At present, they have no ambient
reference stations.
•Intensive surveys are designed to
survey sites where fish may
accumulate contaminants at levels
posing a human health risk.
•Fned stations will be monitored on
a rotating basis according to the
*basin planning" schedule.
•Targeting NFS problems
•Reference sites
•Assessing existing conditions
•Evaluating PI/NPS management
•Arnbiant lake monitoring
•In past, sites chosen in contundion
with dredging activities
• In future, driven by basin planning
strategies
•f UDIati 49Dti0SA
• >25 acres
• Sufficient depth to stratify during
summer
• Availability of survey map
Data
Uaaa
2
3
8
2
6
2
4
6
1.2.3.4.
5.7.8.9
2
3
5
Data
Analysis
A
D
NA
A
A
F
F
F
B.C.G
A
CJ
F - Fixed Station
I - Intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
-------
Table 4-6. Wisconsin Surface Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
Program
6.SeM-Hek>
Volunteer
Lake Monitoring
Program
7.Foh Tissue
Monitoring
Type/
Frequency
F
Bimonthly
May and
1
f of
Station a/
f of
Samptaa
310
MUM
1.500
Program
Description
•Secchi depth is monitored by volunteers
at one site par lake
•Program was expanded in 1990 to include
measurements of phosphorus, chlorophyll.
OO. temp.. pH. lake level and precipitation
on 34 lakes
•See Stream program K
rmwoni ueeign
•Lakes are selected by citizens who
express interest in the program.
There is no design to the network.
the lakes are scattered throughout
the State.
low levels of ahalinity and a
•In the future, lakes will be chosen
based on the basin planning
schedule
Data
Uaea
2
3
8
2
6
Data
Analyala
B
NA
A
1. Improving water quality goals and objectives
2. Assessing use support and screening for «xMingtenewng probJema
3. Identifying temporal or spatial trends
4. Investigating suspected water resource problems
5. Developing water quaHy-basad controls
6. Monitoring the effectiveness of point or nonpoint source controls
7. Setting priorities
6. Devetoptag public support through information transferal
9. Developing water quality baseline or reference levata
10. Other (see monitoring profile forms in Appendix)
A. Comparison of ambient data to state water quality standards
B. Comparison of ambient data to 'decision criteria*1 not Incorporated into Stale standards
C. Comparison of ambient data to ecoragionaJ or ate-apecfic criteria
D. Use of parametric statistical tests (e.g.. regression. Student's T-test)
E. Use of nonparametric tests (e.g., Kendaffa tau)
F Use of water quatty indices
G. Plots or tables of concentrations, loadings, or Indices vs. lime
H. Other (see monitoring pronto forms in Appendix)
F - Fixed Station
I - intensive Survey
NA - not applicable
-------
water resource planners and managers. In describing the capacity of Region 5 surface
water monitoring programs to support planning and management objectives, it is useful to
define relevant topics and describe supporting data and relationships that affect the overall
effectiveness of monitoring programs.
Monitoring surface water resources to assess status and trends provides baseline information
to support other planning and management objectives: problem identification and
characterization; management strategy development, implementation, and evaluation; and
communication of results to the public and legislators. The term "status" encompasses
many water resource characteristics including biological community health, physical habitat,
toxicoiogic measures, and water and sediment chemistry. Historically, the States and EPA
have reported the status of surface water resources by describing the
attainment/nonattainment of designated uses for waterbodies (see Chapters 1 and 3 for more
detailed descriptions).
The principal method used by most States to determine use attainment or nonattainment has
been to compare ambient chemical concentrations from water column samples with
chemical criteria Because the criteria for individual chemical parameters are derived from
toxicoiogic responses of fish and macroinvertebrates in laboratory studies, it is assumed that
the ambient chemical criteria, when properly applied, accurately reflect healthy aquatic
conditions in a waterbody. Although water column chemistry provides information on the
causes or sources of problems and the effectiveness of point source controls, it does not
convey direct, comprehensive information on the overall status or integrity of a water
resource. Recent studies suggest that integrated assessments, including biological, chemical
and physical data, convey a much more accurate and complete picture of water resource
status than an approach based solely on chemical criteria (Karr et al., 1986, Ohio EPA
1988; Yoder 1989; Rankin and Yoder 1990).
Acknowledging the limitations of approaches based solely on chemical criteria, EPA and
the States are rigorously pursuing the development and implementation of biological criteria
(or biocriteria) to provide effective tools for more accurately assessing the status or integrity
of surface waters. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters
(U.S. EPA 1990) defines biological criteria as
numerical values or narrative expressions that describe the reference
biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters of a given
designated aquatic life use.
The national biocriteria guidance also highlights the important role biocriteria could have in
supporting water quality planning and management objectives:
When implemented, biological criteria will expand and improve water quality
standards programs, help identify impairment of beneficial uses, and help set
4-15
-------
priorities. Biological criteria are valuable because they directly measure the
condition of the resource at risk, detect problems that other methods may
miss or underestimate, and provide a systematic process for measuring
progress resulting from the implementation of water quality programs.
The national policy on the Use of Biological Assessment and Criteria in the Water Quality
programs issued in June of 1991 reiterates many of the uses of biological criteria in
protecting and managing our water resources described in the national biocriteria program
guidance. The policy states that "To help restore and maintain the biological integrity of
the nation's waters, it is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that
biological surveys shall be fully integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific assessment
methods in State Water Quality programs...." The policy further addresses State programs
as follows: "It is also EPA's policy that States should designate aquatic life uses that
appropriately address biological integrity and adopt biological criteria necessary to protect
those uses." The policy discusses the important distinctions among the terms biological
surveys, assessments, and criteria. Although all six Region 5 States conduct biological
surveys, only a portion of the States fully utilize the biological survey data in their
assessments of aquatic life use attainment (see Figures 3-1 and 3-2). For instance, although
Wisconsin conduct biological survey programs, their data are not used extensively to make
assessments of aquatic life use attainment.
The biological criteria, which the program guidance and policy previously defined, should
"consider various components (e.g., algae, invertebrates, fish)... of the larger aquatic
community." All of the Region 5 States use at least fish and benthic macroinvertebrates in
their biological survey programs to satisfy this policy recommendation, but the actual
development of the biological criteria is not as complete. Only Ohio has developed and
implemented numerical biological criteria in their water quality standards, although Indiana
and Michigan are in the process of developing numerical biological criteria and will begin
to incorporate the biological assessment data in their 1992 305(b) reports. The extent to
which all of the Region 5 States adopt numerical biocriteria in their standards depends upon
strong support and guidance at the national level. At this time, a national policy on
numerical biological criteria is under development However, all of the Region 5 States
have recognized the importance of developing the capabilities for performing biological
surveys and assessments consistent with the national policy and program guidance. Region
5 States will continue to actively expand the use of biological surveys for better assessment
and the eventual use of numerical biocriteria.
Problems with a surface water resource are often identified when observed or measured
"status" indicators have values significantly different from reference values for those
indicators. As described in the national biocriteria guidance, biological assessments and
criteria have some distinct advantages over chemical assessments/criteria in assessing status
and identifying problems. Biological assessments and criteria allow direct comparison of
aquatic community measures with reference conditions within a watershed, ecoregion or
4-16
-------
flow regime. Chemical assessments and criteria, on the other hand, provide indirect data,
that are more susceptible to temporal and spatial variability in the field (e.g., concentrations
are dependent on flow conditions) and problems with extrapolating data from controlled
laboratory lexicological studies to field conditions. Rankin and Yoder (1990) provide
convincing evidence that integrated, biosurvey-based assessments using biological,
chemical, and physical data often identify problems that are either missed or underestimated
using only chemical assessments and criteria.
Once a surface water problem is discovered, chemical, physical data and whole effluent
toxicity complement biological data by helping to characterize the causes or sources of
impairment and measure the effectiveness of point and nonpoint control activities. Tissue
contamination data from fish and macroinvertebrates, for example, provide important
information for assessing human health and ecological risks from impaired waters.
Measurement of water column chemistry helps, to some extent, in protecting waterbodies
for drinking water and other human uses. Water column chemistry can also provide
information on threats to aquatic as well as threats to human uses. In summary, when
biological, chemical, and physical data are collected and interpreted collectively, a more
accurate, comprehensive picture of water resource status is conveyed.
4.4 Trend Assessment
Trends, as defined in this report, are the temporal and spatial changes in status or the
measures used to estimate status (e.g., biological community health, physical habitat,
toxicologic measures, water and sediment chemistry, and tissue contamination data). In
many cases, changes in measures or indicators of status are often compared to reference
levels such as biological and chemical criteria to identify potential human health and
ecological effects. Trends are assessed to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions
over specific time periods or geographic areas. Trends are often interpreted as statistically
detectable changes over time of a series of measurements. This perception that all trend
analysis must be statistically based has resulted in limited trend assessments of data within
Region 5.
Although the concept of determining the status of a water resource, or the components of
that resource, is the foundation of EPA and State monitoring programs, the issues of scale
and representativeness of the monitoring location have been raised. State programs have
been addressing water resource status on a very local scale-i.e., waterbody segments-and
sometimes extrapolating that information to an entire waterbody or even watershed This
smaller scale meets the State's needs to respond to known water resource problems and
issues. However, recent questions on the national scale such as "Have the quality of our
water resources improved since the inception of EPA? " have highlighted the difficulties in
aggregating these segment-scale assessments, to provide a larger-scale (e.g., national)
perspective.
4-17
-------
In 1988, the Science Advisory Board of EPA recommended implementing a program to
monitor the status and trends not only of water resources but of the ecosystem. This
recommendation initiated the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
which will provide "statistically unbiased estimates of status, trends, and associations with
quantifiable confidence limits over regional and national scales for periods of years to
decades." However. "Regional or national trends are expected to be discernible within 10-
15 years. EMAP will provide little information about the conditions at any particular site
for a period of 40-60 years" (EPA 1990).
Contrasted with the scale of monitoring programs at the State level and the national level
through EMAP are the watershed assessments at the Regional and national scales for the
U.S. Geological Survey's NAWQA Program. The NAWQA Program, is designed to
provide a nationally consistent description of current water quality conditions including
statistical descriptions of water quality conditions and their changes with time, for a large
part of the Nation's water resources, (USGS 1988). Although a significant portion of
NAWQA data should be directly usable for State needs, neither EMAP nor NAWQA
provides the consistent problem identification or specific pollution control monitoring
efforts that the State programs require. It is very clear that EMAP, NAWQA, and State
monitoring efforts have different objectives that are based largely on spatial and temporal
scales. Besides the fact that States sample many more sites than EMAP or NAWQA, there
are other differences. For example, EMAP selects all sites probabilistically for the
assessment of national and regional trends-both spatial and temporal. State networks, on
the other hand, are generally designed with multiple goals in mind: assessing designated
use support of problem waters, setting priorities for cleanup, supporting standards
development, and developing reference sites, to name a few.
We found that the States were taking vastly different approaches to evaluating the
effectiveness of their management programs over time. While Illinois and Wisconsin have
conducted a limited number of statistically based trend assessments using consistently
collected chemical water quality data from their fixed-station networks, Ohio has begun to
focus on assessing the water resource status at distinct intervals of several years. Although
Ohio's approach is not considered to be a statistically based trend analysis, it provides the
information needed to meet the Stale's objective of determining the effectiveness of their
environmental management programs. Because the bulk of historical trend data in Region
5 States is predominate chemically based, the descriptions in the following sections
highlight the use of their fixed-station chemical monitoring networks (Table 4-7).
4-18
-------
Table 4-7. Fixed-Station Chemical Monitoring Programs by State
Number of
Period of
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Fixed Stations
208
106
60
70-75
50-55
62
Frequency
Every 6 weeks
Monthly or quarterly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly; some monthly
Record (years)
-15
-5
-10
-15
-15
-15
-------
4.4.1 Illinois
One of the primary objectives of lEPA's Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
(AWQMN) is to characterize trends in the water quality of rivers and streams. Trend
analyses are conducted for the 208 AWQMN stations using a Water Quality Index
developed by U.S. EPA Region 10 and analyzing trends in specific parameters using
Seasonal-Kendall tests, which include flow adjustments. Figure 4-1 shows the spatial
distribution of AWQMN stations.
The WQI consists of the following parameters: water temperature, DO, pH, total
phosphorus, turbidity, specific conductance and unionized ammonia. Trends were assessed
in the 1990 Illinois Water Quality Report (305(b) report) by comparing WQI averages
compiled for the periods 1979-1984 and 1985-1989 at each AWQMN station. Based on
these comparisons, the State classified 124 stations (60.2 percent) improving, 81 stations
(39.3 percent) declining in conditions, and 0.5 percent (1) station with no change in the
WQI.
CEP A selected the Illinois River Basin to conduct Seasonal-Kendall trend tests on flow-
adjusted and nonadjusted concentrations of more than 13 parameters. This study was
conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. Water quality for a period of
12 years was assessed and showed consistent improvements in total ammonia throughout
the basic^aM^pnsistent decline or no change in total sodium. Total suspended solids and
several^mefnods shewed improvements but the majority of the results showed no change.
DEPA also identified and developed a Pesticide Subnetwork of the AWQMN consisting of
30 stations. A comparison of data collected from October 1985 to October 1988 showed
no discernible trend in annual herbicide concentrations, but, as expected, seasonal
relationships were pronounced.
IEPA has expressed a strong interest in conducting flow-adjusted Seasonal-Kendall trend
testing for all 208 AWQMN stations for the majority of parameters. Resource constraints
prevent the CEP A from analyzing more than one or two basins for each 305(b) cycle.
In the 1990 30S(b) report, lakes with three or more years of calculated trophic status index
(TSI) were analyzed for trends using a linear regression, nonstatistical approach. Two
hundred waterbodies were evaluated, with 41 percent showing fluctuating conditions and
34.5 percent showing declining conditions. The 18.5 percent of lakes showing
improvements in water quality was attributed to in-lake restoration techniques or intensive
watershed management projects. The remaining 6 percent of lakes indicated stable water
quality conditions.
4-20
-------
Figure 4-1. Illinois Fixed Station Network and
Great Lakes Areas of Concern
Cfi«t Llfrtl tfi«l «( £««
14
,
H«r»«r Cancl
STOKT
AOC
M«j«r
I
/ ,.
{ "".v"' , ycr
x^^r- < • iiw r
^**jhA '-i*^-
rw
**<
VB^JW*
•!}u?!iJi9M'"T
e«li»m •Ihj'irtit l«ktl".
USf't «*2 (mlriiHMRl
lltfri: I 500.094 NOt/k H«ti
W^. v^1
«ca-
r»4^'lV
T'
e*.
> „
4-21
VK
-------
4.4.2 Indiana
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management operates a fixed-station chemical
monitoring network at 106 sites along rivers and streams throughout the State. In 198S, the
State conducted a review of this network, which included examining water quality trends
between 1979 and 1985. Although this approach was described in their 1990 305(b) report,
we have no documentation of any trend analysis, results, or assessment of those results.
The State compared the trophic status of 101 lakes between the mid-1970s and 1988-89.
The changes reported in trophic condition included 21 lakes improving enough to upgrade
their classification, 24 lakes declining to a lower classification, and 56 lakes remaining in
their existing classification.
4.4.3 Michigan
MDNR has operated a somewhat inconsistent fixed-station network ranging from almost
600 stations in 1973 to only 58 in 1989. In 1989, MDNR operated stations for three
programs: Great Lakes Tributary Monitoring (16 stations). Urban Area Monitoring (22
stations), and Detroit Rivers Monitoring (about 20 stations). The State refocused their
program in 1990 to the following programs:
• Core River Monitoring,
• Urban Area Monitoring,
• Detroit River Monitoring,
• Basin-Year Monitoring, and
• Special Monitoring.
These five monitoring programs implemented in 1990 comprise almost 100 stations.
Twenty core stations will be monitored monthly with the remaining stations rotated by
basin to meet permit reissuance needs. The MDNR is currently preparing a 15-year trend
report on the Detroit River data. However, there are no significant plans to conduct
comprehensive trend analysis on all sample sites due to resource constraints.
4.4.4 Minnesota
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency recently assessed the effectiveness of their
fixed-station monitoring network for chemical trend analysis of rivers and streams. Their
1991 review established criteria for station selection, which resulted in 90 of their 269
stations being selected for trend analysis. The State used 21 years of data (1970-1990) to
examine their water chemistry trends in each of their seven ecoregions. The parameters
4-22
-------
examined were: DO, un-iooized ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, and total suspended solids. The
measure used for trend significance was the nonparametric correlation coefficient-Kendall's
tau-b.
The most significant changes within their seven ecoregions that occurred during the 21-year
period were decreases in total suspended solids (Northern Lakes and Forests ecoregion) and
un-ionized ammonia (Northern Wetland and Northern Lakes and Forests ecoregions) and
increases in nitrate-nitrite (Drifdess Area ecoregion) and total suspended solids (Red River
Valley ecoregion).
MPCA conducts lake trend assessments based on Secchi disk transparency data collected
from their Citizen Lake Monitoring Program. In their 1990 305(b) report, the State
calculated Kendall tau correlation coefficients for 101 lakes with close to an average of 10
years of data Six lakes showed a significant decrease in transparency, all from the North
Central Hardwood Forest ecoregion. Fourteen lakes showed significant increases in
transparency in three ecoregions (mostly Central Hardwood Forests and Northern Lakes and
Forests). The remaining lakes exhibited no significant trend in transparency. The State
plans to conduct more rigorous trend analyses with other water quality indicators and to
determine if land use changes have taken place to influence these results or further actions
are warranted.
4.4.5 Ohio
Ohio recently initiated a trend assessment program to assess changes in the water resource
over specified periods of time. For example, Ohio EPA submitted to the Regional
Clearinghouse their first trend assessment report, which compared their biological and water
quality study results for 1982 and 1990 in the Stillwater River Basin. This report identified
trends in chemical water quality, pollutant loadings, biological community assessments, and
use attainment status in the basin. To a large degree, Ohio's integrated assessment
approach demonstrates State implementation of EPA's recent biocriteria policy and
guidance. The improvement in water quality due to specific pollution control measures was
documented, and remaining problems in the basin were identified. Recommendations
included changing some use classifications because of channelization and habitat
modifications that occurred. Seven areas for additional monitoring and followup were also
included. This report is the first of several the State is producing on mend assessments for
each river basin they monitor. Ohio's trend assessment program is unique because they do
not rely solely upon their fixed-station chemical monitoring network for their trends. They
utilize the bulk of the water resource information collected to actually compare the status of
a resource at different time intervals, which achieves a similar management objective as
statistical time-series trend analysis. It is important to note that annual sampling is not
necessary when using biological data because of its ability to integrate influences over a
long-term period.
4-23
-------
The State also has a subset of 50 fixed stations where macroinvertebrate community
assessments are conducted. Some of this information was compiled in the 1988 305(b)
report. At this time, the State has not conducted trend analyses on their lake quality data.
Ohio EPA is currently inventorying all water quality sampling locations across the State
sampled by government and private entities. This will likely yield greater than 100 sites
with a long-term data base. Also, Ohio EPA considers the network of 305 plus reference
sites as part of the fixed-station network.
4.4.6 Wisconsin
Wisconsin operates a fixed-station monitoring network of about 62 stations. The only
known trend analysis was conducted in 1990 on nine stations on the Upper Wisconsin
River. Monthly and quarterly data for 1984 through 1989 at each station were analyzed for
trend direction, magnitude, and statistical significance using the Seasonal-Kendall Test.
The strength of the trend significance was substantially weakened for some parameters
going from monthly to quarterly data. The State is evaluating their fixed-station network
and will conduct trend analyses on all of their sites for their evaluation.
For lakes, Wisconsin's Long Term Trend Lake Monitoring Program is designed to assess
gradual changes in lake water quality. DNR staff have collected physical, chemical, and
biological data on SO lakes and their watersheds since 1986. With 4 years of data, DNR is
beginning to analyze preliminary trends in lake water quality. Six years of data will be
analyzed and included in the 1992 report The State also sees great potential in using
remote sensing to follow water quality trends in lakes associated with changes in land
use/land cover in watersheds.
4.5 Findings and Recommendations
Region 5 States use a variety of tools to assess the status of their surface water resources.
All six of the Region 5 States use integrated assessments (i.e., ambient chemical
monitoring, biological surveys, toxicity testing, habitat assessments, and tissue
contamination surveys) to some degree, but the frequency, spatial coverage, and the types
of surface water resources assessed using this approach vary significantly. Furthermore,
even when information from integrated assessments is available, the States may not be able
to fully use it to support planning and management. For example, integrated assessments
and permitting activities are sometimes not fully coordinated to provide useful information
on program effectiveness. In other cases, States have insufficient resources to collect and
interpret the wide array of data associated with integrated assessments.
4-24
-------
Only Illinois has documented efforts to select broadly representative monitoring sites (in
their Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network), although the design process was not
strictly probabilistic. Gassical statisticians would argue that only probabilistic network
design can select sites that are spatially representative of the State's waters. OPPE is
sponsoring a separate project to explore issues of representativeness in State monitoring
programs, including at least one Region 5 State as a case study.
Generally, across Region 5, integrated assessments are performed on individual watersheds,
with most of the data collection targeted for rivers and streams. The frequency of
integrated watershed surveys is variable (e.g., Ohio: 5-year interval, Illinois: 10-15 year
intervals). The watersheds assessed are generally selected because there have been known
or suspected problems or the resources are particularly highly valued (e.g., scenic rivers).
In some instances (e.g., Ohio's and Michigan's 5-year basin surveys), the assessments are
clearly coordinated with management actions (e.g., permit reissuance) to provide valuable
feedback to planners and managers. It should also be noted that Illinois' Facility Related
Stream Survey Program uses biosurveys conducted at least one year in advance of permit
renewal to support planning and management activities.
Interest in adopting or expanding integrated assessment programs is high among Region 5
States. However, the lack of sufficient human and financial resources and tools for
assessing, analyzing, and managing data are often cited as the principal barriers to
implementing or expanding programs. At least two States, Ohio and Illinois, have or are
developing integrated approaches for lakes. None of the Region 5 States have sufficient
capabilities to perform integrated, or even limited, assessments of wetlands.
In summary, the capacity of Region 5 surface water monitoring programs to provide
comprehensive and accurate status information could be improved significantly by
• Increasing the frequency and spatial coverage of integrated assessments;
• Developing and implementing integrated approaches for lakes and wetlands
(an important component is information and technology transfer among
Region 5 States); and
• Encouraging greater consistency among Region 5 States concerning the
collection, analysis, and management of data associated with integrated
assessments.
Recommendations
• The States must receive adequate resources and training dedicated for water
monitoring and assessment programs to support the collection and use of
4-25
-------
more direct, comprehensive measures for determining use support (e.g., fish,
benthos and habitat assessments). These direct measures, along with indirect
measures related to sources and causes of impairment, should become
integrated into EPA's planning and management activities.
EPA should more fully utilize and integrate the information in State
documentation produced at EPA's request (examples include monitoring
strategies, annual program plans, 305(b) reports, and water quality
management plans).
EPA should support the States in conducting trend assessments of their
historical monitoring networks; 10 to IS years of data are often available .
States should actively inventory all existing monitoring networks and utilize
other agency and private organization monitoring provided it meets quality
assurance and control standards.
EPA and States should conduct integrated, rotational monitoring of
watersheds (preferably, at 5-year intervals or less) to provide more accurate,
comprehensive status information and better spatial and temporal coverage.
Integrated monitoring of watersheds, that includes the collection of biological,
chemical and physical data, should be fully coordinated with management
activities (e.g., permitting, enforcement actions, and best management
practices) to provide valuable feedback information on the results of
management and protection programs
States should report on trends assessments, where possible, using an
integrated monitoring approach to assess environmental results over the past
10 to 15 years.
States may not need to use a statistically based time-series trend analysis to
evaluate environmental results over a period of time. Depending on the data,
status assessments at specific time intervals may provide substantial
information on cracking environmental progress.
Results of trend analysis should be evaluated to determine causes and sources
of treads (improvement or decline) and compare those trends with the
expectations for resource quality.
States should clearly document assessment approaches for all designated uses,
monitoring program structure, data uses, and database management methods
in their biennial State 305(b) reports to minimize ambiguities in each State's
decision process and monitoring program.
4-26
-------
Region S should solicit State recommendations on improving the Section 106
Grant Guidance for State monitoring and assessment programs which are sent
annually to assist the States in preparing their program plans. This issue
should also be addressed on a national scale by the next Regional Water
Monitoring Coordinators Workgroup.
4-27
-------
5. ASSESSMENT-RELATED DATA MANAGEMENT
5.1 Overview
For a 305(b) assessment, each State compiles and analyzes data from diverse sources in several
government agencies. Easy access to multiple data sources is essential for integrated
(chemical/biological/habitat) assessments.
Data sources include computerized databases (see Section 5.2) as well as paper files (e.g., fish
kill records, intensive survey reports, drinking water files, and compliance inspection reports).
The advantages of using computerized data sources for 305(b) assessments include the
following:
• Computerized sources are more likely to be used-State 305(b) writers do not have the
time to go through paper files;
• Only a computerized database can be used to screen the thousands of water quality
data points collected each year;
• Data systems make it easier to track assessment results from one 305(b) cycle to the
next;
• Turnover in State 305(b) staff necessitates having standardized procedures and user-
friendly data access; and
• Different types of information for the same waterbodies can be compared through the
use of consistent geographic locators.
5.2 Findings-Assessment-Related Data Systems in Region 5
The Region 5 States use several national and State databases/data systems for 305(b) assessments,
as shown in Figure 5-1. These are discussed in the following subsections by type of data.
Ambient Phvsical/Chemical Data
The Region 5 States use STORET extensively for storing and analyzing water column data, and
is also used by some States for managing data on toxics in fish tissue and sediments. STORET
has been available to the States since the 1970s, and allows users to access over 150 million
water samples from 800,000 sites nationwide. The system provides data analysis capabilities
including canned statistical summaries as well as maps and plots of data.
5-1
-------
Figure 5-1. State Use of 305(b)-related Data Systems
Data System
STORE!
BIOS
State Biological
Systems
RF3/WQAS
EPAWBS
State 305(b)
Ulnols
•
•
•
o
•
Indiana
•
•
O*
0
Michigan
•
O
o
•
Minnesota
•
O*
•
o*
o*
•
Ohio
•
•
O
•
Wisconsin
•
•
O
•
Cll
10
- Current user
Q. Interested or beginning to use
. Expressed concern or assistance needed
-------
Ambient Biological and Habitat Data
As noted in Chapter 4, several Region 5 States have prominent monitoring programs for fish and
macroinvertebrate communities and habitat. Other biological data (e.g., macrophytes,
phytoplankton) ate also collected
Illinois and Minnesota are using BIOS to manage their biological data, and Wisconsin has
expressed some interest in the system. BIOS is a subset of the STORET system and is EPA's
national biological information management system. BIOS manages data on the distribution,
abundance, and physical condition of aquatic organisms, as well as descriptions of their habitats.
For example, Illinois has included current data and historical data back to 1982 for both
biological and habitat data. Users can relate BIOS data with STORET water chemistry data.
BIOS also contains a taxonomic database and can be used to store data on tissue contamination.
The States using BIOS reported some concerns with the system, including lack of a clear
message from EPA supporting their use of the system and difficulty in using BIOS for tissue
concentration data.
Four States use in-house programs to manage their ambient biological data. For example, Illinois
uses a dBASE program to manipulate data prior to upload to BIOS, and Ohio has developed the
Fish Information System (FINS) for fish and the Macroinvertebrate Data Generation and
Evaluation System (MIDGES) for macroinvertebrates. Recendy, these have been merged into
a new system that also handles habitat data, chemical data, and the WBS files. Minnesota does
not have all of their ambient biological data on one integrated computerized system. Minnesota
stores some biological data in BIOS, some in STORET, some in SAS files on the NCC
mainframe and some in PC files. Michigan does have a computerized data management system
for the biosurvey data. Results are published in hard-copy reports.
5.2.1 Hydrographic Data
The EPA Reach File is the only hydrographic database identified as having the potential for
widespread use in Region 5. The Reach File is a national system containing geographic
information on streams, lakes, and estuaries. It provides standardized geographic locators that
can be used throughout a State's databases. Thus it serves as the integrator of information on
monitoring sites, point and nonpoint source discharges, water intakes, and political and waterbody
boundaries. Because all streams and lakes in the system are networked hydrologically, the Reach
File can be used for routing and modeling. As discussed in Chapter 2, the system can also
provide estimates of total State waters for streams and lakes.
The smallest unit of record in the system is the reach, which is typically a short stretch of stream
or shoreline. Reach File Version 3 improves upon earlier versions by including all hydrologic
features on the USGS 1:100,000 scale map series. Most traces were actually digitized from the
1:24,000 scale maps, so the resolution is extremely high. Figure 5-2 shows the hydrologic traces
in RF3 for one USGS 1:24,000 scale topographic map near Raleigh, North Carolina.
5-3
-------
Figure 5-2. Example of Hydrologic Traces in EPA Reach
File 3 (RF3) Map of USGS Topographic Quadrangle near
Raleigh, North Carolina
The DLQ database would produce the same printout of hydrologic traces.
7.5 MIN MAP, SE CORNER IS 35.75QG Q78.b25Q
PF KEYS
2 SAVE MAP-REPRT
3 EXIT
4 CITIES
5 SHIFT
b ENABLE STA LOG
7 N/A
8 N/A
<3 N/A
10 ENABLE RCH LOC
11 ROUTE REACHES
12 TAGS
13 7.5
14 WATERBODY
CITY DATA
CITY : RALEIGH
CITY
CNTY,ST: WAKE
NC
LAT
LONG
35.7713
O78.b330
CIGM
5-4
-------
RF3 contains over 3 million reaches nationwide, including reach names and geographic locators.
Any point on a stream or shoreline can be defined using a reach number. RF3 production work
has recently been completed for Region 5, and Michigan has begun to access and use RF3 data.
As shown in Figure 5-1, four States expressed interest in the capabilities of RF3 and companion
software such as the Water Quality Analysis Software (WQAS) and the Mapping and Graphical
Display Manager, (MDDM).
States expressed the need for written information on the following aspects of RF3:
• Capabilities of RF3, alone and in concert with other Office of Water software and data
systems;
• State resources required to fully use the system;
• Additional user documentation; and
• Availability of EPA technical assistance for incorporating the RF3 system.
Also, hands-on training on RF3 and other Office of Water systems was requested. Very few of
the senior State staff interviewed for this project had basic knowledge of the applicability of RF3
to State programs and the systems's resource requirements.
The above listed information needs to be provided before some States will commit to
incorporating RF3 coordinates into their other databases. This "indexing" of other databases to
RF3 is a key to EPA's plans for national level mapping of data from the EPA Waterbody
System. At present, only Ohio and Illinois have clear plans to reach-index their waterbodies to
RF3. In the case of Illinois, it plans a long-term update of State WBS with RF3 detail. In
addition to 305(b) assessment tracking, the State will then utilize its system to track stream
classifications given detail provided by RF3.
5.2.2 Assessment Results
Each State has designated several hundred waterbodies for 305(b) reporting and makes use
support determinations for each waterbody. Various computer systems have been developed for
tracking the results of these biennial assessments. To foster consistency in reporting and to aid
States without such systems, EPA developed the Waterbody System in the late 1980s. WBS
provides a geographical framework for entering, tracking, and reporting information on the
quality of individual waterbodies. Each State delineates waterbodies as it chooses. The system
stores water quality assessment results, not the raw data that support the assessment. All
5-5
-------
Table 5-1. State Use of WBS and RF3
Us* of the WatertMdy System (WBS)
Locattonal Data for UM In
WBS
wui state use RF3?
IHnois uses Us own dBASE system for 305(b)
assessment tracking, llnote* system includes
ipabittes beyond those required for 305(b)
reporting, including a system tor prioritizing
how State dollars for cofistrucoon grants will
be spent. IL's system also related STORET
stations to specific watetbodes. which WBS
does not The 1990 assessment data have
been transferred to the national WBS.
•Each waterbody is
associated with a station
number
•Reach numbers are given,
but they are often the
number lor the nearest reach
inRFI. Watertxxties typically
include parts of more than
one reach.
At this time they have no plans to use
RF3. Unless IL switches to the EPA
WBS (a major effort), using RF3 may not
be desirable because RF3's capabilities
could not be luUy utilized.
RTI Instated PC WBS software and
demonstrated WBS and RF3 during this
protect. IDEM has hired a data entry person
and waterbody designation is underway by
IDEM staff. __
Not yet dear.
WBS is not yet implemented.
Reach indexing cannot be
done until wateitodies are
designated and stored.
Not yet dear.
WBS.
Staff must first implement
ftHchlgan
Michigan's Surface WO Division used their
own RBASE flle for the 1990 report. A
Mkftgan-provkted ASCII file was uploaded to
WBS In 1990 The OMsfon is considerino
EPA
•USGS Cataloging Unit
numbers
Yes, resources permitting. There is a tot
of interest in inking together multiple
databases with RF3. First, however,
Michigan must delineate its waterbodies.
EPA support mav be necessary.
Minnesota uses Us own SAS files for
assessment data. RT1 has uploaded these files
to the National WBS. but WBS Is not used tor
305fb) reporting
Oftfo
Onto uses PC version of WBS for entering
and updating assessment information of
waterbodes. Data are atep uploaded to
mainframe version of WBS.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin personnel used WBS tor lake
assessments In 1990. and areiconsidering
redesignating stream waterbodies using WBS
tor streams also. Prior to this, they
considered a watershed*) bar•*"*?**£
1990 data were unloaded to the Nalioal WBS
•Rivers: hydrotogic unit
codes and segment numbers
•Lakes: lake id. numbers
developed by MNDNR
Minnesota personnel are interested in
using RF3 but are reluctant to commit to
it Urdu they know more about its
caoabiities and resource requirements
•Waterbody id no.
•5 *gtt river code number
and segment description
•River Mile System uses:
section/ township/ range and
river mile
•STORET stations have
lat/tong
RF3 will be cross-referenced with Ohio's
existing waterbody definitions. Although
Ohio will reach index their waterbodies.
they plan to keep existing waterbody
sizes as the scale for reporting, trend
assessments, etc.
Wisconsin personnel are interested but
they would need assistance from EPA to
implement RF3. They hope it will provide
better linkage between databases.
-------
information is organized by waterbody and assessment date. WBS contains the following main
types of data elements:
• Idenrifiers-e.g.. waterbody name, identification number, type of waterbody (stream,
lake, estuary, etc.), geographic locators (counties, Reach File indexing expressions,
latitude/longitude);
• Assessment tvues-e.g.. based on monitored vs. evaluated data, type of monitoring,
media/pollutants assessed;
• Assessment results dealing with status-use support, trophic status, water quality-
limited status; and
« Assessment results dealing with causes and sources-pollutants causing impairment,
point and nonpoint sources contributing to impairment.
WBS was used by many States for their 1990 305(b) assessments. The system is currendy being
upgraded at the users' request to increase speed and user-friendliness and to incorporate Windows
software.
States' use of WBS and/or interest in the system is shown in Figure 5-1 and described in more
detail in Table 5-1. Ohio is currently the major WBS user in Region 5. Ohio has used WBS
for one 305(b) cycle and is satisfied with its usefulness, especially for organizing data with a
geographic perspective. In its 1990 305(b) report, Ohio describes its use of WBS:
The 1990 cycle marked Ohio's first full use of the WBS software. Ohio uses the PC
version of the WBS for entering and updating the assessment information of
waterbodies. Data entered into this system is [SIC] also uploaded to the mainframe
version of the WBS. In addition to the variables tracked by the U.S. EPA WBS, Ohio
EPA maintains numerous data files containing biological, physical and chemical data
that are geo-referenced to the files in the WBS.
Ohio sees one drawback to WBS in that the system treats all levels of data in the same way; i.e.,
it does not address the relative power levels or levels of confidence in different data types.
As described in Table 5-1, until recently Indiana has planned to use the PC version of WBS for
the 1992 305(b) assessment cycle. However, at this time it appears that staff resource limitations
will prevent data entry this 305(b) cycle. Indiana has no existing system for assessment tracking,
and using WBS would save the State considerable development costs. Indiana now has the
computer hardware needed and is in the process of designating waterbodies throughout the State
for entry into WBS.
Michigan is considering switching from their RBASE tracking system to WBS after the 1992
305(b) cycle. Wisconsin used WBS for lakes in 1990. and staff are considering redesignating
all stream waterbodies and using WBS for streams after the 1992 cycle.
5-7
-------
Illinois and Minnesota have had customized 305(b) tracking databases for years and do not see
the need to convert to WBS. Each State's database contains some information that would be lost
upon conversion unless additional data fields were added to WBS. (PC WBS can be modified
somewhat to suit specific State needs, although this is not commonly done).
Other Findings
In addition to limitations resulting from lack of training, hardware limitations and policy still
limit the effective use of data systems in some States. Wisconsin staff cannot use the mapping
and graphical capabilities of STORET because of hardware limitations. In Indiana, Division
policy and lack of inexpensive hardware limit the access of those responsible for 305(b)
assessments to the national data systems. Requests for retrievals must be communicated to a data
management group in another part of Indianapolis, resulting in delays and reducing the usefulness
of STORET in particular.
States have high expectations for the accuracy of data in national data systems. As an example,
a 5 percent error rate in discharger location data in the Industrial Facilities File might be
acceptable for national level screening of potential toxics problems. However, State agencies
want such location data to be nearly 100 percent correct because they must deal with the
dischargers themselves. This finding has implications for State acceptance of national systems,
because States must invest staff resources to update such data.
Also, some States expressed concern over their lack of involvement in, and knowledge of, the
STORET modernization effort at Headquarters.
It was beyond the scope of this project to determine the extent to which the national data systems
could be used to support management decisions in the States. WBS currently is used mainly for
compiling data and assisting with 305(b) report preparation. However, the WBS also has
potential as an information management system for water resource planners and managers.
5.3 Recommendations
The following recommendations follow from the State interviews and a review of readily
available materials about State data systems. No systems analysis was done; such an analysis
would result in more detailed. State-specific recommendations.
• Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin could benefit from using the EPA WBS and should
proceed with its implementation. These States do not have comparable systems, and
WBS should meet most or all of their assessment tracking requirements. Illinois and
Minnesota already have fully implemented State systems with some capabilities not
offered by WBS.
5-8
-------
• Assuming the three States listed above are successful in implementing WBS, they
should receive technical support, as needed, to accomplish reach-indexing in a timely
fashion. This would encourage the use of consistent geographic locators throughout
much of the Region.
• Hardware should no longer limit access to the mapping and graphical capabilities of
EPA's national water data systems. For only about $2000, a PC can be upgraded to
simulate a graphics terminal on the EPA/NCC mainframe.
• Water quality analysts need direct access to data systems as tools of their trade.
Impediments to such access should be removed wherever possible.
• States requested additional training, user-friendly documentation, and user support for
their national water data systems. Onsite training or EPA-subsidized travel to training
sites was suggested because of State travel restrictions. The Waterbody System's
package of support—a Users Group that makes suggestions for system improvements,
a newsletter, telephone user support, and the User's Guide-was cited as a good
example.
• EPA should prepare a short report or brochure on the potential applications of the
combined RF3/WBS/WQAS systems to State water quality planning and management
The report should also discuss State obligations for system implementation.
• The EPA Regions should take steps to ensure that all appropriate State personnel
receive reports and documentation to counteract the likelihood that only computer
specialists will hear about the capabilities of the national data systems.
• The level of State involvement in STORET modernization should be increased.
• A followup study is recommended to identify opportunities for increased use of WBS,
RF3, and other national systems in management decisionmaking. Two or three
representative States should be selected, preferably from Region 5, to save data
gathering costs.
5-9
-------
6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPING AND USING
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
6.1 Overview
Water resource policy is undergoing important changes at the Federal, State and local levels
that reflect a fundamental shift in the approache to environmental protection and
management1 The conventional approach, characterized by fragmented, reactive policies
derived from a myriad of statutes and regulations that respond to public perception of
environmental risks, is gradually being replaced by an integrated, anticipatory risked-based
approach that relies more heavily on scientific information and pollution prevention. While
this new approach offers more effective environmental protection, it also poses new
information needs for water resource planners and managers.2 The capacity of monitoring
and assessment programs to support existing and new information needs will determine, to
a large extent, how effectively water resource policies can be implemented at the Federal,
State and local levels.
Comprehensive implementation of watershed planning and management requires significant
resource commitments and coordination among Federal, interstate, State and local
organizations to develop, operate and maintain monitoring and assessment programs, which
are essential to the development and use of environmental indicators and other supporting
data. This chapter discusses the Region 5 study in the broader context of water resource
policy by describing potential opportunities for developing and using environmental
indicators for water resource evaluation, problem identification and characterization,
management strategy development, implementation and evaluation, and communication of
results to the public and legislators.
Three overall recommendations from this study and related projects and initiatives include:
1. EPA and States should develop a tiered classification scheme for
environmental indicators that relates basic characteristics of indicators (e.g.,
spatial and temporal coverage, scientific defensibility, and relationships to
environmental impact) with basic planning and management objectives. For
example, some indicators, such as designated use support, are best suited for
overall water resource evaluation. Others, such as water column chemistry,
sediment chemistry, and tissue contamination provide more detailed
information related to cause-effect mechanisms.
'See discussion of Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental
Protection in introduction, pp. 1-9 to 1-13.
2See discussion of Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change in
Introduction, pp. 1-6 to 1-9.
-------
2. EPA and States should develop a long-term, plan for integrating
environmental indicators across water resources, including surface water.
ground water and ecological resources. Once environmental indicators are
developed for specific water resource categories (e.g., rivers and streams,
wetlands), the plan should address how resource-specific and generic
indicators can be developed and implemented, taking into account factors
such as technical feasibility, costs and presentation value.
3. EPA, other Federal agencies, interstate organizations and States should take
advantage of shared and complementary interests related to water resource
planning and management. These groups should continue and improve upon
their working relationships to ensure that monitoring and assessment
programs support planning and management objectives, both collectively and
independently. Pilot projects could be excellent mechanisms for fostering the
much needed coordination.
The remainder of this chapter provides more specific discussion and recommendations
related to the four primary planning and management objectives.
6.2 Water Resource Evaluation
Improving the methods in which we evaluate the quality of our water resources is a primary
responsibility and immediate need that both EPA and States share. Table 1.1 and Figure
1.2 highlight the information needs to assess the status of a water resource, whether or not
the status has changed over time, and the sources and causes affecting the water resource
quality. Recommendations are summarized below, with very specific recommendations
within each chapter.
6.2.1 Water Resource Status
This report demonstrated that the Region 5 States rely heavily on aquatic life designated
use attainment as the primary measure of water resource status, or environmental indicator
for surface waters. However, the States vary in the emphasis placed on the data used to
assess designated use attainment (Figure 3-2 and 3-3). States have historically relied upon
chemical monitoring to assess use attainment, but the States are establishing stronger
biological community survey capabilities to complement their chemical and lexicological
programs. Substantial improvement in the collection and analysis of the biological data as
well as more thorough integration of the biological and habitat information with the existing
programs must continue.
6-2
-------
To improve the assessment of the status of the quality of water resources, we recommend
the following:
1. Attainment of aquatic life designated uses for both rivers and streams, and
lakes, must be based upon direct measures of the aquatic life to supplement
the existing chemical and lexicological approaches.
2. The direct measures applicable to aquatic life use attainment for rivers and
streams must include multiple assemblages (e.g., fish and benthos) assessed
with a multiple metric approach for fish (e.g., IBI) and benthos (e.g., RBPs),
and include a numeric habitat evaluation (e.g., QHEI).
3. Methods and approaches for determining aquatic life use attainment should be
consistently applied within a State and among States.
4. EPA and the States must re-evaluate their current selection of designated uses
in State water quality standards to ensure that aquatic life uses are
specifically represented and that numerical assessment methods are linked to
the attainment or non-attainment of those aquatic life uses.
5. EPA must work more cooperatively with the States on implementing
biological criteria in the State programs and should re-evaluate some existing
policies which tend to be barriers towards biocriteria implementation.
6.2.2 Water Resource Trends
Water resource trend assessment has emerged as an essential, but neglected, activity at the
State level. The focus of State programs towards improving the quality of the water
resource by site-specific measures without consistently demonstrating how the quality has
improved on a larger geographic scale (State-wide trends) prompted new program
development by Federal agencies such as the USGS's NAWQA (National Water Quality
Assessment) program and USEPA's EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program). NAWQA is designed to provide data/information on a basin scale while EMAP
will provide statistically-based random sampling geared for regional and national
perspectives. Enhanced versions of EMAP may be applicable towards Regions or even
States. However, both NAWQA and EMAP are long-term programs.
The following general recommendations are intended to identify areas which need to be
addressed in the short-term to facilitate trend assessments of the water resource quality.
1. The need for statistically-based trend assessments using a random sampling
approach at the State, Regional, and National spatial scales should be
6-3
-------
clarified as well as the temporal scales necessary to benefit the State,
Regional, and National programs.
2 States do not need to strictly utilize a statistically-based time series trend
analysis to evaluate temporal changes in water resource status. Status
assessments at specific time intervals will also provide substantial information
on tracking environmental progress.
3. EMAP should provide the opportunity to expand efforts to identify reference
sites and conduct basin assessments based upon fauna! and ecoregional
boundaries rather than State political boundaries.
4. EMAP should assist with the development and implementation of more
consistent approaches to determining aquatic life use attainment and better
utilization of specific environmental indicators.
6.3 Problem Identification and Characterization
Region 5 States rely heavily on best professional judgment, supported by both monitoring
and evaluative data, to identify and characterize sources and causes of surface water
impairment. This step provides a valuable link between water resource evaluation and
management strategy development Incomplete or inaccurate problem identification and
characterization can contribute to fragmented and ineffective management strategies. In
general, all Region 5 States expressed interest in improving their methods for identifying
and characterizing problems, but expressed concerns over the availability of tools (e.g., GIS
technologies), resources, and data.
6.3.1 Problem Identification
Region 5 States use a variety of data to detect problems with water resources, such as:
changes in biological community and habitat data, exceedances of water-quality standards
(predominately chemical), citizen complaints, discovery of fish kills, point and non-point
source monitoring and land-use surveys.
However, how mis information is used to assess designated use attainment of waterbodies
is often obscure, since the States rely on the judgment of individual professionals. All of
the States expressed a high level of interest in developing and improving upon their data
acquisition, management and analysis by using GIS, trend analysis, and remote sensing
tools. At least a few of the States, expressed an interest in forecasting trends within
watersheds, including variables such as population and land use, to help identify and
6-4
-------
prevent future problems. The following recommendations are intended to improve the
quality and consistency of problem identification:
1. EPA and States should jointly develop guidance and training for identifying
water resource problems, including procedures for detecting potential sources
and causes before water resources are significantly impacted. The guidance
and training should help insure more effective and consistent procedures are
implemented within and among States.
2. Better data on stresses to water resource systems, such as population
pressures or changes in vegetative cover, would support pollution-prevention
oriented policies. Geographic information systems and remote sensing could
obviously play a key role in this area. EPA should ensure that States have
adequate resources and training for utilizing these technologies.
3. States should document their procedures for identifying problems to provide
data on the reliability of results and to help ensure the reproducibility of
procedures. The State 305(b) reports, EPA Waterbody System, and State-
Compatible systems, should be modified to accommodate data related to
problem identification methods.
4. In the long-term, EPA and States should develop the capacity to identify and
anticipate problems caused by sources or causes originating within and
outside watersheds that have measurable impacts on water resources.
Examples of problems that may arise outside individual watersheds include
atmospheric deposition of contaminants, interbasin transfers of effluent and
solid waters, and human-induced climate change.
6.3.2 Problem Characterization
Problem characterization should provide the following types of information important to
decision-makers and planners: the degree of human health, ecological and welfare risks,
the spatial extent, temporal characteristics (e.g., new vs. old problem, trends, persistence),
cause-effect relationships, and pathways through which the environment is affected. The
above information supports response strategy development, including what actions to take.
prioritizing among problems and related control and prevention strategies, targeting of
resources to areas of greatest risk and areas of greatest risk-reduction potential, and
communicating program needs to legislators and the public.
Region 5 States use a variety of tools for characterizing water resource problems, including
intensive, integrated basin-wide surveys, facility inspections, basin wide waterload
allocation modeling, effluent toxicity testing, and intensive special studies (e.g., Illinois'
6-5
-------
Pesticides Survey). As part of the 305(b) process, States characterize problems by reporting
a variety of narrative and graphical information for different water resource categories
including: State-wide causes and sources of nonattainment, basin-wide water quality
summaries, contaminant-specific and general data on public health/aquatic life concerns,
waterbody-specific data on sources and causes of nonattainment, documentation of
methodologies, and summaries of monitoring and assessment programs. The following
recommendations are intended to improve problem characterization:
1. Historically, EPA and States, have tended to focus their monitoring and
assessment programs to support permitting and enforcement related to point
sources. As a consequence, problem characterization of nonpoint sources
have not been adequately supported, even though these problems are often
the dominant sources and causes of water resource degradation within
watersheds. EPA and State monitoring and assessment programs should be
developed or modified, with sufficient funding and resources, to provide the
necessary data for comprehensive problem characterization.
2. A long-term, national strategy should be developed to integrate numerous
activities conducted by Federal, interstate, State and local organizations that
support problem characterization. Pilot studies at the watershed. State and
Regional levels could provide valuable feedback to support the development
of this strategy, including the identification and testing of potential
environmental indicators and analytical tools (see descriptions of the EPA's
EMAP and the US OS's NAWQA programs in Introduction).
3. EPA and States should consider monitoring and assessment approaches that
more fully integrate monitoring and evaluative data collected in the field with
information management technologies such as GIS, remote, sensing and
geopositioning techniques. For example, land use and land cover data that is
correlated with intensive field surveys within selected watersheds could be
used to assess or predict conditions in other watersheds. Potential benefits
include more effective targeting of monitoring resources and management
actions, reduction in monitoring and assessment costs, broader spatial and
temporal characterization of problems, and more accurate geographic
referencing of assessment data.
6.4 Management Strategy Development, Implementation and Evaluation
Since the early 1970s, the focus of State and EPA surface water protection and management
programs have been directed to control large, obvious point sources such as municipal
sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities. Given statutory mandates and resource
constraints, EPA and the States have not until recently paid sufficient attention to new
6-6
-------
problems or the development of new management strategies. Further, it has been difficult
or impossible in many instances for EPA and States to adequately evaluate their programs.
Today, EPA and State programs broadly recognize the need for better information to
support integrated, anticipatory planning and management on a watershed-basis. It is
important to note that some of the Region 5 States have been at the forefront of this shift in
water resource policy. The following recommendations highlight important opportunities
for developing and using environmental indicators to support management strategy
development, implementation and evaluation:
1.
The success of watershed planning and management depends, to a large
extent, on the ability to identify, access, manage, and use relevant
information. It is particularly important to provide linkages between
environmental indicators, quantitative resource data, program plans,
management activity measures, and data on environmental stresses. EPA,
other Federal agencies, and States should jointly develop a computer-based
tool that provides central, user-friendly access to the above types of
information to support watershed planning and management The tool should
be designed to take full advantage of recent modernization efforts in data and
information systems (e.g., Waterbody System, Reach File Version 3, and
STORET), both within and outside EPA. Selected watersheds throughout the
U.S. could be used to pilot test the tool to ensure its usefulness and
flexibility. Computer-based planning and decision-making, using the 305(b)
process as a framework, could dramatically improve the development,
implementation and evaluation of management strategies.
Federal. State and local budget deficits are encouraging water resource
planners and managers to seek innovative, more effective solutions,
particularly those oriented toward pollution prevention. -To support these
policies, pollution prevention indicators should be identified and used to
provide feedback for strategy development, implementation and program
evaluation. Examples of potential indicators include per capita water
consumption, water and fertilizer application rates for various crops, and
waste/product ratios for industrial processes.
6.5 Communication of Results to Public and Legislators
Measures of success in our environmental programs will only be recognized if we can
effectively and accurately communicate results to those who established our environmental
regulations and their constituencies. Although we have many vehicles to communicate
these results, the biennial State Water Act remains the primary structure from which we can
achieve our communication objectives. However, one obstacle in the proper utilization of
the results that we communicate is the lack of understanding of those results and the
6-7
-------
valuable information they carry. An important effort has been established by various
environmental agencies to not only increase the data necessary for planning and
management, but to facilitate the proper use of the information given to the public and the
legislators. This dual effort is referred to as citizen/volunteer monitoring.
6.5.1 State Biennial 305(b) Reports
This is the time to stress the value and importance of the reports. This is where we can
support the "vision" that this is the proper mechanism is report on our progress, etc., but
that more meaning and consistency must be applied to the reports. We can cite the changes
that have occurred in this cycle (e.g. total State waters) and the continued work by the
National Consistency Workgroup.
The submittal of previous State 305(b) Reports have arrived in the Region in various stages
of completion. Some States did not provide a summary,of sources and causes of non-
attainment, and others calculated the various numeric requirements in ways which would be
more pleasing to the States. The National 305(b) Consistency efforts will prove quite
worthwhile and have already forced Region 5 to initiate the subject Pilot Study. Lack of
consistency in not only how the information is reported, but also how each decision on use
attainment is made, has made the 305(b) process less than ideal in the past Changes in
national guidelines and regional/national consistency efforts for the 1992 reports were
necessary, but these changes must continue each year.
To ensure that regional and national 305(b) consistency efforts continue on an accelerated
time table to support State and EPA environmental indicators programs, we recommend the
following:
1. The 305(b) reporting process must be viewed as a continual process and not
merely as a State effort every two years. States should assign 305(b)
coordinators and dedicate resources necessary to sustain that position with
EPA support
2. The States must fully document all decision-making processes in the 305(b)
reports to allow for detailed reviews and understanding on how each State
determines designated use attainment for aquatic life protection.
3. The National 305(b) Consistency Workgroup should formalize a schedule for
reviewing and revising the 1994 305(b) report guidelines shortly after the
1992 reports are submitted. This workgroup must ensure that State
guidelines are finalized at least one year before the reports are due (April 1,
1993 should be the deadline for the 1994 Guidelines).
6-8
-------
4. EPA must provide States with incentives to increase State use of the
WaterBody System as well as Reach File 3 Indexing for program
management and decision-making. These incentives must include dedicated
funding for qualified personnel, training for State and Regional staff,
contractor support for reach indexing and entering in current and historical
information into the WaterBody System, and funding for the necessary
hardware to fully utilize our information management systems.
5. EPA must ensure that data, information management and communication
systems are fully functioning, finalized, and available to all States and
Regions prior to requiring their use for any particular 305(b) cycle.
Information management systems and communication tools (e.g., videos,
interactive graphics) should be designed to be user friendly, dynamic and
flexible to accommodate to diverse background and interest of potential users.
6.5.2 Citizen Monitoring Activities
Citizen monitoring activities generally fulfill two needs: (1) education of the public and our
legislators, and (2) additional information to make some level of assessment regarding the
quality of the water resource where the State water resource and regulatory agencies are not
able to collect data. Citizen monitoring programs have been tremendously successful
throughout the country and within Region 5. State-wide citizen lake monitoring in Illinois,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin are nationally recognized for their excellence and the data
generated from these programs are used in the 305(b) process. Citizen lake monitoring data
from Indiana are also widely used
Stream citizen monitoring programs have lagged behind the lake programs since the data
collection for lakes has been relatively simple compared with biological data needs for the
stream programs. However, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources operates an
exceptional program for Scenic Rivers that has achieved national recognition. Michigan
has maintained strong basin-specific stream monitoring programs (e.g. Rouge River), and
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources has recently initiated a State-wide
program for streams which Illinois EPA intends to support Wisconsin is attempting to
initiate a streams program while Indiana and Minnesota have not committed to initiating
such programs.
Citizen and volunteer monitoring programs need to achieve greater recognition and utility
by EPA and the States. The Office of Water has been sponsoring citizen monitoring
activities including the upcoming Third National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring
6-9
-------
Conference in March 1992. To facilitate responsible cooperation among EPA, States, and
citizen monitoring organizations we recommend the following.
1. Each State should inventory all citizen monitoring activities within their State
with support from the Regions.
2. Each EPA Region should identify lake and stream citizen monitoring
coordinators to work with the States in interacting with the citizen monitoring
groups.
3. The intent (data quality objectives) of each citizen monitoring group and
program should be made clear to determine if the program will conduct
sampling for reasons beyond participant education.
4. Quality assurance program plans must be completed and approved by the
States and EPA for citizen monitoring program data to be utilized by States
in Section 30S(b) reporting.
5. EPA and the States should develop technical guidelines and provide training
for citizen monitoring programs.
6. EPA and the States should develop strategies, which include modern
information technologies, for more effectively capturing, managing and
disseminating citizen monitoring data.
6-10
-------
7. REFERENCES
Biological Stream Characterization Work Group, 1989. Biological Stream Characterization
(BSC): A Biological Assessment of Illinois Stream Quality. Special Report No. 13 of the
Illinois State Water Plan Task Force.
Brown. C.J.D.. 1944. Michigan streams - their lengths, distribution and drainage areas.
Michigan Department of Conservation. Institute for Fisheries Research Miscellaneous
Publication No. 1. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 21 p.
Carlson, R.E., 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22(2)
361-369.
Gallant, A.L, T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omemik, and R.M. Hughes. 1989.
Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources. EPA/600/3-89/060.
152 pp.
Hilsenhoff. W.L., 1977. Use of arthropods to evaluate water quality of streams. Technical
Bulletin 100: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, Wisconsin.
Hilsenhoff. W.L., 1982. Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams.
Technical Bulletin 132: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, Wisconsin.
Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen, 1988. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water
protection. J. Water Poll. Contr. Fed. 60(4):486-493.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Program, Memorandum of Agreement Planning Section, Division of Water Pollution,
Springfield.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1987. Quality Assurance/Quality Control and
Field Methods Manual. Planning Section, Division of Water Pollution Control, Springfield.
Karr, J.R. and KJ>. Fausch, PI. Angermier, P.R. Yam, and IJ. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. 111. Nat Hist Surv. Spec.
Publ. 5. 28 pp.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1973. Shoreland Inventory. Division of Land
Resource Programs; Lansing, Michigan. 18 p.
-------
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Addendum to biological criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Life: Users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface
waters. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Surface Water Section,
Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Biological criteria for the protection of
aquatic life: Volume m. Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for
assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Division of Water Quality Planning and
Assessment, Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. The cost of biological field monitoring.
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus, Ohio.
Rankin, E.T., 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods,
and application. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus, Ohio.
Sommers, L.M., 1977. Atlas of Michigan. Michigan State University Press; East Lansing,
Michigan. 242 p.
Yoder, CO., 1989. The development and use of biological criteria for Ohio surface waters.
U.S. EPA, Criteria and Standards Div., Water Quality Stds. 21st Century. 1989: 139-146.
7-2
------- |