United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
Decision Document
The EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's 2020 Clean
Water Act Section 303(d) List
Water Quality Limited Segments Still Requiring TMDLs
irrrrpY RHRiri-l A I I Pi Digitally signed by JEFFERY ROBICHAUD
Jtrrtn I !ilJDl\_.rlAULJ Date; 2021.09,09 12:45:58 -OS'OO'
Jeffery Robichaud, Director, Water Division Date
1
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
2
-------
rill EPA'S ACTION TO ADD WATERS TO MISSOURI'S 2020 CLEAN WATER ACT
SECTION 303(D) LIST
WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS STILL REQUIRING TMDLS
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX A: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS RECEIVED
Conclusion
The US Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) hereby affirms its November 30, 2020
addition of forty waterbodies to Missouri's 2020 list of water quality limited segments requiring
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 C.F.R.
§ 130.7(d).
The EPA identified these forty additional waterbodies because the existing and readily available
water quality-related data and information for those waterbodies indicate impairment of the lake
numeric nutrient criteria and thus require TMDLs. The EPA solicited public comment on this
action beginning on December 7, 2020 and accepted comments through March 2, 2021. The
comments received and the EPA's responses are summarized in the attachment. After
consideration of public comments, the EPA affirms its November 30, 2020 addition of forty
waterbodies to Missouri's 2020 list.
Appendix A contains the EPA's responses to comments received on the Missouri 2020 303(d)
Public Notice between December 7, 2020 through March 22, 2021. For convenience of the
reader, the agency has summarized the comments into 22 categories in Sections A-V. Section W
also includes figures referenced in the EPA's response to comments.
All the Public Notice Comments received are provided in Appendix B. Comments are identified
by number in the index provided in Appendix B. Each comment is numbered in the document. In
some cases, more than one commenter provided identical or similar comments.
The following table provides the list of lakes that have been added. Missouri recently changed
the Assessment Unit Identification for Greenly Lake to M07754 and Prairie Lake to M07755.
Table 1. below reflects the updated ID's.
3
-------
Table 1: Forty Waterbodies with Impairments of Lake Numeric Nutrient Criteria that the
EPA is adding to the 2020 Missouri 303(d) List for Chlorophyll-a (W)
No.
Waterbody Name
Assessment
Unit ID
County
1
Buffalo Bill Lake
M07117
DeKalb
2
Cameron #1 (Century) Lake
MO7120
DeKalb
3
Cedar Lake
M07199
Boone
4
City of Milan Lake (North)
M07144
Sullivan
5
Dairy #1
M07754
Boone
6
Deer Ridge Community Lake
MO7015
Lewis
7
Elmwood City Lake
M07146
Sullivan
8
Gopher Lake
M07383
Jackson
9
Greenly Farms
MO7630
Knox
10
Hamilton Lake
M07124
Caldwell
11
Happy Holler Lake
M07644
Andrew
12
Harry S. Truman Reservoir
MO7207
Benton, Henry, and St. Clair
13
Indian Lake (Indian Hills Lake)
M07288
Crawford
4
-------
No.
Waterbody Name
Assessment
Unit ID
County
14
Jackrabbit Lake
M07391
Jackson
15
Jamesport City Lake
MO7104
Daviess
16
Jamesport Community Lake
MO7105
Daviess
17
Jo Shelby (Fountain Grove Lake)
M07147
Linn
18
King City (East) New Reservoir
M07114
Gentry
19
King Lake
M07112
DeKalb
20
Lac Carmel
MO7605
St. Francois
21
Lac Marseilles
M07614
St. Francois
22
Lac Shayne
MO7606
St. Francois and Washington
23
Lake Nell
MO7403
Jackson
24
Lake of the Ozarks
MO7205
Benton, Camden, Miller, and
Morgan
25
Lake Winnebago
M07212
Cass
26
Limpp Community Lake
M07111
Gentry
27
Macon Lake
M07168
Macon
5
-------
No.
Waterbody Name
Assessment
Unit ID
County
28
Memphis Reservoir
MO7013
Scotland
29
Montrose Lake
MO7208
Henry
30
Peaceful Valley Lake
M07241
Gasconade
31
Perry City
MO7047
Ralls
32
Pony Express
M07118
DeKalb
33
Prairie
M07755
St. Charles
34
Shelbyville
MO7036
Shelby
35
Shepherd Mountain Lake / Ironton
M07333
Iron
36
Simpson Park Lake
MO7502
St. Louis
37
Sterling Price Community Lake
M07149
Chariton
38
Sunnen Lake
M07294
Washington
39
Thomas Hill Reservoir
M07173
Macon and Randolph
40
Unionville Reservoir (Lake Mahoney)
M07154
Putnam
6
-------
Appendix A: Response to Comments
This Appendix contains the EPA's responses to comments received on the Missouri 2020
303(d) Public Notice between December 7, 2020 through March 22, 2021.
A. 70% of Commentors Provided Support for the EPA listing additional lakes
B. Plans approved by the EPA
C. Lake of the Ozarks
D. Ecoregion
E. Fish Kills
F. Nutrient Trends
G. Ideas to address pollution at Lake of the Ozarks
H. Fishing at Lake of the Ozarks
I. Using Additional Monitoring points (Sites)
J. Considerations of data quality
K. Considerations of data age
L. Request for Additional Data Used and Time Extension
M. Commentors supporting letters from others
N. Truman Lake and Lake of the Ozarks
O. Algal Blooms
P. Use of Category 2 and 3
Q. Comments on what nutrient level was used
R. Waterbodies or issues not included as part of Public Notice
S. Data not available at time of MoDNR assessment
T. Socioeconomic Impacts
U. Use of Response Endpoints
7
-------
V. The EPA over-listing waters
W. Figures
A. 70% of Commentors Provided Support for the EPA Listing Additional Lakes
Comments from those supporting the EPA adding lakes to Missouri's 2020 303(d) list
(Comments #2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75,
76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87).
Included are comments that specifically support the EPA's recommendation that Lake of the
Ozarks and/or Truman Lake are both impaired and should be listed (Comments #2, 27, 31, 72,
75, 79, 80). Some comments also provided ideas on how the lakes' water quality can be
improved or potential sources or specific pollution concerns at lakes (Comments #17, 26, 31, 49,
72, 75, 81, 82, 83, 86). Some comments state that clean water supports and brings in tourism or
benefits the economy (Comments #19, 45, 79). One supportive comment described concerns
about water quality and swimming, and potential causes of pollution, but did not mention
specific lakes (Comment #43).
One comment expressed support for the EPA's action but not for MO's numeric nutrient criteria
arguing that the criteria are not protective enough. The comment also expressed concern for
drinking water and recreational uses including swimming and boating and impacts to protected
conservation areas. The comment asserted MoDNR did not use all available data. The
commentor provided declarations from citizens of Missouri that use lakes in Missouri and have
noticed issues with water quality, odors, and algae growth (Comment #49).
One comment said that the EPA correctly added Truman Lake and Memphis Reservoir
(Comment #56). One comment mentioned that the EPA properly considered data older than
seven years (Comment #58). One comment stated that since the waters are impaired the EPA
should take immediate steps to rectify this situation (Comment #61). One comment stated they
wanted more rigorous monitoring of pollutants (Comment #71).
Another comment stated it represents 12,000 members and that 303(d) listing decisions should
be based on the scientific data available and assessment of risk. "Implications of listing
decisions" should not be a consideration. (Comment #72).
A comment noted an increasing amount of green scum on Lake of the Ozarks; fishing there over
the last 20 years it noted the scum is now all over the bottom of the lake and suggested fishermen
could help by providing GPS locations of the scum (Comment #75).
One comment stated that clean water was important for breweries (Comment #76).
8
-------
One commentor has lived at Lake of the Ozarks for 33 years and stated the lake has gotten worse
year after year and would not let her children swim in the lake and knows several people who
will not eat the fish from the lake (Comment #80).
Response
The EPA acknowledges the comments in support.
B. Clarification that the Listing Methodology Document and Nutrient Criteria
Implementation Plan are not approved by the EPA
Two comments stated that the Listing Methodology Document (LMD) and the Missouri Nutrient
Criteria Implementation Plan (NCIP) were approved by the EPA (Comments #50 and 51).
Response
The EPA, appropriately, did not take any action, including an approval of the LMD or the NCIP.
While the MoDNR did have the LMD go through a process of soliciting public comments, it did
not go through state rulemaking. The NCIP did not go through either the public comment process
or the state rulemaking process. Neither document is subject to the EPA review and approval.
The EPA is not bound by these two documents, however the EPA opted to be guided by the
methods contained in these documents to make the additional listing decisions for 40 lakes.
C. Comments that do not Support Listing the Lake of the Ozarks
Several comments stated beliefs that there is insufficient data to list the Lake of the Ozarks as an
"impaired water" on the State's 2020 303(d) List, or request that the EPA reconsider listing the
Lake (Comments #1, 10, 13, 24, 30, 32, 40, 41, 48, 50, 51, 53, 57, 62, 73, 78). One comment was
concerned that the EPA did not give warning to the lake community that the lake was going to be
listed as impaired (Comment #72).
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees. The EPA applied the applicable Missouri water quality criteria
and LMD in its review of data on fish kills from the Missouri Department of Conservation in its
decision to list Lake of the Ozarks. The data demonstrate that the Lake of the Ozarks is impaired
for aquatic life and the data described further in this response to comments below. Additional
information specific to Lake of the Ozarks is also provided in the responses below.
In response to the comment about not informing the community in advance, the EPA adhered to
all legally applicable requirements in its review and action on the State's Section 303(d) list
including adequate public notice. The public comment period also included an extension beyond
the regulatorily required time and comments were accepted between December 7, 2020 through
March 22, 2021.
D. Ecoregion
9
-------
Some comments suggested that the EPA assessed the Lake of the Ozarks against inappropriate
ecoregional numeric lake nutrient criteria and that the Plains Ecoregion should have been used
instead (Comments #1, 48, 50, 51, 56, 57, 73). One comment provided a nutrient analysis.
(Comment #51). Another comment suggested site-specific criteria should be applied in the future
(Comment #56).
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the Missouri water quality criteria, 10 CSR
7.031, the Lake of the Ozarks' designated ecoregion is the Ozark Highlands ecoregion. The
ecoregional designation extends to the tributary arms Grand Glaze, Gravois and Niangua of the
Lake of the Ozarks, as provided by 10 CSR 20-7.031(5). Any change in ecoregion designation
would require a revision to the Missouri water quality standards pursuant to Missouri rulemaking
process, and the EPA review and approval under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.
Similarly, site-specific criteria must be developed through Missouri water quality standards rule-
making process and implemented only after the EPA approval. In the Missouri water quality
criteria, 10 CSR 20-7.031 (1)(C), it states:
"Lakes and reservoirs will be designated to one (1) of the following aquatic habitat
protection uses based on limnological characteristics (such as temperature) and biological
assemblages."
The numeric nutrient criteria were derived based on trophic status ranges by ecoregion. The
richest diversity index from each ecoregion was used as the target for the trophic status based on
a corresponding range of chlorophyll-a. The criteria were derived by finding the level of algal
growth that promotes sustainable biotic diversity by being neither a limiting factor from its
scarcity nor a limiting factor from its obstructive presence in large quantities. Changing the Lake
of the Ozarks ecoregion would not be appropriate for this reason even if there is more nutrient
loading from Truman Reservoir.
Missouri's Numeric Nutrient Criteria at 10 CSR 20-7.031 (4)(N) 1. B., provides the approach to
categorizing lakes by Ecoregion:
"Due to differences in watershed topography, soils, and geology, nutrient criteria for
lakes and reservoirs will be determined by the use of four (4) major ecoregions based
upon dominant watershed ecoregion."
HUC 8s and HUC12s (smaller units than HUC8s) are the two most utilized hydrologic units to
describe watersheds. The Lake of the Ozarks is comprised of two HUC 8 Watersheds, Lake of
the Ozarks, and the Niangua. While the Lake of the Ozarks is the dominant of the two (in both
size and flow), both reside within the Ozarks Ecoregion. These regions were delineated by
grouping the ecological subsections described in Nigh, T. A., & Schroeder, W. A. (2002). Atlas
of Missouri Ecoregions. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Conservation.
Because Lake of the Ozarks spans two HUC 8 watersheds within the Ozarks Ecoregion, Lake of
the Ozarks is categorized as an Ozark lake for purposes of nutrient criteria. A plain reading of the
10
-------
State's criteria at 10 CSR 20-7.031 (4)(N) 3, which was promulgated by the State and approved
by the EPA in 2018, provides clear direction to the State where they believe that the underlying
criteria defined by the dominant watershed ecoregion is inappropriate. The concept of ecoregions
as an organizing principle is a remnant of the earlier 2009 criteria, as evidenced by the 10 CSR
20-7.031 (1)(W), which states:
"(W) Reference lakes or reservoirs—Lakes or reservoirs determined by Missouri
Department of Natural Resources to be the best available representatives of ecoregion
waters in a natural condition with respect to habitat, water quality, biological integrity
and diversity, watershed land use, and riparian conditions"
Additionally, at 10 CSR 20-7.031 (4)(N)3:
"Response Impairment Thresholds are listed in Table L. Nutrient Screening Thresholds
are listed in Table M. Lake Site-Specific Criteria for TP, TN, and Chi-a are listed in
Table N. Additional lake site-specific criteria may be developed in accordance with
subsection (5)(S) to account for the unique characteristics of the waterbody that affect
trophic status, such as lake morphology, hydraulic residence time, temperature, internal
nutrient cycling, or watershed contribution from multiple ecoregions. (emphasis added)."
If either the State or Commenters believe that contribution from the Plains Ecoregion (most
notably the Harry S. Truman Reservoir watersheds) are affecting the trophic status of Lake of the
Ozarks, Missouri's regulations direct the State to develop site specific criteria, not re-categorize
the lake based on the contribution from another watershed.
E. Fish Kills
Several comments state that the EPA's reliance on fish kills and/or fish kills that lack adequate
water quality data is inappropriate (Comments #1, 4, 48, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 73). One comment
also expressed concern about fish kills at Truman Reservoir (Comment #51). Another comment
expressed concerns about fish kills at Lake of the Ozarks, Truman Reservoir, and Jackrabbit
Lake (Comment #53). Some comments mention fish kills related to freezing weather, blunt force
trauma, and disease (Comments #53, 56, 57, 73).
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees that use of fish kill data was inappropriate. For Lake of the
Ozarks, Truman Reservoir, and Jackrabbit Lake, the lakes geometric mean data for the year
exceeded the nutrient screening criteria (and in some cases the Response impairment threshold
for some monitoring locations) which then triggers reviewing the response assessment endpoints.
Note in Figure 1. provided in Section W, the process for evaluating the response endpoints in the
Missouri Ecoregional Numeric Nutrient Criteria Decision Framework.
The EPA reviewed all published fish kill reports and the Missouri Department of Conservation's
spreadsheet provided by MoDNR. MoDNR confirmed in an email to the EPA on September 15,
2020 that there were four fish kills at Lake of the Ozarks that met the criteria in the listing
11
-------
methodology, and two kills in 10 years occurred, thus meeting the response end point and
language in the water quality standards. MoDNR also confirmed in the email that two fish kills
in ten years also occurred at Truman Reservoir and Jackrabbit Lake and the lakes should be
listed. The EPA used this information to make this listing decision. Below are excerpts from the
MDC fish kill spreadsheet that MoDNR provided to the EPA. A copy of the fish kill spreadsheet
is available and can be provided by the EPA via email upon request, or by contacting MoDNR or
MDC. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 are provided at the end of this response to comments in Section W
and show the locations of fish kills that were described in the MDC spreadsheet. Figure 2
provides a color-coded version of locations of fish kills for Lake of the Ozarks. The EPA is
providing this graphic for additional clarity and emphasis for the public. The locations in the
figures may not represent all fish kills at the lakes and additional fish kills may have occurred
between 2018 and now. The figures only represent the locations available to the EPA at the time
of the decision on the 2020 list.
Truman Reservoir
There are six entries of interest for Truman Reservoir in the MDC fish kill spreadsheet provided
below. The entries address low D.O. and two algal related events in 2014, and blue green algae
events in 2015 and 2017. Figure 3 identifies the locations of fish kills that occurred at Truman
Reservoir.
• Truman Reservoir - June 11, 2014, Algal Bloom from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet:
"...several reports today of an extensive green slick on the S. Grand River Arm of
Truman just south of Clinton...It turns out to be a massive planktonic algae
bloom"
• Truman Reservoir - July 16, 2014 Algal Bloom from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet:
"Our regional fisheries biologist has received a few calls about a green paint-like
substance on the South Grand River Arm of Truman Reservoir. We believe this is
an algal bloom, potential blue-green algae. Toxin production unknown. The
bloom area is a couple hundred acres in size and can be observed from the
highway. This is located in the same location as the bloom observed mid-June...If
you get any calls on this, you should let them know that we are not aware of any
point source with any unusual discharge that would be causing this algal bloom
independently. We also do not have any information at this time that would
indicate unlawful introduction of pollutants to this area (i.e. ag chemical spill,
bypass of sewage, etc.)...did confirm that it was a large algal bloom. It sounds like
it may have grown considerably today...The bloom was massive in scale and
covered nearly all of the Grand River branch of the lake. It extended for
approx... V2 mile E/W on both sides of the Hwy 13 bridge, and was shore to
shore(N/S) across the branch."
• Truman Reservoir - South Grand River Arm - July 14, 2015, Blue-green algae cause
listed in 2015 report.
12
-------
• Truman Reservoir - August 1, 2017 Fish Kill from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet, Low
DO.:
"MDC reports the fish kill is a natural decrease in DO due to weekend storms in
the area. Approximately 100 fish of various sizes and species were involved."
• Truman Reservoir - August 29, 2017 Fish Kill from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet,
planktonic algae bloom:
"... went out to investigate a report of dead hybrid striped bass near Long Shoal
Marina. We encountered about 30 dead hybrids around the mouth of the Grand
River Arm. It was entirely hybrid striped bass over 5 pounds and there were no
freshly dead fish. Oxygen levels were 5ppm at the surface but only 3ppm 6-10
feet deep. The affected area was fairly small and really only impacted the mouth
of the Grand River Arm up to the Hwy 7 bridge. Oxygen levels were higher 14
miles above the mouth and at Bucksaw, although oxygen levels dropped quickly
with depth at Bucksaw. There was a substantial planktonic algae bloom in the
affected area, but not in other parts of the lake we visited. We also took oxygen
levels in the mouth of the Osage Arm and water clarity was strikingly different
and oxygen levels were 2ppm higher overall."
• Truman Reservoir - September 11, 2017 Fish Kill from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet,
Low D.O./Algal Bloom:
"... received a phone call... on 9/11/2017 about a very large fish kill (thousands of
shad) at G10...responded on site on the 11th and confirmed a kill of shad resulting
from low dissolved oxygen at night due to an algal bloom. Dead fish were
observed from G10 to G14 on the Grand River Arm...We received concern from a
member of the public about a fish kill upstream of Long Shoal near lake mile
marker G10. We investigated by boat today. We found many dead shad spread
out sporadically. No other species of dead fish were observed. Some fish appeared
fresher than others and we did see a few shad surface. We also noticed brown
streaks in the water but nothing as drastic as images...that were supplied to us by
the public."
Jackrabbit Lake
There are two entries of interest provided below for Jackrabbit Lake in the MDC fish kill
spreadsheet. Figure 4 has locations of fish kills that occurred at Jackrabbit Lake.
• Jackrabbit Lake - August 2015 Fish Kill from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet:
"We had a fish kill of around 200 at Jackrabbit Lake last week. This included
hybrid stripers, largemouth bass and some big sunfish. This kill was most likely
due to high pH around (10) which in turn cause the ammonia levels to become
toxic to some fish. These conditions were brought on by the large blooms of algae
that are occurring on the area this year. So far it has not effected any of the other
lakes. Please report to me if anyone sees or reports additional fish deaths at this
lake or any others. This small kill should not have any effect on the quality of
fishing at Jackrabbit. pH of 11 on Saturday."
13
-------
• Jackrabbit Lake - May 2017 Fish Kill from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet, as well as
additional endpoint impairments for 2017:
"We have about 150-200 large Redear and Bluegill dead at Jackrabbit lake. With
the combination of up and down water temp, and spawning going on these deaths
are most likely due to natural causes, (stress and disease)...There were 150-200
large Redear sunfish and Bluegill dead. The cause is weather related and believed
to be a result of shifting temperatures combined with the ongoing spawning
(stress and disease)."
Lake of the Ozarks
The following are entries of interest concerning Lake of the Ozarks in the MDC fish kill
spreadsheet. Figure 2 shows the locations and color codes the known causes of fish kills. The
EPA is providing this graphic for additional clarity for the public. Figure 5 also has locations of
all fish kills that occurred at Lake of the Ozarks.
• Lake of the Ozarks - June 2016 Fish Kill from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet
"The spill line was contacted at 1230 hours...about a fish kill in the Gravois Arm
of the Lake of the Ozarks near Sheldon Point...indicated that there were over 100
dead fish floating and that most were small...confirmed that the reported fish kill
yesterday was in the Gravois Arm of Lake of the Ozarks in Morgan County. One
caller reported that the fish had been dying for a few days, and initially only small
fish were dying.. .received two calls from the public yesterday...Everything else
was pretty far gone...estimate 70% drum, 25% catfish (primarily channel and
nothing over 22"), and a few crappie, black bass and other species."
• Lake of the Ozarks - June 2017 Fish Kill from the MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet
"This fish kill started in mid-June and lasted until late June. It was originally
reported by the public to our Camdenton Office. Questions from the public
included concerns about consuming infected fish, requests to remove dead
odorous carcasses, and questions about potential linkages to the Truman Dam
paddlefish kills that were continuous throughout May in the upper miles of Lake
of the Ozarks. The ultimate cause of the fish kill was hypoxia. Naturally warm
summer conditions reduced available oxygen for fish in layers of water that had
suitable temperatures and the surface layer of the lake was too warm for fish to
survive. This is textbook temperature oxygen squeeze. Surviving fish in these
conditions were isolated to a small portion of the watershed and became crowded.
These are very stressful conditions for the fish which ultimately led to secondary
bacterial infections." Occurred on MM 49, 50.
• Lake of the Ozarks - June 2018 Fish Kill from MDC Fish Kill Spreadsheet
"Between 6/7/2018 and 6/14/2018, multiple calls from the public suggested an
ongoing fish kill on the Gravois and Grand Glaize arms of Lake of the Ozarks.
Callers reported seeing over 100 dead fish, including flathead catfish, channel
catfish, crappie, and freshwater drum...suggested that high water temperatures and
14
-------
low dissolved oxygen were likely culprits for this event... Another fish kill near
mile marker 2 (Osage channel) on LOTO... Reports 820 dead drum and a few
dead catfish. Kill started June 26th. Says buffalo and carp are 'feeding shallow'.
Says it's a smelly situation.
In MoDNR's December 2017 Rationale for Missouri Lake Nutrient Criteria Development it
states:
"Lakes that exceed regional NSTs [Nutrient Screening Threshold's] but are below the
regional response impairment thresholds will be checked against MDC's fish kill
database to determine if a kill event related to eutrophication has occurred within the last
ten years. A "small kill' event is defined as involving less than 100 fish, while a "large
kill" is one that involves a greater number of fish or a larger area of impact (MDC 2014).
It is recommended that a single 'small kill' event (defined here as the death of <100
vertebrate aquatic organisms such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, etc.) should not be
sufficient to be considered an impairment. A reoccurrence of 'small kill' events
associated with eutrophi cation (2 or more within 10 years) however, would be considered
evidence of impairment. A 'large kill' event (>100 vertebrate organisms) would only be
considered as evidence of an impairment if the area affected was greater than 10 percent
of the waterbody area; multiple 'large kill' events that occur within a 10 year period
would be considered an impairment regardless of area affected during the individual
events."
Some comments discounted or minimized the fish kills at Lake of the Ozarks. Of note, at the
time of the fish kills, the local media interviewed MDC officials who corroborated the events
memorialized in the fish kill database and stated to the public that they believed the fish kills to
be caused by nutrients.
The fish kills were not small or seemingly random events, and they lasted over weeks. In
addition to meeting response assessment endpoint of 2 fish kills in 3 years, and 2 fish kills in ten
years set forth in Missouri's Numeric Nutrient Criteria and the LMD, there were also over a
hundred fish killed. While no exact measurement of area impacted was provided, it is also
possible that fish kills occurred over 10% of the lake based on the descriptions of the fish kill
events.
The following article from Lake Expo June 29, 2018 has additional corroborating information:
https://www.lakeexpo.com/boating/fishing hunting/dead-fish-at-lake-of-the-ozarks-here-s-
what/article 2657e894-7a28-l Ie8-badb-732f582098aa.html. The following is an excerpt from
this article.
"The lack of rain up until recently means nutrients that are normally flushed out of the
Lake through the dam have been building up in the water. In shallow waters, the water
heats up quickly, and when that combines with a high nutrient content, it fosters the
perfect place for algae to grow. " said Craig Gemming, Fisheries Regional Supervisor for
Missouri Department of Conservation."
15
-------
The Lake Expo Article references four fish kills in between June 10 and June 24, 2018:
1. Lower Glaize Arm beginning June 10;
2. A short time later, a larger die off showed up in the Gravois Arm;
3. A third die off also occurred between the 60-70-mile markers but was smaller and only
seemed to affect young shad; and
4. A fourth fish kill was reported by neighbors at the 1 Mile Marker around June 24.
The following is an excerpt from a Lake News online article from June 22, 2018:
(see, https://www.lakenewsonline.eom/news/20180622/hot-spring-leads-to-green-lake-water-
then-fish-kill ).
"On Wednesday, Greg Stoner confirmed reports of a fish kill on Lake of the Ozarks.
Stoner is the Missouri Department of Conservation Fisheries Management Biologist for
the Lake.
According to Stoner, the kill appears to be restricted to the lower Gravois and Glaize
arms, and is due to low dissolved oxygen in the water. He attributed the water conditions
to high water temperatures which, before the rain, were approaching 90 degrees.
Non-toxic algal blooms contributed to the fish kill. When a large volume of algae dies
off, it causes the dissolved oxygen to dive, Stoner explained.
Anyone concerned about swimming safety might want to avoid areas of water where
there are large volumes of dead fish, but other than that the water is fine. It's not a
pollution issue, he said.
The early-season heat appears to be behind reports in the last week of two of the Lake of
the Ozarks looking a little more green than usual.
High temperatures, lots of light and little rain along with plenty of nutrients in the water
may be causing algal blooms, but that doesn't mean they are toxic blooms.
According to Stoner, algal blooms on the lower Gravois are fairly common each year
during the summer."
Not only was MDC documenting the fish kills, MDC provided information to the public through
the local media attributing the fish kills to nutrients and hypoxia. The Spring/Summer 2019
edition of the Ameren newsletter Lake News and Shoreline Views, had this quote from Greg
Stoner, who was with MDC at the time. Below is an excerpt:
"But temperature alone is not always the cause of low D.O. Many times, other biological
processes going on at the same time can drive D.O. levels lower than what we would
expect based only on water temperature. A good example of this occurred in June of 2018
producing fish kills on the Glaize, Gravois, and Lower Osage Arms. We were
experiencing a dry spell with very little inflow entering the lake. As a result, the water
was very clear which allowed for greater than normal growth of tiny plant-like organisms
called algae. Algae is important to the ecology of the lake. It provides food for
16
-------
microscopic animals called zooplankton which in turn support the food chain all the way
up to the largest sportfish. But with algae, like most things in life, you can get too much
of a good thing. Living algae produces oxygen during the day just like plants through a
process called photosynthesis. However, when algae dies, the decomposition process uses
a great deal of oxygen. In this case, the combination of high water temperatures and an
algae die-off resulted in a fish kill." There were also fish kills that the EPA did not
consider as related to the nutrient criteria such as those caused by dam operation, blunt
force trauma, or during freezing temperatures. However, it is important to note that algal
blooms can occur during any month of the year and with changing climate, algal-bloom-
caused fish kills may become more common and fall outside the typical months of May
through October. Concerning the concept of natural disease of fish, some fish diseases
are closely associated with stresses due to anoxia. There may be additional fish kills that
occurred at Lake of the Ozarks where low oxygen conditions caused fish diseases to
flourish."
Oxygen levels in lakes follow diurnal trends with the lowest levels occurring in early mornings.
One caution, an overnight low D.O. event could cause a fish kill but may show normal D.O.
levels later the next day. This could be especially true on a lake with a lot of boat traffic like
Lake of the Ozarks, where mixing of the water may mask the underlying causes of a fish kill.
In addition to exceeding Missouri's recently adopted numeric nutrient water quality standards,
the existing general narrative criteria at 10 CSR 20-7.031(4), was also violated in the Lake of the
Ozarks. This narrative criteria states:
"Waters shall be free from substances or conditions in sufficient amounts to result in
toxicity to human, animal, or aquatic life."
There is sufficient toxicity in the Lake of the Ozarks to cause fish to die, frequently and in large
numbers, evidencing that the narrative criteria are also not being met.
These following general narrative criteria may also be implicated, in some cases, by high nutrient
levels:
• "Waters shall be free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause the formation
of putrescent, unsightly or harmful bottom deposits or prevent full maintenance of
beneficial uses."
• Waters shall be free from oil, scum, and floating debris in sufficient amounts to be
unsightly or prevent full maintenance of beneficial uses.
• Waters shall be free from substances in sufficient amounts to cause unsightly
color or turbidity, offensive odor or prevent full maintenance of beneficial uses.
• There shall be no significant human health hazard from incidental contact with the
water.
• There shall be no acute toxicity to livestock or wildlife watering.
• Waters shall be free from physical, chemical, or hydrologic changes that would
impair the natural biological community."
17
-------
An exceedance of any narrative water quality criteria is sufficient to list a waterbody as impaired,
independently of any separate violation of the numeric nutrient or Chl-a concentration criteria.
Finally, a comment requested that MoDNR and MDC involve stakeholders and the EPA in
future discussions about fish kills (Comment #53). The EPA notes the comment and reiterates
that all public notice requirements were met or exceeded but is open to participating in future
discussions.
F. Nutrient Trends
A comment stated that temporal nutrient trends in the Lake of the Ozarks are stable or potentially
decreasing and MoDNR has properly considered all appropriate data (Comment #1).
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees that trends in Lake of the Ozarks are stable or decreasing.
MoDNR provided a trends analysis in their 2020 305(b) report showing that Lake of the Ozarks
would be impaired in 2020, documenting that there is not a decreasing trend. The EPA
conducted a trends analysis with the full data set that also showed a trend towards increasing
impairment. The comment provided its own trends analysis, however, the commentor did not use
the full data set and did not use the trends analysis methodology described in the MoDNR LMD.
G. Ideas to Address Pollution at Lake of the Ozarks
One comment provided suggestions on how to address pollution at Lake of the Ozarks. The
comment included references to the presence of wastewater in the Lake of the Ozarks and the
need to test septic systems, impose fines, having lake-wide city sewage, free leaf/grounds waste
pick up and free recycling, and requiring waterfront bars to use paper versus Styrofoam or plastic
(Comment #6).
Response
These potential solutions may be viable options that could be considered as part of future TMDL
development or practices in the watershed to improve water quality. The EPA reminds the public
that any Clean Water Act violation (e.g., discharges from a point source) may be reported to the
MoDNR and/or the EPA:
• To report a pollutant spill and/or release in Missouri, call the 24-hour EPA Region 7
Emergency Response Line at 913-281-0991
• To report a harmful algal bloom with MoDNR: https://dnr.mo.gov/water/hows-
water/pollutants-sources/cvanobacteria-harmful-algal-blooms-blue-green-algae/report-
algal-bloom
• Call MoDNR's Environmental Response Spill Line at 573-634-2436
• Call MoDHSS' Public Health Emergency 24/7 Hotline at 1-800-392-0272
H. Fishing at Lake of the Ozarks
18
-------
Two comments stated that fishing at Lake of the Ozarks is the best anywhere or best in the
country (Comments #10, 13). Another comment provided information on the fish they have
caught and health of the lake and that they swim in the lake (Comment #78).
Response
As stated previously, the numeric nutrient criteria were derived based on trophic status ranges by
ecoregion. The richest diversity index from each ecoregion was used as the target for the trophic
status based on a corresponding range of chlorophyll-a. The criteria were derived by finding the
level of algal growth that promotes sustainable biotic diversity by being neither a limiting factor
from its scarcity nor a limiting factor from its obstructive presence in large quantities. High
nutrient levels may increase the number of some species, however these same nutrients under the
same conditions can also cause fish to die. Fish kills at the lake have been documented by MDC
and were considered in the listing decision. Listing the Lake of the Ozarks provides the
opportunity for plans and practices to be put in place to address the aquatic life use impairment
and in effect to help maintain Lake of the Ozarks sport fishing.
I. Using Additional Monitoring Points (Sites)
Some comments stated that the EPA used additional monitoring points to assess impairment
(Comments #1, 50, 51).
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees. To assess the additional 40 lakes, the EPA used the data at the
point that is nearest the lake dam, which was consistent with the MoDNR approach. The EPA
included additional information about the other points, when available, to further emphasize that
the impairment was broader than just the one point and further supported the decision, but not
required for the decision. In other words, the listing was supported regardless of the additional
data.
Moreover, the recently the EPA-approved Missouri nutrient water quality criteria provide for use
of all applicable data. The implementing regulations at 40 CFR 130.7(b) require that all data be
used in future listing decisions consistent with the Missouri criteria unless there is a reasonable
technical rationale for not doing so.
Most lakes in Missouri have only one monitoring site located near the dam. However, the EPA
provides the following additional data evaluated for Lake of the Ozarks (the points generally
follow the mile markers at the lake, for example Point 13 is at mile marker 13):
• Every monitoring point's results (using the geometric mean of at least four samples
between May 1 and September, for each of the most recent three years of data) exceeded
the Chl-a screening criteria of 6 |ig/L and many of the points exceeded the impairment
threshold of 15 |ig/L.
19
-------
• In 2017, the seasonal geometric mean for Chl-a for each of all ten of the points with data
exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L.
• Point 13, exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L in 2015 and 2017.
• Point 31.1 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L in 2016 and 2017.
• Point 4.10 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L in 2017 and 2018, and was
close to exceeding in 2016 at 14.91 |ig/L.
• Point 4.15 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L all three years 2012-2014.
• Point 4.2 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L in 2013 and 2014 and has not
been monitored since 2014.
• Point 2.5, and 21 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L at least once in the last
three most recent years of data and were very close to exceeding 2 out of 3 years.
• Point 39 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L from 2012-2014 and has not been
monitored since 2014. In 2013 the Chl-a geometric mean was over 37 |ig/L which would
also exceed the Plains ecoregion criteria.
• Point 51 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L from 2016-2018.
• Point 59 exceeded the impairment threshold 2012-2014 and has not been monitored since
2014. In 2012, the Chl-a geometric mean was nearly 33 |ig/L which would also exceed
the Plains ecoregion criteria.
• Point 61 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L in 2016 and 2017.
• Point LN3 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L from 2012-2014 and has not
been monitored since 2014.
• Point LN5 exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L in 2012 and 2013 and has not
been monitored since 2013.
• Lake of the Ozarks Villas Point exceeded the impairment threshold of 15 |ig/L in 2004
and has not been monitored since.
• For total nitrogen and total phosphorus most points' yearly geometric means (from data
May-September) have been above the screening threshold. A trends analysis of data since
2000 shows that there is an upward trend for Chl-a, TN, and TP for Lake of the Ozarks.
J. Considerations of Data Quality
Some comments stated that the EPA did not consider data quality (Comments #1, 48, 57).
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees. In identification and assessment of the impaired waters, the
EPA, consistent with and pursuant to CWA regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(5), used the
existing and readily available data. The data used includes data originating from University of
Missouri related programs, including the Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Monitoring Program
(LMVP) and the Statewide Lake Assessment Program (SLAP). Additionally, the EPA used fish
kill information from the Missouri Department of Conservation. The EPA has no data quality
concerns.
K. Considerations of Data Age
20
-------
Some comments stated that the EPA should not use data older than seven years (Comments #1,
48, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57). Comment #52 referred to Comment #51's letter stating Comment #51's
letter clarified that all the existing and readily available water quality-related data had been
assembled. One comment stated that the data used may not accurately reflect the current
conditions of the waterbodies and provided a list of 14 water bodies. These bodies of water
include Cameron #1 Lake, Gopher Lake, Happy Holler Lake, Indian Hills Lake, Jamesport
Community Lake, Lake Nell, Lake Winnebago, Macon Lake, Montrose Lake, Peaceful Valley
Lake, Prairie Lake, Sterling Price Community Lake, Thomas Hill Reservoir and Unionville
Reservoir (Comment #53). Another comment also mentioned specific lakes: Cameron #1
(Century) Lake, Macon Lake, Thomas Hill Reservoir, Unionville Reservoir (Lake Mahoney),
and requested the EPA to reconsider including those lakes on the list due to the EPA using data
older than seven years, and alternatively recommended these lakes be placed in Category 2 or 3
(Comment #56).
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees. The CWA Section 303(d) implementing regulations at 40
C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(5), requires that: "Each State shall assemble and evaluate all existing and
readily available water quality-related data and information to develop the list... "
Along with the Section 303(d) List, a state must submit,: (1) "[a] description of the methodology
used to develop the list"; (2) "[a] description of the data and information used to identify waters";
(3) "[a] rationale for any decision not to use any existing and readily available data and
information" for certain categories of water; and (4) "[a]ny other reasonable information
requested by the Regional Administrator." 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6)
While Missouri explained that it did not use data beyond its 7-year cut-off, it failed to provide a
valid technical or science-based rationale consistent with 40 CFR 130.7(b)(6)(iii) as to why the
data should not be "used" to assess whether a waterbody is impaired. The EPA discussed with
MoDNR the regulatory requirements and concern with the cut-off date before its official
submittal. MoDNR confirmed it was only data age and no other technical or scientifically valid
reason for not using older data. The 7-year data cut-off included in Missouri's LMD and the
LMD in general is not reviewed and approved by the EPA for CWA purposes, and therefore, is
not a part of the EPA approved water quality standards. In this instance, data cut-off is especially
concerning given the nutrient criteria were developed with long term data, not just the most
recent seven years of data.
L. Request for Additional Data and Time Extensions
Two comments requested that the EPA provide the additional data that was used (Comments #3,
54). One comment requested additional time to review the data and a 30-day extension
(Comment #54). Two comments requested to extend the public comment period for at least an
additional 60 days (Comments #55, 59).
Response
21
-------
The EPA previously responded to these commenters and provided the data as requested. On
December 22, 2020 the EPA uploaded a list of data sources used for the EPA's Decision to
Partially Disapprove and Identify 40 Waters for Inclusion on Missouri's 2020 303(d) List to our
public notice web site https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-12/documents/mo-2020-
303d-list-data-sources.pdf. The EPA also extended the public notice to March 22, 2021 to allow
additional time for the review of the data sources. The EPA also received late comments which
are included in the attached comments (Comments #88, 89, 90). While the EPA did not consider
the late comments in the decision, they are similar in nature to other comments that were
received on time and should be addressed in substance by the responses in this document.
M. Comments Supporting Comments from other Entities
Three comments referenced support for MoDNR's comments (Comments #4, 52, 57). Two
comments referenced support for Ameren's comments (Comments #40, 41). One comment
provided historical supporting historical background from agriculture, industry and municipal
stakeholder groups during the nutrient criteria development and support for MoDNR and the
Missouri Clean Water Commission (Comment #57).
Response
The EPA has responded comprehensively in this response to comments to every organization or
individual that submitted a comment by the deadline. The comment numbers and associated
entities are listed in Appendix B.
N. Truman Lake and Lake of the Ozarks
One comment expressed concern that the impacts of Truman Lake on Lake of the Ozarks has not
been properly evaluated or considered (Comment #4). Another comment provided ideas on
potential impacts of Truman Lake on causes of Lake of the Ozarks water quality issues
(Comment #42). One comment provided a nutrient loading analysis showing interaction between
the lakes (Comment #51).
Response
The interactions between the lakes have been understood for decades and were considered by
MoDNR in its development of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria. In MoDNR's response to
comments for the numeric nutrient water quality standards rulemaking process, it provided the
following response to a citizen who commented that it does not make sense for Truman Lake to
have less stringent nutrient criteria than Lake of the Ozarks since Truman Lake feeds into Lake
of the Ozarks:
"The proposed numeric nutrient criteria represent the desired condition for a water body
that is necessary to protect the applicable designated uses assigned in rule. Because of
differences in watershed topography, soils, and geology, nutrient criteria for lakes are
determined by the use of four major ecoregions based upon the dominant watershed
ecoregion. Using this approach, the dominant watershed ecoregion potentially
22
-------
contributing nutrient loading to Truman Lake is the Plains Ecoregion. Because of the
impoundment of Truman Lake, the dominant watershed contributions to Lake of the
Ozarks would result from within the Ozark Highlands making that ecoregion's values the
applicable nutrient criteria for Lake of the Ozarks. Although water from Truman Lake
does eventually discharge into Lake of the Ozarks, some settling and nutrient attenuation
is expected. Additionally, because the criteria are expressed as geometric means, any
individual measurements greater than the numeric criteria values do not in and of
themselves indicate an excursion of water quality standards. Further protection of Lake of
the Ozarks will be implemented as a result of added general criteria at 10 CSR 20-
7.031(4)(E), which requires that waters shall maintain a level of water quality at their
confluences to downstream waters that provides for attainment and maintenance of the
water quality standards of those downstream waters."
The nutrient loading analysis provided by comment #51 used multiple monitoring points to
describe the nutrient loads. The use of all the monitoring points data further indicates the
impairment of both Truman Lake and the Lake of the Ozarks. The EPA has provided additional
information on all of the Lake of the Ozarks monitoring points in this document. In a future
rulemaking, when looking to be protective of the Lake of the Ozarks, the impairment threshold
of Truman Reservoir may need to be made more stringent to consider downstream uses. As part
of TMDL development, waste load allocations that take into account the interactions between the
lakes are likely needed. Non-point source prevention practices in the Truman watershed will
benefit both lakes.
O. Algal Blooms
Comment states algal blooms occurring (Commentor #51):
"Three of the fish kills EPA cites (occurring in 2014 and 2015) on Truman Reservoir
were not actually fish kills, but reported algal blooms. MDC's database also captures
some algal bloom events. While this information is concerning, it was not accompanied
with dissolved oxygen, pH, or algal toxin measurements. Algal blooms themselves are not
one of the Response Assessment Endpoints and, therefore, EPA should not use these
events in their decision on Truman Reservoir. "
Response
The EPA is very concerned about harmful algal blooms. To better understand algal blooms that
occurred from 2016-2018 the EPA reviewed satellite data from the CyAN project. More
information about CyAN is available here: https://www.epa.gov/water-research/cvanobacteria-
assessment-network-cvan. Multiple times during the months of May through September in the
years 2016-2018 CyAN images showed approximate cyanobacteria biomass of over 100,000
cells/ml occurred at Truman Reservoir and Lake of the Ozarks. Figure 6. in Section W includes
three CyAN images of Truman Reservoir and Lake of the Ozarks. The statement that Algal
blooms themselves are not one of the response assessment endpoints is factually incorrect.
Cyanobacteria more than 100,000 cells/ml are one of the response assessment endpoints and
specifically described in the State's criteria at 10 CSR 20-7.031 (4)(N)(6)(C).
23
-------
Further, the frequency and extent of blooms visible by CyAN can provide additional information
than what can be captured at fixed monitoring points that are potentially only visited four times
per year.
P. Use of Category 2 and 3 of the Integrated Report
Comments suggest that Categories 2 and 3 could be used for additional lakes listed by the EPA
(Comments #1, 4, 48, 50, 51, 56, 57). Category 2 is for waterbodies where available data indicate
that some, but not all, designated uses are fully attained. Category 3 is for waterbodies where
there are insufficient data and/or information to assess any designated uses.
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees. The CWA Section 303(d) implementing regulations at 40
C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(5) require that: "Each State shall assemble and evaluate all existing and readily
available water quality-related data and information to develop the list... " The existing and
readily available data shows impairment of the 40 lakes, that Categories 2 and 3 are not
applicable, and not listing these lakes for the 2020 listing cycle would be inconsistent with the
CWA. The discussion above in Section K on data age also provides additional information.
Comments #48 and #51 provided a list of sampling schedule and planned sampling, the data
from this sampling can be used to assess the lakes in future Integrated Report cycles.
Q. Comments on what Nutrient Level was Used
Comment asked if the EPA used a more restrictive nutrient level then MoDNR for phosphorus
and nitrogen (Comment #11).
Response
Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA and its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 130.7,
EPA used the approved Missouri water quality standards. Additional detail on the process used is
provided in the decision document and elsewhere in this response to comments.
R. Waterbodies or issues not included as part of Public Notice
Commenters referenced other water bodies that they were concerned about or had questions
about that were not included in the list of 40 lakes in the EPA's Public Notice (Comments #11,
44). Two comments mentioned other MoDNR actions or other state's regulatory actions of
concern that were not part of the EPA's public notice concerning the addition of 40 lakes to the
Missouri 2020 303(d) list (Comments #72, 77).
Response
The EPA addressed these other waters bodies in the partial approval of the Missouri 2020
impaired waters list. The purpose of the EPA's public notice was for the public to be aware of
24
-------
and to comment on the EPA's decision to add certain water bodies that are not meeting the
approved Missouri water quality standards. We encourage citizens to review and comment on the
Missouri 2022 303(d) list during the state's public notice time frame and provide any applicable
data during the state's request for data. The comments on water bodies not included in the EPA's
public notice are also being provided to MoDNR. We recommend that MoDNR review the
comments and the EPA's response to comments in advance of preparation of the 2022 IR and
303(d) list.
S. Data not available at time of MoDNR assessment
Some commenters expressed concern about the EPA using data that was not available at time of
MoDNR's assessment (Comments #50, 51, 57). Comment #52 referred to Comment #51' s letter
and made a statement that the documentation presented by MDNR in support of the proposed
modifications clarifies that all existing and readily available water quality-related data and
information have been assembled and evaluated as required by the federal Clean Water Act.
Response
The EPA respectfully disagrees. The data was available or should have been available to
MoDNR at the time of MoDNR's assessment. Moreover, the data reviewed by the EPA was
collected by the University of Missouri Limnology lab through grants from MoDNR. The
University provides data to MoDNR at the end of every year that the data was collected.
Therefore, MoDNR had, or should have had, all the same data the EPA used within the data time
frame for the 2020 IR cycle.
While nearly all of MoDNR's lake data may be accessed via MoDNR's website, a more publicly
accessible and more complete dataset may be found here:
https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/86d8dl76e91410566b4de51df44c2624
Through the review of the data set the EPA found that an entire year of data that was collected in
2013 had not yet been added to the MoDNR assessment database. The EPA evaluated the data
and determined additional lakes were impaired. All data that was used by the EPA was collected
during the data time frame for the assessment (May 1 through September 30 for each year). The
MDC fish kill information was available to MoDNR, is also published annually, and publicly
available.
We encourage MoDNR and data providers to continue to work on improving processes that
allow for correct and timely assessment of Missouri waters.
T. Socioeconomic Impacts
Some commenters are concerned about socioeconomic impact of listing Lake of the Ozarks
and/or Truman Reservoir (Comments #48, 57, 73). One commenter is concerned about
burdensome impacts to their member communities (Comment #55).
Response
25
-------
It is important to note that the listing of the Lake of the Ozarks and Truman Reservoir is based
on an impairment to the Missouri aquatic life use, which is a water quality data driven decision,
and is independent of socioeconomic impacts. It is the EPA's expectation that implementation
of this CWA process will help ensure that these lakes sustain the aquatic life use that is valuable
to Missouri citizens (as well as visitors from other states).
U. Use of Response Endpoints
A commenter suggested that the response endpoints for City of Milan Lake (North) should not
be used and provided an analysis of pH and dissolved oxygen data (Comment #56).
Response
While the commenter provided a subset of data to make their conclusion, the data did not support
a change to the EPA's inclusion of Milan Lake to Missouri's 303(d) List. The University of
Missouri Limnology Lab has been collecting data and training data collectors for decades.
Additionally, the Lab and MoDNR were contributors for a recent Nature journal article: Jane,
S.F., Hansen, G.J. A., Kraemer, B.M. et al. Widespread deoxygenation of temperate lakes.
Nature 594, 66-70 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-0355Q-v. The EPA relied on the
Lab's data based on their experience and expertise. Furthermore, the Lab's data was the
underlying data used for MoDNR's numeric nutrient criteria. The EPA encourages MoDNR to
carefully evaluate City of Milan Lake (North) data appropriateness as part of the 2022 IR cycle,
as well as all data provided by the MU Limnology Lab. We also encourage MoDNR to evaluate
all data carefully and work with data providers to assure that quality assurance and data
collection processes are being followed correctly and provided to MoDNR in a timely and usable
form.
V. The EPA Over-Listing Waters
One comment was unaware of previous time that the EPA has listed new waterbodies as
impaired after the Department finalized the State's list (Comment #57).
Response
Consistent with the CWA, the EPA's must approve or disapprove state submitted 303(d) lists. If
the EPA disapproves a state's list, Section 303(d)(2) requires it to identify any additional
waterbodies that should have been included. The EPA Region 7 has partially disapproved
Missouri's list previously and added additional waters as recently as the 2016 Missouri 303(d)
list. Additionally, the EPA has added waters to other states' lists in other of the EPA regions.
Such listings are not unusual or unprecedented.
W. Figures
Figures referenced in response to comments:
• Figure 1. Missouri Ecoregional Numeric Nutrient Criteria Decision Framework
• Figure 2. Fish kills at Lake of the Ozarks, color coded by cause
26
-------
Figure 3. Fish kills at Harry S. Truman Reservoir
Figure 4. Fish kills at Jackrabbit Lake
Figure 5. Fish kills at Lake of the Ozarks
Figure 6. Three CyAN images of Harry S. Truman Reservoir and Lake of the
Ozarks for selected dates in 2016, 2017, and 2018.
27
-------
Collect Water Quality Data -
C'hlorophyll-a. TP. and TN. Collect and compile
data on Response Assessment Endpoints.
Clilorophyll-a geometric mean
exceeds Response Impairment
Threshold?
Yes
Category 5, 5 Alt., or 4B
(Impaired)
No
Yes
Clilorophyll-a. TN, or TP exceed
Nutrient Screening Threshold?
No
Evaluate Response Assessment Endpoints - Look at
DO Temperature. pH profiles. Light Limitations.
Secchi Depths. Reported Fish Kills. C'yanobacteria
Counts. Algal Toxin results, Biological Community
data.*
Have Response Assessment Endpoints
occurred, indicating additional data collection
is needed to evaluate eutrophicaticm?
Yes
No
Have Response Assessment Endpoints
occurred and Indicate Impairment1
No
Yes
Category 1 Waters
TN - Total Nitrogen
TP - Total Phosphorus
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
Water Placed in Category 2 or 3
Additional water quality and biological monitoring data is
collected
Figure 1: Image of flowchart for the Missouri Ecoregional Numeric Nutrient Criteria
Decision Framework based on the Bioconfirmation Approach from the Missouri List-
ing Methodology (labeled Figure 3. in MoDNR document).
-------
©
Legend
Fish Kills in Missouri
©
LOTO_Fish_Kills
Disease
Natural Kill/spawning
freezing weather
hypoxia
infection likely
likely blunt force trauma
likely low DO or temperature stress
low DO/high temp (suspected)
silt
turbine entrainment
Other
\
/¦ /
v ' J
o
©
ci
o
O
o®
I I
Lake Ozark
i o
©
Osage Beach
Figure 2. Map showing location and causes of fish kills at Lake of the Ozarks listed in the M DC Spreadsheet.
-------
©
Clinton
• *
°o
B e nto
13
©
o® %
%
Warsaw
1013 ft
83
C «• r I ai, ^ XI 821
S t CI a i r \ 1—'
Figure 3. Locations of fish kills at Harry S. Truman Reservoir listed in the MDC spreadsheet.
-------
Figure 4. Locations of fish kills at Jackrabbit Lake listed in the MDC spreadsheet.
-------
N
y ' /
' / /V
\ /
\ /
©
[3
©
-.-"-J.
o
o o ©
Lake Ozark
i o
©
J! K
Osage Beach
Mi
o
~
G
Camden
Camdenton
©
O
/w-
Figure 5. Locations of fish kills at Lake of the Ozarks listed in the MDC spreadsheet.
-------
%
4 ......
•
¦HS^-vX
Eu irfim ^ u
¦t
s
' mm e~
J JN Mgadft]
V- * A IBI
jv/'V '"V
9
CyAN image from June 10-16, 2018 showing blooms in both Truman and Lake
of the Ozarks. Note the correlation with the June fish kill events occuring at
Lake of the Ozarks in the fish kill section of the document.
tm.
¦*' -
-I9E9I
f ¦
i
V ,.i
W&fc'.-O N
Dig WB ^
\-{'A *;
-1 ¦ •' ¦
-V ,»M
l*»|
•"r;t i
-*4 ' 1
wtl
¦?
>
&
"V
CyAN image from July 23-29, 2017 showing blooms in both Truman and Lake
of the Ozarks. Note the correlation with the August 1 entry in the fish kill sec-
tion of the document.
1
m
i •
&
I i
"V ^
K
H I W,L .
VI A S I J *1 I
. **» -,r<- »
^ ^ • * v ¦ •
>
&
' -V* " ^
V-"
CyAN Image from September 25-October 1, 2016 showing blooms in both Tru-
man and Lake of the Ozarks.
CyAN dn
Colorbar 255 No data; Black
254 Land; Brown
Cells/ml CI
-7,000,000¦ 253 0.0685488
• 1,600,000
- 400,000
200 0.0158489
150 0.0039811
100 0.001
50 0.0002512
-6,500 ¦ 1 0.0000065
Grey Bo Below Detect
CyAN DN
r255 No data; Black
Colorbar '
254 Land; Brown
Cells/ml CI
-7,000,000* 253 0.0685488
¦ 1,600,000
- 400,000
- 25,000
200 0.0158489
150 0.0039811
100 0.001
50 0.0002512
-6,500 ¦ 1 0.0000065
Grey ® 0 Below Detect
CyAN DN
Colorbar 255 No data; Black
254 Land; Brown
Cells/ml CI
- 7,000,000* 253 0.0685488
• 1,600,000
- 400,000
- 100,000
- 25,000
200 0.0158489
150 0.0039811
100 0.001
50 0.0002512
-6,500 ¦ 1 0.0000065
Grey H. o Below Detect
Figure 6. Three CyAN images of Harry S. Truman Reservoir and Lake of the Ozarks for dates in
2016, 2017, and 2018. For the CyAN colorbar, areas with no data, land, and cloud cover are flagged.
Grey color indicates below threshold of CI detection limits, brown color is land, black is no data
(e.g., a cloudy pixel), 1-253 is available data with colors blue through red, corresponding to an ap-
proximate cyanobacteria biomass.
-------
Table of Comments for Missouri
303(d) List of Impaired Waters
EPA Public Notice
Comment #
Commentor
Email Date
1
Ameren, Missouri
3/16/2021
2
Asbee,Joan
1/30/2021
3
Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies, Extension Request
12/15/2020
4
Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies
3/22/2021
5
Baker, Denise
2/10/2021
6
Boelens, Jacki
1/21/2021
7
Brunner, Linda, Comment 1
1/17/2021
8
Brunner, Linda, Comment 2
3/18/2021
9
Burgess, Antonia
3/18/2021
10
Butler, R
12/26/2020
11
Caraccio, Rob
12/9/2020
12
Cataiano, Peter
1/17/2021
13
Colliver, Gary
3/15/2021
14
Cooper, Nicole
1/19/2021
15
Dolson, Kathleen, Comment 1
1/15/2021
16
Dolson, Kathleen, Comment 2
2/5/2021
17
Draper. Haroid
3/18/2021
18
Duffy, C.E., Comment 1
1/15/2021
19
Duffy, C.E., Comment 2
3/18/2021
20
Dunn, Matthew
1/15/2021
21
ElderfalloutS
3/19/2021
22
Elwell, Tim
3/21/2021
23
Fedecker, D
1/17/2021
24
Fisher, Carol
2/11/2021
25
Fort, Garth F
3/18/2021
26
Frazier, Marisa
3/22/2021
27
Hansen, Nick
1/28/2021
28
Hegei, Robert
1/15/2021
29
Heisel, Edward J
3/18/2021
30
Hennkens, Terry
1/29/2021
31
Hess, Lori
12/23/2020
32
Hohl, Jeffrey
2/8/2021
33
Hughes, Pam
1/15/2021
34
Hunt, Ross
3/21/2021
35
Jost, Neil
3/22/2021
-------
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Commentor
Email Date
Katranides, Margaret
3/18/2021
Kellerman, Alii
1/15/2021
Koehler, Francine
3/18/2021
Kriege, Bill
1/15/2021
Lake Area Chamber of Commerce; Cloke, K.C.
3/18/2021
Lake of the Ozarks Council of Local Governments
3/22/2021
Larson, Les
2/8/2021
LeCorgne, Scott
3/18/2021
Light, Joe
2/5/2021
Lorenz, Paul
1/15/2021
McKee, Patrick
1/16/2021
Melies, Katie
3/18/2021
Missouri Clean Water Commission
3/18/2021
Missouri Coalition for the Environment and The Washington
University Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic
3/22/2021
Missouri Congressional Delegation, House of Representatives,
Congress of the United States
3/22/2021
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
3/16/2021
Missouri Agribusiness Association and Missouri Farm Bureau
3/22/2021
Missouri Municipal League, Policy and Membership Association.
3/22/2021
Missouri Public Utility Alliance, Data and Extension Request
3/22/2021
Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Public Utility
Alliance, Missouri Soybean Association
1/08/2021
Missouri Public Utility Alliance
3/22/2021
Missouri Corn Growers and Missouri Soybean Association
3/22/2021
Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition
3/19/2021
Missouri Water Environment Association
1/8/2021
Myers, Haley
1/25/2021
OReilly, Charlie
3/21/2021
Parks, Diane
2/9/2021
Payton, Renee
1/16/2021
Power, Brian
1/15/2021
Primm, Cathy
3/22/2021
Rainey, Steven
3/18/2021
Ribaudo, Ginny
Roper, Keith
Ruzicka, Ray
Sager, Tom
3/19/2021
3/18/2021
1/15/2021
3/18/2021
-------
Comment #
Commentor
Email Date
71
Scharenborg. Thomas
1/31/20121
72
Sierra Club, Missouri Chapter
3/22/2021
73
Steen, Darrick
3/20/2021
74
Stiffman, Jeffrey
1/16/2021
75
Thompson, James
2/3/2021
76
Troutman, Ashley
1/21/2021
77
Turner, Jim R
3/21/2021
78
Vogts, Melanie and Tim
12/21/2020
79
Warsaw, City Administrator arid Planner
2/10/2021
80
Washia, Rebecca
2/11/2021
81
Webster University, Student (Rabies, Briana)
3/18/2021
82
Wilkinson, Amy
2/18/2021
83
Wilkinson, Carol
3/5/2021
84
Witek, Paige
1/15/2021
85
Wulff, C.
1/16/2021
86
Wulff, S.
3/18/2021
87
Zimmerman, Paillette
2/6/2021
88
LATE SUBMITTAL, Cheong, Eileen
3/31/2021
89
LATE SUBMITTAL, Missouri Coalition of the Environment
3/31/2021
90
LATE SUBMITTAL, City of Osage Beach
3/30/2021
-------
Comment 1. Ameren Missouri
White, Pebby
From: Epplin, Julianne
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 9:49 AM
To: R7-WaterDivision
Cc: Witt, Warren A; Frerking, Matthew K; Greer, Jeff W; Lobbig, Michael O; Meyer, Todd D; Lynn, Kenneth
W; Giesmann, Craig J; Whitworth, Steven C; Hart, Travis M; Brown, Brad; Knowles, Susan B
Subject: Ameren Missouri Comments - EPA 303d
Attachments: Ameren Missouri Comments - EPA 303d for M0_03152021.pdf
Dear Mr. Robichaud,
Please see attached Ameren Missouri's comments regarding the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources' (MDNR or State) Clean Water Act (CWA) 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters as it may
apply to the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. Ameren Missouri owns and operates Bagnell Dam and
the Osage Hydroelectric Power Plant pursuant to the terms of a license issued by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). We believe that sufficient data does not warrant inclusion of the
Lake of the Ozarks as an
"impaired water" on the State's 2020 303(d) List.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Thank you.
Julianne
Please note I am working remotely and would appreciate any correspondence to be sent via e-mail.
JULIANNE EPPLIN, PMP, PWS, CE I
Ameren Missouri
Environmental Scientist; : C 314.941.2402
This communication and any attachments may be privileged and/or confidential and protected from disclosure, and are
otherwise the exclusive property of Ameren Corporation and its affiliates (Ameren) or the intended recipient. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. Note that any views or opinions presented in this message do not necessarily
represent those of Ameren. All e-mails are subject to Ameren policies. If you have received this in error, please notify
the sender immediately by replying to the message and deleting the material from any computer.
1
-------
Ameren
MISSO
March 15, 2021
Submitted via email to: R7-WaterDivision@epa.gov
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Mr. Jeffery Robichaud
Director, Water Division
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Re: Public Comment to the Missouri 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters under Clean Water
Act, Section 303(d): Lake of the Ozarks
Dear Mr. Robichaud,
Ameren Missouri (Ameren) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding the Missouri Department of Natural Resources'
(MDNR or State) Clean Water Act (CWA) 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters as it may apply to the
Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. Ameren Missouri owns and operates Bagnell Dam and the Osage
Hydroelectric Power Plant pursuant to the terms of a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Under the terms of its FERC license, Ameren Missouri implements a shoreline
management and permitting program and therefore is in a unique position to provide additional
information to the USEPA. We believe that sufficient data does not warrant inclusion of the Lake of
the Ozarks as an "impaired water" on the State's 2020 303(d) List.
Over the past two decades, Ameren has worked with stakeholders around the Lake of the Ozarks to
implement many beneficial projects designed to improve water quality, aquatic life, habitat, and
recreational opportunities for the public. Some of these important enhancements include installation
of state-of-the-art aerating turbines (supplying additional dissolved oxygen to the downstream aquatic
communities), installation of a high strength fish protection net in the front of Bagnell Dam to protect
paddlefish, and multiple fish and habitat enhancements throughout the lake. Ameren also developed
a comprehensive lake shoreline management plan and provided extensive support for the USEPA
approved 9-element watershed based plan for the first 20 miles of the Lake of the Ozarks.
On June 26, 2020, MDNR submitted its 2020 303(d) List to the USEPA proposing to list 481
waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs and delist 44 waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs. While
USEPA approved in large measure, MDNR's decisions, USEPA disapproved the State's decision not
to list 40 lake waterbodies for nutrient impairment. Instead, USEPA proposes to add 40 lake
waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs to the Missouri CWA Section 303(d) List and has solicited public
comment. The technical basis for USEPA's proposal is set forth in reports entitled: Data Sources
Used for Missouri 2020 303(d) List, Missouri Fish Kill Report 2014, Missouri Fish Kill Report 2015,
Missouri Fish Kill Report 2017, and Missouri Fish Kill Report 2018.
As a preliminary matter, USEPA assessed the Lake of the Ozarks against inappropriate ecoregional
numeric lake nutrient criteria. According to Appendix C of USEPA's Decision Document, the Lake of
1901 Chouteau Avenue
PO Box 66149
St. Louis, M0 63166-6149 : ArnerenMissouri.com
-------
03/15/2021 1:33:00 PM : Page 2 of 4
the Ozarks was assessed against the Ozark Highlands ecoregion numeric lake nutrient criteria.
According to USEPA's Decision, data supporting the USEPA's 303(d) listing included: "Exceeded
nutrient criteria in 2017, exceedance screening in 2016 and 2018, Eutrophication Factor A, multiple
fish kills have occurred. In 2018, June 14, 2018, low dissolved oxygen fish kill over 100 fish killed.
Also, additional monitoring points in lake are impaired." In addition, USEPA's decision to list Lake of
the Ozarks as impaired for nutrients is improper for the reasons set forth below.
1. USEPA assessed the Lake of the Ozarks against inappropriate ecoreqional numeric
lake nutrient criteria.
With respect to Missouri's lake nutrient criteria (10 CSR 20-7.031(5)(N)1) approved by USEPA in
2018, "due to differences in watershed topography, soils, and geology, nutrient criteria for lakes and
reservoirs will be determined by the use of four major ecoregions based upon dominant watershed
ecoregion." The four major ecoregions are Plains, Ozark Border, Ozark Highlands and Big River
Floodplain. While the Lake is physically located in the Ozark Highlands ecoregion, the dominant
watershed ecoregion is the Plains ecoregion (see Table 1). Jones et al. 2000 observed similar
seasonal nutrient patterns and nutrient responses to inflow and destratification in Mark Twain
Reservoir (Plains ecoregion) and the Lake of the Ozarks in the same time frame.
TABLE 1. Ecoregion Percentage of Waters
hed.
Lake of the Ozarks
Plains
Ozark Highlands
61%
39%
In addition, approximately 70% or more of the Lake of the Ozarks water originates from Truman
Reservoir, which is in the Plains ecoregion. Jones et al. (1988) noted the influence of Truman
Reservoir. They observed total phosphorus loading in the Lake of the Ozarks is decreasing and
algae (chlorophyll-a) is more productive because inorganic suspended solids are lower after Truman
Reservoir was constructed. Accordingly, the Lake of the Ozarks should be assessed against the
Plains ecoregional numeric lake nutrient criteria. When comparing the Lake of the Ozarks chlorophyll-
a data to the appropriate Plains ecoregional criteria, the Lake of the Ozarks does not exceed the
nutrient criteria impairment threshold in any of the last three years of data.
2. USEPA's reliance on an isolated fish kill that lack adequate water quality data is
inappropriate.
In assessing fish kill events, it is important to fully assess the cause and magnitude of such events.
As MDNR notes in Appendix F, 2018 Nutrient Criteria Implementation Strategy: "The MDNR will
review reports for information pertaining to the cause of death as well as the potential sources. Fish
populations can have seemingly random small die-offs related to disease, virus, or other natural
sources. More than one fish kill within ten years or one large (> 100 fish and covering more than ten
percent of the lake area) fish kill documented by dissolved oxygen excursions, pH, algal blooms or
the toxins associated with algal blooms will constitute evidence of impairment." Here, USEPA's
Decision appears to be based on a single fish kill event at the Lake of the Ozarks of 100 fish that
covers less than 10 percent of the lake area. Furthermore, this fish kill was only reported to the
Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) by a third party and not verified by MDC fish biologists.
The Missouri Fish Kill Report 2018 from the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) attributed
the fish kill event to low dissolved oxygen or temperature stress. However, according to the 2018
report and the summary spreadsheet developed by MDC, the extent of the fish kill (i.e., number of
fish) was not determined. Without documented field data (e.g., dissolved oxygen, water temperature,
-------
03/15/2021 1:33:00 PM : Page 3 of 4
pH, algal toxins, etc.) supporting the hypothesis that "likely low dissolved oxygen or temperature
stress" was the cause of the June 14, 2018 fish kill, the cause of the event is speculative. Because
the cause of the fish kill was not supported by adequate water quality data, this event should not be
used as evidence of Eutrophication Factor A.
3. Temporal nutrient trends in the Lake of the Ozarks are stable or potentially decreasing
and MDNR has properly considered all appropriate data.
Nutrient data collected each year at the nearest location to the outflow of the dam were compiled and
assessed to evaluate temporal trends. Nutrient data (total chlorophyll, total nitrogen and total
phosphorus) from 2007 to 2018 were assessed using the geometric mean of annual samples
collected between May 1 and September 30 (Table 2). (Chlorophyll-a was not consistently collected
between 2007 and 2018, therefore total chlorophyll was used.) A distribution free Mann-Kendall trend
test was used to assess the presence of a temporal monotonic trend upward or downward for
nutrients. Results of the trend test indicate total chlorophyll concentrations are stable while total
nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations are likely decreasing (Table 3). The results of the trend
analysis demonstrate water quality in Lake of the Ozarks has remained stable or is improving. The
occurrence of small fish kills is likely due to natural processes occurring in isolated areas of the lake.
TABLE 2. Lake of the Ozarks Annual (May 1 - September 30) Geometric Mean Nutrient Data. Data
sourced from the lake location nearest the outflow and are presented in micrograms per liter.
Total
Total
Total
Year
Chlorophyll
ug/L
Nitrogen
ug/L
Phosphorus
ug/L
2007
17.5
596
44
2008
11.4
614
33
2009
15.2
672
35
2010
18.4
579
33
2011
10.9
454
20
2012
12.3
523
17
2013
20.8
590
30
2014
10.1
381
15
2015
19.0
563
35
2016
11.6
430
18
2017
27.5
789
47
2018
7.2
444
15
TABLE 3. Mann-Kendal Nutrient Trend Results.
Analyte
Mann-Kendall
(S)
Probability
Confidence in
Trend
Trend
Total Chlorophyll
-2
0.473
0.527
Stable
Total Nitrogen
-20
0.096
0.904
Likely Decreasing
Total
Phosphorus
-21
0.084
0.916
Likely Decreasing
-------
03/15/2021 1:33:00 PM : Page 4 of 4
4. USEPA improperly used "additional monitoring points" to assess impairment.
USEPA's has improperly applied Missouri's numeric lake nutrient criteria to make the determination
that "additional monitoring points in lake are impaired". The USEPA approved the State's criteria
values and assessment criteria in 10 CSR 20-7.031 (5)(N)4...'W/ Total phosphorus total nitrogen and
chlorophyll-a concentrations must be calculated as the geometric mean of a minimum of four
representative samples per year for the purposes of comparison to lake ecoregion criteria thresholds.
All samples must be collected from the lake surface, near the outflow of the lake and during the
period of May 1 to September 30." The criterion clearly states impairments will be assessed "near the
outflow" and the use of data from additional monitoring locations is not consistent with the nutrient
criterion nor the Methodology for the Development of the 2020 Section 303(d) List in Missouri (LMD).
5. USEPA did not properly consider data quality and data age when adding 40 lake
waterbodv/pollutant impairment pairs to the State's 2020 303(d) List.
USEPA determined the State did not evaluate all readily available data or information for lakes with
chlorophyll-a impairments when developing its CWA Section 303(d) List. The State's LMD is updated
every two years following numerous publicly announced stakeholder meetings and input with specific
regards to data quality, data age and representativeness of data, and clearly outlines the State's
process for data considerations when making Section 303(d) decisions. The LMD states that while
more recent data are preferable, older (i.e. all available) data are used to assess present conditions if
the data remain representative of present conditions. For data older than seven years, the LMD
identifies the State will provide written justification for use of such data to make a Section 303(d)
listing. The LMD also indicates that if a waterbody has not been previously listed and all data
indicating an impairment are older than 7-years, the waterbody shall be placed into Category 2B or
Category 3B and given high priority for future monitoring. The State's LMD also outlines consideration
for the age of data relative to significant events (representativeness) that have an effect on water
quality (point source discharge, spill, reclamation, overflow elimination, etc.). This process mirrors that
of which the USEPA supported in its approval of 481 waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs in the
2020 303(d) List. USEPA should evaluate the placement of water bodies in Category 2B or Category
3B following the State's approved LMD.
In conclusion, Ameren Missouri requests that USEPA reconsider the placement of Lake of the Ozarks
on the 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Lake of the Ozarks is a popular recreational destination
for both Missouri residents and tourists. Enjoyment of the Lake, its nationally recognized sports
fishery, and the tourism industry it supports are vitally important to Ameren Missouri as well as the
State's economy.
Sincerely,
Steven C. Whitworth
Sr. Director, Environmental Policy & Analysis
Ameren Missouri
-------
Comment 2. Asbee, Joan
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Joan Asbee
>
Saturday, January 30, 2021 10:49 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Lake of Ozarks and Trumann lake
I support the EPA recommendation that both Lake of the Ozarks and Trumann Lake are impaired bodies of water and
should be listed as such. The contamination of these important bodies of water is threatening to many species of fish
and mammals and a health hazard to the general public that also greatly affects water downstream including the Osage
and Missouri river.
Please continue with efforts to monitor arid clean up these rivers,
Joan Asbee
1
-------
Comment 3. Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments;
Shields, Amy
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:31 AM
R7-WaterDivision
White, Debby; Daniels, Jason
FW: Missouri 2020 303(d) List - EPA Listing of Additional Lakes
AMCA Ltr - MO 2020 303d List 12.15.2020.pdf
551-
From: Michelle Ashworth
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 9:25 AM
To: Shields, Amy
Cc: Daniels, Jason
Subject: Missouri 2020 303(d) List - EPA Listing of Additional Lakes
Good Morning,
Please see the attached letter, submitted on behalf of the Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies, regarding EPA
Region 7's listing of additional Missouri lakes as impaired. As noted therein, please contact me with any questions.
Thank you,
Michelle Ashworth
Paralegal
At,-.. Law
(804) 716-9021 ext:222
w
1
-------
Comment 3. Attachment
AquaLaw
F. Paul Calamita
Paul@AquaLaw.com
December 15, 2020
By Email shields.amv@epa.aov
Ms. Amy Shields, Chief
Standards and Water Quality Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Re: Missouri's 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters
EPA's Listing of Additional Lakes
Dear Ms. Shields:
I am writing on behalf of the Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies
("AMCA") to request the water quality data used by the Region in listing 40 additional
Missouri lakes as impaired, beyond the listings included in the State's submitted 2020
Integrated Report. What we request are the data in addition to (and not including) the
data used by the State.
As you may know, AMCA is a statewide organization whose members include the
municipal owners and operators of Publicly Owned Treatment Works. The membership
includes a substantial fraction of the sewered population of Missouri. AMCA's mission is
the promotion of water quality through sound science, and effective resource
management.
AMCA's members are of course directly affected by decisions involving the listing
of impaired waters in Missouri.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to contact Michelle
Ashworth, Paralegal, at the number noted below (ext. 222) or mashworth@aaualaw.com
in regard to the format in which the requested data may be provided.
Sincerely,
F. Paul Calamita
Counsel to AMCA
Copy to: Mr. Jason Daniels, EPA Region 7 (daniels.iason@epa.aov)
AMCA Board of Directors
Ph: 804.716.9021
Fax: 804.716.9022
AquaLaw PLC • 6 South 5th Street • Richmond, Virginia • 23219
www.AquaLaw.com
-------
Comment 4. Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Good Morning,
On behalf of the Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies and its members, please accept the attached comments
on EPA Region 7's proposed additions to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' 2020 listing of impaired waters
under CWA § 303(d).
Thank you,
Michelle Ashworth
Paralegal
Law
www.AquaLaw.com
Michelle Ashworth <1
Monday, March 22, 2021 10:31 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Dick Sedgley; Paul Calamita
Comments on EPA Proposal to Add Waters to Missouri 2020 303(d) List
AMCA Comments - 303d List - 3.22.2021.pdf
l
-------
Comment 4. Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies
Agencies, Attachment
Association of
Missouri Cleanwater Agencies
By email: R7-WaterDivision@epa.gov
Mr. Jeff Robichaud, Director
Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division
Region 7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Re: EPA Proposed Decision on Missouri 2020 303(d) Listings of Impaired Waters
Dear Mr. Robichaud:
On behalf of the Association of Missouri Cleanwater Agencies and its members,
please accept the following comments on the Regional Office's proposed
additions to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' 2020 listing of impaired
waters under Clean Water Act section 303(d). As you may know, the Association
is an incorporated group of municipal owners and operators of Missouri Publicly
Owned Treatment Facilities. The Association's purpose and mission is the
promotion of good science and effective public policy, for the protection of the
surface waters of Missouri and the protection of the beneficial uses of those
waters. The Association's members represent collectively a substantial majority of
the sewered population of the State.
As you also know, the 2020 303(d) listings are the first under Missouri's EPA-
approved nutrient water quality criteria for lakes. Those criteria are the product
of more than a decade of work by DNR, EPA and others on nutrient criteria for
lakes that are protective of water quality, while properly addressing the very
complex impacts of nutrients on lakes. Those criteria are relatively complex,
combining a system of Response Impairment Thresholds, Nutrient Screening
Thresholds, and real-world Response Assessment Endpoints. Combined with DNR's
Implementation Guidance, this represents a process that the State has
determined to best and most effectively allow for proper and accurate
f
-------
Letter to Mr. J. Robichaud
U.S. EPA Region 7
March 22, 2021
Page 2
assessments of impairment and non-impairment status. In light of the careful
crafting of this system of criteria and implementation procedures, and its first use
for 303(d) assessment, the current decisions on listing and non-listing of Missouri
lakes are potentially precedent-setting and should be made cautiously.
We also emphasize that DNR has listed no less than 46 Missouri lakes as impaired
for nutrient effects. The Region has proposed the overlisting of an additional 40
lakes. The process of addressing these lakes through the TMDL process will not be
easy or quick; DNR and EPA should proceed with this process using as one priority
their level of confidence in individual lake listing decisions; and there need be no
rush to judgment on listing decisions where the data on water quality and water
quality impacts are unclear. In this regard, we note that impairment
determinations under the Clean Water Act are primarily state decisions, although
with an important EPA review role, and under the circumstances to which we refer
below, DNR's determinations should not be altered.
The Association and its Members Support the March 16 Comments of DNR
DNR's comments succinctly detail the bases on which its 2020 lakes listing
decisions did not include the additional 40 lakes that the Region proposes. Those
comments and the requests of DNR are carefully based on the nutrient criteria
themselves and the Implementation Guidance. Although the guidance is not a
regulatory part of the nutrient criteria, it is integral to their implementation, and
importantly, it is guidance with which the Region has not disagreed. In fact, the
guidance has figured critically in the Region's defense of its Clean Water Act
approval of the criteria themselves in a current challenge before the U.S. District
Court.
Accordingly the Association and its members support the DNR comments and
listing decisions. In particular, but not intended as a limitation on our support of
any of DNR's points, we also note the following.
There are Substantial Quality Assurance and Confirmation Problems with Some of
the Factors on Which the Region Relies
The quality of data and the strength of the science that goes into water quality
determinations is a critical part of the mission of the Association, as well as that of
DNR and EPA. DNR's comments outline the serious concerns about some of the
data on which the Region has relied, and they note the lack of correlation
between some reported fish kills (which appear to be the primary basis for the
proposed overlisting of some of the lakes) and any indication of coincident
eutrophication of the relevant lake waters. Unless the Region is able to identify
and verify the data supporting that correlation, in each such case the Region
should reverse its preliminary decision to overlist.
AMCA • P.O. Box 51 • Richmond, Virginia -23218
www.amoca.info
-------
Letter to Mr. J. Robichaud
U.S. EPA Region 7
March 22, 2021
Page 3
The Impacts of Truman Lake on Lake of the Ozarks has not Been Properly
Evaluated or Considered
DNR has also succinctly described the interactions between Truman Lake and
Lake of the Ozarks, the absence of considerations of these interactions, and in
light of these factors the reasons why the Lake of the Ozarks listing is unverified
and at best premature.
The Integrated Report Category 2 and 3 Classifications are Available Precisely for
Cases Such as the Additional Lakes
The absence of relevant data and substantial uncertainties in 303(d) impaired
waters listings and the data supporting them illustrate why the states and EPA
have available to them Category 2 and 3 options. The Association and its
members support DNR's request that the Region agree to the DNR classifications
rather than listing waters as impaired and needing TMDLs at this time, in those
cases identified where data are absent or where there are some data or
indication suggesting impairment, but where more data or analysis are needed.
For these reasons, and in light of the recent effectiveness of the Missouri nutrient
criteria for lakes, there is no need to list the additional 40 lakes that the Region has
proposed. The substantial issues that DNR has raised illustrate much of the basis
for the every-two-years 303(d) listing process, that allows the states to defer
decisions for which there is less than adequate support. The relatively brief two
year cycle is there to allow proper data and determinations, at the same time
avoiding any opportunity for nonproductive delay.
We appreciate the Regional Office's full consideration of these issues and the
specific DNR requests and recommendations.
Sincerely,
F. Paul Calamita
General Counsel
CC: AMCA Board of Directors
AMCA • P.O. Box 51 • Richmond, Virginia -23218
www.amoca.info
-------
Comment 5. Baker, Denise
White^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Hello,
I support the EPA's adding 40 water bodies on Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) List for
chlorophyll-a (W).
Thank you,
Denise Baker
Executive Assistant
She/Her/Hers
Wednesday, February 10, 2021 12:00 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Support for adding 40 MO water bodies to List of Impaired Waters
-------
Comment 6. Boelens, Jacki
White^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Jacki Boelens <
>
Thursday, January 21, 2021 1V34 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Comment
Hi! I would like to comment on the EPA and the Lake of the Ozarks. We moved from the Lake after owning a house there
for fourteen years. The Lake is beautiful, BUT it is appalling the LACK of effort in keeping wastewater out of the lake I
Possible solutions: 1, Require all residents to have their septic systems tested every two years with dye, Severe fines for
failure to do so/rectify any problems! 2. Have lake-wide city sewage! 3, Have FREE leaf/grounds waste pick-up! 4,
Have free recycling. 5, Require all water front bars to use paper straws, silverware, etc. and NO styrofoam or plastic!!!
Thank you! Jacqueline Boelens
Sent from my iPhone
1
-------
Comment 7. Brunner, Linda (Comment 1 of 2)
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Linda Brunnerl
Sunday, January 17, 2021 8:51 PM
R7-WaterDivision
adding Missouri rivers to the list of impaired rivers
Sir or Madam, we are MO residents and love the outdoors and value it riot only for our enjoyment but for it's
contribution to the well being of animals and plants that inhabit it. In that spirit we support clean and vibrant
waterways and urge you to add the additional MO rivers to the list of rivers in MO that deserve attention.
Sincerely,
The Brunners
-------
Comment 8, Brunner, Linda {Comment 2 of 2}
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Linda Brunner
>
Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:22 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri lakes
Sir or Madam, we understand that 40 lakes in Missouri have been added to a list of "impaired waters," We live rurally in
Missouri and love the lakes and waterways,
We recognize your efforts and totally support keeping an eye on the quality and health of all Missouri waterways.
Thank you,
Neil and Linda Brunner
1
-------
Comment 9. Burgess, Antonia
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
1 thank and support your organization for adding 40 Missouri lakes to the protection list of the EPA,
Thank you
Antonia Burgess
Administrator for advocacy group Black People Who Hike Board of Directors Missouri Coalition for the Environment
Antonia Burgess
Thursday, March 18,2021 10:27 AM
R7-WaterDivision
EPA
-------
Comment 10. Butler, R.
White^ebb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
R Butler
Saturday, December 26, 2020 6:25 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Lake of the Ozark
I have been at lake of the Ozark since 1967, Water has never been better than it is today, WE don't want your help. The
lake is fine as is. 80% of the lake front homes are part time, Fishing is the best any were. Go spend you money in FL it
needs your help, there fish are gone, We have great fishing, they are under my dock, RE Butlerl
1
-------
Comment 11. Caraccio, Rob
Whit%Debbjf
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Rob Caraccio
Monday, December 7, 2020 7:38 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Public Comment Period - EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's Impaired Waters List
Hello,
Thanks for offering a public comment period on Missouri's impaired waters list.
My comment/question is this: of the 40 water bodies listed for reconsideration, did the EPA consider a more restrictive
nutrient level for total phosphorus and total nitrogen when evaluating nutrient levels in these water bodies? If so, what
nutrient level did EPA region VII use to evaluate their decision, for this total list? Will EPA region VII consider a more
restrictive nutrient level for phosphorus, consistent with the other EPA regions, such as a phosphorus effluent limit of
less than 1 PPM? or a lower Nitrogen Level?
Also, for the water bodies listed and removed from the list in the former lead mining areas of Missouri, such as
Washington, Reynolds, St. Francois, and Crawford counties, how did the EPA determine they are no longer impaired
waterways? I thought the Army Corps of Engineers was getting involved with superfund cleanups of some waterways in
these counties due to the extent of the damage and pollution.
Again, thank you for allowing public comment,
Rob Caraccio
1
-------
Comment 12. Catalano, Peter
White^Debbjf
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Peter Catalano
>
Sunday, January 17, 2021 1:17 PM
R?-WaterDivision
Cleaner Water in Missouri
We SUPPORT the EPA s recent proposal to add 40 water bodies as impaired by nutrients to Missouri's 2020 List of
Impaired Waters under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d).
We are longtime residents of Missouri and enjoy the beauty of nature here. Addressing lakes and other polluted bodies of
water will:
1. Allow children and adults to enjoy these natural environments
2. Improve the ability of farmers to raise livestock
3. Add to the Missouri economy by encouraging more tourism.
Thanks you for considering our views.
Linda & Peter Catalano
l
-------
Comment 13. Colliver, Gary
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Waters due to chlorophyll-a
1930. We have some of the best
Gary Colliver
Gary Colliverl
Monday, March 15, 2021 11:12 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Lake of the Ozarks Impaired Water List
The Lake of the Ozarks is a very healthy lake, and does not need to be listed as Impaired
levels. The Lake is not greatly different than it has been in during its entire existence, ie,
fishing in the country, and it is not impaired. Please leave us alone.
Thank you,
l
-------
Comment 14. Cooper, Nicole
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nicole Cooper <1
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:07 PM
R7-WaterDivision
I support adding/restoring 40 Missouri water bodies!
Hello. I wanted to write to tell you I am pleased that first steps have been made to clean up 40 Missouri Lakes, which
you've just added to your impaired waters list. As a Missouri resident, clean water is extremely important to me.
Thank you for your action.
Nicole Cooper
l
-------
Comment 15. Dolson, Kathleen (Comment 1 of 2}
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
I support the EPA's decision to add/restore 40 water bodies to the Missouri's list of impaired waters. It is important to
protect our bodies of water and keep them clean.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Dolson
Kathy Dolson
Friday, January 15, 2021 3:36 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri waters
-------
Comment 16. Dolson, Kathleen (Comment 2 of 2)
From: Kathy Dolson
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 10:53 AM
To; R7-WaterDivision
Subject: Missouri's 2020 List of Impaired Waters
I very strongly support the EPA recognizing and adding 40 Missouri lakes to the list of impaired waters, I hope this will
ensure steps are taken to clean them up.
Sincerely,
Kathv Dolson
-------
Comment 17. Draper, Harold
White^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
I wish to support adding 40 lakes to Missouri's impaired waters list. Nutrient pollution is a continuing
problem, including cyanobacteria pollution. Adding these lakes to the list will encourage actions to
clean up their watersheds, including perhaps production of shoreline management plans for
addressing the impacts of residential and commercial shoreline development.
Harold Draper
Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:23 AM
R7-WaterDivision
additions to Missouri's impaired waters list
-------
Comment 18, Duffy, C.E. (Comment 1 of 2)
White^Debby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
EPA. I stand behind the clean up of 440 so named lakes The beauy, health and usrfulness makes this essential, thank
you, c.e. duffy
Account service
Friday, January 15, 2021 2:15 PM
R7-WaterDivision
cleaning up our lakes
1
-------
Comment 19. Duffy, C.E. (Comment 2 of 2)
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
We needclean water ways. They are vital to the health of animals, fish and fowl. If we have clean water ways Tourism will
draw outsiders to come here, thank you, ce Duffy
Account service
Thursday, March 18, 2021 2:06 PM
R?-WaterDivision
water ways in Missouri
t
-------
Comment 20. Dunn, Matthew
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Good day,
S am writing to submit a public comment in response to the open solicitation regarding EPA's inclusion
of 40 water bodies on Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) List for chlorophyll-a (W).
I have only a simple message; it is to convey appreciation to the agency for giving careful and
thorough consideration to the available data and advising MO DNR to include these 40 bodies of
water in their Section 303(d) scope.
Thank you,
Matthew Dunnl
Friday, January 15, 2021 3:35 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Comment on 40 water bodies on Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) List for chlorophyll-a (W)
-Matt
-------
Comment 21. ElderfalloutB
WhiteJDebby^^^^^^^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
I'm sending this to confirm support. Let's get 40 steps closer to a clean planet!
eldei falloutBJ
Friday, March 19, 2021 10:19 AM
R7-WaterDivision
40 Missouri Lakes
1
-------
Comment 22, Elwell, Tim
White^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Tim Elwell
Sunday, March 21, 2021 6:00 PM
RT-WaterDivision
Comment to support adding water bodies
To the leaders of EPA Region 7
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the state of Missouri's 2020 Impaired Waters list,
I support the EPA's decision to add 40 additional lakes and reservoirs to the state's list of impaired
water bodies. Listing these water resources as impaired is the first step in improving them.
Like many Missourians I appreciate and enjoy our state's rivers, streams
and lakes. But as our state grows, so does the risk of nutrient pollution.
It's important to evaluate and recognize this problem sooner instead of
later. Thanks for helping our state move forward in protecting our lakes
and reservoirs from pollution.
Thanks for your time.
1
-------
Comment 23. Fedecker, D
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I support the decision to add 40 water bodies that meet impairments of nutrient criteria. I appreciate all improvements.
dfedeckei
Sunday, January 17, 2021 5:31 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri water bodies.
l
-------
Comment 24. Fisher, Carol
WhitejJJebb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
carol fisher
Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:15 PM
R?-WaterDivtsiofi
Lake of the Ozarks
Please do not allow the DNR to come anywhere near our lake. They
destroyed a few bodies of water in Colorado during the Obama years and
we would like you to not try to fix this one. When you overreact, things
go awry. Our lake is just fine, nature is making the correction. Please go
justify your job elsewhere.
-------
Comment 25. Fort, Garth F.
From: garth
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 2:08 PM
To: R7-WaterDivision
Subject: Clean-up of Missouri waters
I support the clean-up
Garth F. Fort
-------
Comment 26, Frazier, Marisa
White^ebbj^
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marisa Frazier
Monday, March 22, 2021 4:32 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Please List Additional 40 Lakes and Reservoirs to Missouri's 303d list
Dear EPA Region 7,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the state of Missouri's 2020 Impaired Waters list.
I support EPA's determination that the 40 additional lakes and reservoirs included in Appendix C be added to Missouri's
303d list. These water bodies should be included because data indicates that these water bodies have experienced
significant nutrient pollution and are in a position to likely suffer that contamination again.
Our state is well known for its many rivers, streams and lakes which enhance our natural environment and are a source of
drinking water, recreation, education, tourism and protection of our state's biodiversity.
Our state struggles with nutrient pollution from a variety of sources, including agricultural runoff, confined animal feeding
operations (CAFOS), septic tank systems, urban runoff and more. At the same time our state regulatory system is
sometimes faced with limited resources and lack of commitment to monitoring and enforcement of nutrient standards.
There are no trends in our state which indicate that the risk of nutrient pollution is decreasing.
As our state grows, so does the risk of nutrient pollution. It's important to evaluate and recognize this problem sooner
instead of later. Thanks for helping our state move forward in protecting our lakes and reservoirs from pollution.
Thank you for your evaluation of Missouri's waters and for helping our state progress in protecting those waters.
Sincerely,
Marisa Frazier
l
-------
Comment 27. Hansen, Nick
Whlte^Debfafjf
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Nick Hansen <
Thursday, January 28, 2021 6:15 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Lake Ozark, Missouri water quality.
The water quality of Lake of the Ozarks is poor. In the last 10 years the decline of water quality has
been significant. State and local government as well as the local tourism industry choose to ignore
the decline to prevent a reduction in tourism income. My family will not swim or even "float" in the lake
because the water has become "nasty". Their words, not mine. While I still enjoy fishing at the lake I
do not keep my catch out of concern of possible contamination. I urge the EPA and Missouri State
DNR to direct action to improve and restore the water quality of both Lake of the Ozarks as well as
Truman Reservoir.
Regards,
L. Nick Hansen
i
-------
Comment 28. Hegel, Robert
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Hegel, Robert
Friday, January 15, 2021 2:39 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Support the plan to restore or clean up 40 bodies of water in Missouri
Dear Friends:
Thank you for adding forty bodies of water in the suite of Missouri lo your list of impaired waters slated for
clean up. The preservation and promotion of clean bodies of water is of primary importance in preserving
wildlife habitat and providing health}' places for our communities to relax and enjoy the natural world. As a
citizen I run tiuly concerned thai we preseive and protect our natural resources so that our grandchildren and
their grandchildren m time to come may enjoy the blessings of these natural places.
Thank you for this decision; I look forward to tins important work going forward.
All best wishes.
Robert b. Heuel. Ph.D.
-------
Comment 29. Heisel, Edward J,
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Dear EPA,
Over many years, the Missouri DNR has proven unreliable at best in implementing the federal Clean Water Act. I urge you
to fully use your oversight role under the CWA to protect the roughly 40 lakes that you have proposed adding to the state's
303(d) list.
Thank you.
Edward J. Heisel
Edward Heisel >
Thursday, March 18, 2021 12:05 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri 303(d) List
-------
Comment 30, Hennkens, Terry
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
The Lake of the Ozarks should be removed from the "impaired waters" list.
Terry Hennkens
Friday, January 29, 2021 5:05 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Lake of the Ozarks
1
-------
Comment 31. Hess, Lori
White^ebb^
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lori H
Tuesday, December 22, 2020 6:03 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Water Quality Watch List Lake of the Ozarks
Lake of the Ozarks should absolutely be on the watch list. The water quality is horrible. A friend of mine got in the water
last Summer and almost lost his foot because he had a crack in his skin and there was ecoli in the water. It's been
steadliy getting worse over the last 10 years. Now that the Lake area has recovered from the recession, developers have
started building condo developments in mass on the water. It is going to get nothing but worse if something isn't done
quickly.
Lori Hess
0
l
-------
Comment 32, Hohl, Jeffrey
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
It Is very sad that parts of our government can't stand to see Americans having fun with family and friends. So let's show
them, we will reclassify some bogus stats and teach them, probably all Trump flags didn't help, Defund the EPA
Jeffrey Hohl 1
Monday, February 8, 2021 12:20 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Lake ozark water quality
-------
Comment 33. Hughes, Pam
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Pam Hughes
Friday, January 15, 2021 5:55 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Support the clean up of 40 bodies of water in Missouri
Dear EPA,
As a concerned citizen and resident of Missouri, I am pleased to see that you have
added 40 bodies of water in Missouri to the list of waters needing clean up. I support
and applaud your decision. And I vote.
Thank you,
Pam Hughes
t
-------
Comment 34. Hunt, Ross
White, Debby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Ross Hunt
Sunday, March 21, 2021 7:54 PM
R7-WaterDivision
2020 Impaired Waters List
To EPA Region 7
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the state of Missouri's 2020 Impaired Waters list.
I understand that the EPA has determined that it is worthwhile to add 40 additional lakes and
reservoirs to the state's list of impaired water bodies. Listing these water resources as impaired
will bring attention to the need to clean them up.
It's time that Missouri rectifies its nutrient pollution problems, I appreciate that the EPA is looking
at these problems.
Ross Hunt
-------
Comment 35. Jost, Neil
White^Dobb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Neil Jost
Monday, March 22, 2021 1:00 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Make DNR do the job it should do
To EPA Region 7
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the state of Missouri's 2020 Impaired Waters list.
I support the EPA's decision to add 40 additional lakes and reservoirs to the state's list of impaired
water bodies. Listing these water resources as impaired is the first step in improving them.
Like many Missourians I appreciate and enjoy our state's rivers, streams and lakes. But as our
state grows, so does the risk of nutrient pollution. It's important to evaluate and recognize this
problem sooner instead of later. Thanks for helping our state move forward in protecting our
lakes and reservoirs from pollution.
t
-------
Comment 36. Katranides, Margaret
White^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Margaret Katranides
Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:15 AM
R7-WaterDrvision
clean water
Dear people,
The Missouri Coalition for the Environment has notified us that you have added 40 lakes to Missouri's list of impaired
waters, I want you to know how pleased i am that you have recognized this situation. I hope to hear in the future about
how you are working with landowners arid municipalities to reduce pollution in these lakes and the streams that feed
them. There are many pressures that lead to more pollution, but people of good will, recognizing the value of clean
water, will be willing to negotiate and create new processes that help everyone involved achieve more of their dreams.
Sincerely,
Margaret Katranides
1
-------
Comment 37. Kellerman, Alii
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments;
Hello,
I support the decision to add/restore 40 water bodies to the Missouri list of impaired waters.
Sincerely,
Alii Kellerman
Friday, January 15, 2021 4:22 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Note of Support
ATT00001.txt
-------
Comment 38. Koehler, Francine
White^JJebb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Francine Koehler
Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:37 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Thank you
I want to thank the EPA for the opportunity to comment on your support of 40 water bodies in my
home state of MO. Thank you so much for adding them to your efforts to provide clean, healthy, water
and marine life to us Missourians.
Sincerely,
Francine Koehler, SSND
i
-------
Comment 39. Kriege, Bill
WWte^ebb^
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kriege, Bill
>
Friday, January 15, 2021 3:27 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Public Comment
Dear Madam or Sir,
I understand that the EPA just added 40 bodies of water as impaired by nutrients to Missouri's 2020 list of Impaired
Waters under Clean Water Act Section 303. As a fisherman, environmentalist, and parent of two children, I am in favor
of adding those lakes in the hope that they will soon be restoredI
Thank you,
Bill Kriege
1
-------
Comment 40. Lake Area Chamber of Commerce; Cloke, K.C.
White^ebb^
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
K.C. Cloke <
Attachments:
Thursday, March 18, 2021 12:04 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Paige Jones; 'Luke Hagedorn'
Public Comment to Missouri 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters under Clean Water Act, Section
3030(d):Lake of the Ozarks
Missouri 2020 303(d) Public Comment - LACC.PDF
Good afternoon,
Please find the Lake Area Chamber's public comment attached in regards to the Missouri 2020 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters under Clean Water Act, Section 3030(d):Lake of the Ozarks.
Sincerely,
X.&.
K.C. Cloke
Outgoing Executive Director \ Lake Area Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 1570
Lake Ozark, MO 65049
Office- "^^4-1008 | Fax: (573)964-1010
-------
PO Box 1570
#1 Willmore Lane
Lake Ozark, MO 65049
Office: (573)964-1008
Fax:(573)964-1010
info@lakeareachamber.com
www.LakeAreaChamber.com
March 18, 2021
Submitted via email to:R7-WaterDivision@epa.gov
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Mr. Jeffery Robichaud
Director, Water Division
11201 Renner Blvd. Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Comment 40. Attachment
Lake Area
Chamber of Commerce
Re: Public Comment to the Missouri 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters under Clean Water
Act, Section 303(d): Lake of the Ozarks
Dear Mr. Robichaud,
The Lake Area Chamber of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources' (MDNR or State) Clean Water Act (CWA) 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters as it may apply
to the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri.
The Lake Area Chamber has reviewed the public comment submitted by Ameren Missouri and agrees
with the information provided in that statement. We, the Lake Area Chamber of Commerce request that
USEPA reconsider the placement of Lake of the Ozarks on the 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Lake
of the Ozarks is a popular recreational destination for both Missouri residents and tourists. Enjoyment of
the Lake, its nationally recognized sports fishery, and the tourism industry it supports are vitally
important to the Lake Region as well as the State's economy.
Sincerely,
Lake Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
-------
Comment 41. Lake of the Ozarks Council of Local Governments
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please find attached the comments from LOCLG. Thanks for the opportunity to submit.
Best Regards,
Lake of the Ozarks Council of Local Governments
linda.connei
Monday, March 22, 2021 9:59 AM
R7-WaterDivi$!on
Comments EPA 303(d) Impaired Waters List Missouri 2020
LOCLG EPA Comments 03222021.pdf
1
-------
Comment 41. Attachment
March 19, 2021
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Mr. Jeffery Robichaud
Director, Water Division
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
RE: Public Comment to the Missouri 2020 303(d) Lis of Impaired Waters under Clean Water Act,
Section 303 (D): Lake of the Ozarks
Dear Mr. Robichaud,
Lake of the Ozarks Council of Local Governments (LOCLG), the Regional Planning Commission serving the
lake area is submitting comments on behalf of the region, including Camden, Laclede, Miller and Morgan
Counties, along with the communities within those counties. Protecting the lake is the number one
priority of the leadership within the region, protecting it from being on the 303(d) impaired list is also a
priority as this will significantly impact our primary economic base of tourism.
MoDNR submitted the 2020 303(d) list on June 26, 2020 in which Lake of the Ozarks was NOT included
on the list. The region's leadership stands behind the authority of the state environmental agency to
know what is best in regard to the water quality and needs for water quality improvement within the
state of Missouri, and believe that Lake of the Ozarks should remain off the list of impaired waters.
Ameren Missouri, the owner and operator of the Bagnell Dam and Osage Hydroelectric Power Plant has
shared with our region's leadership their comments and concerns with the EPA findings and proposed
inclusion of Lake of the Ozarks on the 303(d) list. Attached is the copy of the comments submitted and
consider it a part of the LOCLG's comments being submitted as well.
The region's leadership asks that you carefully consider all comments submitted and the significant
negative impacts that will occur if Lake of the Ozarks is put on the 303(d) impaired waters list. Let the
local leadership take ownership of taking local action making sure that the lake remains the gem of the
Ozarks and a recreational and family fun destination for all to enjoy.
Sincerely,
Tom Wright, LOCLG Chairman Miller County Presiding Commissioner
Lake of the Ozarks Council of Local Governments
P.O. Box 3553 Camdenton, MO 65020
Phone: 573-346-5692 Fax: 573-346-9686
-------
Ameren
MISSOURI
March 15, 2021
Submitted via email to: R7-WaterDivision@epa.gov
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Mr. Jeffery Robichaud
Director, Water Division
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Re: Public Comment to the Missouri 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters under Clean Water
Act, Section 303(d): Lake of the Ozarks
Dear Mr. Robichaud,
Ameren Missouri (Ameren) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding the Missouri Department of Natural Resources'
(MDNR or State) Clean Water Act (CWA) 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters as it may apply to the
Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. Ameren Missouri owns and operates Bagnell Dam and the Osage
Hydroelectric Power Plant pursuant to the terms of a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Under the terms of its FERC license, Ameren Missouri implements a shoreline
management and permitting program and therefore is in a unique position to provide additional
information to the USEPA. We believe that sufficient data does not warrant inclusion of the Lake of
the Ozarks as an "impaired water" on the State's 2020 303(d) List.
Over the past two decades, Ameren has worked with stakeholders around the Lake of the Ozarks to
implement many beneficial projects designed to improve water quality, aquatic life, habitat, and
recreational opportunities for the public. Some of these important enhancements include installation
of state-of-the-art aerating turbines (supplying additional dissolved oxygen to the downstream aquatic
communities), installation of a high strength fish protection net in the front of Bagnell Dam to protect
paddlefish, and multiple fish and habitat enhancements throughout the lake. Ameren also developed
a comprehensive lake shoreline management plan and provided extensive support for the USEPA
approved 9-element watershed based plan for the first 20 miles of the Lake of the Ozarks.
On June 26, 2020, MDNR submitted its 2020 303(d) List to the USEPA proposing to list 481
waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs and delist 44 waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs. While
USEPA approved in large measure, MDNR's decisions, USEPA disapproved the State's decision not
to list 40 lake waterbodies for nutrient impairment. Instead, USEPA proposes to add 40 lake
waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs to the Missouri CWA Section 303(d) List and has solicited public
comment. The technical basis for USEPA's proposal is set forth in reports entitled: Data Sources
Used for Missouri 2020 303(d) List, Missouri Fish Kill Report 2014, Missouri Fish Kill Report 2015,
Missouri Fish Kill Report 2017, and Missouri Fish Kill Report 2018.
As a preliminary matter, USEPA assessed the Lake of the Ozarks against inappropriate ecoregional
numeric lake nutrient criteria. According to Appendix C of USEPA's Decision Document, the Lake of
1901 Chouteau Avenue
PO Box 66149
St. Louis, M0 63166-6149
ArnerenMissouri.com
-------
03/15/2021 1:33:00 PM : Page 2 of 4
the Ozarks was assessed against the Ozark Highlands ecoregion numeric lake nutrient criteria.
According to USEPA's Decision, data supporting the USEPA's 303(d) listing included: "Exceeded
nutrient criteria in 2017, exceedance screening in 2016 and 2018, Eutrophication Factor A, multiple
fish kills have occurred. In 2018, June 14, 2018, low dissolved oxygen fish kill over 100 fish killed.
Also, additional monitoring points in lake are impaired." In addition, USEPA's decision to list Lake of
the Ozarks as impaired for nutrients is improper for the reasons set forth below.
1. USEPA assessed the Lake of the Ozarks against inappropriate ecoreqional numeric
lake nutrient criteria.
With respect to Missouri's lake nutrient criteria (10 CSR 20-7.031(5)(N)1) approved by USEPA in
2018, "due to differences in watershed topography, soils, and geology, nutrient criteria for lakes and
reservoirs will be determined by the use of four major ecoregions based upon dominant watershed
ecoregion." The four major ecoregions are Plains, Ozark Border, Ozark Highlands and Big River
Floodplain. While the Lake is physically located in the Ozark Highlands ecoregion, the dominant
watershed ecoregion is the Plains ecoregion (see Table 1). Jones et al. 2000 observed similar
seasonal nutrient patterns and nutrient responses to inflow and destratification in Mark Twain
Reservoir (Plains ecoregion) and the Lake of the Ozarks in the same time frame.
TABLE 1. Ecoregion Percentage of Waters
hed.
Lake of the Ozarks
Plains
Ozark Highlands
61%
39%
In addition, approximately 70% or more of the Lake of the Ozarks water originates from Truman
Reservoir, which is in the Plains ecoregion. Jones et al. (1988) noted the influence of Truman
Reservoir. They observed total phosphorus loading in the Lake of the Ozarks is decreasing and
algae (chlorophyll-a) is more productive because inorganic suspended solids are lower after Truman
Reservoir was constructed. Accordingly, the Lake of the Ozarks should be assessed against the
Plains ecoregional numeric lake nutrient criteria. When comparing the Lake of the Ozarks chlorophyll-
a data to the appropriate Plains ecoregional criteria, the Lake of the Ozarks does not exceed the
nutrient criteria impairment threshold in any of the last three years of data.
2. USEPA's reliance on an isolated fish kill that lack adequate water quality data is
inappropriate.
In assessing fish kill events, it is important to fully assess the cause and magnitude of such events.
As MDNR notes in Appendix F, 2018 Nutrient Criteria Implementation Strategy: "The MDNR will
review reports for information pertaining to the cause of death as well as the potential sources. Fish
populations can have seemingly random small die-offs related to disease, virus, or other natural
sources. More than one fish kill within ten years or one large (> 100 fish and covering more than ten
percent of the lake area) fish kill documented by dissolved oxygen excursions, pH, algal blooms or
the toxins associated with algal blooms will constitute evidence of impairment." Here, USEPA's
Decision appears to be based on a single fish kill event at the Lake of the Ozarks of 100 fish that
covers less than 10 percent of the lake area. Furthermore, this fish kill was only reported to the
Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) by a third party and not verified by MDC fish biologists.
The Missouri Fish Kill Report 2018 from the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) attributed
the fish kill event to low dissolved oxygen or temperature stress. However, according to the 2018
report and the summary spreadsheet developed by MDC, the extent of the fish kill (i.e., number of
fish) was not determined. Without documented field data (e.g., dissolved oxygen, water temperature,
-------
03/15/2021 1:33:00 PM : Page 3 of 4
pH, algal toxins, etc.) supporting the hypothesis that "likely low dissolved oxygen or temperature
stress" was the cause of the June 14, 2018 fish kill, the cause of the event is speculative. Because
the cause of the fish kill was not supported by adequate water quality data, this event should not be
used as evidence of Eutrophication Factor A.
3. Temporal nutrient trends in the Lake of the Ozarks are stable or potentially decreasing
and MDNR has properly considered all appropriate data.
Nutrient data collected each year at the nearest location to the outflow of the dam were compiled and
assessed to evaluate temporal trends. Nutrient data (total chlorophyll, total nitrogen and total
phosphorus) from 2007 to 2018 were assessed using the geometric mean of annual samples
collected between May 1 and September 30 (Table 2). (Chlorophyll-a was not consistently collected
between 2007 and 2018, therefore total chlorophyll was used.) A distribution free Mann-Kendall trend
test was used to assess the presence of a temporal monotonic trend upward or downward for
nutrients. Results of the trend test indicate total chlorophyll concentrations are stable while total
nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations are likely decreasing (Table 3). The results of the trend
analysis demonstrate water quality in Lake of the Ozarks has remained stable or is improving. The
occurrence of small fish kills is likely due to natural processes occurring in isolated areas of the lake.
TABLE 2. Lake of the Ozarks Annual (May 1 - September 30) Geometric Mean Nutrient Data. Data
sourced from the lake location nearest the outflow and are presented in micrograms per liter.
Total
Total
Total
Year
Chlorophyll
ug/L
Nitrogen
ug/L
Phosphorus
ug/L
2007
17.5
596
44
2008
11.4
614
33
2009
15.2
672
35
2010
18.4
579
33
2011
10.9
454
20
2012
12.3
523
17
2013
20.8
590
30
2014
10.1
381
15
2015
19.0
563
35
2016
11.6
430
18
2017
27.5
789
47
2018
7.2
444
15
TABLE 3. Mann-Kendal Nutrient Trend Results.
Analyte
Mann-Kendall
(S)
Probability
Confidence in
Trend
Trend
Total Chlorophyll
-2
0.473
0.527
Stable
Total Nitrogen
-20
0.096
0.904
Likely Decreasing
Total
Phosphorus
-21
0.084
0.916
Likely Decreasing
-------
03/15/2021 1:33:00 PM : Page 4 of 4
4. USEPA improperly used "additional monitoring points" to assess impairment.
USEPA's has improperly applied Missouri's numeric lake nutrient criteria to make the determination
that "additional monitoring points in lake are impaired". The USEPA approved the State's criteria
values and assessment criteria in 10 CSR 20-7.031 (5)(N)4...'W/ Total phosphorus total nitrogen and
chlorophyll-a concentrations must be calculated as the geometric mean of a minimum of four
representative samples per year for the purposes of comparison to lake ecoregion criteria thresholds.
All samples must be collected from the lake surface, near the outflow of the lake and during the
period of May 1 to September 30." The criterion clearly states impairments will be assessed "near the
outflow" and the use of data from additional monitoring locations is not consistent with the nutrient
criterion nor the Methodology for the Development of the 2020 Section 303(d) List in Missouri (LMD).
5. USEPA did not properly consider data quality and data age when adding 40 lake
waterbodv/pollutant impairment pairs to the State's 2020 303(d) List.
USEPA determined the State did not evaluate all readily available data or information for lakes with
chlorophyll-a impairments when developing its CWA Section 303(d) List. The State's LMD is updated
every two years following numerous publicly announced stakeholder meetings and input with specific
regards to data quality, data age and representativeness of data, and clearly outlines the State's
process for data considerations when making Section 303(d) decisions. The LMD states that while
more recent data are preferable, older (i.e. all available) data are used to assess present conditions if
the data remain representative of present conditions. For data older than seven years, the LMD
identifies the State will provide written justification for use of such data to make a Section 303(d)
listing. The LMD also indicates that if a waterbody has not been previously listed and all data
indicating an impairment are older than 7-years, the waterbody shall be placed into Category 2B or
Category 3B and given high priority for future monitoring. The State's LMD also outlines consideration
for the age of data relative to significant events (representativeness) that have an effect on water
quality (point source discharge, spill, reclamation, overflow elimination, etc.). This process mirrors that
of which the USEPA supported in its approval of 481 waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs in the
2020 303(d) List. USEPA should evaluate the placement of water bodies in Category 2B or Category
3B following the State's approved LMD.
In conclusion, Ameren Missouri requests that USEPA reconsider the placement of Lake of the Ozarks
on the 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Lake of the Ozarks is a popular recreational destination
for both Missouri residents and tourists. Enjoyment of the Lake, its nationally recognized sports
fishery, and the tourism industry it supports are vitally important to Ameren Missouri as well as the
State's economy.
Sincerely,
Steven C. Whitworth
Sr. Director, Environmental Policy & Analysis
Ameren Missouri
-------
Comment 42. Larson, Les
Whlte^Debbi^^^^^^
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Les Larson I
Monday, February 8, 2021 9:14 AM
R?-WaterDivision
Lake of the Ozarks
Concerning the EPA's concerns for water quality and Algae content, it seems that a logical approach would be to not
only study Lake of the Ozarks but also to look at Truman Lake at Warsaw Missouri. Truman dam area has a major impact
on the Lake of the Ozarks water quality, current and levels.
My understanding is that Ameren at Bagnell Dam work closely for flood control etc.
Water run off and water shed are factors and flood control from the Corps of Engineers at Truman into The Lake of the
Ozarks is imperative.
Just like down stream control of the Osage river from Bagnell dam.
Les Larson
-------
Comment 43. LeCorgne, Scott
WhiteJDebb^
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Scott LeCorgne
Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:53 AM
R7-WaterDivision
EPA action
To whom it may concern,
j 5
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments in regard to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)'s proposal to add 40 lakes to the Missouri Impaired Waters 303(d)
list. My name is [name] and I am a resident of [City/Town], Missouri. I enjoy [insert
actratv/activitiesl at [insert lake(s)1 which the EPA recommended be added to the Missouri
303(d) list.
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), each individual state's 303(d) list must include all lakes
which are impaired or threatened within that stated Ensuring the accuracy of Missouri's
303(d) list will allow the EPA, Missouri, and individual Missourians to keep track of the water
quality in Missouri's lakes. However, the proposed 303(d) list submitted to the EPA in 2020
did not include all impaired lakes. As demonstrated by the EPA's Decision Letter, some lakes
were erroneously left off of the list due to data and procedural errors. 2 In order to ensure the
proper protection for lakes in my state, I support EPAs recommendation to add [insert lake(s)]
to the 303(d) list for the following reason(s):
1.1 am worried about the general environmental quality of the lakes in Missouri. Nutrient
pollution is causing degradation of water quality in many parts of the state. This impacts
N lissouri residents like me in many ways, whether we use lakes for drinking water or
recreation, or simply live near a lake. In addition, because nutrient pollution creates unsightly
algal blooms which go on to create toxins and can damage boats, it greatly interferes with the
enjoyment of Missouri's lakes. It is therefore important that affected lakes be added to the
state's 303(d) list.
2.1 am worried about the drinking water quality of [lake name(s)]. 1 understand that excess
nitrogen and phosphorus causes algae growth which can be detrimental to my health, so I am
increasingly worried about becoming sick if I continue drinking this water. The same applies
for my family who also regularly consumes water from Pake name(s)].
3.1 am worried about living next to [lake name]. Because I understand that exposure to
nutrient pollution can be detrimental to my health and that of others, I worn' about exposure.
The lakeside community includes children and pets, both of whom may not understand the
need to limit exposure to polluted water. Secondarily, the algae blooms that occur in polluted
water are unsightly and can negatively affect property values nearby to the lake.
4. SWIMMING OPT ION 1 (if wTater bullet is included): Because [lake name(s)] is overly
polluted and doesn't have safe drinking water, I also worry about swimming. I see large swaths
of green algae in [lake name(s)] which I believe to be algal blooms; I don't feel safe swimming in
murky water when I can no longer see below the surface. In addition, I am concerned that I will
get sick if I accidentally drink some of the water while swimming. 3
i
-------
1 https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/overview-identifying-and-restoring-impaired-waters-under-
section-303d-cwa
2 https://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/waterquality/303d/docs/2020-ll-30-epa-decision-letter-
missouri-2020-303d-public-notice.pdf
3 The impacts of nutrient pollution on human health are detailed here:
5. SWIMMING OPTION 2 (if water bullet is excluded): I no longer feel comfortable swimming
in [lake name(s)]. I see large swaths of green algae in [lake name(s)] which I believe to be algal
blooms; I don't feel safe swimming in water of which I can no longer see below the surface.
Moreover, I am concerned that I will get sick if I accidentally drink some of the water while
swimming because polluted water is known to cause health issues among people who drink it.
4
6.1 am worried about the impact of nutrient pollution on [Conservation/wildlife/park] areas
like [area name], which includes [lake name(s)]. These areas are important to me and my
community because of their recreational and conservation value. Because nutrient pollution can
be harmful to the ecosystem and to people, it is a threat to the special character of [area name].
As such, I believe that [lake name(s)] deserve(s) to be protected and included on the impaired
waters list. This will ensure that its value to the public will be preserved for the future.
7. Maintaining productive recreational fishing in [lake name(s)] is a top priority for me. I have
spent [XXX years/months/trips] fishing at [lake name(s)] and have grown increasingly worried
about the quantity and quality of fish that are available for me to. I have noticed that the
[diversity, quantity, quality, look, etc] of the fish that I am catching has changed which I
believe is due to the increase in phosphorus and nitrogen in [lake name(s)]. Excess toxins can
harm aquatic life and algae blooms can cause fish kills, I am concerned that excess nutrient
pollution may cause these impacts to [lake name(s)].
8.1 am concerned about boating in [lake name(s)] because of the nutrient pollution in the
lake(s). The algal blooms which I am observing stain boats and damage their motors. Overall,
the additional maintenance needs reduce the accessibility of boating in [lake name(s)] and
generally make boating less fun.5
9.1 am concerned about the impact of fertilizer runoff from farms in my community on [lake
name(s)]. The fertilizers that are used in the farms to grow crops contain nitrogen and
phosphorus which I understand are harmful if they get into [lake name(s)]'s waters. I am
worried that these chemicals are contaminating the water and that it is no longer safe for
fishing, drinking, and other recreational activities.
In summary, I support EPA's proposal to add [lake name(s)] to the 303(d) list in order to begin
the process of ensuring that the water is [safe to drink/available for safe and quality fishing/safe
for swimming], I cannot emphasize enough how concerned I am for my health and the health of
[my kids/my friends/my family/my community/etc], I am counting on the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources and EPA to keep me safe and to ensure that [lake name(s)] are safe for me
to [swim in/drink water from/fish in],
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments during this process.
Scott LeCorgne
-------
3
-------
Comment 44. Light. Joe
WhiteJDebb^^^^^
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
joe(
Friday, February 5, 2021 11:18 AM
R7 - WaterDtvision
St. Louis Creeks
In regards to Deer Creek in St. Louis County / City, I have seen children playing in it, thus it needs to
be protected. I also have seen children playing in Gravois Creek in St. Louis County.
I have kayaked in Mattese Creek in St. Louis County.
I have a surprising large amount of people in the River Des Peres in St. Louis City. I have seen people
fishing in it. I have a picture of a jet skier on it.
My requests are based on this document
https://www.epa.qov/sites/production/files/2020-12/documents/mo2020303dpartjalapproval.pdf
Joe Light
i
-------
Comment 45. Lorenz, Paul
White^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Water is now being traded as a valuable commodity in our financial markets. It is good business, good for the
environment, and good for people and their progeny.
Friday, January 15, 2021 1:55 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Protect our valuable water bodies from pollution.
-------
Comment 46. McKee, Patrick
White, Debby
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Patrick McKee
>
Saturday, January 16, 2021 2:12 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri lakes
I support the decision to add 40 lakes to Missouri's list of impaired waters.
Now that the problem has been acknowledged we can begin taking steps to address it.
Until the cover up was called out it would have been impossible for the clean up to begin.
There's a lot of work to do. Here's hoping that effective January 21 we can get going on it.
Thank you,
Patrick McKee
1
-------
Comment 47. Melies, Katie
White, Debby
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Please continue to monitor and act accordingly to preserve the safety and beauty of the Missouri
lakes and waterways.
Thanks,
Katie Melies
Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:46 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri Lakes
1
-------
Comment 48. Missouri Clean Water Commission
From: Wieberg, Chris
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 1:25 PM
To: R7-WaterDivision
Subject: FW: Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) Comments
Attachments: MO CWC Comment Letter to EPA - PN MO 2020 303d Decision_FINAL.docx.pdf
Chris Wieberg
Director
Water Protection Program
573-522-9912
We'd like your feedback on the service you received from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Please consider taking a few minutes to complete the department's Customer Satisfaction Survey at
https://www.survevmonkev.eom/r/MoDNRsurvey. Thank you.
From: Wieberg, Chris
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 1:08 PM
To: 'EPAR7WaterDivision@epa.gov'
Cc: 'Robichaud, Jeffery' ; Ashley
'Patricia N. Thomas' ; Duggan, Timothy ;
PENNY
I; Welschmeyer, Krista ; Hoke, John
; Galbraith, Ed
Subject: Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) Comments
To Whom it may concern, please see the attached comment letter from the Missouri Clean Water Commission related
to EPA's decision to add water bodies to Missouri's 2020 303d list.
Thanks,
Chris Wieberg
Director
Water Protection Program
573-522-9912
We'd like your feedback on the service you received from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Please consider taking a few minutes to complete the departments Customer Satisfaction Survey at
l
-------
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 2
The Commission requests that EPA reconsider the decision in its November 30, 2020, action to
list as impaired numerous Missouri waters without recent data. Instead, EPA should assign
waters lacking data within the past seven years as category 2B or 3B, if those data suggest the
possibility of a current impairment. The Commission believes this is a reasonable approach that
will prevent erroneously listing waters and the consequences of listing such waters.
This approach aligns with the Department's rationale regarding the age of data that specifies its
commitment to collect current data for a number of lakes (see attached document "Rationale for
Implementing Data Age LMD Requirements," which was included in the 2020 Integrated Report
submitted to EPA). Many of the lakes listed in that rationale were targeted for sampling under
the most recent cooperative agreement with the University of Missouri in calendar year 2020.
Going forward, the Commission will continue to direct the Department to prioritize data
collection on lakes that are suspected of impairment, in order to accurately and timely identify
impairments. Information on the status of sampling efforts for these lakes can be found in
Appendix 1.
In regard to the proposed listing of Lake of the Ozarks (LOTO), the Commission requests EPA
categorize the water body as a 3B water body for three reasons:
1. The available fish-kill data that EPA relied upon in its decision are not appropriate for a
listing decision. Fish kills used to document evidence of impairment should not rely
solely on public reporting that lacks agency verification and documentation of cause.
Unverified fish-kill reports do not pass the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
needed for use in assessments pursuant to Missouri's LMD. Of particular concern is the
June 2018 fish kill that EPA used to justify designating LOTO as impaired, which was
not verified by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), Department staff, or
any other qualified individual, and therefore does not meet the requirements of quality-
assured data pursuant to the Commission's approved LMD. Additionally, the fish-kill
report in question is not clear as to the cause of the event and aspects of the report appear
to not meet the characteristic of eutrophication outlined in the Missouri Nutrient Criteria
Implementation Plan.
2. The ecoregional assignment of LOTO as a solely Ozark Highlands Ecoregion reservoir
must be reevaluated. The Department has indicated that preliminary modeling indicates
Truman Reservoir, which is a Plains Ecoregion reservoir, accounts for the majority of the
flow and nutrient loading in LOTO. Further evaluation and study is needed to accurately
assign LOTO's ecoregional designation before an accurate listing designation is possible.
3. The socioeconomic impact of listing LOTO is significant. The combined Harry S.
Truman Reservoir and LOTO system are a substantial economic and tourism driver for
the State of Missouri, and an impairment listing without just cause could severely and
unfairly impact the reputation of these reservoirs in the mind of the public. Additionally,
an impairment decision would result in costly, unnecessary wastewater infrastructure
upgrades.
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 3
For these reasons, the Commission requests that EPA defer a final decision or designate LOTO
as category 3B, until such time as the Department can complete its evaluation and
recommendation for the appropriate designation of the lake. A decision at this moment is not
critical to the immediate ecological health of the lake.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on your agency's decision regarding Missouri's
303(d) list.
Respectfully,
Ashley McCarty, Chair
Missouri Clean Water Commission
c: Missouri Clean Water Commission
Chris Wieberg, Director, Water Protection Program
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 4
Appendix 1. Sampling Schedule for Lakes Identified During Assessments as Needing More Data
WBID
Water body Name
Sampled
Planned Sampling
7029
Hunncwcll Lake
2019. 2020
2021-2024
7036
Shelbyvillc Lake
--
2021-2024
7105
Jamcsport Community Lake
--
2021-2024
71 12
King Lake
2020
2021-2024
7120
Cameron Lake # 1
2020
2021-2024
7121
Cameron Lake #2
2020
2021-2024
7149
Sterling Price Community Lake
--
2021-2024
7173
Thomas Hill Reservoir
--
2021-2024
7208
Montrose Lake
--
2021-2024
7241
Peaceful Valley Lake
2020 - 3 samples
2021-2024
7288
Indian Lake
2020
2021-2024
7391
Jackrabbit Lake
2020
2021-2024
7015
Deer Ridge Community Lake
2019. 2020
2021-2024
7018
Lancaster City Lake - New
--
2021-2024
7061
Savannah City Reservoir
--
2021-2024
7104
Jamcsport City Lake
--
2021-2024
71 10
Worth County Community Lake
--
2021-2024
71 1 1
Limpp Community State Lake
--
2021-2024
71 13
King City Old Reservoir
--
2021-2024
71 14
King City New Reservoir
--
2021-2024
71 18
Pony Express Lake
--
2021-2024
71 19
Cameron Lake #3
2020
2021-2024
7143
Linncus Lake
--
2021-2024
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 5
WBID
Water body Name
Sampled
Planned Sampling
7147
Fountain Grove Lakes
--
2021-2024
7154
Unionville Reservoir
2020
2021-2024
7159
Bucklin Lake
--
2021-2024
7160
Marceline Reservoir
--
2021-2024
7183
Peters Lake
--
2021-2024
7186
Ben Branch Lake
2020
2021-2024
7207
HS Truman Lake
2020
2021-2024
7212
Lake Winnebago
--
2021-2024
7230
Drexel City Reservoir South
2020
2021-2024
7234
Atkinson Lake
2020
2021-2024
7304
Timberline Lakes
2019
2021-2024
7333
Shepard Mountain Lake
2020
2021-2024
7378
Coot Lake
--
2021-2024
7379
Cottontail Lake
2020
2021-2024
7383
Gopher Lake
--
2021-2024
7403
Lake Nell
2020
2021-2024
7025
Edina Lake
--
2021-2024
7124
Hamilton Lake
--
2021-2024
7153
Lake Thunderhead
--
2021-2024
7365
Belcher Branch Lake
~
2021-2024
-------
Comment 49. Missouri Coalition for the Environment and The Washington University Interdisciplinary
Environmental Clinic
From: Cyr, Alexander
Sent; Monday, March 22, 2021 2:02 PM
To: R7-WaterDivision
Cc: Dayna Stock; Jim Karpowicz; Hubertz, Elizabeth;Greensfelder, Julia
Subject: Missouri Coalition for the Environment MO 303(cl^sK^mmenu^Uer
Attachments: Missouri Coalition for the Environment MO 303(d) List Comment Letter.pdf
Mr, Robichaud,
Please find attached a comment letter on the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed addition of 40 lakes to the
Missouri 2020 Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List, The Washington University Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic is
submitting this letter on behalf of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment,
Best,
Alex Cyr
1
-------
Comment 49. Attachement
Washington University in St Louis
School of Law
Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic
March 22, 2021
Jeffrey Robichaud
Director, Water Division
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
Submitted via email to R7-WaterDivision@epa.gov
Re: Missouri 2020 Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List
Dear Mr. Robichaud,
On behalf of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment ("MCE"), the Washington
University Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic is submitting this letter to comment on the
Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") proposed addition of 40 lakes to the Missouri 2020
Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List ("303(d) list").1 MCE is an environmental advocacy
organization with offices in St. Louis City and Columbia. MCE has over 800 members
throughout Missouri. MCE's members have advocated since 1969 for the protection of all
streams, rivers, wetlands, and floodplains throughout the State of Missouri. MCE's members
frequently pursue activities which involve drawing drinking water from, swimming and fishing
in, and floating on Missouri's waters. Thus, MCE has a substantial interest in MDNR's proposed
303(d) list.
MCE supports the EPA's recommended listing of these lakes which are impaired for the
protection of aquatic life use under Missouri's nutrient criteria.2 MCE supports this decision
because it is concerned with the environmental and social impact of nutrient pollution in lakes
which may be used for drinking water or recreation and believes the listing of these 40 waters is
a positive step toward remediating nutrient pollution in Missouri. This comment letter presents
'See EPA Region VII "s public notice for the proposal at https://www.epa.gov/mo/state-missoiiri-2020-list-impaired-
waters MDNR's 2020 303(d) list is located at https://dnr nio.gov/env/wpp/waterquality/303d/docs/2020-303d-list-
cwc-approved-2020-04-02.pdf
9
MCE does not support the nutrient criteria themselves and is currently challenging EPA's approval of them. See
Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. Wheeler, No. 19-CV-4215 NKL (W.D. Mo. Filed December 3, 2019).
MCE continues to argue for more stringent standards for protection of aquatic life and for standards protecting the
drinking water and recreation uses, it recognizes that the placement of a lake on the 303(d) list for any impaired use
is a positive step toward the improvement of water quality in Missouri.
Campus Box 1120, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
(314) 935-7238, FAX: (314) 696-1220; www.law.wustl.edu
-------
information and MCE's concerns regarding the following issues: drinking water reservoirs,
swimming, conservation areas, residential areas, fertilizer runoff, and boating. This comment
letter will also discuss the data and methodological errors that led to the non-listing of many of
the lakes by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).
Drinking Water Reservoirs Must Be Protected and Cleaned Up
MCE supports the EPA's recommendation because it will help ensure cleaner water in
the Missouri reservoirs that produce water that is safe for drinking. Excessive nutrient pollution
can make it harder to treat water to ensure its safety for human consumption. Byproducts of
treating nutrient polluted water can also cause problems. Fourteen out of forty of the lakes
proposed for addition to the 303(d) list have been assigned the Drinking Water Use under
Missouri regulations3 and are used as drinking water reservoirs. While Missouri has chosen not
to promulgate nutrient criteria to protect drinking water, EPA's proposed addition of the
reservoirs designated for drinking water use to the 303(d) should at least reduce some of the
nutrient loading to these impaired waterbodies, even though it is not a fully adequate solution.
Lakes Proposed for the 303(d) List That Have Drinking Water Designated Use
Lake
County
Cameron #1 (Century) Lake
DeKalb
Elmwood City Lake
Sullivan
Hamilton Lake
Caldwell
Harry S. Truman Reservoir
Benton, Henry, St. Clair
Jamesport City Lake
Daviess
Jamesport Community Lake
Daviess
King City (East) New Reservoir
Gentry
King Lake
DeKalb
Macon Lake
Macon
Memphis Reservoir
Scotland
Perry City
Ralls
Shelbyville
Shelby
Shepherd Mountain Lake/Ironton
Iron
Thomas Hill Reservoir
Macon, Randolph
3 10 CSR 20-7.031 Water Quality Standards
Campus Box 1120, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
(314) 935-7238, FAX: (314) 696-1220; www.law.wustl.edu
-------
Excess Nutrient Pollution Can Adversely Affect Whole Body Contact Recreational
Activities Such As Swimming
All forty lakes proposed by EPA to be added to the 303(d) list have the designated use of
whole body contact or primary recreation. Human health impacts from algae growth include
rashes, stomach or liver illness, difficulty breathing, and neurological effects.4 Excess
phosphorus and nitrogen can cause algae growth which can be detrimental to human and aquatic
health. MCE members have testified in the federal court nutrients lawsuit that the lakes they use
for recreation are "covered in algae," or cloudy with suspended algae, making them reluctant to
swim in or otherwise use the lakes for recreation. While Missouri has also chosen not to
promulgate nutrient criteria to protect primary recreational uses, EPA's proposed addition of the
reservoirs designated for primary recreational use to the 303(d) list is a positive first step toward
reducing some of the nutrient loading to these impaired waterbodies.
Excess Nutrient Pollution Can Impact Fishing and Boating
Maintaining productive recreational fishing in Missouri lakes is also important to MCE
and its members who use Missouri lakes for these activities. Excess nutrients can harm aquatic
life, causing the mix of fish and other creatures to change, and can lead to fish kills. Algal
blooms stain boats and damage boat motors, requiring additional maintenance at additional cost.
MCE members have testified that the algae in the lakes they use to boat becomes tangled in the
boat propellers.5
MCE has advocated for more stringent nutrient criteria to fully protect aquatic life so that
Missouri's lakes can begin to be restored. The addition of these 40 lakes to the 303(d) list is a
positive step toward repairing aquatic life and better boating. MCE supports their addition.
Nutrient Pollution Negatively Affects Protected Conservation Areas.
MCE is additionally concerned about the impact of nutrient pollution on the protected
areas that contain 10 of the 40 lakes.6 These areas are important to MCE because of their
4 https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects-human-health
5 Secondarily, studies show the algae blooms that occur in polluted water are unsightly and can negatively affect
property values nearby to the lake. See Schleich, J., D. White, and K. Stephenson, Cost implications in achieving
alternative water quality targets, Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 2879-2884, September 1996; and
Michael, Holly J., Kevin J. Boyle, and Roy Bouchard. "Water Quality Affects Property Prices: A Case Study of
Selected Maine Lakes." Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine. February 1996;
and Donald N. Steinnes, Measuring the Economic Value of Water Quality: The Case of Lakeshore Land, Annals of
Regional Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 171-176, June 1992.
6 Those lakes are: Buffalo Bill Lake, Deer Ridge Community Lake, Harry S. Truman Reservoir, Jackrabbit Lake,
Jamesport Community Lake, Jo Shelby (Fountain Grove Lake), Lake of the Ozarks, Limpp Community State Lake,
Pony Express Lake, and Shelbyville Lake.
Campus Box 1120, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
(314) 935-7238, FAX: (314) 696-1220; www.law.wustl.edu
-------
recreational and conservation value. Limpp Community State Lake is one such example, as the
land around the lake has been set aside as conservation land in order to protect the lake. This
allows various recreational uses of the lake to be protected, by reducing various forms of
pollution in the lake, including nutrient pollution. Because nutrient pollution can be harmful to
the ecosystem and to people, it is a threat to the lakes' special character - degradation of water
quality in the lake strikes at the purpose of the conservation area. As such, MCE believes that
these lakes deserve to be protected and included on the impaired waters list. This will ensure that
their value to the public will be preserved for the future.
MCE Agrees That MDNR Did Not Use All Data Available in Creating the 303(d) List.
Missouri's use of existing lake data to make decisions about impairment and placement
on the 303(d) list has been a concern of MCE throughout the nutrient criteria rule-making
process. Missouri's 2020 designation, and its exclusion of 40 lakes from the impaired list, makes
concrete MCE's point, especially the state's use of screening criteria and bioconfirmation
MCE agrees with EPA's finding that MDNR did not use all of the data available to it in
creating its 303(d) list. As specifically noted, MDNR did not use data older than seven years, did
not use the entire data set from 2013, and left out other available data. MCE supports EPA's
efforts to ensure that Missouri uses all available data when making decisions about impairment.
MCE will therefore continue to monitor MDNR and EPA's compliance with the CWA.
Conclusion
In summation, MCE urges EPA to finalize its decision to add the 40 lakes it identified to
Missouri's 303(d) list. The factors identified support listing and MCE urges EPA to do so.
endpoints.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth J. Hubertz
Attorney for Missouri Coalition for the Environment
Campus Box 1120, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130-4899
(314) 935-7238, FAX: (314) 696-1220; www.law.wustl.edu
-------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIV ISION
MISSOURI COALITION FOR )
THE ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATION, )
a non-profit corporation, ) CIVIL NO.
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) COMPLAINT
)
AN DREW R. WHEE LER, in his )
official capacity as the Administrator )
of the United States Environmental )
Protection Agency; )
)
Defendant. )
)
)
DECLARATION OF STEVE BREWER
1. My name is Steve Brewer, and I reside in St. Louis County. Missouri. I am over the
age of 18 and am competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein and would so testify if
called upon to do so.
2.1 have personal knowledge of all of the matters set forth herein, except statements of
my understanding based upon information and belief, which matters I believe to be true.
3. I am a member of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
4. 1 use several lakes in Missouri for activities such as pleasure boating, kayaking,
canoeing, and fishing.
5. I am concerned about nutrients pollution in the Lake of the Ozarks.
6. Although 1 still use Lake of the Ozarks for pleasure boating. I used to also use that lake
for water skiing and swimming before the lake became covered with algae.
I
-------
A net ln:;«„n Rev»mi \* .is »»nfvi su'cd ric vi nvni m I Ac of llv * V»>rkj> *. a>-
te-Jikcd. whtA a! Avtiiv i.u'A'ffl'- n? 1 Ac 'he t VarA ;r Jo A>p 'iM.< in Am.c
i^'narn. Sir.cc An ;iuv ; iu> lender u -c ! At,- os' lA I AA *- 'or ,ip' nx' ih> iemv J.ue v\vne in i>m\.K\ wait ^ a'.et tu>n< tii^ Like
i .dv,. iim' ! i.n'i 'i vui I as.. (i >! v-ni- vv'ic arid k.u Au'j
11 ! am •.'OiuciiuJ Atmi V^v- .n.dnems in > 've I *v.;. i Ac
i'.'. I tho Ww"! v.;t,oi;i\ i ;\" c Ah-u' ! Ac i- ' h< po» >i vl'iv. !•* ^invA* , « aAtc U'>
Anu to; h,-i',sI\ c.m:ukI ! u\< n^I «'i; pu' .> io'>! h r >• i A",a A»-c
A PwMiant k"> -S \ S( t, f M'» I !v\ 1.ho un.Su pcnuil) jvt]!i!\ ihauhe fAeccinu n
It tic and
ten.I u> i otvnuv >p
Minii in acli\ iU€y li
n-\.' A' ' iS< J . A>\ o !< i;
i, 0'] ii <¦ c.X'i.s
Nr m u;i
Steve Bremer
-------
IN HI! UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
MISSOURI COALITION FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATION,
a non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL NO.
COMPLAINT
ANDREW R. WHEELER, in his
official capacity as the Administrator
of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency;
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF JOE PITTS
1. My name is Joe Pitts, and I reside in Christian County, Missouri. I am over the age of
18 and am competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein and would so testify if called
upon to do so.
2.1 have personal knowledge of all of the matters set forth herein, except statements of
my understanding based upon information and belief, which matters I believe to be true.
3. I am a member of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
4.1 use several lakes in Missouri, including Lake Springfield, for activities such as
kayaking and fishing.
5. I am concerned about nutrients pollution in Lake Springfield.
-------
6.1 have made use of Lake Springfield since about 1965 and over time have witnessed
the lake change from having relatively clear water to having cloudy water that is full of
suspended algae most of the time.
7.1 rarely go kayaking on Lake Springfield during the middle of summer because the
water stinks. It has a putrid smell like decaying vegetation.
8.1 used to eat fish I caught from Lake Springfield, but I no longer eat the fish I catch
from that lake because of my concerns about the water quality.
9. I believe there is a lack of concern on the part of the regulatory community regarding
nutrients pollution.
10.1 intend to continue participating in activities like those described above for the
foreseeable future on my property and on lakes throughout Missouri.
11. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746,1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on _November 8. 2019, in Christian County, Missouri.
-------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
MISSOURI COALITION FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATION,
a non-profit corporation,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO.
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPLAINT
ANDREW R. WHEELER, in his
official capacity as the Administrator
of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency;
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF VINCENT COLLETTI
1. My name is Vincent Colletti, and I reside in Franklin County, Missouri. I am over the
age of 18 and am competent to testify as to the matters set forth herein and would so testify if
called upon to do so.
2.1 have personal knowledge of all of the matters set forth herein, except statements of
my understanding based upon information and belief, which matters I believe to be true.
3.1 am a member of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
4.1 own property in Gasconade County, Missouri, which is located on Peaceful Valley
Lake.
6.1 use Peaceful Valley Lake for fishing, swimming, and boating.
7.1 am concerned about changes in the water quality of Peaceful Valley Lake.
8.1 have observed a significant increase in algae growth in Peaceful Valley Lake.
-------
9, In particular, there is a shallow area of the take that I had previously been able to use
for fishing, swimming, and boating. However, the algae growth has become so severe that it
wraps around boat propellers such that it can no longer be used for boating. The water quality in
this part of the lake is so poor that it is also no longer usable for swimming or fishing.
10. I intend to continue participating in activities like those described above for the
foreseeable future on my property and on lakes throughout .Missouri.
i I. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746,1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on NoU ,2019, inCounty, Missouri.
Vincent Colletti
2
-------
Comment 50. Missouri Congressional Delegation, House of Representatives, Congress of the
United States
White, Pebby
Good evening,
Attached you will find comments pertaining to the Nov, 30, 2020 EPA decision on Missouri's 2020 303(d) List on from
members of the Missouri Congressional delegation.
If you need any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best,
Jordan Wood | Legislative Assistant
Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3)
2230 RHOB | (202) 225-2956
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Wood, Jordan
Monday, March 22, 2021 5:46 PM
R?-WaterDiv)5ton
Esser, Carley; Schmidtlein, Meqhan
EPA - Missouri 2020 303(d) List Decision
EPA Missouri 2020 303(d) List Decision.pdf
1
-------
Comment 50.
Congre&s of tfjc Umteti States?
A..aohmen. tyoutft of 3Repr csfctitatibes
flasfjiiiftiii, SIC
March 22, 2021
Mr. Edward H. Chu
Acting Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Dear Regional Administrator Jim Gulliford -
Thank you for your efforts in protecting the environmental interests for communities in the State
of Missouri. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) proposed addition of 40 lakes to Missouri's 2020 List of Impaired Waters under
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) and are grateful the EPA extended the public comment
period an additional 45 days.
We request that EPA reconsider its listing recommendation on some of the lakes in Missouri
where incomplete and inconsistent data was utilized. The Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and Missouri Clean Water Commission (Commission) are committed to
working with the EPA to ensure the EPA and public have the most relevant data available.
However, more time is needed to gather new data and evaluate existing data before prematurely
listing some of the lakes.
On April 2, 2020, the Missouri Clean Water Commission (Commission) approved Missouri's
2020 303(d) List, which contained 46 lakes that do not meet Missouri's new numeric-nutrient
criteria for chlorophyll-a. In proposing these lakes to the Commission for listing, the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources relied upon the Listing Methodology Document (LMD)
approved by the Missouri Clean Water Commission, the Missouri Nutrient Criteria
Implementation Plan (NCIP) approved by EPA, and the data available within the review
timeframe the Department established in order to meetEPA's requirements for submittal of the
list.
There are several concerns surrounding the EPA's decision to list the lakes we would like to
bring to your attention.
1. The EPA's listing of the Lake of the Ozarks relies on unverified data. We request the
EPA re-assign the Lake of the Ozarks to Category 3B since the EPA's proposing listing
was based on insufficient fish-kill data that was not verified by the Department of Natural
Resources or the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC).
-------
2. Some of the EPA's proposed listings are based on data that have a low probability
of being representative of current conditions; listing decisions for these lakes should
be varied to allow additional data collection. Older data may not represent the current
water quality of individual lakes since they can vary widely. We request the EPA
categorize waters lacking recent water quality data as category 2B or 3B to avoid any
consequences resulting from errors associated with old data.
3. Some data EPA used to justify some additional lake classifications was not available
to DNR at the time of DNR's assessment. This included data published not only after
DNR completed its assessments, but also after public notice and the Missouri Clean
Water Commission's approval the 2020 303(d) List on April 2, 2020. In summation, all
data published after the approved and legal listing processed followed by DNR for the
2020 303(d) List should be excluded from EPA's decision. All data in question will be
incorporated into DNR's next regularly scheduled assessment.
4. EPA notes multiple points of impairment, inconsistent with their own criteria.
EPA's criteria specifies that the point of compliance when it pertains to sampling certain
lakes is intended to be near the dam or outflow of the lake. However, EPA cited multiple
sample points that were not near dams or outflows, in contrast to their own criteria.
Therefore, DNR is requesting that the numeric criteria should not be applied to any other
sample point when determining whether to list these addition lakes to the 2020 303(d)
List.
5. The assessment of Lake of the Ozarks is complex and needs additional review. We
request the EPA categorize Lake of the Ozarks as 3B to allow the Department to analyze
new information that would facilitate additional refinement of the LMD and determine
the appropriate water-quality endpoint for the lake or portions of the lake. Additionally,
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources is currently reevaluating the assignment of
the Lake of the Ozarks to the Ozark Highlands Ecoregion and conducting additional
analysis of regarding the nutrient loading in that water body. Lake of the Ozarks is most
appropriately categorized as 3B while these evaluations take place.
The listing of these additional water bodies should not be taken lightly and necessitates thorough
and analytical consideration as it would have significant impacts on families, landowners, small
businesses, and the State and region's economy. We appreciate the EPA working with our state
agencies and stakeholders to ensure our bodies of water are in compliance with the 303(d) listing
process with the most relevant data available. We appreciate your careful consideration of our
recommendations as you finalize your approval of Missouri's 303(d) list.
-------
Sincerely,
Member of Congress
Roy Blunt
United States Senator
Jason Smith
Member of Congress
Vicky Htrtzler
Member of Congress
Josh Hawley
United States Senator
Ann Wagner
Member of Congress
Billy Long
Member of Congress
Sam Graves
Member of Congress
-------
Comment 51. Missouri Department of Natural Resources
From: Wieberg, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:41 PM
To: R7-WaterDivision
Cc: Yancy, Holly; Welschmeyer, Krista; Alexander, Jennifer; Uptegrove, Ashley; john.hoke@dnr.mo.gov;
robert.voss; Robichaud, Jeffery; Galbraith, Ed
Subject: Missouri DNR comments on EPA decision to add waters to the Missouri's 2020 303d list
Attachments: DNR Comment Letterto EPA - PN MO 2020 303d Decision 2021_0227 FINAL 3-2021.pdf
To whom it may concern, Attached are the Missouri DNR comments regarding the EPA decision to add waters to the
Missouri 2020 303d list. Please let me know if you have any questions
Thanks,
Chris Wieberg
Director
Water Protection Program
573-522-9912
We'd like your feedback on the service you received from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
Please consider taking a few minutes to complete the departments Customer Satisfaction Survey at
https://www.survevmonkev.eom/r/MoDNRsurvey. Thank you.
l
-------
Comment 51. Attachment
O
/w\.
~WN
Missouri Department of
dnr.mo.gov
NATURAL RESOURCES
Michael L. Parson, Governor Carol S. Comer, Director
March 16, 2021
Jeff Robichaud, Director
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
11201 Rentier Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
RE: Comments on EPA Decision to Add Waters to Missouri's 2020 303(d) List
Deai- Jeff Robichaud:
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed addition of 40 lakes to Missouri's
2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (the 303(d) List). The Department also appreciates EPA
extending the public comment period an additional 45 days.
On April 2, 2020. the Missouri Clean Water Commission (Commission)1 approved Missouri's
2020 303(d) List, which contained 46 lakes that do not meet Missouri's new numeric-nutrient
criteria for chlorophyll-a. In proposing these lakes to the Commission for listing, the Department
relied upon the Listing Methodology Document (LMD) approved by the Commission, the
Missouri Nutrient Criteria Implementation Plan (NCIP) approved by EPA, and the data available
within the review timeframe the Department established in order to meet EPA's deadline for
submittal of the List.
The Department requests that EPA reconsider its listing recommendation on some of the lakes
where listing would be premature. The consequences of listing are serious, and therefore
impairment determinations require a level of confidence we have not yet reached for these lakes.
Missouri's EPA-approved regulatory structure is designed to provide adequate opportunity to
gather and evaluate data before making an impairment determination. We ask that EPA
acknowledge that more time is needed to gather new data, evaluate existing data, or both, in
order to avoid incorrect listing decisions and potentially unwarranted consequences. The
Department offers the following comments hi support of this recommendation.
1. EPA's listing of the Lake of the Ozarks relied on unverified data.
The Department requests that EPA re-assign Lake of the Ozarks to Categoiy 3B. EPA's
proposed listing decision was based on fish-kill data that were not verified by the Department of
1 The Missouri Clean Water Law giants authority to the Commission to promulgate, rescind, or modify regulations,
including those related to adopting the LMD. and to approve Missouri's 303(d) List. See § 644.026, RSMo.
Recycled paper
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 2
Natural Resources or the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC). Those data are not of
sufficient quality to support a listing determination.
The Department met with MDC fishery biologists on January 11, 2021, to confirm our
understanding of MDC's process for documenting fish kills. MDC staff record in their database
the various reports they receive regarding fish kills, but they do not verify all the reports. Some
events are reported by the public with the details supplied by the person reporting the event. If
MDC staff are available, they verify the event and record other details. If MDC staff are not
available, the event is recorded but not verified and lacks the information needed to determine
the cause of the fish kill. This type of event is equivalent to data of unknown quality or
assurance.
Consistent with the LMD and NCIP, data of unknown quality or assurance are not appropriate
bases for listing waters as impaired. Unverified fish kills are not suitable for assessment purposes
because of the lack of quality assurance and documentation of potential causal indicators. The
LMP requires both of these items in order to be confident in the assessment. Likewise, the NCIP
references MDC investigations of fish kills that have documentation (i.e., "a summary report of
the species, size, and number of fish and other aquatic organisms killed") as a usable source of
information for this response assessment endpoint.
The June 2018 fish kill EPA relied on was not verified by MDC staff and does not have any
corroborating measurements of dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, nutrients, or other factors
which would point to eutrophication as the cause of the fish kill. It is not clear by the report
whether nutrient-related eutrophi cation caused the fish kill, and aspects of the report do not meet
the characteristics of eutrophi cation outlined in the NCIP. Department staff have consulted with
MDC staff and confirmed that MDC's measurements of high temperature and low dissolved
oxygen coinciding with the event were recorded at Lake Niangua, not Lake of the Ozarks. Lake
Niangua is a much smaller and shallower lake that is not representative of conditions at Lake of
the Ozarks. Therefore, this fish-kill report does not meet minimum data-quality requirements for
consideration in an impairment determination.
The June 2018 fish-kill report should not be relied upon as evidence of impairment through
Response Assessment Endpoint A. Accordingly, Category 3B is the appropriate category for
Lake of the Ozarks.
2. Some of EPA's proposed additional listings are based on data that have a low
probability of being representative of current conditions; listing decisions for these
lakes should be deferred to allow additional data collection.
It is well-documented that water quality in individual lakes can be widely variable and older data
may not represent current conditions. To avoid erroneous or arbitrary listings based on data that
no longer reflect the conditions of the water body, the LMD established a methodology for
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 3
evaluating and utilizing older data. Waters without recent evidence of impairment are
categorized as "suspect," and then the Department collects additional data to support or refute an
impairment determination on a future 303(d) list. This approach aligns with the Department's
rationale regarding the age of data that specifies its commitment to collect current data for a
number of lakes (see attached document "Rationale for Implementing Data Age LMD
Requirements," which was included in the 2020 Integrated Report submitted to EPA).
EPA is proposing to list fourteen lakes that lack recent data regarding whether the water is
currently impaired. The Department requests that EPA categorize these lakes, which lack any
water-quality data from the past seven years, as Category 2B or 3B. Please see Appendix 1 for a
listing of these lakes. The Department has directed the University of Missouri to sample these
lakes, pursuant to the existing cooperative agreement between the Department and the
University. The University has collected data on five of the lakes already and will sample the
remainder during the coming seasons. Future cooperative agreements will continue to target
lakes where the use attainment is inconclusive, focusing on those lacking current data.
Information on the status of sampling efforts for these lakes can be found in Appendix 2. As
EPA is aware, Missouri's 2020 303(d) List is the first listing cycle incorporating the newly
implemented lake numeric-nutrient criteria. Water-quality monitoring takes time to plan,
prioritize, and conduct, and the Department uses each assessment cycle to reprioritize data
collection needs. The Commission and Department are committed to prioritizing data collection
on lakes that are suspected of impairment to ensure the right listing decision is made timely.
3. Missouri's approach for older data is consistent with the relevant case law.
EPA has expressed concern regarding whether the Commission's approach regarding data age is
consistent with opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia relating to data age and listing. It is.
Thomas v. Jackson, 581 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 2009), is distinguishable from the situation here. In
Thomas, Iowa's Credible Data Law created a presumption that all data older than five years is
not credible for purposes of developing a 303(d) list. Although in that lawsuit EPA conceded
plaintiffs' argument that the Credible Data Law was inconsistent with the Clean Water Act, the
court did not decide that issue. In addition, Missouri's LMD differs from Iowa's approach in
important respects. Iowa was automatically discrediting all data older than five years; Missouri
does not ignore data based on an age cutoff. Pursuant to the LMD, the Department can and did
rely on data older than seven years in developing the 303(d) List, and considered that data in
relation to newer data or the absence of newer data. For water bodies where the only data
indicating potential impairment are older than seven years, the Department defers its impairment
determination to allow the timely collection and evaluation of additional data that are more likely
to be representative of current conditions in the water body. Rather than ignoring the older data,
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 4
the Department utilizes the data age to propel additional evaluation that is essential to a fully-
informed impairment determination.
As referenced in the Potomac Riverkeeper case discussed below, an agency may decide "to not
use" data, as long as it has "assembled and evaluated" the data and articulated a "rationale" for
its decision. See 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(6)(iii). In preparing the 303(d) List, the Department applied
the approach described in the preceding paragraph to evaluate the data for each water body. As
required by 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(6)(iii), the Department provided in its 2020 Integrated Report
submittal its rationale, "Rationale for Implementing Data Age LMD Requirements" (enclosed),
for gathering additional data before making an impairment determination on each of the water
bodies for which the only data indicating potential impairment were older than seven years.
EPA's November 30, 2020, decision letter confirms EPA was provided and reviewed that
rationale as part of Missouri's 303(d) List submission.
Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Wheeler, 381 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019) pertains to a state's
decision to not list a water due to uncertainty about whether the data collected is representative
of the conditions of the water body. In this case, EPA gave the state deference and time to collect
additional data—four cycles, to be exact. Ultimately, it was the state's lack of responsiveness in
collecting the additional data that resulted in the ruling in EPA's favor. The uncertainty in the
data at the outset was not the issue. The Department has demonstrated its commitment to
collecting additional data to reach timely impairment determinations. The Department
historically has been responsive to requests to collect additional data and, as noted above, has
already taken concrete actions to collect additional data on the lakes that do not have data
representing current conditions.
4. Some of EPA's proposed listings prematurely incorporated data that was not
available to the Department at the time its review.
EPA has applied data that were not available to the Department at the time of assessment, were
not appropriate to apply, or both. That data is more appropriately provided to the Department for
consideration in the next 303(d) evaluation cycle, or at the very least provided to the Department
during EPA's review period so the Department can attempt to address it before EPA reaches a
decision based on it.
Over the past two decades, the Department has consistently produced timely 305(b) Reports and
303(d) Lists that meet EPA's biennial deadlines. The Department undergoes an extensive data
solicitation effort to assemble and evaluate "all existing and readily available water quality-
related data and information" pursuant to 40 CFR § 130.7(b). Nevertheless, the Department was
unaware of some of the eutrophication data EPA considered in its recommendation. As noted
above in the case of Lake of the Ozarks, some of these data may not meet the minimum
sufficiency required by the LMD and we are unable to determine whether EPA has fully
addressed this concern. Accordingly, EPA should re-categorize these waters as 3B to allow the
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 5
Department sufficient time to review and quality assure this new information. A list of these
lakes, and the rationale for listing as 3B, can be found in Appendix 1.
The Department tracks fish kills reported by MDC and related to potential violations of the
Department's environmental requirements; these reports contain agency-verified information and
measurements. After the Commission approved the 2020 303(d) List, the Department became
aware that EPA was relying on additional MDC fish-kill reports not tracked by the Department
for enforcement purposes. Department staff have not yet had the chance to fully investigate these
events for relevancy and verification, but will do so for the next assessment cycle. As noted
above in our assessment of data on Lake of the Ozarks, however, our review of these data has
revealed barriers to their use for assessment purposes.
Three of the fish kills EPA cites (occurring in 2014 and 2015) on Truman Reservoir were not
actually fish kills, but reported algal blooms. MDC's database also captures some algal bloom
events. While this information is concerning, it was not accompanied with dissolved oxygen, pH,
or algal toxin measurements. Algal blooms themselves are not one of the Response Assessment
Endpoints and, therefore, EPA should not use these events in their decision on Truman
Reservoir.
5. EPA applied multiple compliance points, inconsistent with Missouri's EPA-
approved rules.
In Appendix C of EPA's decision letter, EPA comments on three lakes (Harry S. Truman, Lake
of the Ozarks, and Unionville Reservoir) for which criteria were exceeded at sample points other
than near the dam. Missouri's EPA-approved rules specify that the compliance point is near the
dam or outflow of the lake. The numeric criteria should not be applied to any other sample point.
6. The assessment of Lake of the Ozarks is complex and needs additional review.
The Department requests EPA categorize Lake of the Ozarks as 3B to allow the Department to
analyze new information that would facilitate additional refinement of the LMD and determine
the appropriate water-quality endpoint for the lake or portions of the lake. Placing Lake of the
Ozarks in Category 3B will provide EPA and the Department additional opportunity to collect
more data and resolve recently identified issues with the current assessment.
Information increasingly indicates that flow and nutrient loading from Truman Reservoir are
driving nutrient loading in Lake of the Ozarks. Based on current conditions, the Department
estimates 71 percent of total nitrogen loading and 63 percent of total phosphorous loading to
Lake of the Ozarks come from Truman Reservoir. The hydrology and chemistry of these lakes
are intimately linked and the dynamics of nutrient loading merit closer examination during
assessment. Loading to Lake of the Ozarks from Ozark Highland tributaries is less of a factor to
water quality than releases from Truman Reservoir.
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 6
Enclosed is the Department's current evaluation of nutrient loading for the paired Truman
Reservoir and Lake of the Ozarks system (Lake of the Ozarks Watershed and Nutrient Loading
Analysis). This analysis indicates that assigning Ozark Highlands criteria for the entire Lake of
the Ozarks may not be warranted because the majority of the Lake of the Ozarks watershed
(including the watershed of Truman Reservoir) is located in the Plains Ecoregion. Initially, the
Department applied simplified geographic, rather than hydrologic, assumptions on the
appropriate watershed to use when assessing Lake of the Ozarks. This recent analysis indicates
that methodology does not reflect the hydrologic and chemical reality of the system.
Accordingly, the Department is reevaluating the assignment of the Lake of the Ozarks to the
Ozark Highlands Ecoregion and conducting additional analysis regarding nutrient loading in that
water body. Lake of the Ozarks is most appropriately categorized as 3B while these evaluations
take place.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. Through the 303(d)
listing process the Department is committed to designating all of Missouri lakes that are
impaired, and none of our lakes that are not. We appreciate your careful consideration of our
recommendations as you finalize your approval of Missouri's 303(d) list.
Sincerely,
Carol S. Comer
Director
Enclosures
c: Missouri Clean Water Commission
Chris Wieberg, Director, Water Protection Program
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 7
Appendix I. Lakes with Data Age and Fisli Kill Issues to Include in Category 3B
W81D
Lake Name
Size
County
Ecoregion
Category
7120
Cameron #1 (Century) Lake
25
Dekalb
Plains
Data Age
7383
Gopher Lake
33
Jackson
Plains
Data Age
7644
Happy Holier lake
68
Andrew
Plains
Data Age
7207
Harry S Truman Lake
55600
Benton
Plains
Fish Kills
7288
Indian Hills Lake
279
Crawford
Ozark Highland
Data Age
7391
Jackrabbit lake
28
Jackson
Plains
Fish Kills
7105
Jamesport Community Lake
27
Daviess
Plains
Data Age
7403
Lake Nell
26
Jackson
Plains
Data Age
7205
Lake of the Ozarks
59520
Camden
Ozark Highland
Fish Kills
7212
Lake Winnebago
272
Cass
Plains
Data Age
7168
Macon lake
139
Macon
Plains
Data Age
7208
Montrose Lake
1444
Henry
Plains
Data Age
7241
Peaceful Valley Lake
158
Gasconade
Ozark Highland
Data Age
7630
Prairie lake
22
St, Charles
Plains
Data Age
7149
Sterling Price Community Lake
23
Chariton
Plains
Data Age
7173
Thomas Hill Reservoir
4400
Randolph
Plains
Data Age
7154
Unionville Reservoir {Lake Mahoney)
74
Putnam
Plains
Data Age
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 8
Appendix 2, Sampling Schedule for Lakes Identified During Assessments as Needing More Data
NY BII)
Water body Name
Sampled
Planned Sampling
7029
Hunnewell Lake
2019, 2020
2021-2024
7036
Shelbyville Lake
-
2021-2024
7105
Jamesport Community Lake
-
2021-2024
7112
King Lake
2020
2021-2024
7120
Cameron Lake #1
2020
2021-2024
7121
Cameron Lake #2
2020
2021-2024
7149
Sterling Price Community Lake
—
2021-2024
7173
Thomas Hill Reservoir
--
2021-2024
7208
Montrose Lake
-
2021-2024
7241
Peaceful Valley Lake
2020 - 3 samples
2021-2024
7288
Indian Lake
2020
2021-2024
7391
Jackrabbit Lake
2020
2021-2024
7015
Deer Riclge Community Lake
2019, 2020
2021-2024
7018
Lancaster City Lake - New
—
2021-2024
7061
Savannah City Reservoir
—
2021-2024
7104
Jamesport City Lake
-
2021-2024
7110
Worth County Community Lake
—
2021-2024
7111
Limpp Community State Lake
-
2021-2024
7113
King City Old Reservoir
-
:021_:n:|
7114
King City New Reservoir
--
2021-2.024
7118
Pony Express Lake
-
2021-2024
7119
Cameron Lake #3
:o:u
2021-2024
-------
Jeff Robichaud
Page 9
WBID
Wafer body Name
Sampled
Planned Sampling
7143
Liimeus Lake
—
2021-2024
7147
Fountain Grove Lakes
—
2021-2024
7154
Unionville Reservoir
2020
2021-2024
7159
Bucklin Lake
—
2021-2024
7160
Marceline Reservoir
—
2021-2024
7183
Peters Lake
—
2021-2024
7186
Ben Branch Lake
2020
2021-2024
7207
HS Truman Lake
2020
2021-2024
7212
Lake Winnebago
~
2021-2024
7230
Drexel City Reservoir South
2020
2021-2024
7234
Atkinson Lake
2020
2021-2024
7304
Timberline Lakes
2019
2021-2024
7333
Shepard Mountain Lake
2020
2021-2024
7378
Coot Lake
...
2021-2024
7379
Cottontail Lake
2020
2021-2024
7383
(lUphoiLake
--
2021-2024
7403
Lake Nell
2020
2021-2024
7025
Edina Lake
—
2021-2024
7124
Hamilton Lake
..
202 1.-2024
7153
Lake Thunderhead
—
2021-2024
7365
Belcher Branch Lake
„
2021-2024
-------
MISSOURI
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Lake of the Ozarks Watershed and
Nutrient Loading Cursory Analysis
Water Protection Program
Watershed Protection Section
1/7/2021
-------
Background
Lake of the Ozarks (LOTO) is a man-made reservoir and an impoundment of the Osage River,
Grand Glaize Creek, Gravois Creek, Niangua River, as well as many other smaller streams.
Bagnell Dam (the dam of LOTO) impounds the Osage River for more than 90 miles up the
Osage River to the dam of Harry S. Truman Reservoir (Truman) and has a surface area of
approximately 59,520 acres and a an immediate watershed area of approximately 2,413 square
miles. The immediate watershed of LOTO is comprised of approximately 78 percent forested
land, 12 percent pastureland, 9 percent urban land cover, and 1 percent or less of cropland. The
immediate watershed of LOTO is located in the Ozark Highlands lake ecoregion.
Truman Reservoir is also a man-made reservoir and an impoundment of the Osage River, South
Grand River, Pomme de Terre River, Tebo Creek, as well as many other smaller streams.
Truman Reservoir has a surface area of approximately 55,600 acres and a watershed area of
approximately 11,535 square miles. The immediate watershed of Truman Reservoir is comprised
of approximately 42 percent forested land, 33 percent pastureland, 20 percent cropland, and 5
percent urban land cover. The immediate watershed of Truman Reservoir is located in the Plains
lake ecoregion.
The appropriateness of assigning LOTO criteria based on the Ozark Highlands criteria have been
raised due to the size and makeup of the Truman Reservoir watershed and the fact that Truman
Reservoir has a hydrologic and chemical connection to LOTO.
Department staff performed a preliminary analysis of the hydrology and nutrient loading of
LOTO with the intent to calculate overall flow and nutrient loading to the reservoir. Department
staff used the following resources for flow or water quality data in the analysis.
1- IJSGS 06926000 Osage River near Bagnell. (1925-2020)
2. USGS 06924000 Niangua River near Decaturville.' (1930-1969)
3. USGS 06923950 Niangua River at Tunnel Dam near Macks Creek. MO (1995-2021)
4. USGS 06923700 Niangua River at Bennett Spring. MQ (1982-2020)
5- US ACE Truman Dam Outflow - Includes hydropower and floodgate releases
(12/19/2015 - 12/19/2020 pulled latest five years on 12/19/2020)
6- USGS Stream Stats
7. Jones, J.R., A. Argerich, D.V. Obrecht, A.P. Thorpe, and R.L. North. 2020. Missouri
Lakes and Reservoirs Long-term Limnological Dataset ver 1. Environmental Data
Initiative. https://doi.ot^ 10 0 > 'pasta/86d8
-------
Hydrology
Department staff used the online USGS application "StreamStats" to delineate tributary
watersheds around LOTO. Staff retrieved annual average flows from USGS's National Water
Information System (NWIS) for both gages on the lower Niangua (06924000 and 06923950),
then averaged the yearly values to create an average yearly discharge for the Niangua River Staff
then delineated the Niangua watershed both from the point of gage 06923950 and the point on
the arm of LOTO closest to the main channel for which StreamStats would perform a
delineation. StreamStats can be used to calculate several low flow statistics including: 1 Day 10
Year Low Flow, 2 Day 10 Year Low Flow, 3 Day 10 Year Low Flow, 7 Day 10 Year Low Flow,
10 Day 10 Year Low Flow, 30 Day 10 Year Low Flow, and 60 Day 10 Year Low Flow. Staff
used the low flow statistics from the delineated watershed of gage 06923950 to create a ratio
between the StreamStats low flow statistics and the average annual flow from gage 06923950.
Staff then used this ratio to estimate flow from delineated watersheds around LOTO, excluding
H.S. Truman Dam (Truman). Staff then used StreamStats to delineate individual watersheds
surrounding LOTO by choosing a point on each arm or cove of LOTO closest to the main
channel for which StreamStats would perform a delineation. Staff attempted to capture as large
of an area as possible using StreamStats, but in some areas, StreamStats could not delineate the
larger watershed. In these cases, staff delineated the smaller watersheds that compose the larger
watershed.
For each watershed delineation, StreamStats provided the low flow statistics mentioned
previously. In some cases, StreamStats did not have a value for the Streamflow Variability Index
from Grid. StreamStats needs this variable to compute the low flow statistics. Where this value
was missing, staff used a value from a nearby previously delineated watershed for which
StreamStats provided a value. Staff then multiplied the low flow statistics by the Niangua River
ratio to estimate average flow for the watershed. Staff categorized and summed estimated flows
as follows: Niangua River Arm (includes Linn Creek watershed), Gravois Arm, Grand Glaize
Arm, and Tributaries below Truman Dam and up-reservoir of the Niangua Arm.
Nutrient Concentrations
Department staff utilized data from the Jones et. al. dataset to calculate yearly geometric means
for locations throughout LOTO. Department staff utilized data from USACE and the Jones et.al.
dataset to calculate yearly geometric means within Truman Reservoir near the dam. Department
staff averaged the yearly geometric means to represent average long-term concentrations flowing
into LOTO. Department staff paired sample data with the discharge estimation locations where
possible.
Truman Dam: For the nutrient contribution from Truman Dam, Department staff used geometric
mean concentrations from samples collected from near the surface and near Truman Dam. These
concentrations represent overflow through the tainter gates. For hydropower generation, the
release of water comes from the hypolimnion. Hypolimnetic water nutrient concentrations in
reservoirs can be similar to or slightly elevated when compared to epilimnion concentrations
3 I F
-------
when the reservoir is not stratified (typically fall through the following spring). When reservoirs
stratify, nutrient concentrations are much different, typically increasing with depth below the
thermocline. The difference between surface and hypolimnion nutrient concentrations varies
among reservoirs, anywhere from two or more times the epilimnion concentration. Due to the
mixed nature of release from Truman Dam, department staff conservatively used the surface
concentrations to estimate loading from Truman.
Tributaries between Truman Dam and the Nian2ua Arm: Department staff did not have reliable
instream nutrient concentrations for any of the tributaries in this portion of LOTO. Surface
samples from the lake are available from the Jones et. al. dataset. These samples were collected
from mile markers (approximate locations) 39, 45, 51, and 60 of the Osage Arm or main channel
of LOTO. Department staff used surface water concentrations from these LOTO locations as the
input load from the tributaries in this portion of LOTO.
Niansua and Linn Creek Arms: USGS nutrient data is available for the Niangua River near
Bennett Spring, but that location is far upstream of LOTO as well as upstream of Lake Niangua.
Additionally, the USGS data does not encompass the Little Niangua arm of LOTO. Department
staff used surface water sample concentrations collected within the Niangua Arm of LOTO to
estimate input loads from the Niangua Arm.
Grand Glaize Arm: In-stream nutrient concentration data is not available upstream of the Grand
Glaize Arm of LOTO. Department staff used surface water sample concentrations collected
within the Grand Glaize Arm of LOTO to estimate input loads from the Grand Glaize Arm.
Gravois Arm: In-stream nutrient concentration data is not available upstream of the Gravois Arm
of LOTO. Department staff used surface water sample concentrations collected within the
Gravois Arm of LOTO to estimate input loads from the Gravois Arm.
NPDES Loadins: Department staff utilized GIS layers for NPDES permitted facilities to select
domestic sanitary wastewater treatment facilities within the immediate watershed of LOTO.
Department staff then summed the actual flows for these facilities as reported in the GIS layer.
Department staff used total nitrogen concentrations of 30 mg/1 and total phosphorus
concentrations of 5 mg/1 based on best professional judgment and erring on the side of higher
loading contributions. Actual NPDES loading may be lower.
Loading Calculations
Department staff used the nutrient concentrations obtained above to calculate annual loads to
LOTO by multiplying stream or facility discharge by concentration, then converting to tons per
year. Table 1 below depicts the current average conditions. Department staff then created
additional scenarios to predict how loading to LOTO may change if the different inputs were
meeting the nutrient screening thresholds for certain ecoregions. Staff also computed these tables
for an analysis aimed at protecting the downstream use.
4 I F
-------
Table 1.
Current Average Conditions
Site
Average
Discharge
(CFS)
Geomean
Chl-a
(ug/1)
Geomean
TN (ug/I)
Geomean
TP (ug/1)
TN Load
(ton/year)
%
TP Load
(ton/year)
%
Truman Dam
10,181.0
20.43
781.50
41.60
7.851
71.5%
418
63.4%
Niangua and Linn Creek Anns*
1.394.0
22.03
527.00
43.00
725
6.6%
59
9.0%
Tribs Between Truman and
Niangua Ann*
1,343.0
21.11
725.75
61.00
962
8.8%
81
12.3%
Grand Glaize Ann*
1,412.0
15.24
542.00
27.00
755
6.9%
38
5.7%
Gravois Ann*
835.0
12.55
525.00
24.00
433
3.9%
20
3.0%
LOTO NPDES Facilities (n = 462)
- Actual Flow
8.8
30,000.00
5,000.00
261
2.4%
43
6.6%
Total 15,173.8 10,986 100% 659 100%
Bagnell Dam Outflow - Osage 10,471.6 12.1 532.0 25.0 5,497 50.0% 258 39.2%
* Estimated average flow; Estimated high nutrient concentrations for NPDES outfalls. Discharge from Truman is a
seven year average from USAGE (2014-2020). NPDES discharge summedfrom NPDES permits. Bagnell Dam
percentages are the proportional load flowing out vs. into LOTO.
Table 2.
Scenario 1 - Assume Nutrient Screening Thresholds from Truman Reservoir
Site
Average
Discharge
(CFS)
Geomean
Chl-a
(ug/1)
Geomean
TN (ug/1)
Geomean
TP (ug/1)
TN Load
(ton/year)
%
TP Load
(ton/year)
%
Truman Dam
10.181.0
18.00
843.00
49.00
8,469
73.0%
492
67.2%
Niangua and Linn Creek Anns*
1,394.0
22.03
527.00
43.00
725
6.2%
59
8.1%
Tribs Between Tmman and
Niangua Ann*
1,343.0
21.11
725.75
61.00
962
8.3%
81
11.0%
Grand Glaize Ann*
1,412.0
15.24
542.00
27.00
755
6.5%
38
5.1%
Gravois Ann*
835.0
12.55
525.00
24.00
433
3.7%
20
2.7%
LOTO NPDES Facilities (n = 462)
- Actual Flow
8.8
30,000.00
5,000.00
261
2.2%
43
5.9%
Total
15,173.8
11,604
100%
733
100%
Bagnell Dam Outflow - Osage
River
10,471.6
12.1
532.0
25.0
5,497
47.4%
258
35.2%
Highlighted cells - Plains ecoregion nutrient screening thresholds used to calculate loading from Truman Reservoir.
*Estimated average flow.
5 | P a g e
-------
Table 3.
Scenario 2 - Assume Nutrient Screening Thresholds at all inputs to LOTO
Site
Average
Discharge
(CFS)
Geomean
Chl-a
(ug/1)
Geomean
TN (ug/1)
Geomean
TP (ug/1)
TN Load
(ton/year)
%
TP Load
(ton/year)
%
Truman Dam
10,181.0
18.00
843.00
49.00
8,469
79.1%
492
80.1%
Niangua and Linn Creek Amis*
1,394,0
6.00
401.00
16.00
552
5.2%
22
3.6%
Tribs Between Truman and
Niangua Ann*
1,343.0
6.00
401.00
16.00
531
5.0%
21
3.5%
Grand Glaize Ann*
1,412.0
6.00
401.00
16.00
559
5.2%
22
3.6%
Gravois Ann*
835.0
6.00
401.00
16.00
330
3.1%
13
2.1%
LOTO NPDES Facilities (n = 462)
- Actual Flow
8.8
30,000.00
5,000.00
261
2.4%
43
7.1%
Total
15,173.8
10,702
100%
614
100%
Bagnell Dam Outflow - Osage
River
10,471.6
12.1
532.0
25.0
5,497
51.4%
258
42.0%
Highlighted cells - Plains ecoregion nutrient screening thresholds used to calculate loading from Truman Reservoir;
Ozark Highlands ecoregional nutrient screening thresholds used to calculate loading from LOTO arms. * Estimated
average flow.
Table 4.
Scenario 3 - Assume Ozark Border Nutrient Screening Thresholds from Truman Reservoir
Site
Average
Discharge
(CFS)
Geomean
Chl-a
(ug/1)
Geomean
TN (ug/1)
Geomean
TP (ug/1)
TN Load
(ton/year)
%
TP Load
(ton/year)
%
Truman Dam
10,181.0
13.00
733.00
40.00
7,364
70.1%
402
62.5%
Niangua and Linn Creek Aims*
1,394.0
22.03
527.00
43.00
725
6.9%
59
9.2%
Tribs Between Truman and
Niangua Ann*
1.343.0
21.11
725.75
61.00
962
9.2%
81
12.6%
Grand Glaize Ann*
1,412.0
15.24
542.00
27.00
755
7.2%
38
5.9%
Gravois Ann*
835.0
12.55
525.00
24.00
433
4.1%
20
3.1%
LOTO NPDES Facilities (n = 462)
- Actual Flow
8.8
30,000.00
5,000.00
261
2.5%
43
6.8%
Total
15,173.8
10,499
100%
643
100%
Bagnell Dam Outflow - Osage
River
10,471.6
12.1
532.0
25.0
5,497
52.4%
258
40.2%
Highlighted cells - Ozark Border ecoregion nutrient screening thresholds used to calculate loading from Truman
Reservoir. * Estimated average flow.
6 | P a g e
-------
Table 5.
Scenario 4 - Assume Ozark Highland Nutrient Screening Thresholds from Truman Reservoir
Site
Average
Discharge
(CFS)
Geomean
Chl-a
(ug/1)
Geomean
TN (ug/l)
Geomean
TP (ug/1)
TN Load
(ton/year)
%
TP Load
(ton/year)
%
Truman Dam
10,181.0
6.00
401.00
16.00
4.029
56.2%
161
40.0%
Niangua and Linn Creek Amis*
1,394.0
22.03
527.00
43.00
725
10.1%
59
14.7%
Tribs Between Truman and
Niangua Ann*
1.343.0
21.11
725.75
61.00
962
13.4%
81
20.1%
Grand Glaize Ann*
1.412.0
15.24
542.00
27.00
755
10.5%
38
9.4%
Gravois Ann*
835.0
12.55
525.00
24.00
433
6.0%
20
4.9%
LOTO NPDES Facilities (n = 462)
- Actual Flow
OO
OO
30,000.00
5,000.00
261
3.6%
43
10.8%
Total
15,173.8
7,164
100%
402
100%
Bagnell Dam Outflow - Osage
River**
10,471.6
12.1
532.0
25.0
5.497
76.7%
258
64.3%
Highlighted cells - Ozark Highlands ecoregion nutrient screening thresholds used to calculate loading from Truman
Reservoir. * Estimated average flow. ** Due to a significant drop in loading in this scenario, loads flowing out of
LOTO would likely also see an appreciable drop, though the amount is unknown.
Variability
Precipitation and stream flow can be highly variable. Department staff conducted the initial
analysis using long-term averages. Truman Reservoir releases water for both flood control and
hydropower purposes and these releases can vary considerably in wet and dry years. Department
staff analyzed yearly discharges from Truman Dam to determine if any correlation exists
between annual average outflow volume from Truman Dam and geometric means of nutrients
and chlorophyll observed near Bagnell Dam.
Table 6 below indicates there is correlation between Truman Dam releases and exceedances of
the Response Impairment Threshold for chlorophyll-a (Chl-a). Note that in 2019, releases from
Truman Dam were exceptionally high. While the observed chl-a response in Truman appears to
have been limited in some way (as evidenced by the Chl-a/TP ratio); the Chl-a response in
LOTO was not limited.
7 | P a g e
-------
Table 6.
%
Above/
Below
LOTO
Truman
Year
Average
Truman
Outflow
Chl-a
Geomean
TN
Geomean
TP
Geomean
Chl-a/TP
Ratio
Chl-a
Geomean
TN
Geomean
TP
Geomean
Chl-a/TP
Ratio
Average
Oigfl)
(Mg/1)
(Mg/1)
Oigfl)
(Mg/1)
Oigfl)
2014
3,347
-67%
9.7
434
15
0.64
15.3
537
25
0.61
2015
10,773
6%
16.6
563
35
0.47
20.3
730
47
0.43
2016
9,431
-7%
10.1
430
18
0.56
2017
10,372
2%
16.3
555
34
0.48
50.0
1215
79
0.63
2018
4,639
-54%
6.2
444
15
0.41
14.3
627
29
0.49
2019
20,289
99%
20.3
690
49
0.41
15.2
810
115
0.13
Discussion
The loading and variability data above indicate the hydrology and nutrient loading from Truman
Reservoir is a significant, if not the dominant, contribution of nutrients to LOTO,. The variability
data indicate the ability of LOTO to meet a particular criterion at Bagnell Dam is heavily reliant
on how much loading is coming from Truman Reservoir in any given year. A robust modeling
analysis and further study of the two hydrologically connected systems is needed to determine
what criteria is protective both for Truman Reservoir as well as LOTO.
8 | P a g e
-------
Rationale used in implementing data age requirements outlined in Missouri's 2020 Listing
Methodology Document
With this document, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources is providing supplemental
information and rationale to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
7 to accompany the 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. The supplemental information and
rationale is primarily focused upon data age and availability and the decision to either list or not
list waters based on those data.
The Department evaluated all readily available data for the draft 2020 303(d) List through
October 31, 2018, the cutoff date for receiving data. Additionally, the Department reviewed
quality-assured data collected more recent than October 31, 2018, received during the public
notice period. The Department incorporated this data into individual assessments, where
appropriate, some of which resulted in changes to listing decisions proposed by the Department
During the Department's assessment process, some data was determined to be not recent enough
for the Department to make a confident assessment of the attainment status of certain water
bodies. The Department's 2020 Listing Methodology Document (LMD) explicitly states that if a
water body is not already impaired, and all data indicating impairment is older than seven years,
then the Department will categorize the water as inconclusive (attainment category 2B or 3B)
and prioritize the water for further data collection. Throughout the Department's assessment
process, if data was collected more recently than seven years, and that data confirmed or agreed
with data older than seven years, then the Department incorporated data older than seven years
into the assessment and used all of the data to justify listing a water as impaired.
The 2020 303(d)/305(b) assessment cycle was the first cycle that the Department was able to
assess lakes against Missouri's approved Numeric Nutrient Criteria. The Department identified a
number of lakes that were deficient in data and did not allow the assignment of an attainment or
non-attainment status. As a result, additional data will need to be collected for these waters. The
Department has a cooperative agreement with the University of Missouri - Columbia (MU),
College of Forestry and Natural Resources' Statewide Lake Assessment Program (SLAP) and
Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program (LMVP). SLAP and LMVP have been collecting nutrient
and other data relevant to assessing lakes since the 1990's. The Department establishes a new
cooperative agreement with MU each year and works with the SLAP and LMVP to identify
priorities. The Department has been in communication with SLAP and LMVP following the
2020 assessment process and has submitted a list of lakes to be prioritized for additional sample
collection over future sampling seasons (April through October) starting with the 2020 season.
All lakes are of higher priority for data collection, but of the list in the table following, a priority
of 1 is higher than a priority of 3. Additional data collected under the SLAP and LMVP program
should allow the Department to make confident listing decisions on these waters during the 2022
and 2024 303(d)/305(b) assessment cycles.
-------
Table of L akes and Data Collection Priorities:
WBID
Waterbodv Name
Priority
Assessment C omments
"7029
7036
7105
7112
7120
-M21
7140
7173
7208
724 i
7288
7391
7015
~U|S
7061
710-4
7110
"111
7113
Hmmewell Lake
Shelbyville Lake
Jamesport Community
Lake
King Lake
Cameron Lake =i
Cameron Lake ~;2
Sterling Price Comnium fy
Lake
Thomas Hill Reseivoir
Montrose Lake
Peaceful Valley Lake
Indian Lake
Jackrabbit Lake
Deer Ridge Community
Lake
Lancaster City Lake - New
Savannah City Reservoir
Jamesport City Lake
Worth County Conummity
l.ake
I.impp Community State
Lake
Kina City Old Reservoir
7114 Kina Citv New Reservoir
Chlorophyll-a data is trending toward
impamnent. Non-parametric trending indicates
exceedance within 5 years of 2018 sampling
year.
Not enough data for nutrient criteria
assessment. 2014 chlorophyll-a geometric
mean exceeds criteria. Need more data.
Lake does not meet nutrient criteria, but all
data is older than 7 years. Per LMD need to
collect more data.
Likely impaired for chlorophyll-a. also exceeds
eufrophieation factor E. but data is all older
than 7 years.
Nutrient data inconclusive. Need more data.
Nutrient data inconclusive. Need more data.
Data too old to make impairment for
chlorophyll-a.
Needs more nutrient and elilorophyll-n data.
2008 data
Older data suggests impairment due to
chlorophyll-a. Needs more data.
Nutrient data too old for assessment, likely
impaired. Need more data.
Data is too old for chlorophyll-a assessment.
Need more data.
Suspect impairment by chlorophyll-a. needs
more data.
Nutrient data is inconclusive.
Nutrient data is inconclusive, but on the edge
of impairment.
Nutrient data has one exceedance of
chlorophyll-a in 2012. Need more data.
Nutrient data shows lake is inconclusive for
chlorophyll-a criteria. Need more data.
Chlorophyll-a levels near criteria.
Nutrient data looks high but is old and not
enough for assessment. Need more data.
Total chlorophyll and chlorophyll-a levels are
high. Need more data.
Total chlorophyll le\els are high, need more
data.
-------
WBID
Waterbody Name
Priority
Assessment ( oinnunts
7118
Pony Express Lake
Meeting nuts ieni criteiia. but one exceedance
2
in 2017. Need moie data.
7119
Cameron Lake ~3
2
Meeting nutrient criteria, but lake has exceeded
eutrophication factor E in the past.
7143
Lumens Lake
2
Nutrient data is inconclusive. Need more data.
7147
Fountain Grove Lakes
i
Nutrient data is inconclusive. Need more data.
Nutrient data is inconclusive. Total chlorophyll
7154
I "monville Reseivoir
-»
shows likely impairment, but not enough
chlorophyll-a data for assessment.
7159
Eiueklm Lake
2
Suspect impairment due to Chlorophyll-a.
needs more data.
7160
NLuceline Reservoir
->
Potential Light limitation, suspect impairment,
needs more data.
7183
Peters Lake-
Nutrient criteria assessment is inconclusive.
7186
Ben Branch Lake
2
Nutrient criteria assessment is inconclusive.
7207
US Truman Lake
2
Nutrient data is inconclusive. Chlorophyll-a
exceedance in 2017.
7212
Lake Winnebago
"7
Chlorophyll-a impairment suspected, needs
more data.
7230
Drexel City Reservoir
2
Inconclusive for nutrient data, possibly
South
impaired. Need more data.
7234
Atkinson Lake
Nutrient data is inconclusive, but lake has a
2
history of potential impairment.
7304
Timberline Lakes
2
Potential exceedance of total nitrogen criteria.
data is too old. Need more data.
Chlorophyll-a exceeds nutrient screening
7333
Shepaid Mountain Lake
2
threshold, but has not met criteiia in response
assessment endpoints to be considered
impaired.
7378
Coot Lake
2
Suspect impairment by Chlorophyll-a as well
but needs more data to confirm.
7379
Cottontail Lake
2
Potentially impaired by chloiophyli-a. needs
more data.
7383
Gopher Lake
2
Potentially impaired for chlorophyll-a. need
more data.
7403
Lake Neil
¦>
Possibly impaired for chlorophyll-a, needs
more data.
7025
Edina Lake
3
Need more data.
7124
Hamilton Lake
3
Meeting nutrient criteria, bui one exceedance
in 2017.
7153
Lake Thunderhead
3
Nutrient data is bolder line but meeting.
Fcoregional Nutrient criteria look to be being
7365
Belcher Branch Lake
3
met but more data is needed for assessment.
Data is older than 7 vears.
-------
Comment 52. Missouri Agribusiness Association and Missouri Farm Bureau
White, Debby
From: Robichaud, Jeffery
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 9:52 AM
To; R7-WaterDivision
Subject: FW: Comments Regarding EPA's Proposed Additions to Missouri impaired Waters List
Attachments: epaimpairedwaters_signed.pdf
Jeffery Robichaud
Duector, Water Division. Region 7
United States Envti oninenta! Pt otection Agency
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, KS66219
913-55l-?I46
Pronouns: He/Him/His
From: Holloway, Leslie!
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 9:48 AM
To: Robichaud, Jeffery
Subject: Comments Regarding EPA's Proposed Additions to Missouri Impaired Waters List
Jeff: Please find attached written comments submitted jointly by the Missouri Agribusiness
Association and Missouri Farm Bureau. Thank you for your consideration. Leslie
jffjjgjl FARMBUREAU
Leslie Holloway | Senior Director. Regulatory Affairs | Missouri Farm Bureau Federation
PO Box 658 | Jefferson City, MO 65102 | Ph: 573-893-1409 | Cell: 573-619-5250 | Fax: 573-893-1560
1
-------
Comment 52. Attachment
March 22, 2021
Comments Regarding EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's Impaired Waters
List
On behalf of Missouri Farm Bureau, the state's largest general farm membership
organization, and the Missouri Agribusiness Association (MO-AG), representing
businesses that provide goods and services to farmers and ranchers, thank you for
extending the comment period on EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's Impaired
Waters List.
We support the modifications proposed by the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) to EPA's proposed action. We believe the documentation
presented by MDNR in support of the proposed modifications clarifies that all existing
and readily available water quality-related data and information have been assembled
and evaluated as required by the federal Clean Water Act. Moreover, MDNR has
explicitly committed to prioritizing data collection on lakes suspected of impairment. By
collaborating with state and federal partners, MDNR is well positioned to leverage
resources for targeted water quality data collection and analysis.
In responding to points addressed in EPA's letter of approval/disapproval, MDNR has
articulated sound reasons for its decisions, proposed adjustments and formulated a
transparent plan of action going forward to assure waters in question are reassessed
expeditiously. Therefore, we respectfully request that EPA approve MDNR's
modifications as proposed.
Sincerely,
Garrett Hawkins
President
Missouri Farm Bureau
Steve Taylor
President
MO-AG
-------
Comment 53. Missouri Municipal League, Policy and Membership Association
White, Petoby
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ramona Huckstep
Monday, March 22, 2021 3:48 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) Comments
EPA 303 d listing comment letter 2021.pdf
Mr. Robichaud,
Attached please find comments and suggestions from the Missouri Municipal League regarding
comments on EPA suggested additions to Missouri's 303(d) list. Please let me know if you have any
concerns or questions regarding this information
Many thanks,
Ramona
Ramona Huckstep. M.S.. M.P.A.
Policy and Membership Associate
Missouri Municipal League
1727 Southridge Drive
Jefferson City, MO 65109
y,"">v. ''nocKie;" coys
(573)635-9134
Click on this MML page for Missouri local government resources on Covid 19:
.com/paae/Corona
This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for
advice concerning specific situations.
1
-------
Comment 53. Attachment
i*i (Tli//ouri
municipal
League
Grouuing Our Communitie/Together
March 22, 2021
Richard Sheets
Interim Executive Director
Chuck Caverly
Council Member, Maryland Heights
President
Jeff Robichaud, Director
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, KS 66219
RE: Comments on EPA suggested additions to Missouri's 303(d) list
Dear Mr. Robichaud:
Joe Garritano
Council Member, Wild wood
Vice President
On behalf of the Missouri Municipal League, I would like to thank the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the opportunity to provide comments on the
EPA suggested additions to Missouri's 2020 303(d) list. The Missouri Municipal League,
as an association that represents 650 cities and villages, we have a responsibility to
represent the interests of our members and to protect their interests. We have a number
of comments that we would like to share with you and hope that they are taken into
consideration as the EPA moves through the final decision-making process on listing of
impaired waters
First, we at the League, are concerned that EPA's proposed listing of the Lake of the
Ozarks may not be a logical decision at this time. EPA's Data Supporting Listing, we
believe, incorrectly applies fish kill data when making assessment decisions for Lake of
the Ozarks. It appears the supporting data are not backed up by corresponding water
quality or site-investigation information required to support listing the Lake as impaired.
The 2020 303(d) Listing Methodology Document (LMD) clearly states that fish kills must
be "caused by dissolved oxygen excursions, pH, algal blooms, or the toxins associated
with algal blooms" to be used as evidence of a eutrophication-related impairment.
Investigative fish kill reports compiled by the Missouri Department of Conservation
(MDC) are used by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) for
assessing such incidents however, fish kill data from Lake of the Ozarks lack supporting
information.
Most of the Lake of the Ozarks fish kill events referenced by EPA could be attributed to
non-eutrophication factors such as freezing weather, blunt force trauma, and natural
disease. In several instances, MDC suggested that eutrophication factors may have
1727 Southridge Drive • Jefferson City, MO • 573.635.9134 • 573.635.9009(Fax) • mocities.com •
info@mocities.com
-------
March 22, 2021
Jeff Robichaud
Page 2
contributed to fish kills but water quality data or other evidence were not provided to
support this conclusion. Based on the requirements of the LMD, it is inappropriate to
consider Lake of the Ozarks without corresponding verified evidence of nutrient
impacts. The Lake of the Ozarks is ecologically important and recreationally significant
lake in the state of Missouri. However, the fish kills that are noted by the EPA and are
used as evidence for listing are not linked with eutrophication factors in Lake of the
Ozarks. There are similar issues with the listing of the Harry S Truman Lake and
Jackrabbit Lake regarding unvalidated data. Therefore, we at the League suggest that
Lake of the Ozarks, the Harry S Truman Lake and Jackrabbit Lake should not be placed
on the 2020 303(d) as an impaired water at this time however, additional water quality
monitoring should be conducted to better inform future assessments.
Second, the Missouri Municipal League would respectfully request that a number of
water bodies with old sampling data, in this case in excess of seven years, not be listed
on the impaired waters list at this time and instead be sampled further. EPA is
proposing to list 14 lakes based on water sampling data, that according to MDNR
technical documents, may not accurately reflect the current conditions of the water
bodies. Of these 14 water bodies, a majority of them are in or near municipalities. These
bodies of water include Cameron #1 Lake, Gopher Lake, Happy Holler Lake, Indian
Hills Lake, Jamesport Community Lake, Lake Nell, Lake Winnebago, Macon Lake,
Montrose Lake, Peaceful Valley Lake, Prairie Lake, Sterling Price Community Lake,
Thomas Hill Reservoir and Unionville Reservoir. We believe this would cause them an
undue burden in additional sampling and monitoring, as well as potentially putting stress
on their recreational use. We would be supportive of MDNR and their partners
conducting water sampling events to update the date set.
In conclusion, going forward, the League believes it is imperative that MDNR work
closely with MDC to develop a more effective and transparent process for
collaboratively tracking, characterizing, and documenting fish kills in Missouri reservoirs
before the next 303(d) assessment cycle. We will also be requesting that MDNR and
MDC involve stakeholders in this process and hope that EPA will also actively
participate in these discussions. The League also believes that additional sampling and
monitoring of numerous lakes and reservoirs should be conducted before they are listed
on the 2020 303(d) list of impaired waters.
Sincerely,
IRtamotta ty. *%uc£&tefi
Ramona Huckstep
Policy and Membership Association
Missouri Municipal League
-------
Comment 54. Missouri Public Utility Alliance, Data and Extension Request
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Daniels, Jason
Wednesday, December 30, 2020 10:59 AM
R7-WaterDivision
FW: EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's Impaired Waters List
Forwarding a comment.
From: Shields, Amy
Sent: Wednesday, December BO, 2020 10:41 AM
To: Daniels, Jason
Cc: Bagley, Melissa ; Robichaud, Jeffery
Subject: FW: EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's Impaired Waters List
Jeff will respond to Lacey and cc Jason.
Cc: Shields, Amy :.,l
Subject: RE. EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's Impaired Waters List
Hello Lacey. We used only MDNR and MDC data, so there isn't an EPA data set per se. We are working to see if we can
provide links to direct folks to the publicly available data, but need to make sure all of the MDNR data is accessible first.
Regarding you second issue I will work with our staff and with CNSL and provide you an answer as quick as we can. Make
sure to include your request as part of the public comment submittal so that it is contained within our formal record.
I hope you have a great Holiday Season
Jeffery Robichaud
Directs.-:. Wciter C'K.'isioi\ Region 7
United States cmiiomnenta! Protection Affncv
11201 Rentier Sivci
Lene\a. I\S 66219
913-551-7146
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 11.30 AM
To: Robichaud, Jeffery < >
Subject: EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's Impaired Waters List
From: Robichaud, Jeffery <
Serif: Friday, December 13, 2020 12:19 PM
To: Lacey Hirschvogel
l>
1
-------
Hi Jeff,
I hope you are doing well as I know 2020 has been quite the year for most.
I am writing to ask for the dataset used to determine EPA's action to add waters to Missouri's 303(d) list. As this
determination likely results in more stringent effluent limits for utilities that are members of MPUA, MPUA is evaluating
this decision and may make a public comment on this determination. However, without the additional data used by EPA
(especially the supporting information for the "data supporting listing" column in Appendix C of your 11/30 decision
document) I am finding it difficult to assess the discrepancies that EPA has pointed out. This information is greatly
appreciated.
In addition, I am requesting a 30-day extension for stakeholders to make public comment. Once we receive the dataset
from EPA, we will get to work to ensure an appropriate public comment is prepared. However, it is likely that we will
need the 30-day extension for the detailed analysis that needs to be completed.
Thank you for your time. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Lacey Hirschvogel
Environmental and Public Policy Manager
Missouri Public Utility Alliance
1808 1-70 Drive SW, Columbia, MO 65203
573-445-3279 Office / 573-825-7244 Direct
"Improving local quality of life through hometown utilities"
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged
information for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination,
distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify the sender at the electronic mail address noted above and destroy all copies of this communication and any
attachments. Thank you for your cooperation.
2
-------
Comment 55, Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Public Utility Alliance, and
Missouri Soybean Association
White, Debby
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Lacey Hirschvoge!
Friday, January 8, 2021 3:23 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Darrick Steen; "Holloway, Leslie'; Carol Comer
Re: EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's 2020 Impaired Waters List
public comment extensionJ31Q821.pdf
Please see the attached document for comments regarding "EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's 2020 Impaired
Waters List" from Missouri Public Utility Alliance, Missouri Com Growers Association, Missouri Soybean Association, and
Missouri Farm Bureau. Thank you.
Thanks,
Lacey Hirschvogel
Environmental and Public Policy Manager
Missouri Public t 'tilitv Alliance
1808 I 70 Drive SW, Columbia, MO 65203
573-445 3279 Office / 573 825 7244 Direct
"Improving local quality of life through hometown utilities"
CO.\'FIDFWTIA.IT< .OTICE"' rh's rr:<< 'ncot'cn :m\": in, atiacnment; ni3>, t.fi .ire! pn\ .i-osed
m.ition ro' t>~ .r.e ef .ieiuj-nsxc: »rOt> cm*s-'. namer abo- e. I; vou ?re rot the inurded rero err s >>i' c-
n^Cs'ied t! ot vcu thi. •:o<"nut,c.it«e>" r, e,s.:r th?t a-n r*»\ , Jrielci «¦-, j
v! ^tcbution or ccc> *ny of v„ ¦»; •: oichit-ted. if ,ou n3 <- irO'?, .< i ••• r in *rn>r p'eis.^
:incei >,x t'ie ?iect' wc r i~ii *dd,"off-::! ai-c> <=• fin:! j-itt m ;vs :>«.• o*" this corrvuin^ticr ?n\
rhc-.ni venter > :ut vCuyervrion,
i
-------
Comment 55. Attachment
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Attn: Jeffery Robichaud
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Dear Mr. Robichaud
We, Missouri Public Utility Alliance (MPUA), Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA), Missouri
Soybean Association (MSA), and Missouri Farm Bureau (MOFB), respectfully request that the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extend the public comment period on the above-
referenced proposed rule by a minimum of sixty (60) days beyond the currently scheduled public
comment deadline.
On December 7, 2020, EPA published "Public Comment Period - EPA's Action to Add Waters to
Missouri's Impaired Waters List." The notice provides a 60-day public comment period, which currently
closes on February 6, 2021. Thoughtful and analytical comments require an evaluation of the dataset
used in EPA's decision to partially disapprove and identify 40 waters for inclusion on Missouri's 2020
303(d) List. However, the data used to recommend listing the additional waters was not added to the
public notice page until 12/22/20.
MPUA is a not-for-profit service organization representing municipally owned utilities throughout the
State of Missouri. EPA's decision to list 40 additional lakes will consequently have burdensome impacts
to our member communities.
MCGA and MSA are both not-for-profit statewide member organizations representing several thousand
Missouri corn and soybean farmers. Our members own and farm substantial amounts of land within and
around watersheds of listed lakes. For this reason, nutrient regulation and subsequent impairment
decisions within these watersheds are of utmost importance to our members.
MOFB is the largest general farm organization in the state.
Again, MPUA, Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Soybean Association, and Missouri Farm
Bureau respectfully request that EPA extend the public comment period for at least an additional 60
days, or until no earlier than April 6, 2021. Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
Missouri Corn Growers Association
Missouri Farm Bureau
Missouri Public Utility Alliance
Missouri Soybean Association
cc: Darrick Steen, Missouri Corn Growers Association & Missouri Soybean Association
Leslie Holloway, Missouri Farm Bureau
Carol Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
-------
Comment 56, Missouri Public Utility Alliance
From: Robiehaud, Jeffery
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 4:02 PM
To; R7-WaterDivision
Subject: FW: EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's 2020 List of Impaired Waters
Attachments: MPUA_USEPA_Missouri_303d_2020.pdf
Jeffery Robiehaud
Director, Water Division Region 7
United States Environmental Protection Agency
11201 Rentier Bkd,
Lenexa, i\S 66219
°if> 5^i- ?x Id
Pronouns: He/Him/His
Hirschvogei
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 3:24 PM
To: R7-WaterDivision
Cc: Robiehaud, Jeffery ^wel^awson John Twitty
'Nick Mueriks'
Subject: EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's 2020 List of Impaired Waters
Mr, Robiehaud,
Please see the attached document for MPUA's comments on EPA's action to add waters to Missouri's 2020 list of
impaired waters. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this subject. We look forward to further
discussion on this topic. Please contact me with any questions or concerns you may have regarding our comments
within the attached letter.
Thank you,
Lacey Hirschvogei
Environmental and Public Policy Manager
Missouri Public Utility Alliance
1808 I /O Drive SW, Columbia, MO 65203
573-445-3279Office/ 571-825-7244 Direct
turnouts
"Improving local quality of life through hometown utilities"
COkrIDE',7., .OTICE- Th.s e-nvi> cot""x.pii.i,icr sna ar\ rr~nts n^,\ oi.Lvn c«.' a**.cs p'i\ileu^d
m\5 notion V- :>>¦> u:.e of the igratcd •copient.s1 ?co-.e If , "kj 5te n)t the >rte,%-i-C :lent >cu a> c.> 7.- <- n e s r>t an*1 :n.-t :«>i» irutu -i's^l e di^v-inatic.r
ck;f t ux'-.U'p ,v cop ir g cf't -¦> .t-- contents u p1 einf^tfcl. If ,n hc^.t 'trcer, *- cor.mu'in hvp >r -or oiec.vr
i L.t«\ tbr c^nut'i ,t ele.T-.v.c r-~^m sodit.o not~ci at.o. ? :ie:~ro< iin copies con'nunicr-fticsn 3r.c ain
ntt^chne-,-t,- TK-v . \ mi r.->! ^ x.r coop-; t jfen.
i
-------
2
-------
Comment 56. Attachment
Cmpua
Serving Hometown Utilities
March 22, 2021
Submitted via email to: R7-WaterDivision@epa.gov
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Mr. Jeffery Robichaud
Director, Water Division
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Re: EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's 2020 List of Impaired Waters
Dear Mr. Robichaud,
The Missouri Public Utility Alliance (MPUA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources' (MDNR or State) 2020 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. MPUA
provides the following comments to USEPA on behalf of our municipal members throughout the State of
Missouri.
On June 26, 2020, MDNR submitted its 2020 303(d) List to the USEPA proposing to list 481
waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs and delist 44 waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs. The June 26th
submittal was drafted following MDNR's "Methodology for the Development of the 2020 Section 303(d)
List1," approved by the Clean Water Commission on July 22, 2019. The State's Listing Methodology
Document (LMD) is updated every two years following numerous publicly announced stakeholder
meetings and input with specific regards to data quality, data age, and representativeness of data. The
state provides appropriate and transparent opportunities for stakeholder involvement and input assisting
LMD development. Public comment periods provide the opportunity for entities to challenge the State's
data considerations when making Section 303(d) decisions. The LMD states, "more recent data are
preferable; however, older data may be used to assess present conditions if the data remains
representative of present conditions." For data older than seven years, the LMD identifies the State will
provide written justification for use of such data to make a Section 303(d) listing. The State's LMD further
outlines consideration for the age of data relative to significant events (representativeness) that have an
effect on water quality (point source discharge, spill, reclamation, overflow elimination, etc.). This data
consideration process mirrors that of which the USEPA supported in its approval of 481
waterbody/pollutant impairment pairs in the 2020 303(d) List.
USEPA's decision on the submitted 303(d) list will be precedent setting and should closely adhere to the
State's approved water quality standards and the LMD. We are concerned that the proposed revisions do
not follow the forementioned documents and will cause detrimental impacts to Missouri. Based on the
specific comments below, USEPA should consider the placement of the listed water bodies below in
Category 2B or Category 3B following the State's approved 2020 LMD and EPA's 2006 guidance2. Category
1808 1-70 Drive SW | Columbia MO 65203 | P: 573-445-3279 | F: 573-445-0680 | www.mpua.org
-------
2 | Page
2B and 3B waters are given high priority for additional water quality monitoring if the available data, using
best professional judgment, suggest non-compliance with Missouri's Water Quality Standards or other
quantitative threshold for determining use attainment.
Figure 1, shown below, is a map of the watersheds of the lakes of concern within the ecoregions laid out
in the State's approved Water Quality Standards3, 10 CSR 20-7.031(5)(N)B.
lUnionville Lakep^
lemphis Reservoir
:ameron
I a eo n
"homas Hill Reservoirj
)HS Truman Lakef
.ake of the Ozarksj
.ake Nianguai
Missouri Ecoregions
GeosyntecD
consultants
MOW5171J March 2021
Figure
1
Legend
Ecoregions
V//A BIG RIVER PLAINS
OZARK HIGHLANDS
OZARK BORDER
PLAINS
Watersheds
Cameron Lake #1
] Lake of the Ozarks
Macon Lake
| Memphis Reservoir H Waterbodles
| Milan Lake North | | Missouri State Boundary
| Thomas Hill Reservoir
| Unionvilie Lake
FIGURE 1. Map of Ecoregions and Lake Watersheds
Lake of the Ozarks: USEPA proposes to add Lake of the Ozarks to the State's 2020 303(d) list for the
following reason: "Exceeded criteria 2017, exceeded screening in 2016 arid 2018, Eutrophication Factor A,
multiple fish kills have occurred. In 2018 6/14/18 Low DO fish kill over 100 fish killed. Also, additional
monitoring points in lake are impaired."
The first concern about this listing is the incorrect use of the Ozark Highlands ecoregion numeric lake
nutrient criteria (Figure 1). The State's water quality standards specifically state in 10 CSR 20-7,031
(5)(N)B., "Lake ecoregions—Due to differences in watershed topography, soils, and geology, nutrient
criteria for lakes and reservoirs will be determined by the use of four (4) major ecoregions based upon
dominant watershed ecoregion." As shown in Figure 1, the Lake of the Ozark's dominant watershed
ecoregion is the Plains ecoregion. While MPUA believes that the current WQS apply, and the Lake of the
Ozarks should be assessed using Plains numeric nutrient criteria, we also understand that this warrants a
1808 1-70 Drive SW | Columbia MO 65203 | P: 573-445-3279 | F: 573-445-0680 | www.mpua.org
-------
3 | P a g e
discussion for possible site-specific criteria applied at the Lake of the Ozarks in the future. We believe the
Lake of the Ozarks should be placed on the State's Category 2B or Category 3B and given high priority for
future monitoring in accordance with the State's approved LMD.
Our second concern is that the LMD specifically indicates that fish kill data should be linked to
eutrophication to justify nutrient impairments. The WQS specify that mortality and morbidity events
trigger a nutrient impairment determination if they are related to eutrophication. Following this rule, the
LMD specifies that fish kills "documented to be caused by dissolved oxygen excursion, pH, algal blooms,
or the toxins associated with algal blooms will constitute evidence of impairment." Based on a review of
EPA's decision document, for the following reasons, the Lake of the Ozarks should be placed on the State's
2B or Category 3B and given high priority for future monitoring in accordance with the State's approved
LMD and EPA's 2006 guidance.
• Fish kill reports referenced as evidence of nutrient related impairments should be clearly
specified. For example, EPA references "multiple fish kills" as evidence of impairment at Lake of
the Ozarks. They also reference a single fish kill on 6/14/18. From the description provided, it is
not clear which event EPA is relying on to drive their impairment decision. We also note that the
Lake of the Ozarks fish kill reports are largely attributed to non-eutrophication factors such as
freezing weather, blunt force trauma, and disease.
• We note that for many of the fish kill incidents in the MDC database, causal factors were
suggested but water quality data or other evidence were not provided to demonstrate that the
incidents were in fact caused by nutrients. Instead, MDC speculated that causal factors included
conditions such as "possible blue-green algae bloom," "low DO suspected", and "likely low DO or
temperature stress." Given the brevity and lack of supporting information provided by MDC, it is
clear that they did not intend for these notes and assumptions to be used in support of Clean
Water Act beneficial use assessments. In accordance with the LMD requirements outlined above,
EPA should not rely on these interpretations to make assessment decisions; EPA should instead
provide water quality data or other evidence that clearly demonstrates that these fish kills were
caused by nutrient-related factors.
In contrast to the listing of the Truman Reservoir, the assessment decision for Lake of the Ozarks does not
reflect an appropriate use of the fish kill data because it lacks supporting information that links the events
to eutrophication-related impacts. Further the Statewide Lake Assessment Program (SLAP) data that were
not included in MDC'sfish kill database, but are available to EPA, indicate that nutrients did not contribute
to documented events in Lake of the Ozarks. For example, EPA specified a fish kill report dated June 14,
2018 as evidence of a nutrient impairment in Lake of the Ozarks. The fish kill report noted that MDC
received multiple calls from the public between June 7 and 14, 2018 suggesting an ongoing fish fill on the
Gravois and Grand Glaize arms of Lake of the Ozarks. The fish kill report states that MDC "suggested that
high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen were likely culprits for this event."
However, the report does not include any measured or observed evidence that the event was related to
nutrients. Furthermore, data collected in June 2018 from Lake of the Ozarks as part of SLAP suggest that
chlorophyll-o and nutrient concentrations during that period were well below levels that would contribute
to eutrophication impacts (Table 1). Notably, chlorophyll-o levels throughout most of the lake were
generally below 15 ug/Land were even lower in the Gravois and Grand Glaize arms (7.3 -11.1 ug/L) where
the fish kills occurred. Additionally, the SLAP dataset only included a single dissolved oxygen sample from
June 2018, which was 9.3 mg/L.
1808 1-70 Drive SW | Columbia MO 65203 | P: 573-445-3279 | F: 573-445-0680 | www.mpua.org
-------
4 | Page
Table 1. June 2018 SLAP Data from Lake of the Ozarks
Site
n
Chloroph
/H-a, ug/L
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
Total Nitrogen, mg/L
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Lake of the Ozarks l1
5
5.0
11.8
0.016
0.022
0.36
0.49
Lake of the Ozarks 1.22
2
8.7
11.1
0.019
0.021
0.38
0.47
Lake of the Ozarks 1.62
1
7.3
7.3
0.015
0.015
0.41
0.41
Lake of the Ozarks 2.53
2
7.9
8.0
0.017
0.019
0.34
0.40
Lake of the Ozarks 3
2
4.7
6.8
0.026
0.042
0.46
0.54
Lake of the Ozarks 4.10
2
9.1
10.2
0.017
0.018
0.36
0.40
Lake of the Ozarks 31
2
11.1
11.1
0.021
0.022
0.56
0.85
Lake of the Ozarks 31.1
2
13.4
13.4
0.029
0.034
0.45
0.52
Lake of the Ozarks 21
2
9.1
15.2
0.029
0.032
0.36
0.43
Lake of the Ozarks 51
2
15.9
33.1
0.057
0.058
0.46
0.71
1 Near dam
2 Gravois arm
3 Grand Glaize arm
Cameron #1 (Century) Lake: USEPA proposes to add Cameron #1 (Century) Lake to the State's 2020 303(d)
list for the following reason: "Exceeds criteria 2016, 2001, and 2000 (three most recent years of data)."
Cameron #1 (Century) Lake's watershed is located in the Plains ecoregion; therefore, appropriate Plains
ecoregion numeric lake nutrient criteria apply (Figure 1). USEPA cites Chl-acriterion exceedances during
2016, 2001 and 2000. However, only one of the three years of available data from Cameron #1 (Century)
Lake were collected within the last seven years, which is not a sufficient representative data set to support
a new 303(d) listing in accordance with the intent of the State's approved LMD. Since Cameron #1
(Century) Lake has not been previously listed, the waterbody should be placed into the State's Category
2B or Category 3B waters for future monitoring in accordance with the State's approved LMD.
City of Milan Lake (North): USEPA proposes to add City of Milan Lake (North) to the State's 2020 303(d)
list for the following reason: "Exceeds screening threshold for Chl-ain 2014 and 2016. Eutrophication factor
B. in 2014 pH, and 2016 DO. Also exceeded screening for TP and TN in 2014."
City of Milan Lake (North) is a 13-acre lake located in the watershed of the Plains ecoregion; therefore,
appropriate Plains ecoregion numeric lake nutrient criteria apply (Figure 1). When considering all DO
measurements collected from City of Milan Lake (North) surface in the last seven years (2013 to 2016),
only two of sixteen measurements are below 5.0 mg/L, which is in compliance with the State's dissolved
oxygen criterion using the binomial probability assessment.
Ecoregional nutrient screening threshold values have been exceeded at City of Milan Lake (North);
however, Eutrophication Factor B was incorrectly evaluated during USEPA's review of the submitted
303(d) list. Eutrophication Factor B is applied to the epilimnion (surface) of lakes where more than 10% of
pH measurements are outside of the 6.5 standard units (SU) to 9.0 SU range and dissolved oxygen (DO)
measurements are below 5.0 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) to protect aquatic life. Appendix F of the State's
approved LMD outlines the binomial probability will be used to determine whether the pH and DO
criterion have been exceeded.
USEPA reviewed collected data from the University of Missouri Limnology Laboratory4. The laboratory's
2014 data set from City of Milan Lake (North) contains 4 total pH measurements; however, 2 pH
measurements were collected on June 17, 2014 at approximately the same time but at different lake
1808 1-70 Drive SW | Columbia MO 65203 | P: 573-445-3279 | F: 573-445-0680 | www.mpua.org
-------
5 j
depths. Therefore, only one of three field pH measurements collected from the lake surface was outside
of the pH criterion range. In accordance with the states LMD and binomial probability evaluation, City of
Milan Lake (North) did not exceed Eutrophication Factor B for pH in 2014,
in 2016, two of four collected DO measurements were below 5.0 mg/L (4.1 mg/Lon June 22 and 4.6 mg/L
on July 20), which may indicate Eutrophication Factor 8. It is important to note that only four nutrient and
water quality measurements have been collected from City of Milan Lake (North) in a given year, which
represents the minimum sample si2e for numeric lake nutrient criteria and eutrophication factor
assessment. When considering all DO measurements collected from City of Milan Lake (North) surface in
the last seven years (2013 to 2016), only two of sixteen measurements are below 5.0 mg/L, which is in
compliance with the State's dissolved oxygen criterion using the binomial probability assessment.
In addition, we thoroughly reviewed DO data collected by the Statewide Lakes Assessment Program (SLAP)
reported by the University of Missouri Limnology Laboratory which were used by USEPA to make the
determination of Eutrophication Factor B DO in 2016 at City of Milan Lake (North). Within the last seven
years of data, MPUA notes an anomalous shift in statewide lake DO criterion compliance in the 2016 data
set (Table 2), Climate information was obtained from the nearest weather station in Kirksville, Missouri
to provide comprehensive understanding of potential climate impacts (Table 3), Further, MPUA plotted
three years of DO data to understand what may have led to the dramatic compliance difference in 2016
compared to other years. MPUA notes a dramatic DO change occurred in Missouri lake data after June
20, 2016, which then persisted for the remainder of the 2016 summer season (Figure 2). Data prior to
June 21, 2016, DO concentrations align similarly with other years DO data (Figure 2). The dramatic and
consistent change in 2016 DO may be indicative of an improperly functioning, improper calibration, or
uncalibrated DO sensor.
Based on the anomalous increased frequency of SLAP DO data below criterion in 2016 (Table 2), normal
climatic conditions in 2016 (Table 3), and dramatic and consistent DO change in the 2016 SLAP dataset
after June 20, 2016 (Figure 2), MPUA request USEPA and MDNR verify that the 2016 SLAP DO data meet
the quality assurance and quality control requirements of the State's LMD by confirming and/or providing
DO sensor(s) maintenance and calibration records. If the DO sensor(s) were malfunctioning, calibration
was not performed, or calibration records cannot be provided, field DO data should be considered invalid
and removed from the State's and USEPA's 303(d) assessment data set.
TABLE 2, University of Missouri Limnology Laboratory SLAP DO Data.
Year
S of Records
'= b.Q mg/'L
# of Records
<5.0 mg/L
Total # of
Records
Percentage Below 5.0
mg/L Criterion
2018
> /•,
4
170
L4
2017
236
1
237
0.42%
2016
228
55
283
19.43%
2015
620
13
633
2.05%
2014
522
14
536
2.61%
2013
685
24
709
3.39%
2012
575
27
603
4.48%
1808 1-70 Drive SW | Columbia Mt
-------
6 | P a g e
TABLE 3. Missouri May to September Climatic Conditions. Data obtained from nearest Midwest Regional
Climate Center weather station in Kirksville, Missouri.
Year
Total Precipitation
(inches)
Average High Temperature
(Degree Fahrenheit)
Average Temperature
(Degree Fahrenheit)
2018
18.44
85.7
74.6
2017
16.35
81.5
70.1
2016
18.19
81.5
71.2
2015
36.45
79.6
69.7
2014
22.22
79.5
69.5
2013
15.10
80.7
69.9
2012
11.28
86.8
74.2
FIGURE 2. SLAP DO Annual Timeseries Plot.
Macon Lake: USEPA proposes to add Macon Lake to the State's 2020 303d list for the following reason:
"Exceeds screening threshold for Chl-aand TN in 2005, Eutrophication Factor B, DO. Also exceeds screening
for Chl-a 2003, 2005, and 2009, TN 2005, TP 2009."
Macon Lake's watershed is located in the Plains ecoregion (Figure 1); therefore, appropriate Plains
ecoregion numeric lake nutrient criteria apply. Ecoregional nutrient screening threshold values have been
exceeded at Macon Lake; however, USEPA inappropriately evaluated unrepresentative data (i.e. data
older than seven years), which is not sufficient to support a new 303(d) listing in accordance with the
State's approved LMD. Since Macon Lake has not been previously listed, the waterbody should be placed
into the State's Category 2B or Category 3B and given high priority for future monitoring in accordance
with the State's approved LMD.
1808 1-70 Drive SW | Columbia MO 65203 | P: 573-445-3279 | F: 573-445-0680 | www.mpua.org
-------
7 | Page
Thomas Hill Reservoir: USEPA proposes to add Thomas Hill Reservoir to the State's 2020 303d list for the
following reasons: "Exceeds screening for TN and TP in 2008, Eutrophication Factor E."
Thomas Hill Reservoir's watershed is located in the Plains ecoregion; therefore, appropriate Plains
ecoregion numeric lake nutrient criteria apply (Figure 1). Ecoregional nutrient screening threshold values
have been exceeded at Thomas Hill Reservoir; however, USEPA inappropriately evaluated
unrepresentative data (i.e., data older than seven years), which is not sufficient to support a new 303(d)
listing in accordance with the State's approved LMD. Since Thomas Hill Reservoir has not been previously
listed, the waterbody should be placed into the State's Category 2B or Category 3B and given high priority
for future monitoring in accordance with the State's approved LMD.
Unionville Reservoir (Lake Mahoney): USEPA proposes to add Unionville Reservoir (Lake Mahoney) to
the State's 2020 303d list for the following reasons: "Exceeds Criteria in 2009 and 2010. Also exceeded
criteria at point Mahoney 2 in 2009 and 2010."
Unionville Reservoir (Lake Mahoney) is located in the watershed of the Plains ecoregion; therefore,
appropriate Plains ecoregion numeric lake nutrient criteria apply (Figure 1). Ecoregional nutrient
screening threshold values have been exceeded at Unionville Reservoir (Lake Mahoney); however, USEPA
inappropriately evaluated unrepresentative data (i.e. data older than seven years), which is not sufficient
to support a new 303(d) listing in accordance with the State's approved LMD. Since Unionville Reservoir
(Lake Mahoney) has not been previously listed, the waterbody should be placed into the State's Category
2B or Category 3B and given high priority for future monitoring.
Memphis Reservoir: USEPA proposes to add Memphis Reservoir to the State's 2020 303d list for the
following reason: "2013 data provided a second Chl-a criteria exceedance and resulted in lake being listed
as impaired."
Memphis Reservoir is located in the Plains ecoregion; therefore, appropriate Plains ecoregion numeric
lake nutrient criteria apply (Figure 1). MPUA agrees with USEPA in their inclusion of Memphis Reservoir
on the 2020 303(d) list with the addition of the 2013 data. It is important to note that USEPA specifically
sites the 2013 data as evidence, which are within seven years from the 2020 303(d) listing cycle, when
other data from 2009 and 2006 also supported the inclusion of Memphis Reservoir. USEPA did not
consider all available data, rather followed the LMD procedures. We are supportive of this approach.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments regarding EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's
2020 List of Impaired Waters. We want Missouri's waters to be protected based on their designated uses
and are supportive of placing several of the lakes references above on the Category 2B or Category 3B list
and given high priority for future monitoring in accordance with the State's approved LMD. Please feel
free to contact me with any questions that you may have regarding the information within this comment
letter.
C" 1
Lacey Hirschvogel
Environmental and Public Policy Manager
Missouri Public Utility Alliance
1808 1-70 Drive SW | Columbia MO 65203 | P: 573-445-3279 | F: 573-445-0680 | www.mpua.org
-------
Comment 57. Missouri Corn Growers and Missouri Soybean Association
From: Darrick
Sent; Monday, March 22, 2021 1:57 PM
To: R7-WaterDivision
Cc; ||||||||| Casey Wasser; Ben Travlos i
(chris.wieberg@dnr.mo.gov)
Subject: Comments on MO 2020 303(d) List Decision
Attachments; MCGA„MSA 303d List Ietter_final.pdf
|: Baylee Siegei; Chris Wieberg
Dear US EPA Region 7 Water Division - on behalf of the Missouri Soybean Association and the Missouri Com Growers
Association, please find attached comments pertaining to the Nov, 30, 2020 EPA decision and EPA action on Missouri's
2020 303d List.
Darrick Steen
Environmental Director
Missouri Soybean Association
Missouri Corn Growers Association
-------
Comment 57. Attachment
MissouriCflTTz
MISSOURI
SCYBEANS
Growers Association
March 22, 2021
Jeff Robichaud
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
US EPA Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
RE: EPA Proposed Decision on Missouri's 2020 303(d) List
Dear Mr. Robichaud:
On behalf of the Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA) and the Missouri Soybean Association (MSA)
we would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed decision on Missouri's 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (hereinafter called the 2020 303d
list). In addition to our comments, MSA and MCGA also fully supports comments submitted by the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (Department) and the Missouri Clean Water Commission (CWC).
For over 50 years, MCGA and MSA has worked with several generations of crop farmers to achieve major
milestones and advances in Missouri's agriculture industry. As grassroots organizations, MCGA & MSA
invests considerable time and resources in supporting and promoting policies, education and research that is
advancing crop production, sustaining grower profitability and improving environmental stewardship. MCGA
and MSA are committed to working with both our growers and governmental partners in developing policies,
practices and technology that benefit Missouri farmers and their local communities.
MCGA and MSA purposely engaged on Missouri's lake numeric nutrient criteria (Lake NNC) rule at a very
early stage. Contributing technical expertise and suggestions on policy development, our staff participated on
stakeholder committees and met directly with Department and EPA staff, voicing our positions, providing
farmer perspectives, and contributing to the rule's content and eventual adoption. We, along with many other
agriculture, industry and municipal stakeholder groups, understood the importance of getting the Lake NNC rule
developed right for Missouri, and more importantly, understood the potential unintended consequences of
getting it wrong. After all, farmers, their families, and the communities in which they live and work, would
ultimately bear much of its cost.
To that end, MSA and MCGA recognize the tremendous effort and the extensive amount of time and
stakeholder engagement that the Department and EPA invested in both Missouri's Lake NNC rule as well as
development of Missouri's 2020 303d List. The 2020 303d list is a significant milestone and precedent-setting
and we appreciate the leadership shown by Department staff on it over the last 24 months. The Department has
followed a scientifically sound and defensible path to accomplish the goal of developing the Missouri 2020 303d
list, the first listing developed under the Department's recently adopted Lake NNC rule.
General Background:
The US Clean Water Act sets forth a required water quality assessment process that States undertake every two
years. As corresponding sound evidence and science supports, States add and remove waterbodies from the
-------
EPA 303d Decision
March 22, 2021
Page 2
States' list of impaired waters once every two years. This process is intended to follow a two-year cycle
assessment process. On November 30, 2020, EPA Region 7 issued a "proposed decision", an action that
proposes to add 40 new water bodies (all lakes) as "impaired" for nutrients onto Missouri's 2020 303d List.
EPA proposed this action approximately nine months after the Department and the CWC finalized Missouri's
2020 listing decisions in April of that same year.
Upon reviewing EPA's proposed decision, we respectfully request that EPA reconsider its proposed listing
decision and follow the recommendations provided in the Department's comments. We view EPA's decision to
"over-list" the State of Missouri on its 303d list as unusual, if not unprecedented, and seems contrary to Clean
Water Act goals for cooperative federalism. We are unaware of a previous time when EPA listed new
waterbodies as impaired after the Department finalized the State's list.
Within the Clean Water Act's federalism approach, Congress emphasized and gave states primary responsibility
for developing and adopting water quality standards and assessing state waters. Given that state agencies are
also primarily responsible for implementing standards and developing corrective actions, it is self-evident that
states should also be given broad discretion and decision-making authority when implementing water quality
standards. States have the firsthand knowledge of how to get complex regulations implemented and on the
ground successfully; they also know how to reduce unnecessary costs and regulatory impacts, and how best to
work with stakeholders, the regulated community, and communities being impacted.
States have a finite amount of resources to implement, identify, and address impairments, therefore the criteria,
the assessment process, and impairment decisions must accomplish goals efficiently as well as cost-effectively,
and it must seek to minimize unintended impacts. In other words, applied to the 2020 303d List, it must reliably
and accurately identify only the lakes that are truly not meeting designated uses. Assessments and impairment
decisions that create false positives would consume State and permittee resources unnecessarily and potentially
cause reckless harm to the state's economy.
In view of Clean Water Act's federalism goals and EPA's own recognition of the importance of state-led
solutions to nutrient pollution, we strongly encourage that EPA fully consider Department's comments and
revise the EPA's proposed decision accordingly. In addition, we ask that you consider our comments below.
Specific Comments:
We ask for EPA to be more accommodating in this first Lake NNC listing decision - This is the first 303d list
developed under the State's recently adopted lake numeric nutrient criteria (Lake NNC). Because of this,
impairment decisions, as well as the steps and protocol taken by both Department and EPA will be precedent-
setting. We ask that EPA provide Department additional flexibility and ask that EPA honor and adhere to the
State's Water Quality Standards (WQS) and Listing Methodology Document (LMD) when reviewing Missouri's
2020 303d list.
We ask that EPA honor Missouri Clean Water Commission policy on data age; a policy that helps ensure sound
scientific decisions. - Flexibility is needed in 303d listing decisions to ensure that sound scientific decisions are
being made. Missouri does not ignore data based on an age cutoff. According to the LMD, the Department can
and did rely on data older than seven years in developing the 2020 303(d) List, and considered that data either
together with newer available data or otherwise in absence of newer data. For water bodies where the only data
indicating potential impairment was older than seven years, the Department deferred its impairment
determination to allow collection and evaluation of additional data that would be more likely representative of
current conditions in the water body. Rather than ignoring the older data, the Department utilizes the data age
Missouri Soybean Association
734 S. Country Club Drive
www.mosoy.org
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Missouri Corn Growers Association
3118 Emerald Lane
www.mocorn.org
-------
EPA 303d Decision
March 22, 2021
Page 3
policy to prioritize and focus additional resources and evaluation that ensures scientifically sound and fully
informed impairment determinations.
Having recent high-quality data for listing decisions is imperative to ensuring sound and scientific decisions are
being made. If older data alone suggests a water body could be impaired but lacks more recent supporting data,
we support the Department's recommendation that the water body be assigned attainment category 2B or 3B
rather than being placed on the 303d list. This is a move which will allow time for the state to collect additional
data to confirm whether 303d listing is truly warranted.
EPA should honor and abide by clear listing and data cutoff dates set by the state - The 303d assessment cycle is
intended to be a two-year cycle process. However, EPA included and based some of their decisions on data that
became available well after the Department finished their 2020 water quality assessment. A two-year cycle is
not really a cycle if there is no clear cut off date for data being enforced. If EPA intends to bring new data into
an assessment decision at any point in time, then there is no justifiable reason for following the CWA's two-year
assessment cycle for the 303d list. Put simply, not abiding by cut off dates undermines the process.
More importantly, setting a cut-off date is important to ensure only quality and fully vetted data is relied upon.
By not abiding by a clear cut-off date, data is likely to be rushed into the assessment and decision process
without proper data quality controls. We believe that some of the data EPA allowed in after the Department's
cut-off date, and relied upon for its decision-making process, resulted in flawed decision making.
Lake of the Ozarks should not have been listed by EPA - The Department had strong sound reasoning for not
listing the Lake of the Ozarks as an impaired waterbody. We trust the State to protect water quality and we
believe EPA should not have overruled the Department on this issue.
This decision in particular brings with it the potential for grave economic consequences for the entire state, not
to mention the Lake of the Ozark region. This is because of the Lake's large and important contribution to the
state's economy through tourism. The Lake also has a direct impact on the local economy, including its public
schools and other entities that rely on its strong tax base and economic drivers.
Lake of the Ozarks is both ecologically important and recreationally significant to Lake area residents,
businesses, public schools, and the entire state. According to the Missouri Department of Economic
Development (DED), total tourism spending in the central Missouri region, which is dominated by the tourism
draw of Lake of the Ozarks, is over $1.2 billion annually. That economic impact is irrefutably linked to water
tourism and by extension the perception of Lake of the Ozarks having safe quality water.
As such, safe water quality is vitally important to the lake community. Listing the Lake of the Ozarks as
"impaired" suggests that the water in the Lake of the Ozarks is not safe for fish and wildlife, and we feel that
conclusion is patently wrong.
The Lake of the Ozarks community will indeed rally to do what is necessary to protect its Lake water quality,
however, limited tax dollars and resources must be spent wisely. Not only would EPA's decision bring an
unnecessary and damaging "black eye" to the Lake community, it also may lead to higher water utility bills for
residents; all to fix a problem that simply does not exist.
In our view, EPA's decision to add the Lake of the Ozarks to the 303d list appears to have been a rushed
decision by EPA. We believe the methods that EPA relied upon to propose listing the Lake of the Ozarks as
impaired for nutrients did not appropriately adhere to the State's Water Quality Standards (WQS) and Listing
Missouri Soybean Association
734 S. Country Club Drive
www.mosoy.org
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Missouri Corn Growers Association
3118 Emerald Lane
www.mocorn.org
-------
EPA 303d Decision
March 22, 2021
Page 4
Methodology Document (LMD) and is not supported by corresponding water quality data or site-investigation
information. Examples include:
• Lake of the Ozarks' Ecoregion - EPA's decision to list the Lake of the Ozarks as impaired is
perpetuating an ecoregion assignment error which was unintentionally made for this Lake. We strongly
believe the Lake of the Ozarks was previously assigned to the "Ozarks Highland" ecoregion by mistake.
We believe the Lake of the Ozarks should have been assigned to the "Plains" ecoregion. The
Department has also strongly acknowledged the Ozarks Highland ecoregion may not be a proper fit for
the Lake, and has indicated they wish to re-evaluate the ecoregion status because of its significant
drainage and flow nexus with Truman Reservoir. Truman Reservoir is assigned to the Plains ecoregion.
• Evidence does not support listing - In the fish kill data that EPA used to determine the impairment status
at the Lake, there is no conclusive evidence that these events were caused by nutrients. Most of the Lake
of the Ozarks fish kill events referenced by EPA are clearly attributed to freezing weather, blunt force
trauma, and natural disease, none of which have anything to do with nutrients. It is blatantly wrong to
list the Lake of the Ozarks as impaired for nutrients without direct corresponding evidence of nutrient
impacts. However, based upon EPA's supporting information, it appears EPA used this fish kill data to
base their decision at Lake of the Ozarks.
• Data quality issues abound - Data EPA relied upon at Lake of the Ozarks came in after the State's "cut-
off date" and/or after the Department finished their 303d assessment process. The department did not
have the opportunity to properly examine this data internally, nor with stakeholders or with the Missouri
Department of Conservation, the agency whom actually collected it. There are many quality control
issues within this data, namely lacking solid evidence or a clear connection to eutrophication factors or
nutrient related causes. EPA should not have relied upon its own speculation or interpretations to make
assessment decisions. We believe that the Lake of the Ozarks should be removed from EPA's proposed
listing decision.
Keeping Missouri in the lead role in developing and administering its water quality standards and assessment
program best serves the CWA's federalism policy and best serves Missouri waters. We strongly encourage EPA
to consider these comments as well as comments submitted by the Department and make the requested changes.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
Conclusion
Regards,
MISSOURI CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Jay Fischer, President
Ronnie Russell, President
MISSOURI SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION
cc: Chris Wieberg, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Soybean Association
734 S. Country Club Drive
www.mosoy.org
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Missouri Corn Growers Association
3118 Emerald Lane
www.mocorn.org
-------
Comment 58. Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear EPA Region 7 staff,
Please see attached comment from the Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition. We are providing our support for
the addition of the 40 lakes listed in Appendix C for Missouri's 2020 303(d) List.
Can you confirm receipt of this email?
Thank you for your consideration of our comment,
Mary
Mary Culler
Executive Director
www.streamteamsunited.org
We are the Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition
Bringing Stream Teams Together Since 1999
To donate towards Education, Stewardship,
And Advocacy For Missouri Streams, visit
https://www.streamteamsunited.org/donate.html
Friday, March 19, 2021 1:50 PM
R7-WaterDivision
comment Missouri 2020 303d list
2020 Missouri 303dlist comment_MSTWC_03192021.pdf
l
-------
PO Box 483
Shelbina, MO 63468
www.streamteamsunited.org
US EPA Region 7
Water Division
R7-WaterDivision@epa.gov
Comment 58. Attachment
stream
teams
united
March 19, 2021
Dear staff of EPA Region 7 Water Division:
Our organization is writing in support of the EPA's proposal to add 40 lakes (found in Appendix C of
the EPA's 11/30/2020 decision letter) to the 2020 Missouri 303(d) list. Stream Teams United is a
coalition of Missouri Stream Teams Associations located throughout the state of Missouri, with 22
Stream Team Associations each working in their local watershed to improve and conserve local
waterways. The EPA's review of data for the 40 additional lakes indicates impairment for
eutrophication of the lakes in Appendix C. Adding these 40 lakes to Missouri's 303(d) list will begin
the process of development of a TMDL or pollution management plan for each lake, which
ultimately will help to reduce future pollution and extend the lifetime of these reservoirs.
In the state of Missouri, our lake systems are constructed impoundments, created when dams have
been built to impound a creek or river. Because of this, our lake systems in Missouri act as
catchments of sediment and nutrients from the upstream watershed, and Missouri's lakes would
be expected to have decreased water quality over time as the impoundment ages and
sediments/nutrients accumulate within the reservoir. Maintenance or improvement of water
quality for these lakes through TMDL or other pollution management plans will help extend the
number of years that these lakes will be able to be used for their intended purposes.
In the EPA decision letter, it states that certain data were not used by the Missouri DNR in their
assessment of these lakes, including data older than seven years and the entire Missouri lake data
set from 2013. Considering that the Missouri review did not include this data, but the EPA review
did include this data, we support the use of the fully available data set for the assessment of
Missouri's lakes.
Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition, DBA Stream Teams United
-------
PO Box 483
Slielbina, MO 63468
www.streamtea111su11ited.org
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on Region 7's analysis of the Missouri 2020
303(d) list. As an organization made up of Missouri citizens that utilize and care for Missouri's
rivers, lakes, and streams, we offer our support for the addition of the lakes listed in Appendix C for
exceeding chlorophyll-a criteria.
Sincerely,
Mary Culler, Executive Director
Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition, DBA Stream Teams United
-------
Comment 59. Missouri Water Environment Association
White^ebb^
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jay Hoskins
Friday, January 8, 2021 1:41 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Lacey Hirschvogel
; Burks, Jim
Public Comment Period - EPA's Action to Add Waters to Missouri's 2020 Impaired Waters List
On behalf of the Missouri Water Environment Association (MWEA), Missouri's member association of the Water
Environment Federation, I am writing to request a 60-day extension of the public comment period on EPA's action to
add 40 water bodies (lakes and reservoirs) as impaired for nutrients to Missouri's 2020 List of Impaired Waters. As EPA
Region 7 staff is aware, this is the first time that the new statewide numeric lake and reservoir nutrient and chlorophyll
water quality criteria [10 CSR 20-7.031(5)(N)] have been considered in the impaired waters list. This additional time is
important for the public to review EPA's action, to further research the science and data driving this action, and to
prepare thoughtful comments.
Sincerely,
Jay Hoskins, P.E.
MWEA Government Affairs Committee, Chair
-------
Comment 80, Myers, Haley
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
I am a lifelong resident of Missouri and I support adding the 40 water bodies in Appendix C as impaired. We
desperately need to work towards a future in which Missouri respects and stewards its waterways and protects them as
habitat for plants, wildlife and future generations of humans,
Haley Myers
Haley Myers <|
Monday, January 25, 2021 1:16 PM
R7-WaterDivision
In support of Appendix C additions to 303(d) list
1
-------
Comment 61. OReilly, Charlie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
These bodies of water have been declared "impaired", and I respectfully request that you take immediate steps to
rectify this situation. All Missouri will appreciate your help. Thank you,
Charlie OReilly
Charlie
Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:21 PM
R7-WaterDivision
40 Bodies of water in Missouri
l
-------
Comment 62. Parks, Diane
White, Debby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Our lake is a clean lake! All summer, while swimming, you can see down into the water at least 6 feel. It's clear!
I understand you are talking about something we may riot see. However, this is a big lake and should not be penalized
for something found in a small area.
Why make a big deal out of something that could be damaging to the lake area/businesses????
Diane
Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:26 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Lake of the Ozarks
1
-------
Comment 63, Payton, Renee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Renee Payton
Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:07 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Thank you
Thank you for adding/restoring 40 lakes to Missouri's list of impaired waters, I appreciate that the EPA is working to
clean up these lakes.
Be well,
Renee Payton
"Nothing will work unless you do.
Maya Angelou
1
-------
Comment 64. Power, Brian
White, Debhy
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thank you for adding additional lakes and rivers to your list for clean up in Missouri. Clean water is an increasingly
valuable natural resource which will help every citizen of Missouri who fishes, hunts, or supports outdoor activities in
the state,
Again, thank you,
Brian Power
Sent from my iPhone
Friday, January 15, 2021 2:03 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Listing of additional lakes and rivers for clean up.
1
-------
Comment 65. Primin, Cathy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear EPA Friends,
I am writing to say I agree with your decision to add 40 more MO lakes to the list of MO impaired waters. Thank
you!
Cathy Primni
Monday, March 22, 2021 5:03 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) Comments
1
-------
Comment 66. Rainey, Steven
Whltej^Dobb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Steven rainey >
Thnrxfiw M,irrh 1ft ?f)?1 Q-11 PM
Subject;
Hi everyone,
What can we do to help to sustain our beautiful state of Missouri, and the waterways that we all love!
If the attached comes through, and you can write the EPA, that is something we can do,
I'm beginning to think, with the total immovable efforts of our national politicians to even try to work together, we need
to work harder at the state levels. Many states were working on environmental needs over the past 4 years, even
though the US dropped out of the Paris agreement. Many states are working to become more fiscally sound, given the
total ignoring of the National budget in Washington D.D. I don't know how Missouri's governor thinks on this matter.
Anyway, I know many of you love the hills and streams of Missouri, so if you can sent a note, please do! ©
Cheryl
1
-------
Comment 67. Ribaudo, Ginny
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Thank you, EPA, for recognizing Missouri's lakes as impaired waters and for ensuring that steps will be taken to clean
them up.
Ginny RibaudoI
Friday, March 19, 2021 8:55 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri's 40 lakes
1
-------
Comment 68. Roper, Keith
WWte^Debbjf
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Keith Roper
Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:15 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri's "impaired" Waters
To Whom II May Concern;
I'm grateful that the EPA recognized our waters that need help, I totally support the
priorities that can restore the 40 lakes and/or rivers.
Thank you.
Keith Roper
l
-------
Comment 89, Ruzicka, Ray
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
1 support the EPA's decision to add 40 Missouri bodies of water to the "impaired waters" list.
This is an important step to keeping our waters safe and usable for the people of Missouri,
Ray Ruzicka
Ray Ruzicka
Friday, January 15, 2021 1:55 PM
R7-WaterDivision
EPA List of 40 Missouri Waters
1
-------
Comment 70. Sager, Tom
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tom Sager
Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:02 PM
R7-WaterDivision
We support the cleanup of Missouri's impaired waterways
Dear EPA:
Thank you for adding 40 Missouri lakes to the list of impaired waterways in Missouri.
We wholeheartedly support the cleanup of these waterways.
Yours sincerely,
Tom and Helen Sager
i
-------
Comment 71. Scharenborg, Thomas
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
From: Thomas Scharenborg
Sunday, January 31, 2021 10:19 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Please add the Water sources to the 2020 list.
To whom it may concern,
Please except this letter as my submission of comments regarding the action to add 40 water bodies as impaired
by nutrients to Missouri's 2020 List of Impaired Waters under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d).
We should include these additional 40 locations.
These and all other locations need to be monitored more rigorously for pollutants. Additional measures need to
be taken to make every effort to clean our Missouri waterways and water bodies extensively. I am a lifelong
Missouri resident and I am concerned for the future of our state. Please make every effort to increase the
monitoring of these waterways and add them to the list.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas P. Scharenborg
Thomas Patrick Scharenborg
t
-------
Comment 72. Sierra Club, Missouri Chapter
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
CAROLINE PUFALT
>
Monday, March 22, 2021 4:07 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Caroline Pufalt
Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) Comments
Dear EPA Region 7
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the state of Missouri's 2020 Impaired Waters
list.
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Missouri Chapter of the Sierra Club. Our
chapter includes 12000 members in Missouri all of whom value our state's natural
resources and the many benefits they provide. Our state is well known for its many rivers,
streams and lakes which enhance our natural environment and are a source of drinking
water, recreation, education and protection of our state's biodiversity.
Our state also struggles with nutrient pollution from a variety of sources, including
agricultural runoff, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOS), septic tank systems,
urban runoff and more. At the same time our state regulatory system is sometimes faced
with limited resources and lack of commitment to monitoring and enforcement of nutrient
standards. There are no trends in our state which indicate that the risk of nutrient pollution
is decreasing.
We support EPA's determination that the 40 additional lakes and reservoirs included in
Appendix C be added to Missouri's 303d list. These water bodies should be included
because data is present to indicate that they have experienced measurable nutrient
pollution and are in a position to likely suffer that contamination again. EPA has supported
relevant data to support their decision. The fact that some of the data is over 3 years old,
does not make it irrelevant, especially in the absence of updated data.
On March 18, 2021 Missouri's Clean Water Commission met publtcally to consider several
items. One of those items was consideration of loosening ground water protections for
CAFO operations in Missouri, based on excluding "perched water" from protection. This
has caused local residents to be concerned about nutrient pollution to the nearby Lake
Poosey Conservation Area. Unfortunately the Commission appears willing to permit this
increased nutrient pollution risk.
Another item on the Commission's agenda was a response to EPA's Nov 2020 decision
on the addition of lakes and reservoirs to the impaired list. In the draft letter available to
the public and the oral arguments presented on the 18th, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) argued that they had the authority under the Clean Water Act to follow
i
-------
the standards but also to have authority to establish and implement those guidelines
which " balance protection of Missouri's waters with the Department's resources and the
implications of listing decisions."
We believe that 303 (d) listing decisions should be based on the scientific data available
and assessment of risk. "Implications of listing decisions" should not be a consideration. If
a decision is made to list a water body, after that is the time to consider the implications of
how and on what schedule remediation can be implemented.
Most of MDNR's comments on the 18th were directed at the listing of the Lake of the
Ozarks (LOTO). MDNR stated in the public forum that EPA's decision to list LOTO was
based on old and unverified fish kill reports. EPA's decision clearly states that is not the
case EPA cites three sources of criteria and screening data exceedances and impaired
monitoring points at LOTO, in addition to low DO fish kill The fact that some of this data
goes back to 2017 should not be a barrier to its consideration, especially in light that
monitoring points may not be functional.
LOTO is a popular recreation site in Missouri. Excepting the recent drop in activity due to
the pandemic. LOTO continues to see increased development along its shores, increased
septic tank use, and increased boating and other lake recreation; all risks of nutrient
pollution. Climate change may also bring increased pressures as the area experiences
periods of greater heat and drought. If LOTO is to continue to be enjoyed by Missourians it
is important not to delay taking action on pollution risks. We appreciate the EPA bringing
this issue forward.
Thank you for your evaluation of Missouri's waters and for helping our state progress in
protecting those waters.
Sincerely,
Caroline Pufalt,
on behalf of the Missouri Chapter Sierra Club
-------
Comment 73, Steen, Darrick
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Darrick Steen
Saturday, March 20, 2021 11:17 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Subject:
Attachments;
EPA Proposed Decision on Missouri's 303d List
EPA Mo 303d Letter_Steen.pdf
Dear US EPA Region 7 - please find attached my comments pertaining to EPA's proposed decision to add 40 water
bodies, including Lake of the Ozarks, onto Missouri's 2020 List of Impaired Waters, as explained on EPA's website:
https://www.epa.gov/mo/state-missouri-2020-iist-impaired-waters
Thanks,
Darrick Steen
1
-------
Comment 73. Attachment
March 22, 2021
Jeff Robichaud
Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division
US EPA Region 7
11201 Renner Boulevard
Lenexa, KS 66219
RE: EPA Proposed Decision on Missouri's 2020 303(d) List
Dear Mr. Robichaud:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed decision on Missouri's 2020 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (303d list). My family
and I are lifelong area residents of Lake of the Ozarks. I am a practicing environmental engineer
with 20 years of professional experience, currently serving as the Environmental Director for two
major statewide trade associations. I also serve on the School of the Osage Board of Education,
one of several K-12 public schools in the Lake area. In addition to my comments below, I would
also like to support the comments submitted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(Missouri DNR).
On November 30, 2020, EPA Region 7 issued a "proposed decision" to designate 40 additional
lakes as "impaired" for nutrients and place them on Missouri's 2020 303d List. For myself and
many other residents and businesses in the Lake of the Ozarks area, I was shocked to learn that,
without any forewarning by EPA, both Lake of the Ozarks and Truman Reservoir was being listed
by EPA as "impaired" for nutrients; a decision that Missouri DNR did not support in its own 303d
listing decision just nine months prior.
To start with, I view EPA's decision to "over-list" the Missouri DNR on its 303d list as
unnecessary, potentially reckless and certainly within the realm of poor public governance. EPA's
decision was made with no prior warning or previous conversation with community leaders at
the Lake; a decision that frankly I believe blindsided the entire Lake community!
After speaking directly with Water Protection Program staff at Missouri DNR, this much was
made clear, Lake of the Ozarks should not be listed as impaired for nutrients. The fact is Missouri
DNR had sound reasoning for not listing the Lake of the Ozarks as impaired. I trust the State to
protect water quality at the Lake and I believe EPA should not have overruled Missouri DNR on
this delicate and enormously consequently issue.
I'd like to point out, if you're not aware already, that EPA's decision on Lake of the Ozarks and
Truman Reservoir in particular, poses grave economic consequences for the Lake of the Ozark's
Page 1 of 3
-------
region, not to mention the entire state. This is because these two Lakes provide a substantial
and important contribution to the state's economy via its bustling tourism and recreation
industry. The tourism industry at the Lake of the Ozarks also has a direct impact on the local
economy of many neighboring communities and counties around the Lake of the Ozarks. This
includes many public schools, hospitals and other public entities that rely heavily on the local tax
base and economic drivers that the Lake supports.
Lake of the Ozarks is both ecologically important and recreationally significant to Lake area
residents, businesses, public schools, and the entire state. According to the Missouri Department
of Economic Development (DED), total tourism spending in the central Missouri region, which is
dominated by the recreational draw of Lake of the Ozarks, is over $1.2 billion annually. This
economic impact is irrefutably linked to water related recreation, boating, fishing and by
extension, the general perception of Lake of the Ozarks as having safe quality water.
As such, safe water quality is vitally important to the Lake community. Listing the Lake of the
Ozarks as "impaired" suggests that the water in the Lake of the Ozarks is not safe for fish and
wildlife, and this conclusion is just patently wrong.
While I am confident that the Lake of the Ozarks community would indeed do whatever is
necessary to ensure Lake of the Ozarks is safe, limited tax dollars and resources must be spent
wisely. Not only would EPA's decision bring an unnecessary and damaging "black eye" to the
Lake community, it also would force local governments and the State to spend limited tax
dollars to fix a problem that simply does not exist.
In my view, EPA's decision to add the Lake of the Ozarks to the 303d list was a rushed and
premature decision by EPA that should have been evaluated and considered during the State's
next 303d listing cycle in 2022. Here are a few reasons why:
• Lake of the Ozarks' Ecoregion Status -1 strongly believe the Lake of the Ozarks was
recently assigned to the "Ozarks Highland" ecoregion by mistake. I believe the Lake
should have been assigned to the "Plains" ecoregion. The Missouri DNR has also
acknowledged the Ozarks Highland ecoregion may not be a proper assignment for the
Lake, and has signaled that they plan to re-evaluate the Lake's ecoregion status. This is
because of the Lake's significant watershed drainage and flow nexus with Truman
Reservoir, a "Plains" ecoregion lake. Had the Lake been correctly assigned to the Plains
ecoregion, it seems apparent that EPA would not have included Lake of the Ozarks on its
proposed 303d list. Furthermore, if EPA moves forward with listing the Lake of the
Ozarks, it will be perpetuating an ecoregion assignment error for the Lake, which
ultimately will make the process of fixing this error more complex.
• Evidence does not support EPA's listing decision - The fish kill data that EPA relied upon
to determine the impairment status at the Lake of the Ozarks provides no conclusive
evidence that these events were caused by nutrients. Most of the Lake's fish kill events
referenced and relied upon by EPA are clearly attributed to freezing weather, blunt force
trauma, and natural disease. None of these factors have anything to do with nutrients.
Page 2 of 3
-------
Furthermore, some of the data EPA relied upon at Lake of the Ozarks became available
after the Missouri DNR finished their 303d assessment process. It is unclear why EPA felt
it necessary to rush unverified data into its own internal review after the State had
finished its assessment process. The assessment process is a two-year cycle process, and
this data should have been evaluated during the 2022 assessment. Because the data was
rushed by EPA, the State and other public stakeholders were unable to properly review,
vet and conduct proper quality control measures on the data. This left EPA to speculate
and make assumptions about the data. EPA's assumptions appear to be wrong as the
fish kill data for the Lake of the Ozarks lacks solid scientific evidence or clear connections
to nutrient and eutrophication causes.
It is clear that Missouri DNR chose not to list Lake of the Ozarks as impaired for nutrients
because there was no clear compelling evidence of nutrient impacts. Accordingly, the Lake of
the Ozarks should be removed from EPA's proposed listing decision.
I respectfully request that EPA reconsider the proposed listing decision for Lake of the Ozarks
and follow the recommendations provided in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources'
detailed comments. Keeping Missouri in the lead role in developing and administering its water
quality standards and assessment program best serves it citizens and all of Missouri's waters.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.
Darrick Steen, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Lake of the Ozarks Area Resident
Board of Education-School of the Osage
cc:
Mr. Chris Wieberg, Missouri DNR
Mr. Tom Wright, Miller County Presiding Commissioner
Mr. Greg Hasty, Camden County Presiding Commissioner
Mr. Tony Stephens, Morgan County Presiding Commissioner
Honorable Willard Haley, Missouri House of Representatives District 58
Honorable Lisa Thomas, Missouri House of Representative District 124
Sincerely,
Page 3 of 3
-------
Comment 74. Stiffman, Jeffrey
White, Debbv
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Rabbi Jeffrey Stiffman I
Saturday, January 16, 2021 11:40 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri water bodies
To Whom It May Concern:
I support the decision to add/restore 40 water bodies to the Missouri's list. I hope that the EPA will concur.
Jeffrey Stiffman
i
-------
Comment 75. Thompson, James
From; James Thompson
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:23 AM
To; R?-WaterDivision
Subject; Water Quality - Lake Of The Ozarks
Importance: low
Dear Sir,
I have Bass fished LOZ quite a bit over the last 20 years and I have noticed an increasing amount of green scum on the
bottom of the lake, If I am bottom fishing with a jig I in veritably have to clean 6" long green strands of scum off my lure.
This cannot be healthy for the lake. This is most predominant in certain coves. Sometimes on secondary points &
sometimes all the way back.
My personal opinion is it is caused by certain property owners with faulty septic tanks. The green scum mostly occurs
around certain property. We end up leaving. The scum is all over the bottom.
I recommend you initiate a reporting system that would allow fisherman to report areas of the lake where they are
finding this green scum. Most Bass fisherman have GPS they could report coordinates or at least cove & mile marker.
Let's make it a better healthier environment.
Jim Thompson
l
-------
Comment 76. Troutman, Ashley
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
! am sending this message as my show of support for the EPA's decision to add/restore 40 water bodies to Missouri's list
of impaired waters. As an employee of a regional brewery, which relies heavily on clean water sources, and as a resident
of Missouri, this is a great step in the right direction.
Thank you,
Ashley Troutman I
Thursday, January 21, 2021 8:43 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Message of Support - MO's impaired waters
Ashley Troutman
-------
Comment 77, Turner, Jim R,
From;
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jim R Turner
Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:22 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Fwd: Support adding 40 lakes and reservoirs to MO's impaired list
To EPA Region 7
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the state of Missouri's 2020 Impaired Waters list.
I support the EPA's decision to add 40 additional lakes and reservoirs to the state's list of impaired
water bodies. Listing these water resources as impaired is the first step in improving them.
Like many Missourians I appreciate and enjoy our state's rivers, streams and lakes. But as our
state grows, so does the risk of nutrient pollution. It's important to evaluate and recognize this
problem sooner instead of later. Thanks for helping our state move forward in protecting our
lakes and reservoirs from pollution.
I am aware that Mead Nebraska has water problems caused by poor operation of an ethanol plant
( https://www.1011now.com/2Q21/Q3/01/nebraska-attomev-general-files-lawsuit-against-alten-
mead-based-ethanol-olant/ ), and that highlights the need for vigilance in protection of our water
resources.
Sincerely,
James R Turner
-------
Comment 78. Vogts, Melanie and Tim
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melanie Weilandl
Saturday, December 19, 2020 11:03 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Fwd: Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) Comments
Please see below. My e mail keeps saying undeliverable for my public comment.
— Forwarded message ~-
Date: Sat, Dec 19, 2020, 10:49 AM
Subject: Missouri's 2020 CWA Section 303(d) Comments
To:
I am a homeowner ortthe]||B My home is in I
approximately the Hmarker on the lake. My address is I have lived at the
lake since July 2015 and bought this home in January 201E. We love our lake, the waters, the quality of big fish and
healthy fish we've seen and or caught and released. We've caught and eaten nice healthy and clean large catfish. We've
caught and released big nice clean healthy bass, blue gill, and crappy. We have witnessed every year enormous schools
of shad each fall and watch as they grow. We swim in our cove and our grandchildren swim in our cove. We believe our
lake is clean and much cleaner than ever before. We've seen the water run thru a hose from the lake and it runs clear.
Please don't place our lake on your list we feel it's being cared for properly and have faith that will continue.
Sincerely
Melanie Vogts and Tiro Vogts
1
-------
Comment 79. Warsaw, City Administrator and Planner
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Randy Pogue
Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:26 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Lynette Stokes; Eddie Simons
Truman Lake and Lake of the Ozarks
it is my understanding that the action by the EPA is to assure better water quality in both lakes. If this is the case, better
water quality will assure a sense of comfort for those who visit and live in our area as users of the lakes. This should be a
positive for our tourism efforts.
Respectfully,
Randy Pogue
City Administrator and Planner
1
-------
Comment 80. Washia, Rebecca
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rebecca Washia <
Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:09 PM
R7-WaterDivision
MO Comment
I've lived at the lake of the ozarks for 33 years and! have watched this lake water go from being comfortable to
swimming to what it is today. This lake has gotten worse year after year, When my children were little, my oldest is 26
arid youngest 16,1 never allowed them to swim in the lake. I'd take them to the creek because the water was always
moving and cleaner than the lake, I mean I always said if you had an open wound and swim in the lake good luck with
not getting an infection of some sort, 1 also know several people who will not eat the fish from the lake except maybe
bass and catfish and even the catfish are bottom suckers and thats taking a chance,
I'm agreeing with the EPA and everyone else that they need to do what's best for this lake and if it means saying that
this lake is impaired then I have to stand behind the EPA and conservation departments and everyone involved.
1
-------
Comment 81. Webster University, Student (Robles, Briana)
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Briana Robles
Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:45 AM
R7-WaterDivision
I Support Clean Rivers
To whom it may concern,
I support the EPA's decision to add 40 lakes to Missouri's list of impaired waters under CWA 303(d) as a first step towards
doing what is necessary to stop water pollution from fertilizer runoff, animal waste, septic systems, domestic wastewater
arid other sources, as well as working to clean and restore MO water ecosystems. Clean water is essential for a
sustainable future, including human and wildlife welfare.
Thank you for your decision and work towards protecting and restoring MO's bodies of water.
Best,
Briana Robles
-------
Comment 82. Wilkinson, Amy
White^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
Amy Wilkinson
Thursday, February 18, 2021 7:22 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Clean our waters
The EPA added 40 lakes to Missouri's list of impaired waters — which is a very good thing. We live
near a CAFO and we know what comes out of them.
We support cleaning up our state's impaired waters. And we support fining the CAFOs for the cost of
cleaning them up.
i
-------
Comment 83. Wilkinson, Carolyn
White^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Carolyn Wilkinson
Friday,, March 5, 2021 11:04 AM
R7-WaterDivision
40 Water Bodies
Living near a cattle CAFO definitely opens eyes as to why we have such water problems. With water and air being a
necessity in life, it makes no sense that we do not get serious about protecting them,
For sure, Department of Natural Resources is not a good overseer of our water,
Too many times they have approved and allowed CAFO's to destroy our water. There should be an enforceable way to
have these same entities clean up these water bodies and a way to enforce the regulations.
1
-------
Comment 84. Witek, Paige
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Paige Witek
Friday, January 15, 2021 4:00 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Public Comment Period - EPA's Action to Acid Waters to Missouri's Impaired Waters List
Hello,
I support the decision to add and restore 40 water bodies to the state's list. It is imperative to the health of not only our
water system but our own health as well to restore these Missouri lakes.
Thank you.
Paige Witek
1
-------
Comment 85. Wulff, C
White, Debby
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
S. Wulff
Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:36 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Missouri impaired waters
Please help cleanup Missouri's impaired waterways. Missouri is an outdoorsy kind of state. We do
lots of fishing. We are not supposed to eat many of the fish caught because of pollution.
Missouri submitted its 2020 CWA Section 303(d) List to EPA on June 28, 2020. Based on its review,
EPA has determined that Missouri's impaired waters list partially meets the requirements of Section
303(d) of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations.
These waters need to be cleaned up to allow sport fishers to safety enjoy (eat) their catch.
Sincerely,
C. Wulff
i
-------
Comment 86. Wulff, S
Whitc^Debb^
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject;
S. Wulff
Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:48 AM
R7-WaterDivtsion
Missouri's impaired waterways
Please clean up Missouri's impaired waterways!
I am worried about the general environmental quality of the lakes in Missouri. Nutrient pollution is causing degradation
of water quality in many parts of the state. This impacts Missouri residents like me in many ways, whether we use lakes
for drinking water or recreation, or simply live near a lake. In addition, because nutrient pollution creates unsightly algal
blooms which go on to create toxins and cars damage boats, it greatly interferes with the enjoyment of Missouri's lakes.
It is therefore important that affected lakes be added to the state's 303(d) list.
I would love to take my grandchildren fishing and then have a big fish fry to celebrate and enjoy our catch.
Unfortunately it's not safe to eat fish caught in Missouri's lakes and streams.
We need a major commitment to repair our wonderful resources for all our grandchildren and their children.
Sincerely,
C, Wulff
1
-------
Comment 87. Zimmerman, Paulette
Whit%Debbjf
From:
Sent:
To;
Subject:
Zimmerman, Paulette
Saturday, February 6, 2021 2:30 PM
R7-WaterDivtsiort
Missouri Lakes
Dear Sir/Madam:
I strongly support EPA's decision to add 40 lakes to Missouri's list of impaired waters, I am glad that the need to clean up
these water bodies is being recognized and that steps are being taken to restore them to their natural purity.
Sincerely,
Paulette Zimmerman
1
-------
Comment 88. Late Submittal, Cheong, Eileen
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Eileen Cheong <
>
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 11:54 AM
R7-WaterDivision
Clean Water Act (CWA)- Missouri Impaired Waters 303
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments in regard to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s
proposal to add 40 lakes to the Missouri Impaired Waters 303(d) list.
My name is Eileen Cheong and I am a resident of Saint Louis, Missouri, I enjoy swimming at Peaceful Valley Lake which
the EPA recommended be added to the Missouri 303(d) list. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), each individual state's
303(d) list must include all lakes which are impaired or threatened within that state. Ensuring the accuracy of Missouri's
303(d) list will allow the EPA, Missouri, and individual Missourians to keep track of the water quality in Missouri's lakes.
However, the proposed 303(d) list submitted to the EPA in 2020 did not include all impaired lakes. As demonstrated by
the EPA's Decision Letter, some lakes were erroneously left off of the list due to data and procedural errors,
In order to ensure the proper protection for lakes in my state, I support EPA's recommendation to add Peaceful Valley
Lake to the 303(d) list for the following reason(s): I am worried about the general environmental quality of the lakes in
Missouri, Nutrient pollution is causing degradation of water quality in many parts of the state. This impacts Missouri
residents like me in many ways, whether we use lakes for drinking water or recreation, or simply live near a lake. In
addition, because nutrient pollution creates unsightly algal blooms which go on to create toxins and can damage boats,
it greatly interferes with the enjoyment of Missouri's lakes. It is therefore important that affected lakes be added to the
state's 303(d) list.
I am worried about the drinking water quality of Peaceful Valley Lake. I understand that excess nitrogen and phosphorus
causes algae growth which can be detrimental to my health, so I am increasingly worried about becoming sick if I
continue drinking this water. Because Peaceful Valley is overly polluted and doesn't have safe drinking water, I also
worry about swimming, I see large swaths of green algae in Peaceful Valley Lake which I believe to be algal blooms; I
don't feel safe swimming in murky water when I can no longer see below the surface. In addition, I am concerned that 1
will get sick if I accidentally drink some of the water while swimming.
I am worried about the impact of nutrient pollution on Shepherd Mountain lake areas. These areas are important to me
and my community because of their recreational and conservation value. Because nutrient pollution can be harmful to
the ecosystem and to people, it is a threat to the special character of Shepherd Mountain. As such, I believe that
Shepherd Mountain deserve(s) to be protected and included on the impaired waters list. This will ensure that its value to
the public will be preserved for the future.
I am concerned about the impact of fertilizer runoff from farms in my community on Cedar Lake. The fertilizers that are
used in the farms to grow crops contain nitrogen and phosphorus which 1 understand are harmful if they get into
Shelbyville's waters.
I am worried that these chemicals are contaminating the water and that it is no longer safe for fishing, drinking, and
other recreational activities. In summary, I support EPA's proposal to add Peaceful Valley, Shepherd Mountain, Cedar
Lake and Sheibyville to the 303(d) list in order to begin the process of ensuring that the water is [safe to drink/available
for safe and quality fishing/safe for swimming]. I cannot emphasize enough how concerned I am for my health and the
health of my community, I am counting on the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and EPA to keep me safe and
l
-------
to ensure that Peaceful Valley, Shepherd Mountain, Cedar Lake and Shelbyville are safe for me to swim in/drink water
from/fish in.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments during this process.
Sincerely,
Eileen Cheong
There is really nothing you must be and there is nothing you must do. There is really nothing you must have and there is
nothing you must know. There is really nothing you must become. However, it helps to understand that fire burns, and
when it rains, the earth gets wet.
-Rumi
2
-------
Comment 89. Late Submittal, Missouri Coalition for the Environment (Cyr, Alexander)
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cyr, Alexanderl
Wednesday, March 31, 2021 6:17 PM
White, Debby
RE; Thank you for your Comment
Ms, White,
Will the EPA be publishing the public comments which were received? I have not been able to find an EPA docket ID for
this issue.
Best,
Alex Cyr
From: White, Debby
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 6:39 PM
Subject: Thank you for your Comment
Thank you for your comment regarding the addition of 40 water bodies to Missouri's 2020 CWA Section
303(d) List for chlorophyll-;* (W). The input of concerned citizens is critical to our nation's water quality. After
coiiMderina public comments and makina any tevisions EPA deems appropriate. EPA will transmit the listing to
the state and to comment or,s' email addresses. Public comment will end on March 22,2021.
Sincerely.
Debby White
Environmental Specialist
1
-------
EPA, Region 7 Water Division
Water Quality and Standards Branch
Debby White
Regional ATTAINS Data Management Coordinator
Contact Information: 913-551-7886 / white.debby@epa.gov / USEPA Region 7 / Water Division-SAW /11201 Renner Boulevard /
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
# n •
wg
PR0f^C
Learn about your water at How's My Waterway?
Disclaimer The information provided in this email and attachment (s) is intended to be purely informational and reflects EPA staff's best judgment at the time and does
not represent a final or official EPA interpretation. The information does not substitute for the applicable provisions of statutes, and regulations, guidance, etc., nor is
it a regulation itself. Links to non-EPA sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement of, or responsibility for, the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those
locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The EPA and
sender accept no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered by any person resulting from any unauthorized use of or reliance upon this Email. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or other use of this Email is prohibited. Please notify us of the error in communication by
return email and destroy all copies of this Email. Thank you.
2
-------
Comment 90. Late Submittal, City of Osage Beach
White, Pebby
From:
Sent:
To;
Cc:
Subject:
Angel Quade <
>
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 2:10 PM
R7-WaterDivision
Jeana Woods; John Olivarri
Impaired Waters Status for Lake of the Ozarks
Attachments; 20210330 LTRUSEPAJMPAIRED WATERS.pdf
Mr, Robichaud,
Please see attached letter from Osage Beach Mayor John Olivarri,
Thank you,
Angel Quade
City of Osage Beach
Administrative Assistant
looo City Parkway
Osage Beach, Missouri 65065
573-302-2000 ext 1012
573-302-2039 FAX
N"\v: i, iiiton.i «'!'•>, »t .111 it\ *.•! '\i- h-1 n |,; ,Kn isj ft., ,i!|' it*, .i'» »«•, www.osagebeach.org.
¦ 11. r iiii th. \li• Sii'i 1 > ";i" I '|i.i\. i»si-• 1 i |> ,
Communication made through e-mail and messaging systems shall in no way be deemed to constitute legal notice to the
City of Osage Beach or any of its agencies, officers, employees, agents or representatives with respect to any existing or
potential claim or cause of action against the City or any of its agencies, officers, employees, agents or representatives,
where notice to the City is required by any federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations.
1
-------
Comment 90. Late Comment Attachment
City of Osage Beach
1000 City Parkway • Osage Beach, MO 65065
Phone |573| 302-2000 • Fax |573| 302-0528 • www.OsageBeach.org
March 30, 2021
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7
Mr. Jeffery Robichaud
Director, Water Division
11201 Renner Blvd.
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
Via Email R7-WaterDivision@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Robichaud:
The City of Osage Beach appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources' (MDNR or State) Clean Water Act (CWA) 2020 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters, as it may apply to the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. The City of Osage Beach
is in the heart of Lake of the Ozarks, the Midwest's premier lake destination with world-
class boating, fishing, state parks, and other outdoor recreation for residents and visitors.
The Lake region's recreation and tourism industry is vitally important to our economy as
well as the State of Missouri's economy.
The City of Osage Beach has reviewed the public comment submitted by Ameren
Missouri and agrees with the information provided in that statement. The City requests
USEPA reconsider the placement of the Lake of the Ozarks on the 2020 303(d) List of
Impaired Waters.
Sincerely,
JO: jw
------- |