important concepts and elements of an adequate state ... · need to be included as part of an...

ASIWPCA Standards & Monitoring August 8, 1997

1

Important Concepts and Elements of an Adequate State WatershedMonitoring and Assessment Program

August 8, 1997

prepared by

Chris O. YoderState of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Surface Water1685 Westbelt Drive

Columbus, Ohio 43228

prepared for

U.S. EPA, Office of Water(Cooperative Agreement CX 825484-01-0)

and

ASIWPCA Standards and Monitoring Task Force

Concepts and Elements of an Adequate State Monitoring & Assessment Program

2

Important Concepts and Elements of an Adequate State WatershedMonitoring and Assessment Program

I. INTRODUCTION

Watershed-based approaches are gaining widespread acceptance as a conceptual framework fromwithin which water quality management programs should function. However, overall reductions andinequities in State ambient monitoring and assessment programs jeopardize the scientific integrity ofwatershed-based approaches. This also has had the undesirable effect of failing to properly equip theStates and EPA to adequately meet the challenges posed by recently emerging issues such as cumu-lative effects, nonpoint sources, habitat degradation, and interdisciplinary issues (e.g., TMDLs) ingeneral. Unfortunately, the chronic shortfall in ambient monitoring and assessment resources is notnew - the ITFM (1995) reported that of the funding allocated by state and federal agencies to waterquality management activities, only 0.2% was devoted to ambient monitoring. As the need foradequate supplies of clean water increases, concerns about public health and the environment esca-late, and geographically targeted watershed-based approaches increase, the demands on the waterquality monitoring "infrastructure" will likewise increase. These demands cannot be met effectivelynor economically without fundamentally changing our attitudes towards ambient monitoring (ITFM1995). An adequate ambient monitoring and assessment framework is needed to ensure not only agood science-based foundation for watershed-based approaches, but water quality management ingeneral. This paper attempts to describe the important elements, processes, and frameworks whichneed to be included as part of an adequate State monitoring and assessment program and how thisshould be used to support the overall water quality management process. Furthermore, it is a goal ofthis effort to highlight the need to revitalize monitoring, assessment, and environmental indicators asan integral part of the overall water quality management process.

Monitoring and assessment information, when based on a sufficiently comprehensive and rigoroussystem of environmental indicators, is integral to protecting human health, preserving and restoringecosystem integrity, and sustaining a viable economy. Such a strategy is intended to achieve a betterreturn on public and private investments in environmental protection and natural resources manage-ment. In short, more and better monitoring and assessment information is needed to answer thefundamental questions that have been repeatedly asked about the condition of our water resourcesand shape the strategies needed to deal with both existing and emerging problems within the contextof watershed-based management.

The long-term vision is to develop a process for the comprehensive assessment of the waters of eachState by producing and implementing a multi-year monitoring and assessment framework at relevantgeographic scales to support all water quality management objectives (including risk-based decisionmaking). Some of the key elements of this approach are:

• development and implementation of a statewide monitoring strategy.• publishing existing monitoring and assessment results from all relevant sources (e.g., Water-

shed specific reports, State 305[b] reports).• performance of data storage, retrieval, and management.• taking appropriate regulatory and management actions based on those results.


3

These efforts would fall short if a linkage between program management and monitoring and assess-ment were not made part of the overall water quality management process (Figure 1). This, too, ispart of the long range vision for revitalizing the role of water quality monitoring nationwide.

II. GOALS OF AN ADEQUATE STATE MONITORINGAND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

The following is a compilation of themajor program goals that should shapethe design of an adequate State moni-toring and assessment program andthus become the identifiable character-istics. While much of this is patternedafter the major monitoring and assess-ment compendia and program guid-ance that has recently been developed(ITFM 1995; U.S. EPA 106 ProgramGuidance), the specifics of implemen-tation lie within the custodial responsi-bilities of State water quality manage-ment programs.

1. The 18 national water indicatorsand the goals each measures (U.S.EPA 1995a; see inset p. 3) areemployed as the core indicatorswith additional area and/or resourcespecific goals and indicators asneeded to fulfill the followingpurposes:

• conserve and enhance publichealth.

• conserve and enhance ecosys-tems.

• support uses designated byStates/Tribes in Water QualityStandards (WQS).

• conserve and improve ambientconditions.

• reduce or prevent loadings andother stressors (e.g., habitatdegradation).

Taken together, all of the above shouldlead to achieving healthy watersheds.

Reveal Trends inWater Resource

Quality

▼

▼

▼ ▲

▲

▲▼

▼

▼ ▲

▲

▲

Provide Informationfor Evaluating Pro-gram Effectiveness

Awareness ofProblems/Issues

Define Water Re-source Conditions

Characterize Exist-ing & Emerging

Problems By Type,Magnitude, & Geo-

graphic Extent

Analyze for Man-agement Options

Provide InformationBase for DesigningAbatement, Control,

& ManagementStrategies

Choose Courses ofAction

Evaluate ProgramEffectiveness

Design & Imple-ment Programs

MANAGEMENTACTIONS

MONITORINGPURPOSES

Figure 1. The relationship between management actions and thepurposes monitoring and assessment (after ITFM 1995).

Make Adjustmentsin Priorities & Pro-

grams

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

<<<<

<<<<

<<<<

>>>>


4

2. Assess all water resource types within an organized time frame (e.g., rotating basin approach) byemploying the following approaches:

• achieve virtually 100% coverage througha mix of different spatial schemes, i.e.,targeted sites, rotating basin cycles, and/orprobabilistic design.• utilize appropriate and robust techniques

for extrapolation and stratification ofmonitoring and assessment results (i.e.,every mile of every stream need not bemonitored to achieve the 100% coveragegoal).

• maximize interagency and inter-organiza-tional cooperation and collaboration.

• when appropriate, make use of volunteerorganization results.

3. Produce a “better” 305b report:• national statistics are currently biased by

wide differences between State approachesto monitoring & assessment includingindicators usage and calibration - one resultis widely divergent state estimates ofimpaired waters (generally overly optimis-tic estimates of the full attainment ofaquatic life uses).

• assignment of impairment (or lack thereof)to associated causes and sources alsoreveals the inconsistent usage of indicatorsand indicator frameworks - e.g., habitat hasbeen under reported by most states (almostone-half of states reported zero impairedmiles for rivers & streams in 1992).

4. Support the emerging watershed ap-proaches:

• reductions in State monitoring & assess-ment programs jeopardize the science basisfor successfully implementing watershed-based approaches which are ostensiblybased (in part) on addressing previouslyoverlooked or under-emphasized problems.

• management applications most com-monly take place at the watershed level thus

monitoring & assessment must be relevant to this level of management and be capable ofdetecting impairments and characterizing aquatic resources at this scale.

The U.S. EPA National Indicators for Waterand the Goals Each Supports

Conserve & Enhance Public Health:1. Population served by drinking water systems in

compliance with health-based standards.2. Population served by drinking water systems at

risk from microbial contamination.3. Population served by drinking water systems

exceeding lead action levels.4. Number of drinking water systems with source

water protection.5. Percentage of waters with fish consumption

advisories.6. Percentage of estuarine and shellfish waters

approved for harvest for human consumption.Conserve & Enhance Ecosystems:

7. Percentage of waters with healthy aquatic com-munities (i.e., biological integrity).

8. Percentage of imperiled aquatic species.9. Rate of wetland acreage loss.

Support Designated Uses:10. Percentage of waters meeting designated uses:

a. Drinking water supplyb. Fish and shellfish consumptionc. Recreationald. Aquatic life

Conserve & Improve Ambient Conditions:11. Population exposed to chemical pollutants in

ground water.12. Trends in surface water pollutants.13. Concentrations of selected pollutants in shellfish.14. Trends in estuarine eutrophication.15. Percentage of waters with chemically contami-

nated sediments.Reduce Loadings & Prevent Other Stressors:

16. Point source loadings to surface and groundwater.

17. Nonpoint source loadings to surface and groundwater.

18. Marine debris.


5

5. Satisfy basic questions that are frequently encountered by water quality program managers:• what is the condition of surface, ground, estuarine, and coastal waters?• how and why are conditions changing over time?• what are the associated causes and sources of impair-

ment?• are water quality management programs producing

the desired results?• are state and national water quality goals being

attained?

Each of the above can be subdivided into issue specificquestions that are commonly encountered by waterquality managers (see inset at right).

6. Integrate the water resource integrity concepts thathave been developed during the past 10-15 years intomonitoring and assessment approaches, environmentalindicators, and watershed-based programs:

• the five factors that determine the integrity of waterresources (Figure 2; Karr et al. 1986) should be usedto guide the development of environmental indica-tors - indicators which both represent or extend toeach major factor and which reflect the integrity ofthe water resource as a whole (e.g., compositemeasures, indices) are needed.

• follow the stressor, exposure, response paradigm fordetermining the most appropriate roles for individualindicators - avoid the inappropriate substitution ofstressor and exposure indicators for response indica-tors.

• utilize appropriate regionalization schemes (e.g.,ecoregions, subregions) to stratify and partitionnatural variability for ambient indicators.

• incorporate tiered and refined use designations in theState WQS as appropriate.

• use the water indicators hierarchy (Figure 3) as anoperational framework for State water quality man-agement programs - make linkages between adminis-trative activities and indicators of stress, exposure,and response.

III. STATE MONITORING & ASSESSMENTPROGRAM OBJECTIVES

The following are some of the major objectives that State monitoring & assessment programs shouldhave as priorities. Fully meeting some of these objectives will require time to acquire and develop

Water Quality-Based DecisionsWhich Would Benefit From

Better Monitoring & AssessmentInformation

Water Quality Standards:• Refined and stratified designated uses

and criteria• Biological criteria• Site-specific applications (e.g., dis-

solved metals translators, designtemperature & pH, hardness)

• Water effect ratios• Anitdegradation• Ground truthing revisions to water

quality criteriaTMDLs:

• Delineating impaired segments andassociated causes & sources

• Wasteload allocation (model calibration& verification

NPDES Permits:• Impact assessment• Toxicity assessment (i.e., WET testing)• Overall permit program effectiveness

Nonpoint Sources:• Delineating impaired segments and

prioritization of watersheds• Database for State Nonpoint Source

Assessments404/401 Dredge & Fill:

• Improved site-specific review andapproval criteria

• Minimize exemptions via nation-wide permits

Ground Water:• Development of ambient background

characteristicsWetlands:

• Improved wetlands classification anddelineation criteria


6

the necessary database, indicators, and staff expertise. However, this will be partly dependent on thestatus of existing and past State monitoring and assessment efforts. Nevertheless, using the follow-ing objectives provides a basis for determining the adequacy of a given State program. A wellrounded approach to indicators and monitoring design utilizing a core set of chemical, physical, andbiological indicators should provide the information needed to simultaneously meet these objectiveswithout the need to redesign the approach for each different objective.

1. Baseline characterizations of surface water resources:

• status and trends information.• aquatic resource characterization.

2. Identification and characterization of exist-ing and emerging problems:

• selection of indicators and the overallindicator framework will strongly influ-ence the adequacy of problem identifica-tion and characterization (we cannotaddress problems that we do not knowabout or adequately understand).

• the indicator framework and monitoringdesign must be prepared to provide infor-mation and insights to problems that maynot yet be understood or even recognized.

• there will be a need to go beyond pointsource paradigms.

• make better linkages between designateduses and indicators.

3. Guide and evaluate the water quality man-agement and regulatory process:

• monitoring & assessment informationshould drive the regulatory and management processes from problem identification to assessingthe effectiveness of these efforts.

• the 305[b] process (i.e., Water Body System) should be the central reporting mechanism forState programs - this will further benefit the national assessments compiled by EPA, otherfederal agencies, and private organizations.

• support the development and refinement of aquatic life and other designated uses in StateWQS.

• examples of other regulatory and management programs that can be influenced include 303[d]listing, TMDLs, water quality-based permitting, compliance and enforcement, prioritizinggrants and other financial assistance, the State nonpoint source assessment (319 program), etc.

• monitoring and assessment information should provide the impetus for “new” regulatory orprogram management directions (e.g., initiatives to restore and protect riparian habitat, nutrientcriteria, sediment criteria, stream protection, antidegradation) and enhance existing efforts(CSOs, stormwater, 404/401 program, chemical criteria validation, biological criteria).

WATERRESOURCEINTEGRITY

FlowRegime

High/LowExtremes

Precipitation &Runoff

Velocity

Land Use

GroundWater

ChemicalVariables

BioticFactors

EnergySource

HabitatStructure

Hardness

Turbidity

pH

D.O.

TemperatureAlkalinity

Solubilities

Adsorption

Nutrients

Organics

Reproduction

DiseaseParasitism

Feeding

Predation

Competition

Nutrients

Sunlight

Organic MatterInputs

1 and 2Production

o o

SeasonalCycles

RiparianVegetation

Siltation

Current

Substrate

Sinuosity

Canopy InstreamCover

Gradient

ChannelMorphology

Bank Stability

Width/Depth

Figure 2. The five major factors which determine theintegrity of the water resource (modified after Karret al. 1986).


7

Actions byEPA andStates

Responsesby theRegulatedCommunitiy

Changes inDischargeQuantities

Changes inAmbientConditions

Changes inUptake and/orAssimilation

Changes inHealth andEcology, orOther Effects

• NPDES Permit Issuance• Compliance/Enforcement• Pretreatment Program• Actual Funding• CSO Requirements• Storm Water Permits• 319 NPS Projects• 404/401 Certification• Stream/Riparian Protection

• POTW Construction• Local Limits• Storm Water Controls• BMPs for NPS Control• Pollution Prevention Measures

• Point Source Loadings -Effluent & Influent

• Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)• NPDES Violations• Toxic Release Inventory• Spills & Other Releases• Fish Kills

• Water Column Chemistry• Sediment Chemistry• Habitat Quality• Flow Regime

• Assimilative Capacity -TMDL/WLA

• Biomarkers• Tissue Contamination

• Biota (Biocriteria)• Bacterial Contamination• Target Assemblages

(RT&E, Declining Species)

LEVEL 4

LEVEL 5

LEVEL 6

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

Figure 3. Hierarchy of administrative and environmental indicators which can be used by States formonitoring and assessment, reporting, and evaluating overall program effectiveness. Thisis patterned after a model developed by U.S. EPA (1995b).


8

4. Evaluation of overall water quality management program effectiveness:

• demonstrate the effectiveness of 25+ years of CWA program implementation.• establish linkages between administrative activities (i.e., “bean counts” ) and environmental

results (i.e., ambient chemical, physical, and biological indicators).• which actions worked and which ones did not? - provide insights on why and suggest what

specific program and/or resource adjustments might be needed.

5. Responding to emergencies, complaint investigations:

• quantify environmental damages on a spatial and/or temporal basis.• characterize resources at risk.• define the magnitude of apparent problems.

6. Identify and characterize reference conditions:

• baseline for development of indicator benchmarks for evaluating designated use attainment/non-attainment (e.g., biological criteria) and other management objectives.

• this functions as a long term data source for characterizing ambient biological, chemical, andphysical conditions through time.

IV. MONITORING & ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DESIGN ISSUES

Monitoring and assessment program design includes the different types of indicators and the frame-works within which each is developed and used. This in turn determines the different types of datathat will need to be collected and synthesized into information in order to successfully realize thepreviously stated goals and objectives. Spatial considerations about the basic design of the monitor-ing program are also included and will be most influenced by the overall program goals and objec-tives of each State. State monitoring and assessment programs serve multiple needs and mustfunction across multiple scales (i.e., local watershed, basin/subbasin, statewide), thus considerationof more than one approach will likely be needed.

Environmental Indicators for Surface Waters1. The most appropriate roles of indicators are defined as follows:

• Stressor Indicator - measures of activities which have the potential to impact the environment(e.g., pollutant loadings, land use characteristics, habitat changes).

• Exposure Indicator - measures of change in environmental variables which suggest a degree(magnitude and duration) of exposure to a stressor (e.g., chemical pollutant levels in water andsediment, toxicity response levels, habitat quality indices, biomarkers).

• Response Indicator - usually a composite measure or other expression of an integrated orcumulative response to exposure and stress (e.g., biological community indices, status of atarget species, etc.).

• The problem nationally with inconsistent 305[b] statistics (and by extension inconsistent 303[d]and 304[l] lists, etc.) is usually the result of the inappropriate substitution of stressor and/orexposure indicators in the place of response indicators - this is commonly due to the lack of


9

information about response indicators.• The exclusion of response indicators and the inappropriate substitution with exposure and/or

stressor indicators ultimately influences what States report in terms of waters meeting desig-nated uses. An example of this is illustrated in Figure 4 where some State estimates of aquaticlife use attainment based on surrogate approaches are much different than estimates basedprimarily on biological assessments (U.S. EPA 1996).

2. Use the EPA hierarchy of indica-tors (U.S. EPA 1995b; Figure 3)as a template to improve theintegration of administrativeactions and measures with envi-ronmental indicators within theState water quality managementprocess:

• The EPA hierarchy of surfacewater indicators links traditionaladministrative approaches(permitting, funding, compli-ance, enforcement) with envi-ronmental indicators whichsimultaneously sequencesstressor, exposure and responseindicators - six levels (Figure3).

• The six level hierarchy canbecome an operational templatefor implementing environmentalindicators and monitoring information within a State water quality management process via awatershed approach. This will facilitate the development of case histories about what worksand what does not, showing where information gaps exist, and providing opportunities forfeedback throughout the process. An example from the Ohio pilot water indicators demonstra-tion project is included in the selected examples (Part IX.).

Monitoring Design ApproachesA key issue facing the States and EPA is selection of an appropriate monitoring design. It has beenrecognized for some time that the traditional fixed station design (e.g., NAWQMN, NASQAN)common to many State monitoring networks is alone insufficient to meet the above stated objectives.However, State monitoring and assessment resources even under the best of circumstances have beenlimited and therefore must be prioritized. Thus, selection of the most cost and information effectivespatial design is a critical step in the process. Two approaches, a synoptic, targeted design com-monly referred to as a rotating basin approach and the probabilistic design developed by the U.S.EPA EMAP program are summarized here. The strengths and weaknesses of each are indicated withrespect to the multiple issues that State monitoring and assessment programs must address. A caseexample from the Ohio portion of the E. Corn Belt Plains ecoregion Regional EMAP project isincluded in Part IX.

0 20 40 60 80 100

K

J

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

Biological Integrity "Aquatic Life Use"

% Miles Attaining Designated AL Use

Rep

ortin

g S

tate

s

Figure 4. Miles of rivers and streams reported as fully support-ing designated aquatic life uses based on varying methodsused by 11 states in their 305[b] reports (light shading)compared to that based on biological assessments (after U.S.EPA 1996).


10

Rotating Basin Approach1. Strengths:

• organized, systematic approach based on accumulating assessment information at a local scaleover a fixed period of time, usually 5 or 10 years.

• coincides with various management programs which are supported by the monitoring & assess-ment information (i.e., NPDES permit reissuance, basin-wide water quality planning, proposed5-year 305b reporting cycle).

• provides monitoring & assessment information at a local or reach specific scale so that themany issues which occur at this level can be addressed while providing the opportunity toaggregate upwards to a watershed, regional, statewide, or national scale once sufficient dataexists.

• there is more opportunity to define gradients of specific human disturbances with assessmentinformation (e.g., Karr’s human activity "dose" - ecological response curve).

• develop and maintain tabs on reference condition in a predictable and standardized time frame.

2. Weaknesses:• visiting a basin/segment/watershed only once in 5 or 10 years may not be sufficient to satisfy

all needs.• larger scale assessment information (i.e., in support of a valid statewide assessment) is gener-

ally not available for 5-10 years.

Probabilistic Design1. Strengths:

• statistically robust design.• “faster” route to a statewide assessment - aggregate to national scale.• transcends State boundary limitations - can facilitate collaborative monitoring between States.

2. Weaknesses:• lacks site-specific/issue-specific resolution.• logistics are potentially more difficult (i.e., more difficult access to remote monitoring sites).• reference condition may be more difficult to define on probability basis alone.• local scale issues may be overlooked.

V. AQUATIC RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

Defining the different aquatic resource types that a State program must address is a critical step inthe process. This includes the major aquatic ecosystem types such as flowing waters (i.e., rivers andstreams), lakes and reservoirs, coastal waters, great lakes, estuaries, or wetlands. Further stratifica-tion within each is possible (e.g., headwater streams, wadable streams, large rivers, depressionalwetlands, riparian wetlands, etc.) and may be accounted for a priori or as part of the indicator devel-opment and calibration process. Other stratification elements, which includes watershed drivingfactors (e.g., ecoregions) and other physical vectors, are incorporated as well. Designated aquaticlife uses provide an additional layer of stratification. Taken together all of these processes shouldresult in more finely tuned indicator expectations or benchmarks against which management pro-gram success will ultimately be judged.


11

VI. STATE MONITORING & ASSESSMENT COMPONENTS AND RESOURCES

State monitoring and assessment programs need to include the appropriate ambient measurements inorder to adequately meet the previously stated goals and objectives. The Intergovernmental TaskForce on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM 1995) recommended the minimum elements of an ad-equate monitoring and assessment program that will support meeting the previously stated goals andobjectives (Table 1). This also represents the elements essential to implementing the hierarchy ofwater indicators framework (Figure 3) which, in turn, is needed to not only demonstrate programeffectiveness, but provide opportunities for feedback resulting in future program improvements.

The ITFM (1995) concluded that the implementation of the ITFM recommendations and strategywould result in an adequate information base to achieve the environmental protection and naturalresource management goals and objectives established for the nation's aquatic resources. However,it was also recognized that full implementation of the strategy could not be achieved "overnight" andthat the necessary capacity and resources (i.e., the monitoring and assessment "infrastructure") willneed to be acquired over a reasonable period of time. Nevertheless, monitoring organizations,including States, will need to review, update, and/or revise their monitoring strategies in a series ofdeliberate steps. The demands that are increasingly being placed on our water resources at all scalesrequire that past approaches to monitoring be significantly improved both in terms of quality andquantity. Some of the steps towards a more comprehensive and effective approach to ambientmonitoring include the following which also summarizes the major points of this document:

1. Develop a goal oriented approach to monitoring, assessment, and indicators development whereindicators are sufficiently specific so as to explicitly measure the identified national goals andthose relevant to State WQS.

2. Evaluate information priorities and identify existing information gaps.

3. Develop a comprehensive and flexible approach that addresses all relevant scales and aquaticresource types.

4. Take advantage of inter-organizational collaboration whenever appropriate.

5. Link traditional compliance monitoring with watershed-based ambient monitoring.

6. Deal effectively with methods comparability to maximize the flexibility in monitoring and assess-ment approaches while producing data and information of known quality and power of assess-ment.

7. Automate and streamline data and information management including data entry, storage, andretrieval.

8. Develop better assessment and reporting at all relevant scales; publish results on a regular basis.

9. Promote the development of incentives and the elimination of disincentives to the development ofbetter State ambient monitoring programs and indicators.


12

Human Health Ecological Health Economic Concerns

Categories of Management Objectives

Consumptionof Fish

/Shellfish

PublicWaterSupply

Recrea-tion (swim-ming, fish-

ing, boating)

Aquatic/Semi-

aquaticLife

Industry/Energy/

Transpor-tation

Agricul-ture/

ForestryIndicator Group

Biological Response Indicator (Level 6)

Chemical Exposure Indicator (Level 4&5)

Physical Habitat/Hydrologic Indicator (Levels 3&4)

Water chemistry X X X X X XOdor/Taste X X XSediment Chemistry X X X X X XTissue Chemistry X X X XBiochemical Markers

Hydrological Measures X X X X X XTemperature X X X X XGeomorphology X X X X X XRiparian/shoreline X X X X XAmbient Habitat Quality

Land Use Patterns X X X X X XHuman Alterations X X X X XWatershed Impermeability

Watershed Scale Stressor Indicators (Levels 3,4&5)

Pollutant Loadings Stressors (Level 3)

Point Source LoadingsNonpoint Source LoadingsSpills/Other Releases

Table 1. Summary matrix of recommended environmental indicators for meeting managementobjectives for status and trends of surface waters (shaded boxes with X are recommended as aprimary indicator after ITFM 1995; other recommended indicators are indicated by ). Thecorresponding EPA indicator hierarchy level is also listed between indicator groups.

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Macroinvertebrates X X X XFish X X X XSemiaquatic Animals X X X XPathogens X X XPhytoplankton X X X X XPeriphyton XAquatic Plants X X X X XZooplankton X X X X


13

Simply upgrading the monitoring program to include more and better measurements and the betterconversion of data to information, while important, is alone insufficient. To achieve the overall goalof improving the use of monitoring and assessment information in the emerging watershed approach,water quality management must mature to focus primarily on the condition of the environment as theoverall measure of program success (Figure 5). Whereas the performance of the "program" was

once the principal measure of effectiveness, the program must be viewed as a tool to be used along-side monitoring and assessment and environmental indicators to improve the quality of the environ-ment.

PROGRAM FOCUSED

APPROACH

Two Approaches to Watershed-Based Water Quality Management

RESOURCE FOCUSED

APPROACH

Goal: Program Performance Environmental Performance

Measures: Administrative Actions Indicator End-points

Results: Improve Programs Programs are Tools to Improve the Environment

Figure 5. The goals, measures, and results of program based and resource based approaches to waterquality management. State programs will evolve towards a resource based approach by developingand using a sufficiently comprehensive and rigorous system of environmental indicators.


14

VIII. REFERENCES

ITFM (Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality). 1995. The strategy for im-proving water-quality monitoring in the United States. Final report of the IntergovernmentalTask Force on Monitoring Water Quality. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data,Washington, D.C. + Appendices.

Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biologi-cal integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History SurveySpecial Publication 5: 28 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Summary of state biological assessment programsfor streams and rivers. EPA 230-R-96-007. U. S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, & Evalua-tion, Washington, DC 20460.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995a. Environmental indicators of water quality in theUnited States. EPA 841-R-96-002. Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460. 25 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995b. A conceptual framework to support developmentand use of environmental information in decision-making. EPA 239-R-95 012. Office ofPolicy, Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC 20460. 43 pp.


15

IX. INDICATORS & PARAMETERS FOR ADEQUATE STATE MONITORING & ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS

The following supplemental figure shows core and supplemental indicators and parameters that areused in an adequate State monitoring and assessment program. This is patterned after the recom-mendations of the Intergovermental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM 1995). Thecore indicators are measured everywhere and are supplemented by a variety of chemical and physi-cal measurments depending on the applicable designated use(s) and watershed-specific needs.

Supplemental Figure 1. Core indicators and parameters for an adequate State watershed monitoring andassessment program with supplemental chemical parameters according to the applicable designateduse(s). Parameters are added based on site and watershed-specific needs and overall water qualitymanagement objectives.

CORE INDICATORS/PARAMETERS• Fish Assemblage • Macroinvertebrates • Periphyton

(Use Community Level Data From At Least Two)

Physical Habitat Indicators• Channel morphology • Flow• Substrate Quality • Riparian

Chemical Quality Indicators• pH • Temperature• Conductivity • Dissolved O

2

For Specific Designated Uses Add the Following Parameters::

:

:

:

:

:

AQUATIC LIFEBase List• Ionic strength• Nutrients, sedimentSupplemental List• Metals (water/sediment)• Organics (water/sediment)

RECREATIONALBase List• Fecal bacteria• Ionic strengthSupplemental List• Other pathogens• Organics (water/sediment)

WATER SUPPLYBase List• Fecal bacteria• Ionic strength• Nutrients, sedimentSupplemental List• Metals (water/sediment)• Organics (water/sediment)• Other pathogens

HUMAN/WILDLIFE CONSUMPTIONBase List:• Metals (in tissues)• Organics (in tissues)


16

X. CASE EXAMPLES(ASIWPCA Meeting Version)

Case examples of how monitoring and assessment information based on an integrated water indica-tors framework can be used to address some of the key goals and objectives of this guidance docu-ment are appended. These examples provide tangible evidence of how good monitoring and assess-ment information can be used to not only support specific program areas, but the overall waterquality management process in general.

A. Pennsylvania DEPThe Pennsylvania examples show how the DEP is responding to the settlement of a TMDL suit bycommitting to increased monitoring and assessment (biological monitoring in particular) statewide.

B. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)The TVA has traditionally been a leader in using ambient monitoring information to meet their waterquality management obligations. The examples appended here portray the types of monitoring andassessment, the spatial design, and how this has fostered a better approach to inter-organizationalcollaboration.

C. Wisconsin DNRA published paper from the Wisconsin DNR shows how biological and habitat information was usedto determine the effects of nonpoint sources and land use on the integrity of Wisconsin streams. Thisshould begin to point out how this type of information can be used in the TMDL process.

D. Ohio EPAA number of examples from the Ohio EPA surface water monitoring and assessment program arepresented and include:

• fact sheets from the 1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305b report);• watershed profiles from two basin survey areas.• preliminary results from the E. Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion REMAP project;• a synopsis of figures from the pilot water indicators project; and,• three examples of how ambient monitoring data can be used to validate and/or derive chemical

water quality criteria.

E. U.S. EPA, Office of WaterThe most recent version of the U.S. EPA Section 106 monitoring guidance attempts to foster helpingStates to achieve the many goals and objectives stated herein.


17

XI. OHIO EPA CASE EXAMPLES:

I. 1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305[b] Report) Fact Sheets:

• Streams and Rivers Status• Causes and Sources of Impairment• Streams and Rivers: Siltation & Habitat Destruction• Impaired Waters in Ohio: What Does This Mean?

II. An Evaluation of Spatial Monitoring & Assessment Design: Preliminary Results from the E. Corn Belt Plains REMAP Project

III. Ammonia Fact Sheets• Associations Between the Index of Biotic Integrity and Unionized Ammonia in Ohio Rivers and Streams: A Preliminary Analysis• Associations Between the Index of Biotic Integrity and Total Ammonia in Ohio Rivers and Streams: A Preliminary Analysis

IV. Ohio EPA Pilot Indicators Project figures

V. Watershed Profile Summaries• Sandy Creek• Little Miami River

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perc

en

t o

f S

tream

Miles

Aquatic Life Use Status(Post 1988)

Full Partial NotAttaining

49.3%

10.8% of Miles are Threatened

23.3% 27.4%

}

1996 Ohio WaterResource Inventory

Fact Sheet:Streams & Riv-

ers Status

tors of pollution because theyinhabit the water all of the timeand because of the direct con-tact of their gills with the water.A healthy stream community isalso associated with high qual-

ity recreational opportunities(e.g., fishing and otheroutdoor-related activities).

The shoirt-term goal isfor 75% of the streamand river miles to fullyattain the applicableaquatic life standards(called "uses") by theyear 2000. The most

recent Ohio Water Re-source Inventory (Ohio

EPA 1996) reported that49.3% of streams andrivers were fully sup-porting the applicableaquatic life "uses".This means that nearlyone-half of Ohio'sstreams, other than asmall proportion ofwaters maintained as

ditches or other physically lim-ited waters, and rivers harborgood or exceptional qualityfish and/or aquatic inverte-brate assemblages. Streamsthat are considered as "par-tially" supporting aquatic lifemeans that while either thefish or aquatic insects aregood or excellent, the othergroup is only in fair condition.In such cases certain sensitive

species may be absent or thereare too many pollution tolerantspecies (e.g., carp) than in acomparable stream where thereis less pollution. "Non-attaining"streams and rivers arewaterbodies in which the fish andaquatic invertebrates are bothfair or one group is in poor orvery poor condition. Examplesof such streams and rivers in-clude a warmwater streamwhere we should expect to findgood fish and aquatic inverte-brate communities, but bothgroups are rated as fair; or anexceptional stream, where weexpect to find exceptional fishand invertebrates, but whereboth groups are good. As sum-

Ohio is a water-rich statewith more than 25,000miles of named and

designated streams and riversand a 451-mile border on theOhio River. The suitability ofthese waters to support humanuses (e.g., recreation and drink-ing water) and to maintainhealthy ecological conditions or"biological integrity" is critical tothe sustainable future of Ohio'seconomy and standard of liv-ing.

Ohio uses the fish and inverte-brate communities found instreams to assess the healthand well-being of Ohio's flowingwaters. Aquatic animals are gen-erally the most sensitive indica-

1996 Ohio WaterResource Inventory Fact Sheet:

Streams & Rivers Status


Streams & Rivers Status

marized in the pie chart below,the non-attainment designationdoes not mean that the streamis "dead," but rather representsvarying degrees of unacceptableimpairment.

It is also helpful to look at streamand river quality from a regionalperspective. The map on thispage (upper right) summarizesthe condition for each of 93 wa-tersheds ("subbasins") in Ohio.Some areas of the state gener-ally have a higher proportion ofhigh quality streams and rivers(central and southern Ohio) thanother areas (northwest Ohio). Byusing this perspective, we cansee which watersheds are cur-rently meeting or exceeding theOhio 2000 goal. These will bepriorities for protection. For wa-tersheds that are far below theOhio 2000 goal, there will be aneed to evaluate the"restorability" potential and futurerestoration efforts prioritized. Itis clear that a watershed ap-proach, that includes efforts torestore habitat and decreasesedimentation (two of the lead-ing causes of impairment),needs to be central to any strat-egy to reach the Ohio 2000 goal.

93

92

9075

78

72 7665

391

73

286

8974 8785

8477

171

81

1067

6869 66

1916 11 4

13

36512

55 1863

38

3520

14

58 39

657 37 21

7

41

59 4050

4224

25

851

4452

5430

53

48

33

46

3247

70

88

34

79

8283

56

9

17

27

26

4562

60

23

15

49

61

47 31

28

29

43

22

64

80

>75% of Miles

Aquatic Life UseAttainment

50-75% of Miles

25-50% of Miles

10-25% of Miles

<10% of Miles

Insufficient Data

Map of Aquatic Life Use Attainment By Subbasin

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lower Mahoning

Little Auglaize

Upper Middle Maumee

Tiffin

E. Fk. L. Miami

Big Walnut

Little Beaver

Ohio Brush

McMahon, Captina, Su

Middle Sandusky

Kokosing

Upper Musk., Wakatom

Little Muskingum

Full Support Partial Support Non-Supporting

Percent Aquatic Life Use Support

"25%/75%" Goal

Column Chart of Aquatic Life Use AttainmentFor Selected Subbasins

Non-Attaining Sites

ExceptionalGoodFairPoorVery Poor

4.5%

34.7%

50.6%

10.2%

For more information contact: Ed Rankin, Division of SurfaceWater1800 WaterMark Drive, Columbus, OH 43215-1099

(614)-728-3388; e-mail: [email protected]

Ranges of Narrative Datain Sites Not Attaining

Aquatic Life Uses

1996 Ohio Wa-ter

Resource In-ventory Fact

Sheet:Streams & Riv-

ers Status

with higher quality recreation op-portunities (e.g., fishing, canoe-ing, and other outdoor-relatedactivities).

In addition to the biological data,Ohio EPA also collects informa-tion on the chemical quality of the

water, sediment and ef-fluents; data on thecontaminants in fishflesh; and data on thephysical nature ofstreams (i.e., aquatichabitat, siltation).

This data is essential toidentify the factors that

are limiting or impairaquatic life and whichconstitute threats tohuman health.

Causes of impairmentare the "agents" thatactually damage orimpair the aquatic life

in a stream, such asthe toxic effects of heavy met-als or acidic water. Sources ofimpairment are the origin of theagent. For example, an indus-try may discharge a heavy metalor a coal mine may be thesource of acid water leachinginto a stream.

The leading causes of impair-ment to aquatic life in Ohiostreams are listed in the adjacentfigure (bottom left). The lead-ing cause is organic enrich-ment, which includes low dis-solved oxygen and excessiveorganic pollutants. This largelyoriginates from the inadequatetreatment of municipal wastewa-ter (a "point source") and is themost rapidly declining cause ofimpairment. Habitat alterationsand siltation are the second andthird leading causes and willlikely emerge as the leadingcauses in two or three years.These causes are termed"nonpoint source" in origin be-cause they do not emanate frompipes, but instead are a result of

Ohio's streams and rivershave seen a substantialimprovement in quality

over the past 10-15 years. Themajority of this improvementhas been a result of invest-ments and improvements inmunicipal wastewater treat-ment plants across Ohio.

Ohio uses the fish and inver-tebrate communities found instreams to assess conditionsin Ohio's flowing waters.Aquatic animals are gener-ally more sensitive to pollut-ants compared to other animalsbecause they inhabit the waterall of the time. A healthy streamcommunity is also associated

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Organic EnrichmentLow D. O.

Habitat Alterations

Siltation

Flow Alteration

Nutrients

Metals

Six Leading Causes of Aquatic Life Use Impairment

Stream and River Miles Impaired

(1)

(3)

(2)

(6)

(9)

(4)

Ammonia dropped from 5th to 9th


Streams & RiversCauses & Sources of

Impairment


Streams & RiversCauses & Sources of

Impairment

land use activities or direct dis-turbance of stream ecosystems(e.g., by dredging, urbanization,riparian vegetation removal).

Other point source-relatedcauses of aquatic life impair-ment have also declined in im-portance (see top right figure).Impacts from heavy metals(e.g., copper, cadmium, lead,etc.) have declined from the thirdleading cause to the sixth since1988. Ammonia, a toxic com-ponent of municipal wastewater,has dropped from the secondleading cause in 1988 to ninth.This dramatic improvement re-sulted from the construction ofnew sewage treatment plants inthe 1980s at a cost of approxi-mately $6 billion thorughoutOhio.

The leading sources of impair-ment are listed in the figure be-low. Point sources of impair-ment are the most rapidly declin-ing source. The importance ofhydromodification (activitiesthat result in habitat degradation)as a leading source of impair-ment will likely increase over the

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600

Hydromodification

Land Disposal

Mining

Development

Agriculture

CSO/Urban Runoff

Municipal

Industrial

Declining Problems Emerging Problems

Stream and River Miles

Identification of declining and emerging sourcesof aquatic life impairment

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Point Sources

Hydromodification

Agriculture

Mining

Other/Unknown

Urban Runoff

Six Leading Sources of Aquatic Life Use Impairment

Stream and River Miles Impaired

(1)

(3)

(2)

(6)

(5)

(4)

next several years. This trend isillustrated in the figure (seeabove) that compares decliningand emerging sources of impair-ment over the past 15 years.Such mpacts are termed "emerg-ing" problems because while al-ways present, they were fre-quently masked by the more se-vere point source impacts of thepast.

The aquatic life in astream is a sensitive

measure of the overallquality of the resource.

For more information contact:Ed Rankin, Division of SurfaceWater

1800 WaterMark DriveColumbus, OH 43215-1099

(614)-728-3388e-mail:

[email protected]

The information and knowledgeillustrated in this fact sheet willbe incorporated into the OhioEPA strategic planning process,which will direct future efforts toprotect and restore the water re-sources of Ohio in a cost-effec-tive and scientifically sound man-ner.

1996 Ohio WaterResource In-ventory Fact

Sheet:Streams & Riv-

ers Status

What Is "Siltation/Sedimentation?"Siltation and sedimentation is theerosion of small particles of soilfrom the land surface or streambanks into the channel of a

stream or river. Erosion is anatural process, however, cer-tain human activities can greatly

accelerate the rate oferosion into streams

faster than thestreams can exportsediment down-stream or expel itonto the floodplain.

The impacts toaquatic life arise largely

due to the the smother-ing of living and spawn-

ing areas. Stream sur-veys on Ohio havedocumented the loss ofsensitive aquatic spe-cies, including sportspecies such as small-mouth bass where silt-ation and sedimenta-tion is high.1

What Is "Habitat?"Most aquatic species livein specific types of streamhabitat. For example, sen-sitive species such as dat-ers are typically found inriffles, while large preda-tors (e.g., smallmouthbass) spend much time inpools or other deep areas(see photo in lowerlefthand corner of this

page). Most natural streams andrivers in Ohio have a diverse ar-ray of habitats characterized bya meandering form with numer-ous riffles, runs, pool, islands,gravel bars, backwaters, etc. Insuch natural streams that are notimpacted by "point sources",stream surveys result in manyspecies of fish(up to 40 or more)and macroinvertebrates (up to100) in a single sample!

Habitat and Siltation ImpactsMost habitat and sediment im-pacts result from direct modifica-tion to a stream or land uses thatencroach on the riparian forestsalong a stream. The miles ofaquatic life impairment causedby habitat modification, siltationand flow alteration are listed in

Ohio's streams and rivershave seen a substantialimprovement in the their

quality over the past 10-15 yearsgenerally a result of improve-ments in "point sources" of pol-lution across Ohio. As a re-sult of this, much of the re-maining impairment toaquatic life is the result ofimpacts that are termed"nonpoint" sources (see FactSheet FS\DSW-EAS-97-3).The leading nonpoint causesthat impair aquatic life aresiltation and habitat modifica-tion. The causes are the re-sult of many differentnonpoint sources, especiallysuburban and urban develop-ment, agriculture, and flood con-trol.

Sediments from erodingbanks smother aquatichabitat (e.g., riffles) and fillpools where sport fishesdwell.

Riffle

Pool Str

eam

Hab

itat

Typ

es


Streams and RiversSiltation & Habitat Destruction

the top of the figure below. Theorigin of causes include activitiessuch as agriculture, urban/sub-urban runoff, and developmentrelated construction. Situationswhere the the source of the im-pact is directly attributed to spe-cific hydromofication activitiesare listed on the figure below.

Channelization of streams for ag-ricultural drainage or flood con-trol is the most frequent activitythat degrades habitat (see photoright). The key for protecting andand restoring aquatic habitat inOhio is eliminating stream modi-fications where they are notabsolutedly needed and protect-ing stream riparian areas fromencroachment or conversion toinappropriate land uses. It is themost serious type of impact be-cause it is essentially irretriev-able, especially for our highestquality streams (ExceptionalWarmwater Habitat). ODNR hasexperience with habitat restora-tion and enhancement, throughan understanding of the self-sta-bilizing tendicies of streams, thatoften can serve both the environ-ment and the need to reduce ero-sion and costs associated with

So

urc

es o

f Im

pai

rmen

t in

Oh

io's

Riv

ers

and

Str

eam

s

Riparian Areas ArePerhaps the Best Way to

Filter Polluted Runoffand Protect Aquatic

Habitat

Channelization EliminatesMany Stream Habitat

Features - Note the Lack ofWell Developed

Riffles and Pools Com-pared to the Photo on the

Preceding Page

maintaining streams in an "al-tered" condition. Those inter-ested can contact the Division ofSoil and Water or the Division ofWildlife at ODNR

The information illustrated in thisfact sheet will be incorporatedinto the Ohio EPA strategic plan-ning process. This process willdirect future efforts (i.e., monitor-ing, assessment, education andregulation) to protect and restorethe waters of Ohio in a cost-ef-fective and scientifically soundmanner. Protecting stream andriparian habitat in Ohio is a keyto maintaining a quality of life thatOhioians expect into the nextCentury.

1Source: Ohio Water Resource Inventory: 1996. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, 1800 WaterMark Drive, Cols., Ohio 43216

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

CAUSES

Habitat Alterations

Siltation

Flow Alterations

SOURCES

Channelization

Streambank Disturban

Riparian Destruction

Dams

Flow Regulation

Misc. Riparian Mod.

Misc. Hydromod.

Dredging

Draining/Filling

Habitat/Sitation RelatedImpairment to Aquatic Life

Secondary SourcesPrimary Sources

Secondary CausesPrimary Causes

Miles Impaired

1996 Ohio WaterResource Inventory

Fact Sheet:Streams & Rivers

Status

chemical and physical. Healthyand flourishing biological com-munities are also a good indica-tor that high quality recreationalopportunities (e.g., fishing andother outdoor-related activities)are available. By focusing ourprotection efforts on aquatic lifemany other important uses (i.e.,water supply, recreation) are alsocovered.

Compared to some States, Ohiouses a comparatively sophisti-cated and scientifically robustsystem to determine if rivers andstreams meet standards. Be-cause of the variability amongStates in how this is determined,the information reported nation-ally by U.S. EPA frequently re-sults in statistics that appear"better" than Ohio's. This prob-lem is discussed in detail in the1996 Ohio Water Resource In-ventory, Executive Summary.Recently, U.S. EPA has followedOhio EPA's lead by developingnew guidelines for States to fol-low. The goal of this effort is tohave more comparable and reli-able statistics reported by allStates in the future.

Ohio EPA uses biological crite-ria to rate the quality of our wa-ters . These criteria are used todetermine the degree to whichstandards are exceeded, met, ormissed. For communication pur-poses a rating system has beenestablished. Exceptional is thehighest quality rating. This rat-

ing is given to thosesites with the highest

species diversity andfrequently includespopulations of rare,threatened, or endan-gered species.These waters also

support the best sportfisheries. Good is as-

signed to sites with a di-versity and quality ofaquatic species typicalof reference streamsand rivers. This variesby ecoregion of whichOhio has five.Streams and riversthat do not meet thesestandards are consid-

ered impaired and areplaced into one of two catego-ries, partial attainment and non-attainment. An impaired condi-tion does not mean that thestream or river is "dead" or "un-safe", but rather represents vary-ing degrees of unacceptablecondition.

Just as exceptional and good areused to indicate the degree towhich Ohio's standards are metor exceeded, three additionalratings are used to indicate thedegree to which these standardsare missed. Fair means thatcertain characteristics are miss-ing which reflect an "imbalance"in the aquatic community. Whilemany fish, invertebrates, andother forms of aquatic life aregenerally present, overall diver-sity is in decline, and species tol-erant to nutrients, habitat de-struction, and low levels of dis-solved oxygen predominate.Placement in the fair categorydoes not mean that the water isunsafe or recreational opportu-nities do not exist. However, thequality of such opportunities isdiminished compared to excep-tional and good. Poor meansthat desirable attributes are al-together absent and environ-mental conditions have wors-

Impaired Waters in Ohio:What Does This Mean?

Impaired Waters in Ohio:What Does This Mean?

Positive progress has beenmade in improving the quality ofOhio rivers and streams. Moreriver and stream miles meet wa-ter quality standards today(49.3%) than eight years ago(34%). This improvement islargely due to the effectivenessof efforts in reducing pointsources of chemical pollution.While this progress is encourag-ing, one-half of river and streammiles do not meet standards.However, this does not meanthat 50% of our streams and riv-ers are "unsafe" or "dead". It isthe purpose of this fact sheet toexplain what these facts reallymean.

Ohio EPA devotes considerableresources to the monitoring ofsurface water resources such asstreams, rivers, lakes, and wet-lands. A systematic frameworktermed the Five-Year Basin Ap-proach is used. Our goal is tointensively monitor all major wa-tersheds on a rotating cycle of5-10 years. This includes mostof our major rivers, streams, andlakes. By emphasizing biologi-cal indicators, such as the fishand invertebrate communitiesfound in streams and rivers, acomprehensive and long termassessment of water resourcequality is gained. Aquatic ani-mals are the most consistentand sensitive indicators of envi-ronmental quality because theyinhabit the water all of the timeand respond to all impacts, both

ened. Toxic effects are moreprevalent and include declines inspecies diversity, fewer andsmaller fish, fewer invertebrates,and a higher rate of anomalies(lesions, eroded fins, tumors, de-formities) on fish. Very poormeans that environmental con-ditions have worsened furtherand that extreme reductions indiversity and abundance haveoccurred. Other symptoms mayinclude acutely toxic levels ofchemicals, complete destructionof habitat, and generally unsafeconditions. Waters rated aspoor and very poor are likelynot to support uses important toOhioans and some of the prob-lems may pose serious healthrisks.

Nearly one-half (49.3%) of Ohiorivers and streams exhibit goodor exceptional quality. Thismeans that biological communi-ties like those found at back-ground reference sites occur. Assuch, these waters are also likelyto support many other uses im-portant to Ohioans. Partial at-tainment means that at least oneof the biological indicators (fishor invertebrates) exhibits onlyfair quality. In such cases cer-tain sensitive species may be ab-sent or there are too many pol-lution tolerant species (e.g.,carp). Non-attainment meansthat all of the biological indica-tors are no better than fair or oneor both groups exhibit poor orvery poor quality. As illustratedby Figure 1, 23.3% of river andstream miles are in partial at-tainment and 27.7% in non-at-tainment. When these two cat-egories were separated by ma-jor causes of impairment, thepartial category (which corre-sponds to fair quality) was mostlyaffected by habitat (49.5%) andnutrient enrichment (41.1%),with only a minor fraction (9.4%)caused by toxic pollutants. Non-attainment (which correspondsmostly to poor and very poor

Fully AttainingPartially AttainingNot Attaining

49.3%

23.3%

27.4%

25.5%

25.8%

48.6%

9.4%

41.1%49.5%

– Toxics – Enrichment

– Habitat

Causes ofImpairment

Poor/Very Poor

Fair

AQUATIC LIFEATTAINMENT STATUS

Figure 1. Percentage of river ans stream miles that fully, partially, or do notattain Ohio standards for aquatic life (right) with the major causes ofimpairment (toxics, habitat, nutrient enrichment) listed for the partial (lowerleft) and non-attainment categories (upper left).

quality) was also predominatedby habitat (48.6%) and nutrientenrichment (25.8%), but toxicpollution was a larger contribu-tor (25.5%). The presence oftoxic pollution as a major causeis an indication that these watersare less safe for other uses thanare those affected by habitat andnutrient enrichment. Based onthese statistics less than one-tenth (9.2%) of Ohio's rivers andstreams are seriously impairedby toxics.

The protection and restoration ofaquatic ecosystem quality using

Ohio's biological standards hasboth realized and potential ben-efits for Ohio. The long-term rec-reational and economic quality ofour waters is strongly linked tothat required by aquatic life. Forexample, the failure to meetthese standards due to exces-sive nutrients and sediment fromrunoff is frequently correlatedwith the unacceptable loss of oursoil resources via erosion. Habi-tat destruction such as the clear-cutting of trees along streams is

evidence that we are attemptingto use areas that are more sus-ceptible to flood damage. Thedegradation of habitat in small,headwater streams makes waterquality less suitable for "down-stream" uses (e.g., drinking wa-ter) and contributes to increasedflooding. Thus, a failure to meetaquatic life standards suggeststhat we may experience "environ-mental infrastructure" problemsin the future.

Human Health RisksOur assessments include twoother indicators that relate di-

rectly to human health, fecal bac-teria and toxic chemicals in fishtissue. More than one-half(56.9%) of Ohio's rivers andstreams are free from bacterialcontamination. The remainingwaters (43.1%) show levels thatindicate varying degrees of riskfor human uses such as swim-ming, canoeing, boating, andwading. The period of greatestrisk is usually immediately follow-ing rainfall and increased runoff.Bacteria contamination usuallyreaches streams and rivers via

storm sewers or combined seweroverflows, the effluent of whichmay contain diluted raw sewage.This problem occurs mainly in thelarger urban areas of Ohio, theremay be similar problems inunsewered communities. Bacte-rial contamination can also affectinland lakes and Lake Erie. Ifpublic beaches are present, ad-visories are posted by the OhioDepartment of Health when bac-terial levels exceed safe thresh-olds.

Data on the levels of chemicalsin fish tissue are used to estab-lish consumption advisories. Themonitoring program was ex-panded in 1993 to include nearly300 sites sampled each year. Inaddition, new criteria for con-sumption advisories recently be-came available. Four advisorylevels establish restrictions onfish consumption as follows: 1)one meal a week, 2) one mealper month, 3) six meals per year,and 4) do not eat. These arebased on the levels of certainchemicals (e.g., PCBs, mercury)found in fish with the advisorybecoming more restrictive athigher levels. The Ohio Depart-ment of Health recently releasedupdated advisories based on thedata collected since 1993. Advi-sories for frequencies of lessthan once per week were listedfor 23 Ohio streams, rivers, andlakes. All of the advisories arespecific to individual fish species.For example, the consumption ofchannel catfish may be restrictedto one meal per month in a givenwater, but all other species mayhave no or lesser restrictions. Astatewide advisory for mercury ofone meal per week applies to themore sensitive parts of the hu-man population such as womenof child-bearing age and youngchildren. Outside of this precau-tionary statewide advisory formercury, 18.4% of the streamand river miles monitored hadhighly or extremely elevated lev-

els of chemicals (one meal perweek or six meals per year) forat least one fish species; only3.8% have a consumption advi-sory that extends to all species.

Are Ohio's Waters Safe?Based on the information avail-able to Ohio EPA, the majorityof our rivers and streams aresafe for activities such as fish-ing, boating, canoeing, swim-ming, and wading, even thoughnot all meet standards. How-ever, in a small proportion of riv-ers and streams, activities suchas swimming and eating fishshould be restricted to varyingdegrees. The greatest risks willoccur in waters where severetoxic effects are evident (Figure2). This includes less than 10%of Ohio's river and stream miles.

High to Extreme Sediment Contamination

>5% Eroded Fins, Lesions, Tumors, & Deformities

Areas With Very Poor Fish or MacroinvertebrateCommunities

Cleveland

Toledo

Akron

CantonMassillon

Dover

Youngstown

LimaMarion

Marysville

Cincinnati

Dayton

Shelby

Lancaster

Athens

Findlay

Fostoria

Lorain

Furthermore, these problemstend to be concentrated in thelarger urban areas (Figure 2) andare frequently the result of pastactivities which occurred prior to

recent environmental regula-tions. Remediating these prob-lems presents a significant chal-lenge. More detailed informationabout these and other problemsis described in the 1996 OhioWater Resource Inventory, Vol-ume I and other Ohio EPA publi-cations.

Figure 2. Areas of Ohio with high to extreme sediment contamination,elevated levels of anomalies on fish, and very poor biological com-munities. The occurence of two or more generally indicates toxicpollution and an increased risk to human health.

For more information contact: EdRankin, Division of Surface Water

1800 WaterMark Drive, Columbus,OH 43215-1099(614)-728-3388;

e-mail: [email protected]

Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water

Fact Sheet

An Evaluation of Spatial Monitoring & Assessment Design:Preliminary Results from the E. Corn Belt Plains REMAP Project

Ohio EPA employs a targeted, synoptic watershed design for monitoring the chemical, physical, andbiological water quality of the State's rivers and streams. This approach is implemented through theFive-Year Basin Approach and is targeted to assess all water quality issues within each targetedwatershed or study area. A criticism of this approach is that it mayproduce biased assessments of the spatial extent of water quality

conditions. Further-more, there is aperception that thefive-year basindesign inherently targets waters where problemsare either suspected or known to exist with afurther bias towards point sources of pollution. Assuch, the aggregated results of the Ohio EPA basinsurveys may not truly represent the spatial extent ofwater quality conditions across Ohio. It is furtherpresumed that the aggregate condition of Ohio'swaters are better than that reported in the biennialOhio Water Resource Inventory (305b report).

Recently, U. S. EPA, Region V, and the States ofOhio, Indiana, and Michigan collaborated on aproject that was designed to provide a spatiallyunbiased estimate of aquatic life conditions in thesmall streams of the Eastern Corn Belt ecoregionwithin each of these three states (REMAP - Re-gional Environmental Monitoring and AssessmentProgram). The estimates of stream quality result-ing from this effort are considered to be unbiasedbecause sampling sites were selected using aprobabilistic (i.e., random) design. Fish communi-ties (Index of Biotic Integrity, etc.), habitat quality(QHEI), and basic chemical/physical field param-eters were collected at each site one time duringthe period July-early October, 1995.

The Ohio EPA has intensively sampled the State'srivers and streams since the late 1970s and, assuch, has developed an extensive database consist-ing of more than 5,000 sampling sites. Of the riverand stream sizes included in this database, small

Figure P-1. Frequency histogram of IBI scores from 98REMAP stations in Ohio with drainage areas < 10 sqmi. Samples collected from June-October 1995.

10 20 30 40 50 600

20

40

60

80

100REMAP1993

19941995

IBI

Per

cent

Streams < 10 sq mi; ECBP Ecoregion1995 REMAP; 1993-1995 Intensive Survey Sites

REMAP: Median - 36; Mean 35.1, N = 981993: Median - 34; Mean 35.3, N = 391994: Median - 36; Mean 36.4, N = 821995: Median - 26; Mean 29.9, N = 75

Impaired

Figure P-2. Cumulative frequency histogram of IBI scoresfrom REMAP stations in the ECBP ecoregion of Ohioduring 1995 and intensive survey sites from the sameecoregion in 1993, 1994, and 1995. All sites haddrainage areas < 10 sq mi.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10 20 30 40 50 60

Cou

nt

IBI

Median = 36Mean = 35.1N = 98

Ohio REMAP Sites (Segment 1 Only)Drainage Areas < 10 sq mi

preliminary data 15Mar96

Attaining WWHBiocriterion

Impaired

1996 Ohio Water Resource Inventory

streams draining less than 10-20 square milesrepresent the least sampled in terms of theproportion of stream miles assessed. Approxi-mately 10-15% of the small stream miles havebeen assessed over this time period comparedto more than 50% of streams and rivers drain-ing more than 50 square miles and nearly100% of those draining more than 1000 squaremiles. The ECBP REMAP project presented agood opportunity to compare the results of twodifferent spatial sampling designs. This factsheet is a summary of some preliminaryfindings for Ohio streams draining less than 10square miles and to address questions ofpotential bias in our basin survey data (i.e.,how different are synoptic vs. probability

estimates of aquatic life condition).

The distribution of IBI scores from the 98 REMAP sites located in Ohio are illustrated in Figure P-1.The median IBI score for these sites was 36 (i.e., the minimum IBI score considered to attain theWarmwater Habitat use designation) which means that 50 percent of the sites are impaired. Thedistribution also shows a skewness towards lower IBI scores (Figure P-1). This estimate of the

proportion of impaired small streamsagrees well with the statewide basinsurvey estimate of stream quality inboth the 1994 and 1996 305b assess-ment cycles for small ECBPecoregion streams with drainageareas < 10 square miles (50% im-paired based on 85.2 miles assessed).Thus the unbiased REMAP designand the spatially biased basin surveydesigns produced similar estimates ofthe proportion of impaired smallstreams in the Ohio portion of theECBP ecoregion.

A more direct comparison was madeby comparing all IBI scores from the

ECBP ecoregion for small streams, by basin survey year, as a cumulative frequency distributionversus the 1995 REMAP results (Figure P-2). The REMAP results were not appreciably differentfrom the basin survey IBI scores in 1993 or 1994, but were different from the 1995 results. The1995 results were most from the "Clayey, High Lime Till Plains" subregion of the ECBP ecoregionwhich is characterized by extensive channel modification and impacts from row crop agriculture.The poorer habitat quality of these sites was largely responsible for the much lower median IBI

0 20 40 60 80 1000

20

40

60

80

100

QHEI Scores for Ohio REMAP Sites< 10 sq mi

QHEI

Per

cen

t

Poor - V. Poor

Fair

Good

Figure P-4. Cumulative frequency histogram of QHEI scoresfrom REMAP stations in the ECBP ecoregion of Ohioduring 1995. All sites had drainage areas < 10 sq mi.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Hocking

Scioto

Sandusky

Great Miami

QHEI

Intensive Survey Sites in ECBP, < 10 sq mi

Figure P-2. Cumulative frequency histogram of IBI scoresfrom REMAP stations in the ECBP ecoregion of Ohioduring 1995 and intensive survey sites from the sameecoregion in 1993, 1994, and 1995. All sites haddrainage areas < 10 sq mi.

Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water

scores in 1995 (Figure P-3). The highest IBI scores were from the comparatively higher qualityTwin Creek subbasin. Thus for any given basin year there can be some differences in aggregated useattainment estimates between a randomized and targeted basin survey design. However, whenaveraged over multiple years the estimates produced by either design were in much closer agree-ment. Furthermore, these results indicate that the basin survey design employed by Ohio EPAproduces an essentially unbiased estimate of small stream quality. The major difference between theREMAP and basin survey design is that the former requires one year to produce a reliable estimatewhereas the latter appears to require 4-5 years.

The Ohio EPA basin survey results have increasingly highlighted habitat degradation and sedimenta-tion as major causes of impairment to aquatic life in Ohio's streams. Habitat data (QHEI scores)were collected during the REMAP project, thus an estimate of the extent of habitat degradation canbe obtained. Previous work has shown a strong relationship between the condition of fish communi-ties (i.e., IBI scores) and habitat quality in Ohio as measured by the QHEI (Rankin 1995). The 1996Ohio Water Resource Inventory (305b report) identified habitat degradation and sedimentation as thesecond and third leading causes of impairment, respectively, statewide. The REMAP data indicatedthat 45% of the sampling sites had poor or very poor habitat quality and that less than 35% had whatis considered to be good quality habitat. This, too, is confirmation of the prevalence of habitatdegradation as a major cause of impairment of small streams in Ohio.

The aquatic life in astream is a sensitive

measure of the overallquality of the resource

For more information contact:Ed Rankin, Division of SurfaceWater

1685 Westbelt DriveColumbus, OH 43228

(614)-728-3388e-mail: [email protected]

The main purpose of an aquatic life-based chemical crite-rion is to protect the aquatic life of a stream, river, or lake inaccordance with the goal of the designated use. Biocriteriaare a direct measure of the aquatic community and as suchrepresent a direct measure of designated aquatic life use at-tainment status. Having biocriteria provides the Ohio EPAwith a unique method to examine whether existing and pro-posed chemical criteria are over or under-protective of des-ignated aquatic life uses. Previous studies have attemptedto evaluate chemical water quality criteria for certain pa-rameters, such as heavy metals, by comparing instream con-centrations with different measures of aquatic communityhealth and well-being. However, no study yet has utilized afully calibrated and standardized system of biological crite-ria and a statewide chemical water quality and biologicaldatabase for this purpose.

Many studies have shown the toxic effects of unionizedammonia on aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish. In manyinstances in Ohio, negative effects to aquatic life have beenstrongly associated with exceedances of the Ohio EPA wa-ter quality criteria for unionized ammonia. Reductions inloadings of ammonia dischrged from point sources has beenobserved throughout Ohio to be a key in the recovery of pre-viously impaired aquatic life uses. While ammonia was amajor cause of impairment in more than 1100 miles of riversand streams in the 1988 Ohio Water Resource Inventory(305[b] report), this figure had shrunk to 150 miles by 1996.

Fact SheetAssociations Between the Index of Biotic Integrity and Unionized

Ammonia in Ohio Rivers and Streams: A Preliminary Analysis

The purpose of this fact sheet is to examine the associationbetween one of the biological indices which comprises theOhio EPA biological criteria, the IBI, and unionized ammo-nia to determine above which ammonia concentrations isaquatic life at risk. A scatter plot of unionixed ammoniabased on grab samples collected from Ohio rivers and streamsversus the IBI yields a "wedge" of data points (Figure 1).The outer, sloped surface of points approximates the maxi-mum concentrations that have been observed to coincide witha given level of aquatic community performance as portrayedby the IBI. A line drawn on the outer surface of the datapoints so that 95% of the points fall to the left or beneath theline is referred to as the “95% line of best fit. In the IBI andunionized ammonia example this represents the typically oc-curring maximum unionized ammonia concentrations atwhich a corresponding IBI value exists in the statewide da-tabase. Chi-square tests of independence were used to testwhether or not the occurence of IBI scores are independentof unionized ammonia concentrations at the same sites. Ifthe IBI is independent of the ammonia concentrations, thenwe can conclude that ambient concentrations of ammoniaare not strongly affecting the IBI or the relationship is ob-scured by other environmental factors. If however, IBI andammonia are statistically correlated, further analysis to de-termine the concentrations of unionized ammonia at whicha reasonable risk of harm to aquatic life exists should takeplace.

An alternative to generating a "con-tinuous" 95th percentile regressionline is to focus more on identifyingoutliers and extreme values (extremepercentiles) that represent an unac-ceptable risk to aquatic life. Themethod to identify outliers and ex-tremes in the data is to cluster the dis-tribution of the independent variableby ranges of IBI scores that correspondto narrative ratings of quality (e.g., ex-ceptional, good, fair, poor, very poor)and the tiered system of aquatic lifeuse deignations employed by OhioEPA. The upper tenth percentile ofthe parameter concentration in eachIBI category is used to identify theoutliers and extremes in each distri-bution because the biological resultsat these sites are most likely affectedby concentrations of that parameter.Box-and-whisker plots and percentileplots are then used to illustrate the

Figure 1. The IBI versus unionized ammonia from streams and rivers moni-tored by Ohio EPA between 1982 and 1994.

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

IBI

Unionized Ammonia (mg/l)

N = 11,812

State of Ohio Ecological AssessmentEnvironmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water

1685 Westbelt Dr., Columbus, Ohio 43228

upper, empirically observed values for the independent vari-able compared to the narrative ranges of the IBI. Outliersin the data are those points that are greater than the upperquartile (UQ: 75th percentile) plus 1.5 times the interquartilerange (distance between the 25th and 75th percentiles: UQ- LQ). The other statistic used to describe extreme valuesis the 99.5th percentile of all the data in an IBI category(illustrated as the 95th percentile of the upper 10 percent ofthe data in Figure 2). Where such data is strongly skewedthe 99.5th percentile can be greater than the "maximum"value where outliers are excluded.

The ranges described above and illustrated in Figure 1 and

Table 2 can be used in a risk manage-ment approach for establishing waterquality criteria, NPDES permit lim-its, or other water quality managmentobjectives. Water quality criteriawhich result in ambient unionizedammonia concentrations in the rangeof the maximum value, excluding out-liers (upper whisker on the plot), andthe 99.5th percentile values would beconsidered to pose an unacceptablyhigh risk to aquatic life and, thus, alower value should be chosen.

The scatterplot of unionized ammo-

nia showed a well defined outer boudnary of data pointswhich suggests a strong association with the IBI. The chi-square analysis confirms this association as highly signifi-cant (Table1). There were fewer sites that had IBI values>40 (good or WWH) and unionized ammonia concentrations>0.05 than expected (if there were no association) and moresites with low IBI values <30(fair, reflects impairment) andunionized ammonia concentrations >0.05 than expected. Thevalues listed in Table 2 can be used to validate water qualitycriteria derived by the traditional toxicological approaches.Tiered water quality criteriawhich correspond to the aquaticlife uses developed by Ohio EPA have already been estab-lished. Other uses of the results presented here could in-clude site-specific applications of the ammonia criteria incombination with the biological criteria. This would be mostapplicable where instream concentrations exceed the valuesin Table 2.

Table 2. Maximum unionized ammonia concentrations(excluding outliers) and 99.5th percentileunionized ammonia values by IBI narrativeranges and corresponding aquatic life uses.

_____________________________________________________

99.5th %tile Max. Un-Narrative IBI Un-ionized ionizedRange Range Ammonia Ammonia_____________________________________________________Exceptional(EWH) 50-60 0.073 0.031Good(WWH1) 40-49 0.070 0.045Fair(WWH2) 30-39 0.162 0.080Poor(MWH) 20-29 0.321 0.262_____________________________________________________1 excluding the Huron/Erie Lake Plain (HELP) ecoregion.2 applies only within the HELP ecoregion.

1.64

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

50-6040-4930-3920-2912-19

Un

ion

ize

d A

mm

on

ia (

mg

/l)

Index of Biotic Integrity

1.64

Figure 2. Box-and-whisker and percentile plot of the IBIversus unionized ammonia from streams and riv-ers monitored by Ohio EPA between 1982 and 1994.Data represent the upper ten percent of the union-ized ammonia values within each IBI range.Shaded boxes represent the 25th, median, and 75thpercentiles; open boxes the 5th and 95th percen-tiles; whiskers are the maximum and minimum val-ues excluding outliers which are values greater thanthe upper (or lower) quartile plus (or minus) 1.5times the interquartile range.

Table 1. Chi-square test of association between the IBI and un-ionized am-monia based on data collected in Ohio streams between 1982 and 1994 show-ing actual and expected (in parentheses) observations._________________________________________________________

Un-Ionized Ammonia (mg/l)IBI Range <0.01 0.01-0.05 0.05-0.10 0.10-0.50 > 0.5_________________________________________________________

50-60 944 (815) 60 (148) 4 (22) 4 (23) 0 (3.3)40-49 2464 (2203) 251 (401) 12 (61) 9 (63) 1 (9.0)30-39 2912 (2765) 449 (504) 38 (76) 36 (79) 0 (11.3)20-29 2377 (2583) 609 (471) 108 (71) 105 (73) 10 (10.6)12-19 812 (1142) 363 (208) 100 (31) 116 (32) 28 (4.7)

X2 = 1135; P < 0.0001



The main purpose of an aquatic life-based chemical crite-rion is to protect the aquatic life of a water body in accor-dance with the goals and objectives of the designated use.Biological criteria are based on measurable attribues of anaquatic community and as such represent a direct measureof designated aquatic life use attainment status. Having bio-logical criteria provides the Ohio EPA with a unique methodto examine whether existing and proposed chemical criteriaare potentially over or under-protective of designated aquaticlife uses. Previous studies have attempted to evaluate chemi-cal water quality criteria for selected parameters, such asheavy metals, by comparing instream concentrations withdifferent measures of aquatic community health and well-being. However, no study yet has utilized a fully calibratedand standardized system of biological criteria and a paired,statewide chemical water quality and biological database forthis purpose. This fact sheet describes the observed rela-tionship between a measure of the health and well-being ofstream and riverine fish assemblages and total ammonia-ni-trogen (N) concentrtions based on data collected between1982 and 1992 throughout Ohio. This parallels a similaranalysis conducted for unionized ammonia-N.

The toxic effects of unionized ammonia-N on aquatic mac-roinvertebrates and fish are well known. In many instancesin Ohio, negative effects to aquatic life have been stronglyassociated with exceedences of the unionized ammonia-Nwater quality criterion. Recently, reductions in loadings of

Fact SheetAssociations Between the Index of Biotic Integrity and Total

Ammonia-Nitrogen in Ohio Rivers and Streams: A Preliminary Analysis

total ammonia-N discharged by point sources has been as-sociated with the restoration of previously impaired aquaticlife uses in a number of Ohio rivers and streams (Ohio EPA1997). While ammonia was a major associated cause of im-pairment in more than 1100 miles (23.9%) of assessed riversand streams in the 1988 Ohio Water Resource Inventory(305[b] report), this had shrunk to 150 miles (4.5%) by 1996.While the principal deleterious effect of unionized ammoniaon fish is toxic, the effect of total ammonia-N on aquatic lifereflects both the toxic effects of the unionized fraction of theammonium ion and the enrichment effect as total ammoniais converted to nitrate. We examined the association betweenone of the biological indices which comprises the Ohio EPAbiological criteria, the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), andtotal ammonia-N to determine whether any relationship isevident. We also examined for the same between total am-monia-N and the number of sensitive fish species. The totalammonia-N data was collected primarily during the summerand early fall months (June - early October), thus the resultsare mst applicable to this time period. Even though the in-fluence of winter ammonia-N levels is implicity addressedby the biological assessment data, safe levels of winter am-monia-N cannot be derived from this database.

A scatter plot of total ammonia-N based on grab samplescollected from Ohio rivers and streams versus the IBI yieldsa "wedge" of data points (Figure 1) similar in shape to thatpreviously observed for unionized ammona-N. The outer

sloped surface of points approximatesthe maximum concentrations that havebeen observed to coincide with a givenlevel of aquatic community perfor-mance as portrayed by the IBI. A linedrawn on the outer surface of the datapoints so that 95% of the points fall tothe left or beneath the line is referredto as the "95% line of best fit". In theIBI vs. total ammonia-N example thisrepresents the typically occurringmaximum ammonia concentrations atwhich a corresponding IBI value ex-ists in the statewide database. Chi-square tests of independence wereused to test whether or not theoccurence of IBI scores are indepen-dent of total ammonia-N concentra-tions at the same sites. If the IBI isindependent of the total ammonia-Nconcentrations, then we can concludethat ambient concentrations of ammo-nia are not significantly affecting the

Figure 1. The IBI versus total ammonia-N from streams and rivers monitoredby Ohio EPA between 1982 and 1992.

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20

Data from 1981-1992

IBI

Total Ammonia (mg/l)



IBI or the relationship is obscured by other environmentalfactors (e.g., proportion of total ammonia that is unionized).If, however, IBI and total ammonia-N are statistically cor-related, further analysis to determine the concentrations oftotal ammonia-N at which a reasonable risk of harm toaquatic life can exist should take place. This does not nec-essarily indicate direct causality, but rather these relation-ships can be used to estimate "concentrations of concern".

An alternative to generating a continuous 95th percentileregression line is to focus more on identifying outliers andextreme values (extreme percentiles) that clearly representan unacceptable risk to aquatic life. The method to identify

outliers and extremes in the data is tocluster the distribution of the indepen-dent variable (total ammonia-N) byranges of IBI scores that correspondto narrative ratings of quality (e.g., ex-ceptional, good, fair, poor, very poor)and the tiered system of aquatic lifeuse designations currently employedby Ohio EPA. The upper tenth per-centile of the parameter concentrationin each IBI range was used to iden-tify the outliers and extremes in eachdistribution. Box-and-whisker plotsand percentile plots were used to il-lustrate the upper, empirically ob-

served values for the independent variable compared to thefive narrative ranges of the IBI. Outliers in the data are sta-tistically defined as those points that are greater than the up-per quartile (UQ: 75th percentile) plus 1.5 times theinterquartile range (distance between the 25th and 75th per-centiles: UQ - LQ). The other statistic used to describe ex-treme values is the 99.5th percentile of all the data in an IBIcategory (illustrated as the 95th percentile of the upper 10percent of the points in Figure 2). Where such data is stronglyskewed, the 99.5th percentile can be greater than the "maxi-mum" value where outliers are excluded.

The ranges described above and illustrated in Figure 1 andTable 2 can be used in a risk management approach for es-tablishing and modifying water quality criteria, NPDES per-mit limits, and for other water quality managment objec-tives. Water quality criteria which result in ambient total

Table 2. Maximum total ammonia (mg/l) concentra-tions (excluding outliers) and 99.5th percentileunionized ammonia values by IBI narrativeranges and corresponding aquatic life uses.

_____________________________________________________

99.5th %tile Max.Narrative IBI Total TotalRange Range Ammonia Ammonia_____________________________________________________Exceptional(EWH) 50-60 1.24 0.87Good(WWH1) 40-49 2.8 2.04Fair(WWH2) 30-39 6.9 4.8Poor(MWH) 20-29 12.7 10.8_____________________________________________________1 excluding the Huron/Erie Lake Plain (HELP) ecoregion.2 applies only within the HELP ecoregion.

0

5

10

15

20

12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-60

Data from 1981-1992

To

tal

Am

mo

nia

(m

g/l

)

IBI Range

Figure 2. Box-and-whisker and percentile plot of the IBIversus total ammonia (mg/l) from streams and riv-ers monitored by Ohio EPA between 1982 and 1992.Data represent the upper ten percent of the union-ized ammonia values within each IBI range.Shaded boxes represent the 25th, median, and 75thpercentiles; open boxes the 5th and 95th percen-tiles; whiskers are the maximum and minimum val-ues excluding outliers which are values greater thanthe upper (or lower) quartile plus (or minus) 1.5times the interquartile range.



Table 1. Chi-square test of association between the IBI and total ammonia basedon data collected in Ohio streams between 1982 and 1992 showing actual andexpected (in parentheses) observations._______________________________________________________________

Total Ammonia (mg/l)IBI Range < 1.0 1.1-2.0 2.1-5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 > 15.0_______________________________________________________________

50-60 790 (705) 230 (89) 1 (34.6) 2 (13.3) 0 (4.1) 0 (3.0)40-49 2671 (2416) 207 (172) 19 (119) 3 (45.6) 1 (14.1) 0 (10.1)30-39 3118 (3933) 103 (156) 65 (144) 27 (55.4) 3 (17.1) 2 (12.3)20-29 3162 (3233) 609 (471) 187 (159) 71 (61) 22 (18.9) 9 (13.6)12-19 1217 (1671) 363 (208) 267 (82) 104 (31.6) 38 (9.8) 35 (7.0)

X2 = ????; P < 0.0001

ammonia-N concentrations in therange of the maximum value, exclud-ing outliers (upper whisker of the box-and whisker plots), and the 99.5th per-centile values would be considered topose an unacceptable risk to aquaticlife.

The scatterplot of total ammonia-Nshowed a well defined outer bound-ary of data points which suggests astrong association with the IBI. Thechi-square analysis confirmed this as-sociation as being highly significant(Table 1). There were fewer sites thathad IBI values >40 (good - meets theWWH use) and total ammonia-N con-centrations >1.0 mg/l, than whatwould have been expected if therewere no significant relationship. Con-versely, there were more sites with IBIvalues <30 (poor - reflects impair-mentof the WWH use) and total am-monia-N concentrations >1.0 mg/lthan what would have been expectedif there were no significant relationship. The values listed inTable 2 can be used to ground truth water quality criteriaderived by the more traditional toxicological approaches.Tiered water quality criteria, which correspond to the aquaticlife uses developed by Ohio EPA, have already been estab-

lished for aamonia-N. Another use of the results presentedhere would include validating site-specific applications ormodifications of the ammonia-N criteria.

Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between the number ofsensitive fish species and total ammonia-N. The distinctdecline in the number of senstive species along an increas-ing continuum of total ammonia-N (especially >10 sensitivespecies) reflects the level of sensitivity of the Ohio's highestquality waters. The fish species in these streams and riversare sensitive not only to toxic effects of ammonia, but alsoto more subtle shifts in the trophic dynamics of these eco-systems caused by increasing nutrient enrichment. Riversand streams with more than 10 sensitive fish species usuallyhave total ammonia-N concentrations less than 1.0 mg/l.

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20

Data from 1981-1992

Se

ns

itiv

e F

ish

Sp

ec

ies

Total Ammonia (mg/l)

Figure 3. The number of sensitive fish species versus total am-monia from streams and rivers monitored by Ohio EPAbetween 1982 and 1992.

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

198019911994

WHITTIERSTREET CSO SOUTHERLY WWTP

1 2

JACKSONPIKE WWTP

I B I

Impounded

Scioto River: Columbus to Circleville

EWH Criterion(IBI=48)

WWH Criterion(IBI=42)

LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for Columbus WWTPs

LEVEL 2:Columbus constructs AWT by July 1, 1988; permit conditions attained

LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD, etc. are reduced

LEVELS 4&5: Reduced instream pollutant levels; enhanced assimilation

LEVEL 6: Biological recovery evidenced in biocriteria; 3 yrs. post AWT

ADMINISTRATIVE� � INDICATORS

EXPOSURERESPONSE

STRESSORS

WWTP

$$$$NPDES

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

Am

mo

nia

Lo

ad

ing

(kg

/da

y)

N=143 148 151 134 152 153 151 153152 153121

YEAR

153153153153153153153153 153

30 Days Average Permit LimitWeekly Average Permit Limit

BO

D_

CO

30

S

Columbus Southerly WWTP

Am

mo

nia

-N (

mg

/l)

No

Da

ta

Summer: Data CollectedJune through October

N = 18 36 54 104

No

Da

ta

66 7134 105108 104

30-Day Average Criteria*

Maximum Criteria*

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

19

71

-72

19

73

-74

19

75

-76

19

77

-78

19

79

-80

19

81

-82

19

83

-84

19

85

-86

19

87

-88

19

89

-91

19

92

-93

19

94

-95

Scioto River Near Commercial Point (RM 115.3)

Demonstrating Linkages Between Indicators: Scioto River Case Study

LEVEL 1:Ohio EPA issues WQ based permits & awards funds for the Lima WWTP

LEVEL 2:Lima constructs AWT by mid 1980s; permit conditions attained by 1990

LEVEL 3: Loadings of ammonia, BOD,were reduced; other sources present

LEVELS 4&5: Reduced instream pollutant levels; toxics in sediment

LEVEL 6: Biological recovery incomplete 6-8 yrs. post AWT; toxic response signatures

ADMINISTRATIVE� � INDICATORS

EXPOSURERESPONSE

STRESSORS

WWTP

$$$$NPDES

0

200

400

600

800

1000

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

Am

mo

nia

Lo

ad

ing

(kg

/da

y)

N=153 153 153 137 153152 152 153 153 153150 152150153151 153 153 153 153151

YEAR

Note: No Ammonia Permit Limit Before 1977

Weekly Average Permit Limit

30 Days Average Permit Limit

Lima WWTP

Am

mo

nia

-N,

Su

mm

er

(mg

/l)

No

Da

ta

N =

No

Da

ta

No

Da

ta

MaximumCriteria*

30-DayAverageCriteria*

21 22 19 201920322323269141518 19

Ottawa River at Shawnee (RM 32.6)

Summer: Data CollectedJune through October

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

19

71

19

79

19

80

19

81

19

82

19

83

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

20

30

40

50

60

20253035404550

WWH CriterionIBI=40/42

(ECBP Ecoregion)

I B I

RIVER MILE

Lost Cr.

CSOs

Allentown Dam

Impounded

Ottawa River

Shawnee #2

12

Lima WWTP, Landfill,BP Refinery/Arcadian LP

Ottawa River: Lima to Elida

Demonstrating Linkages Between Indicators: Ottawa River Case Study

CARROLL CO.

COLUMBIANA CO.

1997 1996stream miles fully meeting: 6.9 5.4stream miles partially meeting: 5.0 0.3stream miles not meeting: 0.4 6.6

SandyPipe

Still

Fork

Creek

N

HugleSTARK CO.

Run

Minerva

MalvernBlade Rd.

State Route183

U.S. 30

Mid

dle

Bra

nch

Stum

p Ro

ad

U.S. 30

State Route 43

EXCEPTIONALGOODFAIRPOOR/VERY POOR

NOT EVALUATED

STREAM LIFEQUALITY

Run

SANDY CREEKThe water and ecological quality of the upper Sandy Creekhas been monitored and evaluated by the Ohio EPA during1993, 1996, and 1997. The 1996 study included sampling of waterquality, sediment quality, fish and aquatic insect communities,stream habitat quality, and fish tissue for contaminants. Three sitesdownstream from Minerva were resampled in 1997.

Quick Facts - Sandy Creek

FISH CONTAMINATION

The upper Sandy Creek iscomprised of a good to excellentmixture of pool, riffle, and runhabitats beneficial to supportinggood to exceptional biologicalcommunities.

STREAM HABITAT

Chemical contaminants causedseverely toxic conditions inSandy Creek during 1996.Potential sources of chemicalsinclude ammonia from theMinerva wastewater plant andunknown compounds spilled orreleased into the stream.Ammonia from the Minervawas t e r wa te r p l an t wassignificantly reduced in 1997.

WATER QUALITY

WastewaterPlant

WastewaterPlant

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)were detected in a number offish, with the highest valuesreported in common carp. Threecarp samples collected upstreamfrom Malvern had PCBconcentrations exceeding Ohiowater qual i ty standards.

BIOLOGICAL TRENDSIn 1993, severe biologicaldegradation occurred in SandyCreek immediately downstreamfrom the Minerva WWTP. Biologicalcommunities were severelydegraded during 1996, butsubstantial improvement occurredin 1997.

Pollution Sensitive Species

Some of the more commonaquatic species in Sandy Creekwhich are indicative of cleanwater and good hab i ta t .

river chubhornyhead chubrosyface shinerbanded dartermayfliescaddisflies

daily average

daily maximum

1986

5

10

15

30

35

25

AMMONIA

A POLLUTANTAmmonia discharged intoSandy Creek from theMinerva wastewater plant.

Recommended level - 4 mg/l

20

01997

length: 41 milesgradient: 10.0 feet / mile

river miles assessed: 12.3 milesfish species: 36

aquatic insect species: 128Ohio endangered species: none

aquatic life use designation: warmwater habitataverage river flow: 175,000,000 gallons/day

fish consumption advisories: none

STREAM HEALTH

FishCommunity

AquaticInsects

rockbass

mayfly

Clean Water Act Goals

Exceptional

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

Poor

VeryPoor

1996Exceptional

1997

Except-ional

Good

Fair

PoorExcept-

ional

Flow

Good

Stream HabitatThe Little Miami River is comprised of a good mixture ofpool, riffle and run habitats. The river channel has been

little modified byman, with lessthan fourpercent affectedby damimpoundments orchannelization.The Little Miami

River and its tributaries contain some of the highest qualityriver habitat in Ohio.

Macroinvertebrate Taxa: 353

A guide to Ohio’s Streams

Special highlightsOhio's first state andnational designated scenicriver Ohio's longestexceptional warmwaterhabitat stream Areproducing population ofblue suckers, one of Ohio'srarest and most endangeredfish species, were collectedfor the first time in theLittle Miami River during1993

Recreational Opportunitiessport fishing: smallmouth bass, rockbass flathead catfish,

saugercanoeing: 250,000 people per yearbiking & hiking trails: 50+ milesparks & wildlife areas & preserves: 12?

USGS Flow measuring station

Agricultural Land

UrbanLand

ForestWater/Wetland

1974Little MiamiRailroad isabandoned

1986Ohio endangeredMountain Madtom fishcollected in LittleMiami River. ODNRremoves lowheaddam at Foster

1980Lower LittleMiami Riverdesignated aFederal ScenicRiver

1993Ohio EPA study showsover 40 miles of LittleMiami River meet CleanWater Act goals.Ohio endangered bluesucker fish collected inLittle Miami River nearCincinnati

1979ODNR acquiresabandoned LittleMiami Railroad

1983Ohio EPA studyshows less than 2miles of LittleMiami River meetClean Water Actgoals

1988Majorimprovementsmade at manywastewatertreatment plants inLittle Miami Riverwatershed

stream health

fish

com

mun

ity

aqua

tic

inse

ctsexceptional

good

fair

poor

very poor

42 miles

37 miles

23 miles

0 miles

0 miles

85 miles

14 miles

3 miles

0 miles

0 miles

19931979

pollutant1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

ammonia discharged into theLittle Miami watershed

(kilograms per day)

Ammonia

pollution sensitive speciesSome of the more common aquatic species in the LittleMiami River which are indicative of clean water conditionsand good habitat:

black redhorse shorthead redhorseslenderhead darter rainbow musselstoneflies mayflies

' 1997 Information Design Group for OCAFS.

informationdesigngroup

1846Little Miamirailroadcompleted

1969Upper LittleMiami RiverdesignatedOhio’s first StateScenic River byODNR

1942Major fish kills inLittle Miami River.HealthCommissionerdeclares fish arenot safe to eat

1973Upper Little MiamiRiver designated firstFederal Scenic River.First Little MiamiRiver land protectionsite acquired byODNR, ScenicRivers programti

mel

ine

The Little MiamiState and National Scenic River

The Little Miami watershed occupies 1,757 squaremiles of ten southwestern Ohio counties. Originatingnear South Charleston, the mainstem flows in asouthwesterly direction to its confluence with the OhioRiver near Cincinnati. The watershed contains 133named streams, some of Ohio’s most scenic and diverseriverine habitats, and a high diversity of aquaticorganisms (including six Ohio endangered species).With canoe liveries, bike trails, parks, and healthypopulations of sport fish at many locations, it is easyto understand why the Little Miami River is a popularrecreational retreat for Ohioans.

Water quality trendsThe Little Miami River has shown a significant improvementin water quality since the 1980's. Sewage containingorganic material has been substantially reduced from mostwastewater plants - a direct result of improved treatment. However, the total amount of pollutants still exceeds thecapacity of the Little Miami River to adequately assimilatethe waste.

Clean Water Act goalsstream miles meeting: 41stream miles partially meeting: 58stream miles not meeting: 3

NFish Species: 87

1913Major floodingoccurs duringMarch

1967Little Miami, Inc.,a nonprofit citizenorganization, isformed topreserve the LittleMiami River

1971Entire Little MiamiRiver becomesState ScenicRiver withdesignation oflower section byODNR

water quality

organic/nutrient enrichment

fish abnormalities

siltation

river bacteria

municipal sewage

suburbanizationrow crop agriculture,new construction, erodingstreambanks

municipal sewage, seweroverflows to the river, urbanrunoff, livestock

major problems major sources

quick facts

length: 105.5 mile 984 milesgradient: 6.5 feet / mile -

river miles assessed: 102 miles 178 milesfish species: 83 87

aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa: 268 353(mussel species): 36 38

Ohio endangered species: 6 6scenic river miles: 105 118

aquatic life use designation: EWH -wastewater dischargers: 5 24

wastewater volume: 12 MGD 50 MGDaverage river flow: 811 MGD -

public access sites: 13 -canoe liveries: 7 -

number of dams: 2 3 major reservoirsfish consumption advisories: none none

mainstem watershed

Ohio Watersheds

important concepts and elements of an adequate state ... · need to be included as part of an...

Documents