Last Updated: 10/14/2014 By: Karla Urbanowicz 

# Methodology for Oregon’s 2012 Water Quality Report and List of Water Quality Limited Waters

(Pursuant to Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b) and OAR 340

- 041

- 0046) 

## Environmental Solutions Division 

# I.

Environmental
Solutions Division

811 SW 6th Avenue Portland, OR 97204

Phone: (503) 229

- 5696

(800) 452

- 4011

Fax: (503) 229

- 6762

DEQ is a leader in restoring, maintaining and enhancing the quality of Oregon’s air, land and

water.Alternative formats (Braille, large type) of this document can be made available. Contact DEQ’s Office of Communications & Outreach, Portland, at (503) 229

- 5696, or toll

- free in Oregon at 1

- 800

- 452

- 4011, ext. 5696.

# Table of Contents

I. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1

II. Oregon’s Water Quality Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4

III. 2012 Integrated Report Process

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 7

A. Rotating Basin Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 7

B. Tribal Waters

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 7

C. Assembling Data and Information

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8

1. Call for Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 8

2. Data Retrievals

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 9

3. Metadata Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9

4. QA/QC Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 9

5. Data Quality Review and Usability of Submitted Data

................................ ................................ ...... 10

D. Determining Water Quality Status

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10

1. Assessment Categories

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10

2. Evaluating Data and Informat ion

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13

3. Determining Assessment Units and Status

................................ ................................ ....................... 13 a) Assessment Unit Location

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 14 b) Assessment Unit

– General Segmentation Rules

................................ ................................ ............ 14 c) Assessment Unit

– General Rules to Assign Status

................................ ................................ ......... 16 d) Combined Assessment Unit Segment and Status Determination

................................ ..................... 16

4. Delisting Water Bodies

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 19 a) Current information shows water quality standards are attained

................................ ...................... 19 b) Current information shows an error in the Category 5: 303(d) listing

................................ ................ 20 c) Water quality standards have changed or no longer apply in c ertain water bodies

.......................... 20 d) Water quality standard pollutant changed

................................ ................................ ........................ 21 e) TMDLs approved for water body and pollutant

................................ ................................ ................. 21 f) Other pollution control requirements in place

................................ ................................ ................... 21 g) Pollutant does not cause impairment

................................ ................................ ............................... 21

E. Public Review

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 22

F. Submittal of Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report and 303(d) List

................................ ............................. 22

IV. Assessment Protocols by Pollutant or Parameter

................................ ................................ .................... 23

PARAMETER: Aquatic Weeds or Algae

................................ ................................ .......................... 25

PARAMETER: Bacteria

- E. coli (Escherichia coli)

................................ ................................ ........... 27

PARAMETER: Bacteria

- Enterococci

................................ ................................ ............................. 29

PARAMETER: Bacteria

– Fecal coliform

................................ ................................ ......................... 31

PARAMETER: Biocriteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 33

PARAMETER: Chlorophyll a

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 37

PARAMETER: Dissolved Oxygen

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39

PARAMETER: pH

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 49

PARAMETER: Sedimentation

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 53

PARAMETER: Temperature

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 55

PARAMETER: Total Dissolved Gas

................................ ................................ ................................ . 59PARAMETER: Toxic Substances

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 61

PARAMETER: Turbidity

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 81

Appendix 1. June 22,1998 DEQ Letter to EPA, Policy Clarification of Oregon Water Quality Standards

Revisions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 1

Appendix 2. February 4, 2004 DEQ Letter to EPA Region 10, Oregon Responses to EPA Questions on State’s Water Quality Temperature Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1

Appendix 3. June 8, 2010 DEQ Memorandum, Application of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to "Salmon and Trout Rearing and Migration" Be neficial Use and "Redband or Lahontan Cutthroat Trout" Beneficial Use

.................. 1

Appendix 4. Toxic Substance Human Health and Aquatic Life Criteria Used for the 2012 Integrated Report

..... 1

Appendix 5. OAR 340

- 041 Table 20 Water Quality Criteria

................................ ................................ ............... 1



## List of Tables
Table 1: 2012 Oregon Integrated Report Data Quality Review Summary 10
Table 2: Assessment Categories 11 Table 3: Example Fish Beneficial Use Segments

– Sandy River 15 Table 4: Defining Assessment Units and Status

- New Assessments 17 Table 5: Defining Assessment Units and Status

– Previously Assessed Waters* 18 Table 6: Defining Assessment Units and Status

– Beneficial Uses Designated in Water Quality Standards 19
Table 7: Biocriteria Assessment Benchmarks 36 Table 8: Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life* 41 Table 9: Application of Warm Water Dissolved Oxygen Criterion 43 Table 10: Application of Spawning Dissolved Oxygen Criteria 45 Table 11: Summary of pH Basin Specific Criteria (OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through 340

- 041

- 0350) 49 Table 12 Factors for Hardness Dependent Metals Criteria 77October 14 , 2014 1 

# I. Introduction

The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) requires that states submit a biennial water quality inventory report in April of even numbered years. The report provides information on the water quality of all navigable state waters; the extent to which state waters provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wil dlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; and how pollution control measures are leading to water quality standards being met.

The CWA Section 303(d) additionally requires that each state identify waters where existing pollution

contro ls are not stringent enough to achieve state water quality standards, and establish a priority ranking of these waters. Section 303(d) requires states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the

identified waters. TMDLs describe the amount of each pollutant a water body can receive and not violate water quality standards. States submit the list of waters needing TMDLs (303(d) list) to EPA and EPA either approves or disapproves the list within thirty days after the submission.

EPA regulations (40 C FR 130.7 and 40 CFR 130.8) specify the process for developing the 303(d) list and the content of the biennial water quality report. EPA guidance recommends that States submit an integrated
report to satisfy 305(b) and 303(d) requirements. 1 The integrated r eport presents the results of assessing available data to determine where water quality standards are met or not met, and identifies the pollutants causing water quality limitations or impairments.

EPA regulations require States describe the methodology, data, and information used to identify and list water quality limited segments requiring TMDLs. The assessment methodology contains the "decision rules" used to evaluate data and information. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 340

- 041

- 0046) also require the specific evaluation process be identified.

This document, Methodology for Oregon’s 2012 Water Quality Report and List of Water Quality Limited Waters, describes how DEQ developed Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report for 305(b) and 303(d). The methodology is co nsistent with key elements of Oregon’s water quality standards, including designated uses, narrative and numeric criteria, antidegradation requirements, and standards application procedures, and is the framework DEQ used to assess water quality conditions. The methodology builds on DEQ’s protocols from previous 305(b)/303(d) assessments. The 303(d) list produced from the 2012 Integrated Report incorporates, updates, and supplements 303(d) lists from previous assessment years and after approval by EPA will b ecome Oregon’s effective 303(d) list.

Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report focused on a statewide evaluation of toxic pollutant data and an analysis of dissolved oxygen data for the Willamette and Umatilla River Basins. DEQ focused on these areas for the

follo wing reasons:

 EPA finalized additions to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list on December 14, 2012. EPA based the additions
on a review of water quality data collected from January 1, 2000 through December 28, 2010. Due to
the length of time it took EPA to publish a final 303(d) list, DEQ approached the 2012 Integrated

1 

### October 12, 2006, Memorandum from Diane Regas, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and

Watershed Re: Information Concer ning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.htmlOctober 14 , 2014 2

Report with the objective of focusing on data that EPA had not evaluated or where data evaluations
would provide the most benefit to DEQ programs.

 DEQ completed a major revision of Oregon’s toxic substa nce water quality criteria protecting human
health that were approved by EPA and effective for Clean Water Act purposes in October 2011.
While EPA added new 303(d) listings of impaired waters based on these revised criteria, EPA did not

review the entire 2 010 Integrated Report to determine whether other updates were needed to reflect
the revised criteria. The 2012 Integrated Report more fully reviewed previous 303(d) listings and
updated those to be consistent with the revised and withdrawn human health cri teria.

 Oregon’s toxic substance water quality criteria protecting aq uatic life were revised in 2004 with
minor changes adopted in December 2013. EPA approved most of the revised aquatic life criteria in
January 2013 and approved additional corrections and clarifications in April 2014. DEQ initiated the
2012 Integrated Report and completed most of the data review before the se revised aquatic life

criteria were effectiv e for Clean Water Act purposes.

 DEQ was piloting the rotating basin approach described in E PA’s 2009 memorandum. 2 DEQ’s
objective with piloting this approach for the 2012 Integrated Report was to evaluate the viability of
synchronizing the 303(d) assessment with the basin assessment watershed approach. These
complimentary efforts would help enable DEQ to evaluate and prioritize water quality issues and actions in each of the state’s major river basins, focusing on three basins per year (with the objective
of evaluating the state’s 15 basins over a five year period). This approach, descr ibed in more detail in

Section III, allows for more in

- depth evaluation of the curre nt status of water quality and beneficial
use support in each basin, in addition to the prioritization of TMDLs. B ecause the Willamette B asin is
very large, DEQ was conduct ing basin assessments for two basins , the Willamette and the Umatilla.

The 2012 Integrated Report methodology is consistent with the following state and federal rules, guidance, and polic ies :

 Water Quality Standards, Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria for Oregon: Oregon Administrative
Rules Chapter 340 Division 41
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules /oars_300/oar_340/340_041.html

 June 22,1998 DEQ Letter to EPA Region 10, Policy Clarification of Oregon Water Quality Standards

Revisions http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stan dards/docs/EPALetter06

- 22

- 1998.pdf

 February 4, 2004 DEQ Letter to EPA Region 10, Oregon Responses to EPA Questions on State’s
Water Quality Temperature Standards

h ttp://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/temperature/clarificationltr.pdf

 March 21, 2011, Memorandum from Denise Keehner, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds

Re: Information Concerning 2012 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integr ated
Reporting and Listing Decisions
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/upload/final_2012_memo_document.pdf

 May 5, 2009, Memorandum from Suzanne Schwartz, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds Re: Information Concerning 2010 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314
Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/final52009.cfm

2 May 5, 2009, Memorandum from Suzanne Schwartz, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Re: Information Concerning 2010 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing

Decisions http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/final52009.cfmOctober 14 , 2014 3

 October 12, 2006, Memorandum from Diane Regas, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed

Re: Information C oncerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated
Reporting and Listing Decisions http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.html

 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d),
305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act: United States Environmental Protection Agency, (July 29,
2005) http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG /

 Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and
305(b) of the Clean Water Act: United States Environmental Protection Agency, (July 21, 2003)
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/tmdl0103/index.html

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Chapter 26 Water Pollution Prevention and Control

 40 CFR Part 130.7 (Code of Federal Regulations)

 40 CFR Part 130.8 (Code of Federal Regulations)October 14 , 2014 4 

# II. Oregon’s Water Quality
Standards

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters (CWA Section 101(a)). To achieve this objective, States develop and adopt water quality standards. Water quali ty standards include beneficial uses, narrative and numeric criteria, and anti

degradation and implementation policies. Oregon’s water quality standards are adopted in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340 Division 41 ( http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/rules.htm ). These rules include policies and criteria that are applicable throughout the state.

Beneficial uses for Oregon waters are designated by the Oregon Environmental Quality C ommission. General beneficial uses are designated by water basin or water body in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through OAR 340

- 041

- 0340, Figure 1, and Tables 101A through 340A. Specific fish uses are further designated in Tables 101B through 250B and Figures 130A thro ugh 340B. Beneficial fish use designations include explicit water body segment locations and time periods throughout the state for sensitive salmonid species and life stages that were added to Oregon’s water quality standards in 2003. For example, the gene ral beneficial uses in the Hood

Basin are designated in OAR 340

- 041

- 0160 and Table 160A as follows, and the fish use designations and salmon and steelhead spawning use designations throughout the Hood Basin are shown in Figures 160A and

160B http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/rules/div041tblsfigs.htm#t1 :

Basin

- Specific Criteria (Hood)

340

- 041

- 0160

Beneficial Uses to Be Protected in the Hood Basin (1) Water quality in the Hood Basin (see Figure 1) must be managed to protect the designated beneficial uses shown in Table 160A (November 2003). (2) Designated fish uses to be protected in the Hood Basin are shown in Figures 160A and 160B (November 2003).October 14 , 2014 5 Table 160A Designated Beneficial Uses
Hood Basin (340

- 41

- 0160)

Beneficial Uses Hood River Basin Streams

Public Domestic Water Supply1 X

Private Domestic Water Supply1 X

Industrial Water Supply X

Irrigation X

Livestock Watering X

Fish & Aquatic Life2 X

Wildlife & Hunting X

Fishing X

Boating X

Water Contact Recreation X

Aesthetic Quality X

Hydro Power X

Commercial Navigation & Transportation

1 With adequate pretreatment (filtration & disinfection) and natural quality to meet drinking water standards. 2 See also Figures 160A and 160B for fish use designations for this basin.

Table produced November, 2003 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/rules/div041/dbutables/table160a.pdf

Oregon water quality stan dards include statewide narrative criteria established in OAR 340

- 041

- 0007. Narrative criteria include provisions for:

 Less stringent natural conditions to supersede numeric criteria (OAR 340

- 041

- 0007(2) 3

 Prohibitions on fungi or other growths that negatively impact beneficial uses (OAR 340

- 041

- 0007(9)

 Prohibitions on tastes, odors, or toxic conditions that negatively impact beneficial uses (OAR 340

- 041

- 0007(10)

 Prohibitions on bottom deposits that negatively impact beneficial uses (OAR 340

- 041

- 0007(11)

A statewide antidegradation policy is established in OAR 340

- 041

- 0004 to guide decisions that affect water quality. Additional policies for applying water quality standards to determine water quality limited waters are

contained in OAR 34 0

- 041

- 0046 and in standards for specific pollutants.

Oregon water quality standards for specific pollutants are established in OAR 340

- 041

- 0009 (Bacteria) through OAR 340

- 041

- 0036 (Turbidity). These standards contain both narrative and numeric criteria fo r specific pollutants. Some pollutant criteria are applicable in waters with specified beneficial use designations, such as numeric criteria for temperature and dissolved oxygen that apply where and when certain fish uses are

3 This provision in Oregon’s standards was disapproved by EPA August 8, 2013, and is no longer effective for federal Clean Water Act purposes in Oregon. See http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/FedEffectiveStandards.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 6 designated. For the Integrated Report, each pollutant is assessed independently. The methodology for assessing each pollutant is discussed in Section IV. Assessment Protocols by Pollutant or Parameter in this

document.

Oregon’s criteria for toxic substances (OAR 340

- 041

- 0033) were rev ised in 2004 (aquatic life criteria) and 2011 (human health criteria). The human health criteria for toxic substances (Table 40) were approved by EPA in October 2011 and are currently effective criteria for 303(d) Clean Water Act purposes and were applied for the 2012 Integrated Report. EPA acted on the revised aquatic life criteria in January, 2013 to approve and disapprove select criteria. EPA’s action occurred well after Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report assessment was underway and DEQ was not able to inco rporate the criteria approved in that action. DEQ applied the aquatic life criteria in Table 20 previously referenced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 that were effective prior to EPA’s action in 2013. See Attachment 4 for the combined aquatic life and human health cri teria that were applied for purposes of the 2012 Integrated Report.October 14 , 2014 7 

# III. 2012 Integrated Report Process

DEQ prepared the 2012 Integrated Report by assembling data and information about surface waters in Oregon, comparing data and information to appropriate Or egon water quality standards, determining the condition and status of waters where data and information were available, updating assessments from previous reporting, and identifying the waters that do not meet water quality standards and support beneficial uses. The steps are described more fully in the following sections. The 2012 Integrated Report process will be complete when DEQ receives approval from EPA on the final 2012 list of water quality limited waters needing a TMDL (Category 5: 303(d) list).



# A. Ro tating Basin Approach

Beginning in 2011, DEQ has been conducting in

- depth assessments of the state’s basins. These assessments take the form of local water quality status and action plans which describe water quality conditions and

include recommendations for actions that DEQ and others who are interested in these basins can take to improve water quality. The rotating basin approach follows the principles of adaptive management and the watershed approach. This approach uses the best information available to take action on immediate problems. It also involves using new information to improve practices over time. This “continuous improvement” process allows DEQ to focus its resources in three basins or watersheds a year and regularly assess the

situation in ea ch basin by using an outcome

- based approach to determine what actions are working or not working.

The rotating basin approach allows Oregon DEQ to:

 Share its findings with affected stakeholders and residents of the basins so all parties learn how t o

bette r manage our watersheds.

 Prioritize immediate and long

- term actions that can be taken in a particular basin or watershed
through DEQ’s Water Quality S tatus and Acton Plan documents.

 These actions will emphasize working closer with all affected parties to i den tify goals and measure

success.

 Encourage all involved to be flexible and open to new ways of solving problems (including voluntary
collaboration where possible) and a voiding duplication of efforts.

To date, DEQ has conducted two rounds of Basin Report s addressing three basins each; and is working toward finalizing the third round of Basin Reports covering the Willamette Basin and the Umatilla Basin.

With the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ sought as a first step to evaluate how the basin assessment approa ch could be aligned with efforts to develop the Integrated Report. To that end, DEQ focused on updating the Integrated Report for the Willamette Basin and Umatilla Basin for dissolved oxygen and toxic pollutants, consistent with DEQ’s concurrent efforts to evaluate water quality conditions in its development of Basin Reports for those basins.



# B. Tribal Waters

Only those waters that are under the State of Oregon’s jurisdiction are subject to the State’s 303(d) and 305(b) activities. DEQ did not intentionally i nclude tribal waters when assessing water quality or developing the 303(d) list for the 2012 Integrated Report. DEQ does not develop TMDLs for tribal waters. When a waterOctober 14 , 2014 8 body lies partially within Tribal Reservation boundaries, DEQ only assesses the segme nts that are within Oregon’s jurisdiction to prepare Oregon’s 303(d) list.

DEQ used available geographic information to determine boundaries of the Burns Paiute Reservation, Fort McDermitt Reservation, Grand Ronde Reservation, Siletz Reservation, Umatill a Reservation, and Warm Springs Reservation in order to exclude those waters from the Integrated Report.



# C. Assembling Data and Information

To gather information on water quality for Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ issued a public call for data, solicited data from other agencies, and retrieved data results from DEQ’s monitoring activities. The assembled data and information included analytical data for surface water and fish tissue sampling, and public health fish consumption advisory information . The assembled data and information were reviewed by DEQ to determine if the data included all required metadata elements, met the data quality requirements, and were acceptable to use for the 2012 Integrated Report. The process of assembling data and inf ormation for the 2012 Integrated Report is described in more detail in the following sections.



## 1. Call for Data

DEQ issued a public call for data for the 2012 Integrated Report by posting information on DEQ’s on

- line

website at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/2012DataInfo.htm and notifying interested parties using

an electronic e

- mail subscription list. The subscription list includes federal agencies, state agencies, tribes, local governments, watershed councils, private and public organizations, and individuals from the gener al public. DEQ accepted data submittals from December 1 6 , 2011 through January 31, 2012. DEQ identified priority interests with the call for data to:

 Focus on two basins, the Willamette Basin and the Umatilla Basin, in order to use a Watershed
Approach.

 Obtain data to evaluate revised human health criteria for toxic pollutants (Table 40).

 Obtain data to evaluate listings for toxic pollutant criteria that were revised or withdrawn, particularly

iron and arsenic.

The call for data included a description of the requirements for data type, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), and data formats. Information on data submittal procedures, forms, and templates were available

on

- line at h ttp://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/2012DataInfo.htm

.

DEQ received response s or data submittals from the following entities:

 Center for Biological Diversity

 City of Canby

 City of Gresham

 City of Salem

 City of Wilsonville

 Clackamas County Soil and Wa ter Conservation District

 Tualatin Joint Water Commission

Most of the submitted data were for the time period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2011.October 14 , 2014 9 

## 2. Data Retrievals

For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ assembled data from two sources:

 Oregon DEQ’s Lab oratory Analytical and Storage Retrieval (LASAR) database

– Surface water
sampling data were retrieved as follows:

o October 18, 2012

– Monitoring results from approximately 275 stations throughout the state
when available for 12 toxic substances (arsenic, b eryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper,
iron, lead, manganese, nickel selenium, silver, and zinc when available) from samples
collected for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2011

o April 17, 2013

– Fish tissue sampling results for skinless fillet samples from throughout the
state for mercury analyses

o March 26, 2013

– Monitoring results for dissolved oxygen from continuous sampling and
grab sampling for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2011 from 772 sampling

locations in the Willamett e Basin and the Umatilla subbasin (Hydrologic Unit Code

17070103 ).
Data retrieval from LASAR was limited to results with data quality level A or B. Data from continuous sampling temperature data loggers were not retrieved for the 2012 Integrated R eport

.

 USGS Oregon Water Sciences Center ( http:/or.water.usgs.gov/ )

– Solicited and received from
Leonard Orzol (Database Manager, llorzol@usgs.gov ):

o April 23, 2012

– Monitoring results from approximately 138 stations in the Willamette Basin
when available for 37 toxic pollutants from samples collected for the period January 1, 2000
through December 31, 2011. No data were available in this time period in the Umatilla Basin

o April 23, 2012

– Monitoring results for dissolved oxygen for the period January 1, 2000
through December 31, 2011 from 563 sampling locations in the Willamette Basin and the
Umatilla subbasin (Hydrologic Unit Code 17070103 ).
Results from USGS with data quality level A w ere used for the 2012 data evaluation.



## 3. Metadata Requirements

To be able to evaluate data for the Integrated Report, DEQ required that metadata accompany the sampling results submitted in response to the call for data, and be available for data retrieved fr om agency sources. Required metadata included site descriptions and geographic information for each sampling location including monitoring station latitude, longitude, LLID, and river mile, as described below. Missing or incomplete metadata often made data not usable for the Integrated Report. DEQ’s georeferencing system is described in more detail in Section III. D. 3 (a) Assessment Unit Location.



## 4. QA/QC Requirements

DEQ only used high quality data meeting data quality level A or B requirements for the 305( b)/303(d) assessment. Analytical laboratory data were reviewed against current Quality Control (QC) limits established for the analytical method and/or the QC limits established by the laboratory that performed the testing and supplied the data to DEQ. DEQ also utilized EPA National Functional Guidelines for Data Review as guidance when reviewing laboratory data. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/clp/guidance.htm

DEQ used DEQ’s Data Qu ality Matrix (March 2009) to review data quality for water quality parameters

measured in the field. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/docs/DEQ04

- LAB

- 0003

- QAG.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 10 

## 5. Data Quality Review and Usability of Submitted Data

DEQ reviewed the completeness of site metadata and QA/QC level of data results that were received through the call for data. A summary of data acceptance and usability of data submitted for the 2012 Integrated Report is shown in the following table:

Table 1 : 2012 Oregon Integrated Report Data Quality Review Summary

Data source Stations with

metadata Analytical

Results QA/QC Grab, Field, or

Continuous sample

results Data or

info rmation usable

for 2012 IR

Center for Biological Diversity No information from Oregon state waters No

City of Canby Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete No

City of Gresham 10 2168 results for

17 toxic

substances __ Yes

City of Salem Drinking Water

Sources Incomplete 182 results Acceptable No

City of Salem 11

__ General parameters

- Parameters not evaluated

in 2012 IR No

City of Wilsonville Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete No Clackamas County

Soil and Water

Conservation

District 10 Incomplete Not acceptable No

Tualatin Joint Water

Commission Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete No



# D. Determining Water Quality Status

The goal of the 2012 Integrated Report is to provide information about the condition and quality of Oregon’s surface waters. Using available data, information, and water quality standards, DEQ reaches conclusions about whether conditions support the beneficial uses designated for the water body and meet water quality standards applicable in the water. The conclusions are communicated by using a set of assessment status categories described in EPA guidance and commonly used by states completing 303(d) and 305(b) Integrated Reports.



## 1. Assessment Categories

EPA continues to recommend using five reporting categories as shown in Table 2 to cl assify water quality

status. 4 The categories represent varying levels of water quality standards attainment and beneficial use support, ranging from Category 1, where all designated uses for a water body are supported, to Category 5, where a water body is impaired and a TMDL is required to return the water to a condition where the water quality standards are met.

4 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act: United States Environmental Protection Agency, (July 29, 2005) http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/October 14 , 2014 11 Table 2 : Assessment Categories

Category Description Category 1 All designated uses are supported. (Oregon does not use this category.) Category 2 Available data and information indicate that some designated uses are supported and the

water quality standard is attained. Category 3 Insufficient data to determine whether a designated use is supported.

Oregon further sub

- classifies waters if warranted as:

3B: Potential concern when data are insufficient to determine use support but some data

indicate non

- attainment of a criterion. 5

Category 4 Data indicate that at least one designated use is not support but a TMDL is not needed.

This includes:

4A: TMDLs that will result in attainment of water quality standards have been approved.

4B: Other pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutants and will result in attainment of water quality standards.

4C: Impairment is not caused by a pollutant (e.g., flow or lack of flow are not considered pollutants). Category 5 Data in dicate a designated use is not supported or a water quality standard is not attained

and a TMDL is needed. This category constitutes the Section 303(d) list that EPA will approve or disapprove under the Clean Water Act.

DEQ uses the policy of independent applicability to assess attainment of water quality standards, as recommended by EPA. 6 Each water quality standard is evaluated independently and a category is assigned for a water body for each standard where sufficient data are available. Since no water body has sufficient data or information to assess all designated uses and water quality standards, DEQ does not classify waters as Category 1. Figure 1 summarizes DEQ’s general process for assigning assessment categories to describe the status of Oregon w aters.

5 EPA disapproved Oregon’s use of subcategory Category 3C: Impairing pollutant unknown on March 15, 2012. This subcategory was removed from Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report.

6 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the

Clean Water Act: United Stat es Environmental Protection Agency, (July 29, 2005) http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/October 14 , 2014 12 Figure 1 : Assigning Assessment Categories



### Yes Yes No

No No Yes

Yes

Yes Are data or information

available to evaluate at least

one criterion or use?

Do data meet minimum requirements to evaluate

criteria or uses? Do data meet the meta

- data and QA/QC requirements

for evaluation? No assessment performed; no assessment category assigned to water body.

Category 3: Insufficient Data are available to determine

if criteria or uses are attained or not attained for the water body.

Do some data indicate

non

- attainment of criteria

or uses?

Yes

No Do data demonstrate

attainment of applicable

criteria or uses? Category 2: Water body Attaining some criteria or designated uses.

No Category 5: Water body is Water Quality Limited and requires a TMDL. Water body is placed on the 303(d)

List

. No Does a pollutant cause

non

- attainment ? Category 4C: Water body is Water Quality Limited but

a pollutant does not cause the impairment . A TMDL is not required.

No

Are other control measures in place? Yes Category 4B: Water body is Water Quality Limited but a TMDL is not required because other pollution requirements will achieve water quality standards. Yes Yes

Has a TMDL been approved for the pollutant causing the impairment? Category 4A: Water body is Water Quality Limited but a TMDL is not required because the TMDL has been approved

. No
Water body may be placed in Category 3B:

Potential Concern

.October 14 , 2014 13 

## 2. Evaluating Data and Information

To characterize conditions in Oregon waters, DEQ assembled the water quality data and information available from monitoring sites or sampling points on a water body. Samples m ay have been collected from one or more sampling locations and analyzed for a variety of pollutants or other chemical or physical characteristics. Monitoring may have occurred once or multiple times at a single location. The site monitoring data are the

ba sis for characterizing the overall water quality status in a water body. The requirements and protocols for evaluating monitoring data for specific pollutants and water quality standards are discussed in detail in Section IV Assessment Protocols by Polluta nt.

The initial step in DEQ’s data evaluation process was to evaluate the data available at each monitoring site by comparing sampling results to water quality standards. Data at individual sampling sites were evaluated independently using the assessment protocols for each specific pollutant or standard and assigning an assessment status category for the site for each pollutant or standard (e.g. Station X: Pollutant parameter Y

- Category 2: Attaining based on 0 out of Z results at the site exceeding crite ria). Where sample results included duplicate sample result s collected for QA/QC purposes and identified as sample primary and sample duplicate

, the maximum (or minimum for dissolved oxygen) result was evaluated and counted only as one result. Results for the individual monitoring sites were then aggregated or grouped to determine the appropriate assessment unit for the water body or segment of the water body, and the water quality status assessment category for the assessment unit.

As part of the site da ta review, DEQ confirmed that site location information and analytical data results were complete, accurate, and appropriate for evaluation. Correct site location information was critical in order to determine what water quality standards were applicable t o the available data, and to choose the appropriate numeric criteria to apply for pollutants that have several possible criteria. Accurate and complete information about sample and analytical results was critical to determine if site data were comparable t o the water quality standard and met the assessment protocol for the specific pollutant.

In order to report on conditions in the water body, DEQ considered several factors to aggregate site data into water body assessment units and assign a water quality status for the assessment unit. DEQ defined water body assessment units for specific pollutants and in some cases for multiple seasons for the same pollutant.

Factors considered were:

 The distribution of monitoring sites on a water body

 The pollutant or water quality standard

 The designated beneficial uses of a water body, particularly sensitive fish uses

 The water quality status for specific pollutants at individual sites

 Previous assessment information for the water body

Using the conclusions from the 2012 water body assessments, DEQ added new assessments to the Integrated Report and updated previous water body assessments if warranted. If no data or information for a pollutant or water body were reviewed for 2012, the water body assessments from previ ous Integrated Report cycles remain part of the 2012 Integrated Report and Category 5: 303(d) list.



## 3. Determining Assessment Units and Status

The 2012 Integrated Report reports information about water quality for unique combinations of water body

assessment unit, pollutant, and season. The assessment unit identifies the water body or segment of the water body being assessed, the pollutant identifies the chemical or parameter associated with the applicable water quality standard, and the season specifies the d ate or time period when the standard is being applied. DEQ’s process for defining assessment units and assigning status assessment categories the Integrated Report is described in the following sections.October 14 , 2014 14



### a) Assessment Unit Location
DEQ identifies assessment u nits using location information from the hydrographic network for Oregon water bodies and the starting and ending river miles for segments on that network. DEQ uses a 1:100,000 geo

referenced river reach system compiled for the Pacific Northwest. The river reach system is the hydrography component in a regional rivers and fisheries information system known as StreamNet. Information about this system is available at http://www.streamnet.org/pnwr/PNWNAR. html . A stream based identifier called the LLID (Longitude/Latitude ID) is used to uniquely identify streams and lakes and is linked to georeferencing

location information

. All reaches that make up a given stream are assigned this unique LLID. The LLID is derived from the longitude and latitude of the mouth of the stream or the center of a lake. Longitude precedes latitude to conform to standard x, y ordering. The code is 13 characters long, with 7 characters for decimal degrees of longitude followed by 6 characters for decimal degrees of latitude, with implied decimal points. (Example: Columbia River LLID 1240483462464, mouth located at longitude

- 124.0483 latitude 46.2464)

One LLID uniquely identifies a stream or river, with river mile 0 assigned at the mouth of the stream where it intersects with the next order stream and river mile maximum corresponding to the headwater location. Lakes, reservoirs, and ponds are identified by the LLID derived from the longitude and latitude at the center point of

the wa ter body. If there is a through flowing stream, the lake or reservoir may also be identified as a segment

on a stream LLID with the stream river mile minimum at the lake outlet and river mile maximum at the lake inlet. (Example: Fish Lake LLID 122333342386 8 North Fork Little Butte Creek RM 15.6 to 17.8)

Some water bodies are not large enough to be included on the StreamNet 1:100,000 river reach system and do not have an assigned LLID. In those cases, DEQ used other geospatial base layers such as the Pacific Northwest Hydrography 1:24,000 layer or National Hydrography Dataset to obtain geospatial information for the hydrographic feature and derive an equivalent LLID identifier using the general guidelines described above. In a few cases where the feature was apparent on satellite imagery but not identified on available geospatial base layers, DEQ digitized the feature to create geospatial information and assigned an LLID using the protocols described above. In earlier assessment cycles, water bodies that did not have a georeferenced location and LLID were gi ven a placeholder LLID (such as 1111111111111) so that information could be retained in the assessment database even though not available for geospatial applications. Where possible, these streams were identified using the most current geospatial informati on available in 2012 and updated in

the 2012 Integrated Report.

DEQ uses the water body name associated with the stream or lake LLID in the geospatial information system, and gives preference to the water body name assigned in the USGS Geographic Name Inf ormation System if there are multiple names. Many water bodies in Oregon are not named, and are identified as Unknown in the geospatial information and the Integrated Report. DEQ many include informal names in these cases.



### b) Assessment Unit

– General Segment ation Rules DEQ considered several factors and followed these general rules and decision hierarchy to determine water body assessment unit segments for various pollutants and time periods or seasons:

 For a new assessment of a water body/pollutant/season co mbination:

o With only one monitoring site, the assessment unit segment was defined from the mouth to
headwaters of the water body, or

o For a water body with multiple monitoring sites, the assessment unit segment was defined

based on the location and status o f monitoring stations on the water body. See Table 4.

 Where updating a previously assessed water body/pollutant/season combination, the previous
assessment unit was usually retained.October 14 , 2014 15

 For an assessment using a water quality standard applicable at locations specifically designated for

certain beneficial uses, the assessment unit correlate s to the locations designated in water quality

standards:

o Examples are temperature and dissolved oxygen criteria applicable for specific fish uses or
during certain sensitive time periods or seasons.

o Segments were defined for contiguous sections of a water body with the same designated fish
use or designated time period for that use.

o A single water body may be represented by multiple assessment units with different criteria
for temperature or dissolved oxygen applicable at different times.

o The spawning criteria apply to an assessment unit during the designated spawning time, and

the non

- spawning criteria apply at all other times.

The Sandy River (LLID 1224071455697) provides an example in Table 3 of how assessment units are correlated to segments with designated fish uses. The Sandy River is designated for salmon and trout rearing and migration fish use from river mile 0 to 26 (Segment “A”) and for core cold water habitat fro m river mile 26 to 55.5 (Segment “B”). These fish uses have numeric temperature criteria specific to those fish uses. The Sandy River also has four reaches designated for salmonid spawning use during different time periods (Segments “C” through “F”) and on e with no spawning use, as shown in the following table. The spawning criterion is applicable in those assessment units, but only during the time period designated for spawning use. Based on the water quality standards, the Sandy River would have 6 assessm ent units correlated to segments with designated fish use or time periods where different numeric temperature criteria apply.

Table 3 : Example Fish Beneficial Use Segments

– Sandy River

Assessment

Unit River Mile

Start River Mile

End Use Time Period Numeric Temperature

Criteria ( o Celsius)

A 0 26 Salmon and trout rearing and migration Year round non

spawning 18.0

B 26 55.5 Core cold water

habitat Year round non

spawning 16.0

C 0 26 Spawning October 15

– May

15 13.0

D 26 48 Spawning August 15

– June

15 13.0

E 48 49.1 Spawning October 15

– June

15 13.0

F 49 54 Spawning January 1

– June

15 13.0

54 55.4 No spawningOctober 14 , 2014 16



### c) Assessment Unit

– General Rules to Assign Status A status category was assigned to an assessment unit based on the status at monitoring sites within the assessment unit. The process generally followed this decision hierarchy:

 For a new assessment of a water body/pollutant/season combination:

o With only one monitoring site, the status at the monitoring site was assigned to the

assessment unit.

o With multiple monitoring sites, the status was assigned based on the locations of monitoring
stations with sufficient information to indicate Category 5: 303(d) or Category 2: Attaining

status. If none of the stations h ad sufficient data to determine whether water quality standards
were met or exceeded, the assessment unit was assigned Category 3: Insufficient data status.

See Table 4.

 Where updating a previously assessed water body/pollutant/season combination, a previo us Category
5: 303(d) assessment status was generally carried forward until a preponderance of data showed a
Category 2: Attaining or Category 4 status was supported by site data, and a previous Category 2:
Attaining status was carried forward unless new d ata show water quality standards are not met. See

Table 5.

 For assessment units correlated to water quality standard fish use designations, if any site in a
segment did not meet the applicable water quality criterion, the segment was assigned Category 5:
303(d) status. If one or more sites in a segment met the water quality criterion, and no stations
exceeded the criterion, the segment was assigned Category 2: Attaining status. If all of the stations on
a segment had insufficient data, the segment was assi gned Category 3: Insufficient data status.



### d) Combined Assessment Unit Segment and Status Determination The following Tables 4 through 6 illustrate application of the decision hierarchy to define assessment units and assign a water quality status category to water bodies based on evaluating monitoring site data and

information.October 14 , 2014 17 Table 4 : Defining Assessment Units and Status

- New Assessments

If: Then:

2012 stations 2012 Assessment Unit 2012 Assessment Unit Status

One or more stations Category 5: 303(d) Mouth to headwaters of water body Category 5: 303(d)

One or more stations Category 5: 303(d) with upstream Category 2: Attaining station Segment from mouth to upstream Category 2: Attaining station Category 5: 303(d)

One station Category 5: 303(d) with downstream Category 2: Attaining

station Segment begins at halfway point between Category 5: 303(d) station and downstream Category 2: Attaining station, and ends at headwaters or next upstream Category 2: Attaining station Category 5: 303(d)

One or more stations Category 5: 303(d) with other stations Category 3:

Insufficient data Mouth to headwaters Cat 5: 303(d) list

One or more stations Category 2: Attaining Mouth to headwaters Category 2: Attaining

One or more stations Category 2: Attaining with other stations Category 3:

Insufficient data Mouth to headwaters Category 2: Attaining

One or more stations Category 3: Insufficient

data Mouth to headwaters Category 3: Insufficient dataOctober 14 , 2014 18 Table 5 : Defining Assessment Units and Status

– Previously Assessed Waters*

If And Then

2012 Station status Previous Assessment

Unit Status 2012

Assessment

Unit 2012 Assessment Unit

Status

One or more stations Category 5: 303(d) Category 5: 303(d) Same Category 5: 303(d) list Category 4A: WQ limited, TMDL approved Same Cat 4A: WQ limited, TMDL approved Category 2: Attaining Same Category 5: 303(d) list

One or more stations Category 2: Attaining Category 5: 303(d) Same Category 5: 303(d) list (Check for data and station equivalency to delist to Category 2: Attaining).

One or more stations Category 3B: Potential

Concern Category 5: 303(d) Same Category 5: 303(d) list Category 3B: Potential Concern or Category 3:

Insufficient data Same Category 3B: Potential

Concern

Category 2: Attaining Same Category 3B: Potential

Concern Combination Category 5: 303(d), Category 2: Attaining, and Category 3:

Insufficient data Category 5: 303(d) Same Category 5: 303(d) list

Combination Category 5: 303(d), Category 2: Attaining, and Category 3:

Insufficient data Category 2: Attaining Same Category 5: 303(d) list

One or more stations Category 3: Insufficient data Category 5: 303(d) Same Category 5: 303(d) list

One or more stations Category 2: Attain ing Category 2: Attaining Same Category 2: Attaining

One or more stations Category 2: Attaining Category 4A: WQ limited, TMDL approved Same Category 2: Attaining

One or more stations Category 2: Attaining and/or Category 3: Insufficient data Category 2: Attaining Same Category 2: Attaining

One or more stations Category 3: Insufficient data Category 2: Attaining Same Category 2: Attaining Category 3B: Potential

Concern Same Category 3B: Potential

Concern

One or more stations Category 3: Insufficient data Category 3: Insufficient

data Category 3: Insufficient data

* See specific assessment protocols for bacteria (E. coli and fecal coliform) for details on updating assessment segments and status assignment.October 14 , 2014 19 Table 6 : Defining Assessment Units and Status

– Beneficial Uses Designated in Water Quality
Standards**

** Temperature and dissolved oxygen water quality standards apply at locations and times that are specified in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340 Division 41 for designated fish beneficial uses and designated spawning time periods.



## 4. Delist ing Water Bodies

Once a wa ter body is found to be water quality limited and is assigned to Category 5: 303(d) status, the water remains on Oregon’s 303(d) list until DEQ delist s or removes it from Category 5: 303(d) and EPA approves

delist ing those waters. This section describes th e rationale DEQ used to justify delist ing water bodies from Category 5: 303(d) and assigning another status category.



### a) Current information shows water quality standards are attained A water body was delist ed and assigned to Category 2: Attaining if there w as sufficient information from the current assessment to evaluate the pollutant or parameter and the information demonstrated that currently applicable water quality standards were being met. Data used for delist ing must meet data quality requirements and minimum sample requirements for Category 2: Attaining as described in the “Data If: And: Then:

2012 Station

status 2012

Assessment

Unit 2012 Assessment Unit Status

One or more stations Category 5: 303(d) Start and end

of river miles

for contiguous segments with

same designated use Category 5: 303(d)

One or more stations Category 5: 303(d) Previous assessment unit status Category 2: Attaining or Category 3 Start and end

river mile for designated use Category 5: 303(d)

One or more stations Category 5: 303(d) TMDL approved for temperature or dissolved oxygen for stream or

watershed Start and end

river mile for designated use Category 4A: WQ limited,

TMDL approved

One or more stations Category 5: 303(d) status, others Category 3:

Ins ufficient data Start and end

river mile for designated use Category 5: 303(d) list

One or more stations Category 2: Attaining; others Category 3:

Insufficient data Start and end

river mile for designated use Category 2: Attaining

One or more stations Category 3: Insufficient

data Start and end

river mile for designated use Category 3: Insufficient data

No data evaluated Pollutant and time period previously

assessed Retain previous

segment start
and end Retain previous statusOctober 14 , 2014 20 Requirements” section for the pollutant. Generally, similar data were required to delist a water body as initially used to place the water body on the 303(d) list. For example, if the listing was based on two successive years of a standard not being met, DEQ looked for at least two successive years of data indicating that the standard is being met. The rationale for the delist ing action was noted as Delist ed

– Data show

criteria met.



### b) Current information shows an error in the Category 5: 303(d) listing A water body was delist ed if there was information to show that the Category 5: 303(d) status was assigned in error. New data or review in the current assessment evaluation may show errors in previous listings due to site location errors, incorrect inclusion of inappropriate data or site data not meeting data quality requirements, data evaluations not consistent with the assessment protocols, a flaw in the original assessment rationa le, listing of water bodies that already have TMDLs in place, or duplicate listings for the same water body and pollutant. The delist ing was supported with a description and documentation of the error and the information used to correctly assign a status c ategory to the water body or indicate the assessment record is Inactive . The

delist ing action was noted as Delist ed

– Listing error

.


### c) Water quality standards have changed or no longer apply in certain water
bodies If water quality standards have been revise d since a water body was listed in Category 5: 303(d), the data and information available for the current assessment were evaluated using the currently applicable criteria and the current assessment methodology. 7 If water quality standards have changed or the beneficial use designations for a water body have been refined since it was first listed in Category 5: 303(d), the numeric or narrative water quality criteria appropriate to the currently designated beneficial use were applied to evaluate data and

inf ormation. See Section IV. Assessment Protocols by Pollutant or Parameter for more detailed protocols for the pollutants with recent Oregon water quality standards changes including:

 Toxic pollutant criteria which were revised and became effective for Clean Water Act purposes in

2011 and 2012,

 Fish beneficial use designations where specific temperature and dissolved oxygen criteria apply,
which were clarified and became effective for Clean Water Act purposes in 2003, and

 Bacteria criteria in freshwater curre ntly measured as E . coli.

If available information showed that the currently effective criteria were being met, the water body was delisted and placed in Category 2: Attaining . The delisting action was noted as Delisted

– Criteria change

or use clarificat ion. When no data were available to evaluate against currently applicable criteria, or data were insufficient to demonstrate attainment of the current criteria, the water body remains in Category 5: 303(d).

If the beneficial use designation is no longer appropriate in a water body, and specific pollutant criteria do not apply, the previously listed water body was delisted. No status category was assigned in this case, but a note was added saying Criteria chan ge or use clarification . The delisting action was noted as Delisted

– Criteria change or use clarification. This may be the case for waters previously listed for temperature or dissolved oxygen based on spawning criteria, where the current designated use o f the water body does not include salmonid or resident trout spawning use. Once delisted, the assessment for the outdated criteria or beneficial use will no longer be reported in subsequent Integrated Reports.

If there are no currently applicable criteria because the pollutant criteria were withdrawn, the previously listed water body was delisted. No status category was assigned, but a note was added saying No criteria . The delisting action is noted as Delisted

– Criteria change or use clarification. This was the case for waters

7 See Toxic Substances section for discussion of the applicable criteria used for the 2012 Integrated Report.October 14 , 2014 21 previously listed for manganese which currently does not have criteria for freshwater in Oregon water quality

standards.



### d) Water quality standard pollutant changed With recent water quality standard changes, several toxic substance c riteria for a family or group of chemicals were replaced by criteria for individual chemicals. Examples are criteria for chemical groups such as dichlorobenzenes, dichloroethylenes, halomethanes, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons that are replaced with individual criteria. Data and information available for the current assessment were evaluated using the currently applicable criteria for the individual pollutants which are discussed in more detail in Section IV Assessment Protocols by Pollutant.

If ava ilable information showed that the currently effective criteria were being met for individual pollutants in the group, the water body listing for the chemical group was delisted with the delisting action noted as

Delisted

– Criteria change or use clarifica tion and the status noted No criteria . The water body was reported as Category 2: Attaining based on data for individual pollutants in the water body. When no data were available to evaluate against currently applicable criteria for individual pollutants, or data were insufficient to demonstrate attainment of the current criteria for individual pollutants, the water body remains in Category 5: 303(d).



### e) TMDLs approved for water body and pollutant After TMDLs for a water body and pollutant are completed by DEQ and approved by EPA, the water body can be delisted from Category 5: 303(d) and placed in Category 4A: Water Quality Limited TMDL Approved with the delisting action noted as Delisted

– TMDL approved. The water body retains the water quality limited status (per OAR 340

- 41

- 0002(70)) until information shows that water quality standards are attained. If a TMDL is developed for a pollutant on a watershed scale, all water body segments listed for that pollutant criteria within the watershed are delisted and plac ed in Category 4A. When the EPA approval of the TMDL states that the allocations will lead to attainment of the water quality criteria and that other water bodies identified as impaired for those pollutants do not need to be added to the Category 5: 303(d) list, waters identified as impaired in subsequent assessments are given the status of Category 4A: Water Quality Limited TMDL approved.



### f) Other pollution control requirements in place When pollution controls or practices required by local, State, or Federa l authorities are in place, and will result in the attainment of water quality standards in a reasonable period of time, these other requirements may be satisfactory alternatives to TMDLs that address impaired water and achieve restoration. Examples

other requirements are point source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permits or CWA Section 401 certification conditions for hydroelectric projects that address all the significant pollutant sources on a water body. The measures and conditions ar e expected to result in attainment of water quality standards. When these control measures are in place, the water bodies will be delisted from Category 5: 303(d) and placed in Category 4B: Water Quality Limited Other Control Measures in Place with the del isting action

noted as Delisted

– Other control measures in place

. 

### g) Pollutant does not cause impairment When data or information indicate that water body impairment is not being caused by pollutants , the water can be delisted from Category 5: 303(d) and pla ced in Category 4C: Water Quality Limited but a pollutant does not cause the impairment. The delisting action was noted as Delisted

– Water quality limited, not a pollutant . EPA defines a pollutant according to Section 502(6) of the Clean Water Act. In

Ore gon’s 1998 assessment, DEQ placed water bodies on the Category 5: 303(d) list based on observations that habitat modification and flow modification caused impairments of beneficial uses in those waters. Habitat modification listings were based on informati on indicating inadequate pool frequency and lack of large woody debris. Flow modification listings were based on inadequate flow to maintain in

- stream water rightsOctober 14 , 2014 22 purchased by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. However, EPA subsequently clarified tha t flow and habitat modification are not pollutants under the Clean Water Act. In 2002, ODEQ removed these water bodies from the 303(d) list.

Another case for delisting may be demonstrated in water bodies listed in Category 5: 303(d) for biocriteria or for other use impairments based on a harmful algae bloom (HAB) advisories or excess chlorophyll

- a levels. When sufficient data analysis or inform ation is available to conclude that the impairment is not due to a pollutant, the water will be delisted from Category 5: 303(d) and placed in Category 4C: Water Quality Limited but a pollutant does not cause the impairment. The delisting action is noted a s Delisted

– Water quality limited, not a pollutant

.


# E. Public Review

The draft 2012 Integrated Report and a draft 2012 list of water quality limited waters were available for public review and comment from January 2

, 2014 through 5:00 PM February 24, 2014

. A public hearing to

take comment on the draft list was held on January 14, 2014.

DEQ review ed the submitted public comments and made changes to the 2012 Integrated Report and 2012 303(d) list where appropriate . DEQ prepare d a document summarizing public c omments and DEQ’s response

to those comments. The final 2012 Integrated Report and 303(d) list submitted to EPA reflect all changes DEQ found to be appropriate.



# F. Submittal of Oregon’s 2012 Integrated Report and 303(d) List

DEQ will submit Oregon’s 2012 Sect ion 303(d) list of Category 5: Water quality limited waters needing a TMDL to US EPA Region 10 for review and approval

. Along with the Section 303(d) list, DEQ will also submit to EPA the 2012 Integrated Report, response to comments, the Methodology for Or egon's 2012 Water Quality Report on List of Water Quality Limited Waters , and a prioritization and TMDL schedule. Only water bodies in the Category 5: Water quality limited waters needing a TMDL (Section 303(d) list) are subject to EPA’s approval.October 14 , 2014 23 

# IV. Assessment Protocols by

Pollutant or Parameter

For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ evaluated water quality data and information to determine if the water quality standards set out in Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340 Division 41 (OAR 340

- 041) are be ing met in Oregon. In the following sections, the assessment protocols used to determine the water quality status and assign an assessment category to a water body are discussed for specific parameters/pollutants, narrative and numeric criteria, and design ated uses. The water quality standard citation from Oregon Administrative Rules is given for each parameter. 8 Each parameter and criterion is evaluated independently. Data are evaluated for each monitoring site, and an overall status was assigned to the wa ter body assessment unit segment based on the available site monitoring data and information. Data are not available for all parameters in each water body. Therefore, Category 1 indicating all designated uses are supported and all criteria are met

is not u sed for Oregon’s assessment.

The protocols for the 2012 Integrated Report evaluation build on and update protocols and methodologies used in past water quality assessments for 303(d) and 305(b) reporting. Results from previous assessments

remain valid if not updated with new data or information and are incorporated in the 2012 Integrated Report. All protocols for pollutants or parameters that have been evaluated in past assessments as well as the protocols updated and applied for the 2012 Integrated Report are described in the following sections.

8 OAR numbering changes periodically as rules are revised. Every attempt has been made to update the corresponding rule citation in this document to reflect the numbering current at the date of this document.October 14 , 2014 24October 14 , 2014 25 

## PARAMETER: Aquatic Weeds or Algae

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Domestic and Industrial Water Supply, Irrigation, Livestock Watering, Fish and Aquatic Life, Fishing, Boating, Water Contact Recreation, Aesthetic Quality

NARRATIVE CRITERIA: OAR 340

- 41

- 0007

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0019

340

- 041

- 0007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (9) The development of fungi or other growths having a deleterious effect on stream bottoms, fish or other aquatic life, or tha t are injurious to health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed;

340

- 041

- 0019 Nuisance Phytoplankton Growth See: Chlorophyll

- a



### ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL: This protocol will be used to implement the statewide narrative criterion that prohibits deleterio us or injurious effects on aquatic and human beneficial uses from biological growths, and will be applied specifically to aquatic weeds or algae. The growth of aquatic weeds or algae does not in itself indicate deleterious or injurious effects on beneficia l uses. Nor does it identify whether a pollutant or which pollutant is causing the impairment and should be addressed by point source or other controls through a Total Maximum Daily Load. This assessment protocol identifies the indicators that will be used to determine that beneficial uses have been negatively affected by the presence of excess algal or weed growth



### .

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:
Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List)

 Aquatic Weeds: Documented reports of excessive growths of invasive, non

- native aquatic plants that dominate the assemblage in a water body and have a harmful effect on fish or aquatic life or are injurious to health, recreation, or industry. Plants include aquatic species on the Oregon Department

of A griculture Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System designated as “A”, “B”, or “T” weeds or those covered by a quarantine in OAR 603

- 052

- 1200.

 Algae: Health advisories issued by the Oregon Health Authority , in conjunction with other federal,

state, co unty, city or local agencies, warning that potentially harmful levels of toxins produced by

blue

- green algae (cyanobacteria) are present in a water body. Health advisories related to recreational water contact are posted by the Oregon Public Health Divisio n Harmful Algae Bloom Surveillance (HABS) program at: http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/Recreation/HarmfulAlgaeBlooms/Pages/Blue

GreenAlgaeAdvisories.aspx

.

 Algae: Documented evidence that algae, including periphyton (attached algae) or phytoplankton (floating algae), are causing other standa rds to be exceeded (e.g. pH, chlorophyll a, or dissolved oxygen) or impairing a beneficial use.October 14 , 2014 26 Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed

 TMDLs for specific pollutants have been completed and approved to address the excessive or harmful aquatic weed or algae growth in a water body (Category 4A);

 Another control mechanism such as an aquatic vegetation management plan is in place and is being implemented to control plant growth (Category 4B); or

 Adequate information indicates that the algae or weed growth is not due to pollutants or is a natural condition (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Available data or information for the water body are not sufficient to determine if the narrative criterion is exceeded. (See NOTE on Phosphate Phosphorus Benchmark under Toxic Substances.)

Category 2: Attaining Not applicable.



### TIME PERIOD:

Year Round



### DATA REQUIREMENTS:
Information, data or health advisories.



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data or information for aquatic weeds or algae for the 2012 Integrated Report.



### Last Data Review DEQ evaluated data and information for aquatic weeds or algae for the 2010 Integrated Report.October 14 , 2014 27 

## PARAMETER: Bacteria

- E. coli (Escherichia coli)

(Freshwaters and Estuarine Waters Other than Shellfish Growing Waters)

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED : Water Contact Recreation

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0009(4)

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0009(1) (a)

340

- 041

- 0009

Bacteria (1) Numeric Criteria: Organisms of the coliform group commonly associated with fecal sources (MPN or equivalent membrane filtration using a representative number of samples) may not exceed the criteria described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph: (a) Freshwaters and Estuarine Waters Other than Shell fish Growing Waters: (A) A 30

- day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters, based on a minimum of five (5) samples; (B) No single sample may exceed 406 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters. (4) Bacterial pollution or other conditions delete rious to waters used for domestic purposes, livestock watering, irrigation, bathing, or shellfish propagation, or otherwise injurious to public health may not be allowed;



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (3 03(d) List)

A 30

- day log mean greater than 126 E. coli organisms per 100 ml based on a minimum of five (5) samples, or more than 10% of the samples exceed 406 E. coli organisms per 100 ml, with a minimum of at least two

exceedances.

Category 4: Water Qual ity Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), other pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water quality standards (Category 4B), or impair ment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Less than 5 samples are available to evaluate for the season of interest, or 5 to 9 samples for the season of interest with 1 sample exceeding 406 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern Less than 5 samples are available to evaluate for the season of interest, with 2 or more samples exceeding 406 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters.

Category 2: Attaining

The 30

- day log mea n is equal to or less than 126 E. coli organisms per 100 ml based on a minimum of five (5) samples, and , if data from 10 or more samples are available, 90% of the samples are below 406 E. coli organisms per 100 ml. If data from 5 to 9 samples are available , no exceedances of 406 E. coli organisms per

100 ml.October 14 , 2014 28 If data are insufficient to calculate a 30

- day log mean, then, for 10 or more samples, 90% of the samples are below 406 E. coli organisms per 100 ml; or for 5 to 9 samples, no samples greater than 406 E. coli organisms per 100 ml.



### TIME PERIOD: Summer: June 1 through September 30 (period of highest use for water contact recreation). (A summer 30

- day log mean is calculated for sampling dates beginning on May 17 through September 16.)

Fall

- Winter

- Spring (FWS): October 1 through May 31. (A FWS 30

- day log mean is calculated for sampling dates beginning September 17 through May 16.)



### DATA REQUIREMENTS: Data collected since 2001. A minimum of 5 representative data points available per site collected on separate days for each time period of interest. The numeric value of results reported as the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) was used to calculate the 30

- day log mean.



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data for E. coli bacteria for the 2012 Integrated Report.

DEQ reviewed EPA action on Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. Where EPA found impairments from E. coli bacteria but did not add new 303(d) listings because TMDLs were already approved, DEQ added these assessments as new Category 4A rec ords for the 2012 Integrated Report based on EPA’s analysis of data.

Last Data Review EPA reviewed E. coli bacteria data to propose additions to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. EPA took final action on the 303(d) additions in December, 2012.



### NOTES:

The E. coli numeric criteria protect water contact recreational uses in freshwaters and estuarine waters.

Estuarine waters are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(22) to mean all mixed fresh and oceanic water in estuaries or bays from the point of oceanic water intrusion inland to a line connecting the outermost points of the headlands or protective jetties. For the review of water quality data, the inland extent of estuarine waters was identified where recorded specific conductivity measurements were above 200 uS/cm.

Th e E. coli numeric criteria are not applied in marine waters.

The bacteria standard was changed in 1996 to use E. coli as the indicator organism for water contact recreation protection, replacing the previous standard based on fecal coliform. Only the cur rent E. coli standard is applied in freshwaters and estuarine non

- shellfish growing waters in reviewing data for the assessment. Listings in previous years may have identified freshwater water bodies as water quality limited using fecal coliform as the ind icator. If data evaluated for the assessment show the current E. coli criteria for freshwater are met, the water body will be delisted for older fecal coliform listings. The listings are retained if no data for E. coli are available for the evaluation, or if E. coli is also listed.

Estuarine waters are also considered coastal recreation water subject to the federal water quality criteria based on Enterococci, and are additionally presumed to be potential shellfish growing waters, subject to the fecal

colif orm criteria to protect that beneficial use. The assessment methods for these standards are discussed in

the next sections.October 14 , 2014 29 

## PARAMETER: Bacteria

- Enterococci

(Coastal Recreation Waters including Marine Coastal Waters and Coastal Estuaries) 9

BENEFICIAL U SES AFFECTED: Water Contact Recreation

NUMERIC CRITERION: 40 CFR Part 131.41 (Water quality criteria for Oregon marine coastal recreation waters promulgated by EPA effective 12/16/2004)

40 CFR Part 131.41 (c) EPA’s section 304(a) ambient water quality criteria for bacteria. (2) Marine waters:



### A

Indicator B

Geometric

mean C Single sample maximum (per 100 ml)

C2

Moderate use coastal recreation waters (82% confidence level)

Enterococci c 

### 35/100 ml a 

### 158 b

Footnotes to table in paragraph (c)(2):

a. This value is for use with analytical methods 1106.1 or 1600 or any equivalent method that

measures viable bacteria. b. Calculated using the following: single sample maximum = geometric mean*10^ (confidence level factor*log standard deviation), where the confid ence level factor is: 75%: 0.68; 82%: 0.94; 90%: 1.28; 95%: 1.65. The log standard deviation from EPA’s epidemiological studies is 0.7. c. These values apply to enterococci regardless of origin unless a sanitary survey shows that sources

of the indicator b acteria are non

- human and an epidemiological study shows that the indicator

densities are not indicative of a human health risk.



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: EPA recommends using the geometric mean as the relevant criteria for 303(d) listing purpose s. 10 The single sample maximum is a statistical construct to allow decisions for beach advisories based on small data sets. Marine waters in coastal Oregon have not been designated for a specific level of recreational use. The single sample maximum criterio n for moderate use coastal recreation waters is currently used by the Oregon Health Authority Beach Monitoring Program to trigger a water contact advisory. See http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/Recreation/BeachWaterQuality/Pages/index.aspx

.

9 40 CFR Part 131.41 (b) Definitions. (1) Coastal Recreation Waters are the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are designated under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act for use for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact activities. Coastal recreation w aters do not include inland waters or waters upstream from the mouth of a river or stream having an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi

- bin/text

- idx?SID=316ff723c7e3f73322676fb3ce32a8af&node=se40.22.131_141&rgn=div8

10 US EPA Office of Water, EPA

- 823

- F

- 06

- 013, August 2006, Water Quality Standards for Coastal Recreation Waters: Using Single Sample Maximum Values in State Water Quality StandardsOctober 14 , 2014 30 Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) A geometric mean for samples collected over a seasonal sampling period greate r than 35 Enterococci per 100 ml based on a sample set of 5 or more samples.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), other pollution control requirement s are expected to address pollutant and will attain water quality standards (Category 4B), or impairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Less than 5 samples are available for evaluation for a seasonal sampling per iod.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern Less than 5 samples are available for a seasonal sampling period, and one or more samples exceeds the single sample maximum of 158 Enterococci per 100 ml, or the Oregon Beach Monitoring Program has i ssued one or more advisories based on monitoring results for Enterococci in a seasonal sampling period (not including precautionary advisories).

Category 2: Attaining The geometric mean for samples collected over a seasonal sampling period is equal or less than 35 Enterococci per 100 ml.



### TIME PERIOD: Summer: May 1 through September 30 (period of highest use for water contact recreation) Winter: October 1 through April 30



### DATA REQUIREMENTS: Data collected since 2001. A minimum of 5 representative data points available per site collected on separate days for each seasonal time period in a given year. For results reported at or below the Minimum Reporting Level (<MRL), the numeric value of the MRL was used to calculate the geometric mean.



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data or information for Enterococci bacteria for the 2012 Integrated Report.



### Last Data Review DEQ evaluated data and information for Enterococci bac teria for the 2010 Integrated Report.



### NOTES:

Coastal recreation waters for the assessment are identified as all marine waters and coastal estuaries. Coastal recreation waters do not include inland waters or waters upstream from the mouth of a river or str eam having an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea.

The Oregon Beach Monitoring Program has identified 92 coastal beaches in Oregon. Each of these beaches is assigned a beach name and beach identification number that are used in reporting to EP A. For the Integrated Report, the identified coastal beaches were used as the assessment units and defined as segments along the

Pacific Ocean or an estuarine river location.

The Oregon Beach Monitoring Program may issue precautionary advisories based on heavy rainfall, flooding, or sewage spills. These advisories are not included in the data summarized in the assessment.October 14 , 2014 31 

## PARAMETER: Bacteria

– Fecal coliform

(Marine Waters and Estuarine Shellfish Growing Waters)

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Shellfish Growing (fishing/shellfish consumption)

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0007(10)

OAR 340

- 041

- 0009(4)

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0009(1) (b)

340

- 041

- 0007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (10) The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other conditions that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or affect the potability of drinking water or the palatability of fish or shellfish may not be allowed;

340

- 041

- 0009

Bacteria (1) Numeric Criteria: Organisms of the coliform group commonly associated with fecal sources (MPN or equivalent membrane filtration using a representative number of samples) may not exceed the criteria described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph: (b) Marine Waters and Estuarine Shellfish Growing Waters: A fecal coliform m edian concentration of 14 organisms per 100 milliliters, with not more than ten percent of the samples exceeding 43 organisms per 100 ml. (4) Bacterial pollution or other conditions deleterious to waters used for domestic purposes, livestock watering, irr igation, bathing, or shellfish propagation, or otherwise injurious to public health may not be allowed;



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:
Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) For a datasets of less than 30 samples, a minimum of 2 exceedances of 43 organisms/100 ml. For datasets with greater than 30 samples, 10% of the samples must exceed 43 organisms/100mL. OR, for datasets with a minimum of 5 samples, the median value is greater than 14 organisms/100 ml.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), other pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water quality standards (Category 4B), or impairmen t is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Less than 5 samples available for analysis, or 5 to 9 samples with 1 exceedance and the median is 14 organisms/100 ml or less.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern Less than 5 samples available to evaluate, with 2 or more samples exceeding 43 organisms per 100 milliliters.

Category 2: Attaining A minimum number of 5 samples per site, with 90% of the samples less than 43 organisms/100 ml and the

median value of 14 or ganisms/100 ml or less.October 14 , 2014 32 

### TIME PERIOD:

Year Round



### DATA REQUIREMENTS: Data collected since 2001. A minimum of 5 representative samples per site collected on separate days. The numeric values of results reported at or above the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) were used to calculate

the median concentration. Data were evaluated for marine and estuarine waters.



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data for fecal coliform bacteria for the 2012 Integrated Report.

DEQ reviewed EPA action on O regon’s 2010 303(d) list. Where EPA found impairments from fecal coliform bacteria but did not add new 303(d) listings because TMDLs were already approved, DEQ added these assessments as new Category 4A records for the 2012 Integrated Report based on EPA’s 

### analysis of data.

Last Data Review EPA reviewed fecal coliform bacteria data to propose additions to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. EPA took final action on the 303(d) additions in December, 2012.



### NOTES: DEQ has determined that fecal coliform water quality criteria should be applied to marine and estuarine waters that support recreational shellfish harvesting as well as commercial shellfish harvesting (Minutes from the Estuary Workgroup Meeting, DEQ, Newport, Oregon, July 13, 2001).

Marine waters are define d in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(34) as all oceanic, offshore water outside of estuaries or bays and within the territorial limits of Oregon. Estuarine waters are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(22) as mixed fresh and oceanic water in estuaries or bays from the point of oceanic water intrusion inland to a line connecting the outermost points of the headlands or protective jetties. For the review of water quality data, the inland extent of estuarine waters was identified where recorded specific conductivity measurements we re above 200 uS/cm. However, coastal lakes were not included as estuarine shellfish growing waters for this

assessment.

The fecal coliform criteria protect the beneficial use of shellfish growing in marine and estuarine waters. Prior to 1996, fecal coliform were also the indicator organisms to protect water contact recreation in freshwater and estuarine waters. The bacteria standard was changed in 1996 to use E. coli as the indicator organism. However, assessments in previous ye ars may have identified freshwater water bodies as water quality limited for water contact recreation using fecal coliform data. These listings are retained unless data for E. coli are

available for evaluation for the current assessment. If data show the c urrent E. coli criteria are met, the water body will be delisted for water contact recreation impairments.

Marine and estuarine waters are also subject to the federal water quality criteria protecting water contact

recreation use in coastal waters based o n Enterococci as the indicator organism. The assessment of this use in coastal recreation waters is discussed in the previous section on Enterococci.October 14 , 2014 33 

## PARAMETER: Biocriteria

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Aquatic Life

NARRATIVE CRITERION : OAR 340

- 041

- 0011

340

- 041

- 0011

Biocriteria Waters of the State must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental changes in the resident biological communities.



### NARRATIVE ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL: Detrimental changes in resident biological communitie s are a form of pollution. 11

, 12 EPA guidance recommends using biological community assessments as an indicator for aquatic life beneficial use support. 13
This protocol is used to implement Oregon’s narrative standard for Biocriteria. The protocol applies nume ric benchmarks to evaluate the integrity of aquatic biological communities. Biological assessments look at conditions in the biological communities, but do not by themselves indicate if changes are related to pollutants, or identify which pollutant should be addressed by point source or other controls through a Total Maximum Daily Load. EPA guidance recommends listing waters with aquatic use impairments as Category 5: 303(d) even if the pollutant is not known. 14 This protocol outlines the process and assessm ent category assignment that Oregon used for the Integrated Report to apply the narrative criterion.

This protocol is based on biological assemblage information for freshwater macroinvertebrates collected by DEQ at reference sites throughout Oregon. Fresh water macroinvertebrates include insects, crustaceans, snails, clams, worms, mites, etc. DEQ identifies sites in a given region that are least disturbed by anthropogenic

activities and uses these as reference sites. 15 Biological assessment tools use informa tion from these reference sites to predict the variety and number of aquatic life species expected in Oregon streams and to make inferences about the biological condition of the waters. 16

Assessing Macroinvertebrate Communities To assess the biological int egrity of macroinvertebrate communities, DEQ used a statistical method called a multivariate predictive model. 17 Using data from reference sites, the model describes the number and types of macroinvertebrates that are expected to be in a water body when the water is in least disturbed conditions. Reference sites are grouped by predictor variable factors that are not affected by human activities (e.g., sampling date, ecoregion, longitude, elevation, precipitation, or air temperature). DEQ developed a model

sp ecifically for Oregon, but similar model approaches are used for bioassessments in the United Kingdom (RIVPACS), Australia (AusRIVas), Canada (BEAST), and in broad areas in the United States (typically called RIVPACS models, though different from the U. K. models).

11 Federal Water Pollution Act Section 502(19) (33 U.S.C 1362) (Clean Water Act)

12 Oregon Administrative Rules 340

- 041

- 0002(39)

13 US EPA, July 29, 205, Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act, page 41.

14 US EPA, July 29, 205, Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act, page 60.

15 Drake, D., April 2004, Selecting Reference Condition Sites

- An Approach for Biological Criteria and Watershed Assessment, ODEQ Technical Report WSA04

- 002. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts /docs/WSA04002.pdf

16 Stoddard,J.L., et.al., 2006. Setting Expectations for the Ecological Condition of Streams: The Concept of Reference Condition. Ecological Applications. 16(4): 1267

- 1276

17 Hubler, S., July 2008, PREDATOR: Development and Use of RIVPACS

- type Macroinvertebrate Models to Assess the Biotic Condition of Wadeable Oregon Streams, Technical Report DEQ08

- LAB

- 0048

- TROctober 14 , 2014 34 DEQ developed the PRED ictive A ssessment T ool for OR egon, or PREDATOR, to assess the macroinvertebrate communities in Oregon’s perennial, wadeable streams. PREDATOR analyzes data from reference sites grouped into three regions in Oregon and model s the expected assemblage. Information from a sampling site can be compared to the macroinvertebrate assemblage predicted by the model and an assessment made about how different the observed assemblage is from the expected or reference assemblage.

Data col lected at a sampling site is used to generate a number for the observed versus expected (O/E) macroinvertebrate taxa. This number represents the “missing” taxa at a site, and can be expressed as “% taxa

loss”.

For the assessment, DEQ selected values of % taxa loss to use to assign a status category to a water body. The benchmark values are indicators of differences from reference conditions that may indicate detrimental changes to biological communities and an impairment in aquatic life use support that vi olates the narrative standard. A discussion of the scientific basis for the model development, statistical analysis of reference site data, and basis for selecting benchmark values in terms of the reference site distributions in different regions in Oregon is given in a separate technical paper. 16



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: Benchmark values are expressed in terms of the percent of taxa not found in a site assemblage compared to the expected assemblage predicted by the PREDATOR model. The benchmark values are summarized in

Table 7.

Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) Macroinvertebrate sampling data from perennial, wadeable streams evaluated by DEQ using the PREDATOR model showing:

 ≥ 15% taxa loss in the Marine Western Coasta l Forest (MWCF) region,

 ≥ 22% taxa loss in the Western Cordillera and Columbia Plateau (WCCP) region, or

 ≥ 50% taxa loss in the Northern Basin and Range (NBR) region.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed In some water bodies, DEQ has infor mation relating specific pollutants to the condition of the biological communities in the water body. Where data are available identifying a specific pollutant as the cause of detrimental changes to biological communities, and a TMDL has been approved with load allocations for the pollutant, the water body will be placed in Category 4 if no additional TMDLs are needed. Water bodies will also be placed in Category 4 for biological criteria if adequate information is available to indicate that

detrimental cha nges to biological communities are not due to a pollutant.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern Some macroinvertebrate sampling data from perennial, wadeable streams evaluated using the PREDATOR

model are inconclusive and are insufficient to assign a status category until additional information is

collected.

Macroinvertebrate sampling data from perennial, wadeable streams evaluated by DEQ using the PREDATOR model showing:

 8% to 14% taxa loss or > 24% taxa gain in the Marine Western Coastal F orest (MWCF) region,

 8% to 21% taxa loss or > 23% taxa gain in the Western Cordillera and Columbia Plateau (WCCP) region, or

 25% to 49% taxa loss in the Northern Basin and Range (NBR) region.October 14 , 2014 35 Results showing taxa loss in these ranges could be due to sam pling error or modeling error and may be over

or under

- estimating taxa loss. A large gain of observed taxa over expected may indicate more natural diversity, or may indicate disturbance that has enhanced diversity. 18 Additional samples are necessary to

bett er assess biological conditions. A minimum of 5 replicate samples should be collected to provide sufficient data for status classification. The stream is a potential concern until more information is evaluated.

Category 2: Attaining Macroinvertebrate samp ling data from perennial, wadeable streams evaluated by DEQ using the PREDATOR model showing:

 0% to 8% taxa loss or 0% to 24% taxa gain in the Marine Western Coastal Forest (MWCF) region,

 0% to 7% taxa loss or 0% to 23% taxa gain in the Western Cordillera and Columbia Plateau (WCCP) region, or

 < 25% taxa loss in the Northern Basin and Range (NBR) region.



### TIME PERIOD:

Year Round



### DATA REQUIREMENTS: Site sample data must be collected during or after 1998 to be comparable to the reference site data (1998 to 2004) that is used in the PREDATOR model. Site samples must be collected within the model season of June 1 through October 15. Field duplicates and seasonal replicate samples are averaged to account for sampling and seasonal variability.

Site sample data must be collected using standard field methods and identified to appropriate taxonomic levels, as described in the DEQ Mode of Operations Manual, or equivalent protocols used throughout the

Pacific Northwest. 19 The standard method for macroinvertebrate sam pling requires collecting organisms from specific habitats within a specified size reach of a stream. The data are evaluated to generate one sample result

in the PREDATOR model.

One sample result is sufficient to evaluate for the assessment using the benc hmarks developed from the PREDATOR model. If samples from multiple years are available, the most recent sample result in either Category 2: Attaining or Category 5: 303(d) will determine the site status. If the most recent sample result is Category 2: Atta ining and a previous sample is Category 5: 303(d), the site status will be Category 3B. Recent Category 2: Attaining sample results must outnumber earlier Category 5: 303(d) sample results for the site status to be considered Category 2.

When results for replicate site samples are collected to clarify inconclusive results (Category 3B), a minimum of 5 samples is required to achieve the target statistical confidence. The site will be assigned a status category if 3 out of 5 replicate samples show results in the Category 2: Attaining or Category 5: 303(d) ranges. Replicate samples must be collected in the same sampling season, in the same reach, or in adjacent and comparable reaches.



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data or informat ion for biocriteria for the 2012 Integrated Report.

18 Ward, J.W, and Stanford, J.A., 1983, Intermediate

- Disturbance Hypothesis: An Explanation for Biotic Diversity Patterns in Lotic Ecosystems. In Dynamics of Lotic Systems, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI, pages 347

- 356.

19 ODEQ, 2009, Mode of Operations Man ual, Version 3.2, DEQ03

- LAB

- 0036

- SOP, http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/docs/DEQ03LAB0036SOP.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 36 DEQ reviewed EPA’s action on Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. Based on EPA’s determination that waters with impaired biological conditions should be placed on the 303(d) list, DEQ re

- assigned several waters to Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List).

Last Data Review DEQ evaluated data and information for biocriteria for the 2010 Integrated Report. EPA reviewed DEQ’s analysis and determined that waters with impaired biological conditions s hould be added to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. EPA took final action to add these waters to the 303(d) list in December, 2012.



### DELISTING: Once TMDLs are approved for pollutants that will also improve biological conditions, water bodies may be

delisted for biocriteria. These waters will be placed in Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not

Needed if no additional TMDLs are needed.

Water bodies may be delisted for biocriteria based on multiple site sampling events showing results that are attaining benchmarks. A minimum of 5 samples must be collected in the same sampling season and in the same or adjacent and comparable reaches, with 3 out of 5 samples showing results that attain appropriate benchmarks. These waters will be placed in Category 2: Atta ining.



### SEGMENTATION: General segmentation protocols will be followed (Appendix 1). The status category from one sampling site will apply to the sampling reach and upstream portions of the wadeable, perennial stream. A minimum segment length of 0.6 miles will be imposed when multiple sample sites are closely located within a small stream reach. Given the sampling design and field protocols, assessment segments less than 0.6 miles are likely to impose artificial divisions that are not true representations o f stream conditions.

Table 7 : Biocriteria Assessment Benchmarks

PREDATOR Model Region Assessment Category

Category 5: Water Quality

Limited Category 3B:

Insufficient Data Potential

Concern Category 2: Attaining

Marine Western

Coastal Forest ≥ 15% taxa loss 9%

- 14% taxa loss or > 24% taxa gain 0%

- 8% taxa loss or

0%

- 24% taxa gain

PREDATOR score ≤ 0.85 PREDATOR score

0.86 to 0.91 or > 1.24 PREDATOR score

0.92 to 1.24

Western

Cordillera and

Columbia

Plateau ≥ 22% taxa loss 8%

- 21% taxa loss or > 23% taxa gain 0%

- 7% taxa loss or

0%

- 23% taxa gain

PREDATOR score ≤ 0.78 PREDATOR score

0.79 to 0.92 or > 1.23 PREDATOR score

0.93 to 1.23

Northern Basin and Range ≥ 50% taxa loss 25%

- 49% taxa loss < 25% taxa loss

PREDATOR score ≤ 0.50 PREDATOR score

0.49 to 0.75 PREDATOR score > 0.75October 14 , 2014 37 

## PARAMETER: Chlorophyll a

(Nuisance Phytoplankton Growth)

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Water Contact Recreation

Aesthetics Fishing Water Supply Livestock Watering

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0019

340

- 041

- 0019 Nuisance Phytoplankton Growth (1) (a) The following values and implementation program must be applied to lakes, reservoirs, estuaries and streams, except for ponds and reservoirs less than ten acres in surface area, marshes a nd

saline lakes: (b) The following average Chlorophyll a values must be used to identify water bodies where phytoplankton may impair the recognized beneficial uses: (A) Natural lakes that thermally stratify: 0.01 mg/1; (B) Natural lakes that do not therma lly stratify, reservoirs, rivers and estuaries: 0.015 mg/1; (C) Average Chlorophyll a values may be based on the following methodology (or other methods approved by the Department): A minimum of three samples collected over any three consecutive months at a minimum of one representative location (e.g., above the deepest point of a lake or reservoir or at a point mid

- flow of a river) from samples integrated from the surface to a depth equal to twice the secchi depth or the bottom (the lesser of the two dept hs); analytical and quality assurance methods must

be in accordance with the most recent edition of Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater.



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:
Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) Lis t) The average Chlorophyll a value over three consecutive months exceeds the value referenced in the rule. The average must be calculated with at least one sample in each month.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed

 TMDLs for specific polluta nts have been completed and approved to address nuisance phytoplankton growth and exceedance of chlorophyll a values in a water body (Category 4A);

 Another control mechanism such as a control strategy develop and adopted according to OAR 340

- 041

- 0019(2) is being implemented to control phytoplankton growth (Category 4B); or

 Adequate information indicates that phytoplankton proliferation is not due to pollutants or is a natural condition (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Less than 3 samples availa ble in three consecutive months to calculate an average, or less than one sample available in any month of the three consecutive month period.October 14 , 2014 38 Category 2: Attaining The average Chlorophyll a value over three consecutive months is less than the value referenced in the rule.



### TIME PERIOD: Summer: June 1 through September 30 or three month periods beginning May through August

Fall

- Winter

- Spring (FWS): October 1 through May 31 or three month periods beginning September through April



### DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Da ta collected since 2001. A minimum of three samples collected over any three consecutive months (at least one per month) at a minimum of one representative location (e.g., above the deepest point of a lake or reservoir or at a point mid flow of a river).



### DATA REVIEWED:
2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data or information for Chlorophyll a for the 2012 Integrated Report.

DEQ reviewed EPA action on Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. Where EPA found impairments from Chlorophyll a but did not add new 303(d ) listings because TMDLs were already approved, DEQ added these assessments as new Category 4A records for the 2012 Integrated Report based on EPA’s analysis of data.



### Last Data Review EPA reviewed Chlorophyll a data to propose additions to Oregon’s 2010 3 03(d) list. EPA took final action on the 303(d) additions in December, 2012.



### NOTES: Information on thermally stratified lakes was obtained from the Atlas of Oregon Lakes 20

.

Lakes are identified by an LLID assigned to a point at the center of the water body. They may also be identified with an LLID for a stream which flows into or out of the lake, and river miles are assigned at those points on the stream line.

Saline lakes were identified in coastal areas and Oregon Closed Basins where recorded specifi c conductivity measurements were generally above 200 uS/cm.

20 Johnson, D.M., Petersen, R.R., Lycan, D.R., Sweet, J.W., Neuhaus, M.E., Schaedel, A.L., 1985, Atlas of Oregon Lakes: Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University Press, 317 p.October 14 , 2014 39 

## PARAMETER: Dissolved Oxygen

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Fish and Aquatic Life Salmon and Steelhead Spawning Resident Trout Spawning

Cold

- Water Aquatic Life

Cool

- Water Aquatic Life

Warm

- Water Aquatic Life

Estuarine Water

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0016

340

- 041

- 0016 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen (DO): No wastes may be discharged and no activities may be conducted that either

alone or in combination with other wastes or acti vities will cause violation of the following standards: The changes adopted by the Commission on January 11, 1996, become effective July 1, 1996. Until that time, the requirements of this rule that were in effect on January 10, 1996, apply: (1) For water b odies identified as active spawning areas in the places and times indicated on the following Tables and Figures set out in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340: Tables 101B, 121B, and 190B, and Figures 130B, 151B, 160B, 170B, 180A, 201A, 220B, 230B, 260A, 271B , 286B, 300B, 310B, 320B, and 340B, (as well as any active spawning area used by resident trout species), the following criteria apply during the applicable spawning through fry emergence periods set forth in the tables and figures and, where resident trou t spawning occurs, during the time trout spawning through fry emergence occurs: (a) The dissolved oxygen may not be less than 11.0 mg/l. However, if the minimum intergravel dissolved oxygen, measured as a spatial median, is 8.0 mg/l or greater, then the

DO criterion is 9.0 mg/l; (b) Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of the 11.0 mg/l or 9.0 mg/l criteria, dissolved oxygen levels must not be less than 95 percent of saturation; (c) The spatial median intergr avel dissolved oxygen concentration must not fall below 8.0 mg/l. (2) For water bodies identified by the Department as providing cold

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 8.0 mg/l as an absolute minimum. Where conditions of baromet ric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of the 8.0 mg/l, dissolved oxygen may not be less than 90 percent of saturation. At the discretion of the Department, when the Department determines that adequate information exists, the dissolved oxygen may not fall below 8.0 mg/l as a

30

- day mean minimum, 6.5 mg/l as a seven

- day minimum mean, and may not fall below 6.0 mg/l as an absolute minimum (Table 21); (3) For water bodies identified by the Department as providing cool

- water aquatic life, t he dissolved oxygen may not be less than 6.5 mg/l as an absolute minimum. At the discretion of the Department, when the Department determines that adequate information exists, the dissolved oxygen may not fall below 6.5 mg/l as a 30

- day mean minimum, 5.0 m g/l as a seven

- day minimum mean, and may not fall below 4.0 mg/l as an absolute minimum (Table 21); (4) For water bodies identified by the Department as providing warm

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 5.5 mg/l as an absolute mi nimum. At the discretion of the Department, when the Department determines that adequate information exists, the dissolved oxygen may not fall below 5.5 mg/l as a 30

- day mean minimum, and may not fall below 4.0 mg/l as an absolute minimum (Table 21);October 14 , 2014 40

(5) F or estuarine water, the dissolved oxygen concentrations may not be less than 6.5 mg/l (for coastal water bodies); (6) For ocean waters, no measurable reduction in dissolved oxygen concentration may be allowed.



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:
Category 5 : Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) For the time period of interest (spawning or non

- spawning), greater than 10% of the samples do not meet the appropriate criteria, and at least 2 samples do not meet the criteria.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), other pollution control requirements are expected to address the pollutant and result in the attainment of water quality standards (Catego ry 4B), or impairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Fewer than 5 samples collected on separate days for the time period of interest, or 5 to 9 samples for the time period of interest with 1 sample that does not meet the appropriate criterion.

Category 2: Attaining For 10 or more samples in the time period of interest, greater than 90% of samples meet the appropriate criteria. For 5 to 9 samples in the time period of interest, all samples meet the appropriate cri teria.



### TIME PERIOD: Spawning Time Period: During places and times indicated in tables and figures referenced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0016(1) as active spawning areas and any active spawning area used by resident trout species.

Non

- Spawning Time Period: Year round or during periods outside the identified spawning time period.



### DATA REQUIREMENTS: Data collected since 2000. A minimum of 5 samples collected on separate days per site per applicable criteria time period (spawning or non

- spawning) are required. A sample c an be one “grab sample” or a single measurement in a set of continuous monitoring data results (i.e. multiple measurements collected over an extended time period). For the 2012 Integrated Report, all samples including grab samples and single

measurements i n continuous data sets were counted as discreet samples

.

For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ calculated a “percent saturation” in order to fully apply the spawning and cold water dissolved oxygen criteria using a known and consistent methodology. DEQ used sample temperature data and derived station elevations from 30 meter Digital Elevation Model data to calculate a percent saturation value using the following equation: 21 Although field measurements of percent saturation may be collected, DEQ did not evalua te sample results that did not have the necessary corresponding temperature value to calculate the percent saturation for the 2012 Integrated Report.

21 Pelletier and Chapra. 2008. Qual2Kw theory and documentation (version 5.1), Washington Department of Ecology

, Olympia, WA.October 14 , 2014 41 Where PS = Percent saturation dissolved oxygen,

DO Theo = Theoretical Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L,

DO Meas = Measured Dissolved Oxygen in mg/L, T = Temperature in Kelvin, and
Site_elvm = Site elevation in meters



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ evaluated the following data for dissolved oxygen for the 2012 Integrated Report:

USGS data

- Monitoring results for dissolved oxygen for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2011 from 563 sampling locations in the Willamette Basin and the Umatilla subbasin (Hydrologic Unit Code 17070103 )

.

DEQ LASAR data

- Monitoring results for dissolved oxygen from continuous sampling and grab sampling for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2011 from 772 sampling locations in

the Willamette Basin and the Umatilla subbasin (Hydrologic Unit Code 17070103 )

.



### DETERMINING APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Oregon’s water quality standards for dissolved oxygen include different criteria for freshwaters supporting several types of aquatic life including sensitive fish species and life stages, as well as criteria for estuarine and

ocean waters. The c riteria apply to various waters throughout the state and at different time periods throughout a calendar year. Determining the applicable criteria to use to assess dissolved oxygen data is the first step in the data evaluation process. The water quality st andards have been clarified through several policy letters and memorandum that are incorporated into the assessment protocols in order to provide a method to determine what criteria apply to specific water bodies, and when to apply the criteria. (See Appen dices)

The dissolved oxygen criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0016 applicable to freshwater aquatic life and fish uses are summarized in the following table:

Table 8 : Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to Protect Aquatic Life*

Dissolved Oxygen

Standard Spawning Cold Cool Warm

Aquatic Life Use Active

spawning areas Cold

- water

aquatic life Cool

- water

aquatic life Warm

- water

aquatic life

Dissolved Oxygen Criteria (mg/l) 11.0 8.0 6.5 5.0

Dissolved Oxygen %

Saturation Not less than

95 % saturation Not less than

90 %

saturation __ __

* DEQ determined that information available f or the 2012 Integrated Report was not adequate to apply the additional

criteria in OAR

- 340

- 041

- 0016(2), OAR

- 340

- 041

- 0016(3), OAR

- 340

- 041

- 0016(4), and Table 21.

The aquatic life categories are defined in water quality rules (OAR 304

- 041). In 1998, DEQ determined that maps with ecoregion information would be used as a guideline to identify waters supporting cold

- water and

cool

- water aquatic life, and specific water s without salmonid designated uses would identify warm

- waterOctober 14 , 2014 42 uses

. 22

, 23 Water quality standards adopted in 2003 further refined beneficial designations for sub

- categories of fish uses and also identified the places and times that support active spawning for salmon and steelhead species. DEQ updated guidelines in 2004 in order to provide guidelines to identify locations and time periods for resident trout and bull trout (char) spawning to supplement the salmon and steelhead spawning designations. 24 In 2010, DE Q updated the 1998 memo to incorporate references to updated maps and ecoregion information to use to identify the applicable cold or cool

- water criteria to apply where “salmon and trout rearing and migration” or “redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout” were the designated fish use. 25 Based on the water quality standards, current beneficial use designations, and referenced implementation memos developed to clarify the standards, DEQ used the following strategy to determine the applicable criteria to use

to eval uate dissolved oxygen data for the Integrated Report.

Cold Water Criteria:

Cold

- water aquatic life is defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002 (9) to mean: "... aquatic organisms that are physiologically restricted to cold water, including but not limited to

native salmon, steelhead, mountain whitefish, char (including bull trout), and trout.”

As indicated in OAR 340

- 041 Table 21, the uses and level of protection achieved by the numeric criteria are: “Principally cold

- water aquatic life. Salmon, trout, cold

- water in vertebrates, and other native cold

water species exist throughout all or most of the year. Juvenile anadromous salmonids may rear throughout the year. No measurable risk level for these communities.”

As implemented for the Integrated Report, during non

- sp awning time periods the cold water criteria for dissolved oxygen were applied to waters with the following designated uses referenced in basin

- specific

beneficial uses in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through OAR 340

- 041

- 0340 and in rule Tables 101A to 340A, Tables

101 B to 250B, and Figures 130A to 340B:

 Core cold

- water habitat

 Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing

 Salmon and trout rearing and migration depending on ecoregion

 Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout depending on ecoregion

Cool Water Criterion:

Cool

- water aquatic life is defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002 (12) to mean: "... aquatic organisms that are physiologically restricted to cool waters, including but not limited to native sturgeon, Pacific lamprey, suckers, chub, sculpins, and certain species of cyprinids ( minnows)..”

As indicated in OAR 340

- 041 Table 21, the uses and level of protection achieved by the numeric criterion are:

“Mixed native cool

- water aquatic life, such as sculpins, smelt, and lampreys. Waterbodies includes

estuaries. Salmonids and other col d

- water biota may be present during part or all of the year but do not form a dominant component of the community structure. No measurable risk to cool

- water species, slight risk to cold

- water species present.”

22 Letter from DEQ to EPA, Region 10, Policy clarifications for Oregon’s water quality standards interpretation, June 22,

1998 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/EPALetter06

- 22

- 1998.pdf

23 Omernik , J. and Gallant, A., 1986, Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest, EPA/600/3

- 86/033

24 Letter from DEQ to EPA Region 10, Oregon responses to EPA questions re: the State’s water quality temperature standards, February 4, 2004 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/temperature/clarificationltr.pdf

25 DEQ Memorandum, June 8, 2010, Application of DO criteria, http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/MemoDOCriteria20100608.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 43 As implemented for the Integrated Report, du ring non

- spawning time periods, the cool water criterion for dissolved oxygen was applied to waters with the following designated uses referenced in basin

- specific

beneficial uses in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through OAR 340

- 041

- 0340 and designated in rule Tables 1 01A to 340A, Tables 101B to 250B, and Figures 130A to 340B:

 Salmon and steelhead migration corridors

 Salmon and trout rearing and migration depending on ecoregion

 Redband or Lahontan cutthroat trout where designated as uses in Tables 121B, 140B, 190B, 250B,
and Figures 180A, 201A, 260A, 310A depending on ecoregion

 Cool water species (no salmonid use) where designated in Tables 140B, 190B, 250B and Figures
130A, 180A, 201A, 286A, 340A (except where identified as warm water in guidelines)

Warm Water Crit erion:

Warm

- water aquatic life is defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002 (69) to mean: "... the aquatic communities that are adapted to warm

- water conditions and do not contain either cold

or cool

- water species”

As indicated in OAR 340

- 041 Table 21, the uses and level of protection achieved by the numeric criterion are:

“ Waterbodies whose aquatic life beneficial uses are characterized by introduced, or native, warm

water species .”

As implemented for the Integrated Report following guidelines from 1998, the warm w ater criterion was applied to waters where salmonid fish rearing and spawning are not designated beneficial uses and where

warm

- water species are designated uses. 26 One such warm water species is the Borax chub, designated as a

use in the Malheur Lake Basin on Table 190B (current rule numbering).

 For specific waters designated as Cool water species (no salmonid use) in Tables 140B, 190B, 250B
and Figures 130A, 180A, 201A, 286A, 340A where identified in guidelines and

 Borax Lake Chub

Following the 1998 gui delines, the warm water criterion was applied to specific water bodies summarized in the following table:

Table 9 : Application of Warm Water Dissolved Oxygen Criterion

Current Table or Figure Fish Use

Designation Water body Extent

Figure 201A Cool water species

(no salmonid use) Malheur River Namorf to Mouth

Figure 201A Cool water species

(no salmonid use) Willow Creek Brogan to Mouth

Figure 201A Cool water species

(no salmonid use) Bully Creek Reservoir to Mouth

Table 250B Cool water species

(no salmonid use) Owyhee River River Mile 0 to 18

Table 190B Cool water species

(no salmonid use);

Borax Lake Chub Malheur Lake Basin Natural Lakes; water

associated with Borax

Lake and Lower Borax

Lake

26 Letter from DEQ to EPA, Region 10, Policy clarifications for Oregon’s water quality standards interpretation, June 22,

1998 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/EPALetter06

- 22

- 1998.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 44

Table 140B Cool water species

(no salmonid use) Goose and Summer

Lakes Basin High Alkaline and

Saline Lakes

Spawning Criteria:

The spawning criteria for dissolved oxygen were applied in locations and during the time periods designated

for active salmon and steelhead spawning in OAR 340

- 0 41

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340 in Tables 101B, and 121B, and Figures 130B, 151B, 160B, 170B, 180A, 201A, 220B, 230B, 260A, 271B, 286B, 300B, 310B, 320B, and

340B.

The spawning criteria for dissolved oxygen were also applied in locations and during the spawning t ime periods designated for Lahontan trout use in OAR 340

- 041

- 0190 Table 190B.

Spawning locations and time periods for other fish species are not specifically designated in water quality standards. In the absence of specific information, DEQ developed guidelines to assist in determining locations and timing to apply the dissolved oxygen spawning criteria for resident trout (such as rainbow, redband, Westslope and coastal cutthroat) and char (bull trout). 27 These guidelines use the locations where fish us es for salmonids are designated in OAR 340

- 041 and mapped in Figures 130A through 340B, and assume spawning occurs in all those stream reaches during certain time periods. DEQ may use other information, such as documentation from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service if available, to refine the locations and time periods when the spawning criteria are applied where spawning locations are not specifically designated in rule. The documentation supporting this determination for a specific water body will accompany the assessment for that water body.

As implemented for the Integrated Report, the spawning criteria for dissolved oxygen were applied to waters during the time periods summarized in the table below. To protect all res ident trout spawning in areas where bull trout (char) spawning is a designated use, the assumed spawning time period was extended to June 15. Also, as implemented in the Integrated Report, some water types and locations were not considered likely spawning areas and were not evaluated using the spawning criteria.

27 Letter from DEQ to EPA Region 10, Oregon responses to EPA questions re: the State’s water quality temperature standards, February 4 , 2004 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/temperature/clarificationltr.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 45 Table 10 : Application of Spawning Dissolved Oxygen Criteria

Location (Basin) Location

(Subbasin or Water) Designated Fish

Use Designated

Spawning

Time Period Assumed

Spawning

Time Period Combined:

Assumed

Resident

Trout and

Bull Trout Spawning

Time Periods
Deschutes, Grande Ronde, Hood, John Day, Mid Coast, North Coast, Rogue, Sandy, South Coast, Umatilla, Umpqua,

Willamette Columbia

River, Snake

River Salmon and

Steelhead Spawning As designated

Malheur Lake Basin Lahontan Trout As designated
Deschutes, Hood,

Powder Bull Trout Spawning & Juvenile Rearing August 15

– May 15 August 15

–

June 15
Klamath, South Willamette,

Malheur Bull Trout Spawning & Juvenile Rearing August 15

– May 30 August 15

–

June 15

Grande Ronde Wenaha Bull Trout Spawning & Juvenile Rearing August 15

– March 31 August 15

–

June 15

Grande Ronde Imnaha Bull Trout Spawning & Juvenile Rearing August 15

– May 31 August 15

–

June 15

Grande Ronde Upper

Grande

Ronde Bull Trout Spawning

& Juvenile Rearing September 1

– April 15 September 1

–

June 15

Grande Ronde Wallowa Bull Trout Spawning & Juvenile Rearing September 1

– May 15 September 1

–

June 15 John Day, Umatilla,

Walla Walla Bull Trout Spawning & Juvenile Rearing September 1

– April 30 September 1

–

June 15

All Basins Salmon and Trout Rearing and Migration January 1

– May 15

All Basin Redband Trout January 1

– May 15

All Basins Core Cold

- Water

Habitat January 1

– June 15

All Basins Bull Trout Spawning January 1

– June 15 (for resident

trout spawning) As designated Salmon and No assumedOctober 14 , 2014 46 Location (Basin) Location

(Subbasin or Water) Designated Fish

Use Designated

Spawning

Time Period Assumed

Spawning

Time Period Combined:

Assumed

Resident

Trout and

Bull Trout Spawning

Time Periods Steelhead Migration

Corridors spawning

As designated Cool Water Species (no salmonid use) No salmon,

steelhead, or

resident trout spawning

Lakes and

Reservoirs Salmon and Steelhead Spawning As designated No other

assumed spawning

Estuarine Waters No assumed spawning

Estuarine Criterion:

Estuarine water is defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002 (22) to mean: "... all mixed fresh and oceanic waters in estuaries or bays from the point of oceanic water intrusion inland to a line connecting the outermost points of the headlands or protective jetties.”

As implemented for the Integrated Report, the es tuarine criterion for dissolved oxygen was applied to samples from coastal waters when conditions indicated mixing of fresh and salt water. DEQ used specific conductivity measurements as the indicator for estuarine conditions. Measured specific conductivit y greater than 200 uS/cm was used to indicate that ocean water was mixing with fresh water.

For dissolved oxygen data collected in the coastal waters of the North Coast, Mid Coast, South Coast, Rogue and Umpqua Basins, the specific conductivity of each sample was evaluated. For continuous data, the daily mean specific conductivity was calculated. If the recorded specific conductivity was greater than 200 uS/cm, the estuarine criterion of 6.5 mg/L was applied. If the recorded specific conductivity was les s than 200 uS/cm, the appropriate freshwater criteria were applied.

Ocean Waters:

Ocean water is defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002 (44) to mean: "... all oceanic, offshore waters outside of estuaries or bays and within the territorial limits of Oregon.”

There is no numeric dissolved oxygen criterion applicable to ocean waters [OAR 340

- 041

- 0016 (6)]. The criterion for ocean waters is no measurable reduction in dissolved oxygen concentration. Data were not available to evaluate this criterion for the Integrated R eport.

Summary: The following flow chart (Figure 2) illustrates the evaluation process for dissolved oxygen data for the Integrated Report.October 14 , 2014 47 Figure 2: Evaluation of Dissolved Oxygen Data



### Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes No

No

No No

No

Yes Apply

Warm DO

Criterion (5.5 mg/L)

Apply Spawning

DO Criterion (11.0 mg/L)

Yes

No

No Is Lahontan Trout a designated fish use in the water body?

Is Bull Trout Spawning and Juvenile Rearing a designated fish use in the water body? Is Core Cold

- Water Habitat

or Bull Trout Spawning & Juvenile Rearing a designated fish use in the water body?

Is Cool Water Species or Lahontan Trout a designated fish use in the water body?

Is S almon and Steelhead Migration Corridor a designated fish use in the water body? Apply

Cold DO

Criterion (8.0 mg/L)

Apply

Cool DO

Criterion (6.5 mg/L)

Apply

cold or cool water

DO criterion based on ecoregion Is the water body

an estuarine

water? Does sample conductivity

indicate estuarine conditions (> 200 uS/cm)? Apply

Estuarine

DO Criterion (6.5 mg/L) Is Borax Lake Chub a designated fish use in the water body (OAR 340

- 041 Table 190B) Or is water specifically identified in guidelines as warm water?

Is S almon and Steelhead Spawning a designated fish use in the water body? Is the sample taken during a designated (salmon or Lahontan trout) or assumed (bull trout, resident trout) spawning period?

No

No

No Yes

Yes Yes

Is the sample taken during an assumed resident trout spawning period (see table)?

No YesOctober 14 , 2014 48October 14 , 2014 49 

## PARAMETER: pH

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Resident Fish and Aquatic Life

Water Contact Recreation

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0021(2)

NUMERIC CRITERION: Statewide: OAR 340

- 041

- 0021

Basin

- Specific: OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through OAR 340

- 041

- 0350

340

- 041

- 0021 pH (1) Unless otherwise specified in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through 340

- 041

- 0350, pH values (Hydrogen ion concentrations) may not fall outside the following ranges: (a) Marine waters: 7.0

- 8.5; (b) Estuarine and fresh waters: See basin specific criteria (OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through 340

- 041

- 0350). (2) Waters impounded by dams existing on January 1, 1996, which have pHs that exceed the criteria are not in violation of the standard, if the Department determines tha t the exceedance would not occur without the impoundment and that all practicable measures have been taken to bring the pH in the impounded waters into compliance with the criteria.

Table 11 : Summary of pH Basin Specific Criteria (OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through 340

- 041

- 0350)

OAR Water Criteria Range

General 340

- 041

- 0021(1)(a) Marine 7.0 to 8.5

General 340

- 041

- 0021(1)(b) Estuarine and fresh waters See basin specific

criteria Basin or Water Body OAR Water Criteria Range

Columbia River 340

- 041

- 0104(1) Main stem Columbia River (mouth to river mile 309): 7.0 to 8.5

Snake River 340

- 041

- 0124(1) Main stem Snake River (river miles 260 to 335) 7.0 to 9.0

Deschutes Basin 340

- 041

- 0135(1)(a) All other basin streams (except Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0135(1)(b) Cascade lakes above 3,000 feet

altitude 6.0 to 8.5

Goose and Summer

Lakes Basin 340

- 041

- 0145(1)(a) Goose Lake 7.5 to 9.5

340

- 041

- 0145(1)(b) All other basin waters 7.0 to 9.0*

Grande Ronde Basin 340

- 041

- 0156(1) All basin streams (other than main stem Snake River) 6.5 to 9.0*

Hood Basin 340

- 041

- 0165(1)(a) Hood River Basin streams (except main stem Columbia River and Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0165(1)(b) Cascade lakes above 3,000 feet

altitude 6.0 to 8.5October 14 , 2014 50 Basin or Water Body OAR Water Criteria Range

John Day Basin 340

- 041

- 0175(1) All basin streams (other than the main stem Colombia River) 6.5 to 9.0*

Klamath Basin 340

- 041

- 0185(1)(a) Fresh waters except Cascade

lakes 6.5 to 9.0*

340

- 041

- 0185(1)(b) Cascade lakes above 5,000 feet

altitude 6.0 to 8.5

Malheur Lake Basin 340

- 041

- 0195(1) 7.0 to 9.0*

Malheur River Basin 340

- 041

- 0207(1) 7.0 to 9.0*

Mid Coast Basin 340

- 041

- 0225(1)(a) Marine waters 7.0 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0225(b) Estuarine and fresh waters 6.5 to 8.5

North Coast Basin 340

- 041

- 0235(1)(a) Marine waters 7.0 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0235(1)(b) Estuarine and fresh waters 6.5 to 8.5 Owyhee Basin 340

- 041

- 0256(1) 7.0 to 9.0*

Powder/Burnt Basins 340

- 041

- 0265(1) All basin streams (other than main stem Snake River) 6.5 to 9.0*

Rogue Basin 340

- 041

- 0275(1)(a) Marine waters 7.0 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0275(1)(b) Estuarine and fresh waters (except Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0275(1)(c) Cascade lakes above 3,000 feet

altitude 6.0 to 8.5

Sandy Basin 340

- 041

- 0290(1)(a) All basin waters (except main

stem Columbia River and Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0290(1)(b) Cascade lakes above 3,000 feet

altitude 6.0 to 8.5

South Coast Basin 340

- 041

- 0305(1)(a) Estuarine and fresh waters 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0305(1)(b) Marine waters 7.0 to 8.5

Umatilla Basin 340

- 041

- 0315(1) All basin streams (other than main stem Columbia River) 6.5 to 9.0*

Umpqua Basin 340

- 041

- 0326(1)(a) Marine waters 7.0 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0326(1)(b) Estuarine and fresh waters (except Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0326(1)(c) Cascade lakes above 3,000 feet

altitude 6.0 to 8.5

Walla Walla Basin 340

- 041

- 0336 6.5 to 9.0*

Willamette Basin 340

- 041

- 0345(1)(a) All basin waters (except main

stem Columbia River and Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

- 0345(1)(b) Cascade lakes above 3,000 feet

altitude 6.0 to 8.5.

* When greater than 25 percent of ambient measurements taken between June and September are greater than pH 8.7, and as resources are available according to priorities set by the Depart ment, the Department will determine whether the values higher than 8.7 are anthropogenic or natural in origin

.



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:
Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) Greater than 10 % of the samples are outside the range of the appropriate criterion and a minimum of at least two samples outside the range of the appropriate criterion for the time period of interest.October 14 , 2014 51 Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), other pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water quality standards (Category 4B), or impairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Less than 5 samples for the time period of interest, or 5 to 9 samples for the time period of interest with 1 sample outside the range of the appropriate criterion.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern Less than 5 samples are available to evaluate for the season of interest, with 2 or more samples outside the range of the appropriate criterion for the time period of interest.

Category 2: Attaining For 10 or more samples in the time period of interest, 90% or greater of the samples are w ithin the range of the appropriate criterion. For 5 to 9 samples in the time period of interest, all samples are within the range of the appropriate criterion.



### TIME PERIOD: Summer: June 1 through September 30

Fall

- Winter

- Spring (FWS): October 1 to May 31



### DATA REQUIREMENTS: Data collected since 2001. A minimum of 5 representative data points available per site collected on separate days for each time period of interest.



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ received information in the 2012 Call for Da ta from Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) regarding ocean acidification and global climate changes relating to ocean pH conditions. The submitted information in articles and journal papers was not specific to Oregon’s state waters, and did not include metadata or data results that could be compared to Oregon’s water quality standards for pH for m arine or estuarine waters. The

s ubmitted information did not contain any new information beyond what CBD submitted to EPA in comments to EPA’s proposed addition s to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. To respond to comments on the draft 2012 303(d) list, DEQ retrieved and evaluated pH data from LASAR, STORET, and USGS for 231 monitoring stations at marine and estuarine monitoring sites in Oregon waters for the time period January 2000 through December 2011.

DEQ reviewed EPA action on Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. Where EPA found impairments from pH but did not add new 303(d) listings because TMDLs were already approved, DEQ added these assessments as new Category 4A records for the 2012 Integrated Report based on EPA’s analysis of data.



### Last Data Review EPA reviewed pH data to propose additions to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. EPA took final action on the 303(d) additions in December, 2012.

The Center for Biological Diversity submitted information in articles regarding ocean acidification and global climate changes relating to ocean pH conditions with comments to EPA’s proposed additions. EPA reviewedOctober 14 , 2014 52 this information and provided a detailed review of the relevance and content of the submitted information and determined that no additions to Oregon’s 303(d) list were warranted. 28



### NOTES:

Cascade Lakes are natural and man

- made lakes at elevations over 3,000 or 5,000 feet, as specified in the basin

criteria and shown in Table 6.

28 December 14, 2012 The EPA Evaluation of Ocean Acidification Information http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/water/303d/oregon/final_OR_OA_evaluation.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 53 

## PARAMETER: Sedimentation

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Resident Fish and Aquatic Life Salmonid Fish Spawning and Rearing

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0007(11)

340

- 041

- 0007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (11) The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed;



### WATER QUALITY LIMITED D ETERMINATION (CATEGORY 5: 303(D)): Previous water quality assessment methodologies (Listing Criteria for Oregon’s 1998 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Water Bodies) have used stream specific documentation that showed excessive sedimentation was a sign ificant limitation to fish or other aquatic life. This included information indicating beneficial uses impairment (aquatic community status, biomonitoring reference sites, or fishery data) and measurement data

for benchmarks such as cobble embeddedness or percent fines.

DEQ is considering approaches to apply a numeric benchmark based on measurements of stream conditions to implement the narrative criteria.



### ATTAINING CRITERION DETERMINATION (CATEGORY 2): DEQ is currently reviewing approaches to apply a num eric benchmark based on measurements of stream conditions to implement the narrative criteria.



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data or information for sedimentation for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Last Data Review

EPA reviewed data and information for sedimentation to propose additions to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. EPA took final action on the 303(d) additions in December, 2012.October 14 , 2014 54October 14 , 2014 55 

## PARAMETER: Temperature

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: 

### Fish and Aquatic Life

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0028

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0028(4)

340

- 041

- 0002

Definitions (57) "Seven

- Day Average Maximum Temperature" means a calculation of the average of the daily maximum temperatures from seven consecutive days made on a rolling basis.

340

- 0 41

- 0028 Temperature [...] (4) Biologically Based Numeric Criteria. Unless superseded by the natural conditions criteria described in section (8) of this rule, or by subsequently adopted site

- specific criteria approved by EPA, the temperature criteria for Sta te waters supporting salmonid fishes are as follows: (a) The seven

- day

- average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having salmon and steelhead spawning use on subbasin maps and tables set out in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to

340

- 041

- 0340: Tables 101B, and 121B, and Figures 130B, 151B, 160B, 170B, 220B, 230B, 271B, 286B, 300B, 310B, 320B, and 340B, may not exceed 13.0 degrees Celsius (55.4 degrees Fahrenheit) at the times indicated on these maps and tables; (b) The seven

- day

- average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having core cold water habitat use on subbasin maps set out in OAR 340

- 041

- 101 to 340

- 041

- 340: Figures 130A, 151A, 160A, 170A, 220A, 230A, 271A, 286A, 300A, 310A, 320A, and 340A, may not exceed 16.0 degrees Celsius (60.8 degrees Fahre nheit); (c) The seven

- day

- average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having salmon and trout rearing and migration use on subbasin maps set out at OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340: Figures 130A, 151A, 160A, 170A, 220A, 230A, 271A, 286A, 300A, 31 0A, 320A, and 340A, may not exceed 18.0 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit); (d) The seven

- day

- average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having a migration corridor use on subbasin maps and tables OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340:

Tables 101B, and 121B, and Figures 151A, 170A, and 340A, may not exceed 20.0 degrees Celsius (68.0 degrees Fahrenheit). In addition, these water bodies must have coldwater refugia that are sufficiently distributed so as to allow salmon and steelhead migration wit hout significant adverse effects from higher water temperatures elsewhere in the water body. Finally, the seasonal thermal pattern in Columbia and Snake Rivers must reflect the natural seasonal thermal pattern; (e) The seven

- day

- average maximum temperatur e of a stream identified as having Lahontan cutthroat trout or redband trout use on subbasin maps and tables set out in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340: Tables 120B, 140B, 190B, and 250B, and Figures 180A, 201A, and 260A may not exceed 20.0 degrees Celsiu s (68.0 degrees Fahrenheit); (f) The seven

- day

- average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing use on subbasin maps set out at OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340: Figures 130B, 151B, 160B, 170B, 180A, 201 A, 260A, 310B, and 340B, may not exceed 12.0 degrees Celsius (53.6 degrees Fahrenheit). From August 15 through May 15, inOctober 14 , 2014 56

bull trout spawning waters below Clear Creek and Mehlhorn reservoirs on Upper Clear Creek (Pine Subbasin), below Laurance Lake on the Middle Fork Hood River, and below Carmen reservoir on the Upper McKenzie River, there may be no more than a 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 Fahrenheit) increase between the water temperature immediately upstream of the reservoir and the water temperature immediat ely downstream of the spillway when the ambient seven

day

- average maximum stream temperature is 9.0 degrees Celsius (48 degrees Fahrenheit) or greater, and no more than a 1.0 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) increase when the

seven

- day

- average strea m temperature is less than 9 degrees Celsius. [...] (6) Natural Lakes. Natural lakes may not be warmed by more than 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the natural condition unless a greater increase would not reasonably be expected to adversely affect fish or other aquatic life. Absent a discharge or human modification that would reasonably be expected to increase temperature, DEQ will presume that the ambient temperature of a

natural lake is the same as its natural thermal condition. ( 7) Oceans and Bays. Except for the Columbia River above river mile 7, ocean and bay waters may not be warmed by more than 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the natural condition unless a greater increase would not reasonably be expected to adversely affect fish or other aquatic life. Absent a discharge or human modification that would reasonably be expected to increase temperature, DEQ will presume that the ambient temperature of the ocean or bay is the same as its

natural thermal condition

. [...] (9) Cool Water Species. (a) No increase in temperature is allowed that would reasonably be expected to impair cool water species. Waters of the State that support cool water species are identified on subbasin tables and figures set out in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340; Tables 140B, 190B and 250B, and Figures 180A, 201A and 340A. (b) See OAR 340

- 041

- 0185 for a basin specific criterion for the Klamath River. (10) Borax Lake Chub. State waters in the Malheur Lake Basin supporting the Borax Lake chub m ay not be cooled more than 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit) below the natural condition. [...]



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:
Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) Where continuous temperature data are collected, the seven

- day

- average maximum temperature exceeds the applicable criterion. Seven

- day average maximum temperature means a calculation of the average of the daily maximum temperatures from seven consecutive days, made on a rolling basis.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), other pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water quality standards (Category 4B), or im

pairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Where continuous temperature data are collected, insufficient data are available to calculate the seven

- day

average maximum temperature.

Category 2: Attaining

Where contin uous temperature data are collected, the seven

- day

- average maximum temperature attains the applicable criterion.October 14 , 2014 57 

### TIME PERIOD: In designated salmon and steelhead spawning areas, the spawning criterion will be applied during the time periods indicated in tab les and figures referenced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0028(4)(a). Other applicable criteria will be applied during non

- spawning time periods.



### DATA REQUIREMENTS: Continuous temperature data collected since 2001 for the time period of interest. “Grab” temperature

readi ngs will not be evaluated.

DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data for temperature for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Last Data Review EPA reviewed data for temperature to propose additions to Oregon’s 2010 303(d) list. EPA took final action on the 303(d) additions in December, 2012.October 14 , 2014 58October 14 , 2014 59 

## PARAMETER: Total Dissolved Gas

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: 

### Resident Fish and Aquatic Life

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0031(1)

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0031(2)

340

- 041

- 0031

Total Dissolved Gas (1)Waters will be free from dissolved gases, such as carbon dioxide hydrogen sulfide, or other gases, in sufficient quantities to cause objectionable odors or to be deleterious to fish or other aquatic life, navigation, recreation, or other r easonable uses made of such water. (2) Except when stream flow exceeds the ten

- year, seven

- day average flood, the concentration of total dissolved gas relative to atmospheric pressure at the point of sample collection may not exceed 110 percent of saturati on. However, in hatchery

- receiving waters and other waters of less than two feet in depth, the concentration of total dissolved gas relative to atmospheric pressure at the point of sample collection may not exceed 105 percent of saturation.



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:
Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) More than 10 % of the samples exceed standard and a minimum of at least two exceedances of the standard, or a survey that identifies beneficial use impairment due to total di ssolved gas such as assessment of fish

conditions.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), other pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water quality standards (Category 4B), or impairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).



### TIME PERIOD:

Year Round



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data or information for total dissolved gas for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Last Data Review DEQ evaluated data and information for total dissolved gas for the 2004 Integrated Report.October 14 , 2014 60October 14 , 2014 61 

## PARAMETER: Toxic Substances

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Aquatic Life

– Fresh Water and Marine Water

Human Health

– Water and Fish Ingestion, Fish Consumption, Drinking Water



### NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0033(2)

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033(5)



### NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0033(3)

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033(4)

340

- 041

- 0033

Toxic Substances (1) Amendments to sections (1

- 5) and (7) of this rule (OAR 340

- 041

- 0033) and associated revisions to Tables 20, 33A, 33B, 33C, and 40 become effective on April 18, 2014. The amendments do not become applicable for purposes of ORS chapter 468B or the federal Clean Water Act, however, unless appro ved by EPA pursuan t to 40 CFR 131.21 (4/27/2000).

(2) Toxic Substances Narrative. Toxic substances may not be introduced above natural background levels in waters of the state in amounts, concentrations, or combinations that may be harmful, may chemically change to harmful forms in the environment, or may accumulate in sediments or bioaccumulate in aquatic life or wildlife to levels that adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare or aquatic life, wildlife, or ot her designated beneficial uses.

(3) Aquatic Life Numeric Criteria. Levels of toxic substances in waters of the state may not exceed the applicable aquatic li fe criteria listed in Table 30.

(4) Human Health Numeric Criteria. The criteria for waters of the state listed in Table 40 are

establi shed to protect Oregonians from potential adverse health effects associated with long

- term exposure to toxic substances associated with consumption of fish, shellfish, and water.

(5) To establish permit or other regulatory limits for toxic substances for which criteria are not included in Table 30 or Table 40, the department may use the guidance values in Table 31, public health advisories, and other published scientific literature. The department may also require or

conduct bio

- assessment studies to monit or the toxicity to aquatic life of complex effluents, other suspected discharges, or chemical subst ances without numeric criteria.

... 29



### CRITERIA APPLIED FOR 2012 INTEGRATED REPORT:

New or Revised Criteria: Oregon’s toxic substance human health criteria were revised and adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission in 2011. The human health criteria were approved by EPA in October 2011 and are effective for all Clean Water Act purposes including 303(d) listing. New and revised human health crite ria apply to pollutants in the water column except for methylmercury criteria established for concentrations in

fish tissue. All human health metals criteria are for total metal concentrations unless noted. The revised

human health criteria are listed in O AR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 and were applied for the 2012 Integrated Report.

29 Cited July 7, 2014 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_041.htmlOctober 14 , 2014 62 Oregon’s toxic substance aquatic life criteria were revised and adopted by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission in 2004. EPA approved and disapproved a number of Oregon’s aqu atic life criteria in January 2013. EPA approved most of the metals criteria which are for the most part expressed as the

dissolved fraction. Previous metals criteria were expressed as total recoverable concentrations

. In December 2013, the Oregon Environm ental Quality Commission adopted minor changes to correct errors identified in EPA’s January 2013 action and also consolidate the aquatic life toxic substance criteria into one table. EPA approved these revisions in April 2014. The approved aquatic life cr iteria are listed in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033

Table 30

.

While the approved aquatic life criteria are effective for Clean Water Act purposes, the approval from EPA occurred late in the process of data evaluation for the 2012 Integrated Report. For the 2012 Integra ted Report, the pre

- revision aquatic life numeric criteria on OAR 340

- 041 Table 20 were used. The table attached in Appendix 4 lists the combined aquatic life and human health numeric criteria that were applied for the 2012 Integrated Report. See Appendix 5 for OAR 340

- 041 Table 20 water quality criteria.

Withdrawn Criteria: Oregon’s human health criteria for eight toxic pollutants (beryllium, cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, lead, mercury (for total mercury in water column ), silver, and 1,1,1 trichloroethane) were withdrawn by the Oregon Environmenta l Quality C ommission in 2004 to be consistent with criteria in EPA’s National Toxics Rule and EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. EPA approved the withdrawal of these human

health criteria in June 2010

.

Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission also withdrew human health criteria for iron and manganese (except in saltwater) in December 2010. The withdrawal of these criteria was approved by EPA in June 2011.

Aquatic life criteria remain in effect for cadmium, chromium III, chromium VI, lead, iron (total), mercury (total mercury in water column ), and silver as listed on OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 and were applied to
evaluate data for the 2012 Integrated Report.

In addition, revisions to Oregon’s human health criteria in 2011 included the withdrawal of 13 criteria for general chemical families or groups (chlorinated benzenes ; DDT ; dichlorobenezenes ; dichlorobenzidine; dichloroethylenes; dichloropropene; dinitrotoluene; dinitro

- o

- cresol ; 2,4; diphenylhyd razine; endosulfan;

halomethanes ; monochlorobenzene; and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) and replacement or renaming more specific criteria for the most toxic chemicals. The withdrawal of these criteria was approved by EPA in

October 2011.

Details and Criteria Table s : Details of the toxic substance criteria standards and revision process are available at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/toxics.htm

. The table attached in Appendix 4 lists the combined aquatic life and human health numeric criteria that were applied for the 2012 Integrated Report. The toxic pollutant criteria tables effective after April 2014 are available at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/tables303140.pdf

.

Evaluating Sample Results: To evaluate water quality, DEQ compared sampling results from different water body types (freshwater

, estuarine, or saltwater) to the most stringent pollutant criteri on applicable for the beneficial uses (aquatic life or human health) protec ted in the water. General protocols for evaluating sample data are discus sed in the following paragraphs and d etails on protocols for several complex criteria for specific toxic pollutants are discussed in later section s

. In general, all waters in Oregon are designated for fish and aquatic life uses and human uses associated with consumption of fish, shellfish, and water.October 14 , 2014 63

Results Less than Detection DEQ compared ea ch sample result to the most stringent applicable toxic substance criterion. Any detectable result was considered a valid sample to compare to the criterion

. For sample results reported as “non

- detect” or less than a minimum reporting limit (< MRL or equivalent lab reporting limit), the reporting limit was compared to the most stringent applicable criterion. If the reporting limit was lower than the criterion, the sample result was considered valid to evaluate and counted as attaining the criter ion. If the reporting limit was higher than the criterion, the “non

- detect” sample result was not considered valid to use to determine either

exceedance or attainment of the criterion and was not counted a s a valid result for assigning a status. When analy tical or method duplicate results were reported with different MRLs, the lowest MRL was used to
determine if the sample was valid. Since many toxic substance criteria are very low and laboratory methods

are not able to detec t concentrations at those low le vels, many results are reported as “non

- detect”. T he

number of valid sample results evaluated against the criteria may be 0 or less than the actual number of reported results.

Total or Dissolved Metals Criteria Oregon’s criteria for metals are established for either the “ total ” or “ dissolved ” fraction of the pollutant in

water. Sampling data may be available for one or both fractions for the pollutant with the expectation that the

total co ncentration will be higher than the dissolved concentration . If sampling data did not specify whether the metal analysis was for the total or dissolved fraction , DEQ assumed the reported result was for the total fraction. When available, DEQ evaluated data that matched the fract ion specified by the criterion.

When the criterion is expressed as a total fraction, results for dissolved fractions were counted as valid results

if the detected result exceeded the total criterion, but were not considered valid or counted to determine

attainment if the result was less than the total criterion.

Duplicate Sample s DEQ evaluated only the maximum (or minimum in the case of alkalinity) result for duplicate sample result s
, and did not count duplicate sample in the sample count.



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:

Based on the evaluation of valid samples results at each site, an assessment category was assigned using the following protocols.

Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) Two (2) or more valid results not meeting the most stringent applicable crite rion for concentrations of a specific toxic substance in the water,

Or A fish consumption advisory issued by the Oregon Department of Human Services for a specific water body based on pollutants in fish tissue issued. Fish advisories are posted at: http://public.health.oregon.gov/newsadvisories/Pages/RecreationalAdvisories.aspx ),

Or The geometric mean of a minimum of three (3) or more valid results not meeting th e fish tissue criterion for methylmercury if the results are from skinless fillets of individual fish, 30

Or The arithmetic mean of two (2) or more valid results not meeting the fish tissue criterion for methylmercury if the results are from composited skinl ess fillets from mul tiple fish of the same species. (Note: DEQ did not evaluate data results for analyses of whole fish samples for the 2012 Integrated Report.)

30 Protocol based on US EPA Office of Science and Technology, 2001. Guidance for Implementing the January 2001 Methylmercury Water Quality Criterion. EPA 823

- R

- 10

- 001. Washington, D.C.October 14 , 2014 64 Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), other pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water quality standards (Category 4B), or impairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3B: Insuff

icient Data

– Potential Concern One (1) valid sample result not meeting the most stringent applicable criterion for a specific toxic substance, (See Notes regarding the alkalinity criterion.)

Category 3: Insufficient Data

Less than 5 valid samples for the toxic pollutant (unless assigned Category 3B),

Or

Less than 3 valid samples for methylmercury in fish tissue when the results are from skinless fillets of individual fish,

Or

Less than 2 valid samples for methylmercury in fish tissue from a composite sam ple composed of skinless fillets of multiple fish of the same species. (Note: DEQ did not evaluate data results for analyses of whole fish samples for the 2012 Integrated Report.)

Category 2: Attaining

A minimum of 5 valid samples collected and all valid results meet the most stringent applicable criterion for a specific toxic pollutant,

Or The geometric mean of a minimum of 3 valid samples meeting the human health criterion for methylmercury when the results are from skinless fillets of individual fish, Or,

The arithmetic mean of a minimum of 2 valid samples meeting the human health criterion for methylmercury when the results are from a composite sample composed of skinless fillets of multiple fish of the same species. (Note: DEQ did not evaluate data results for analyses of whole fish samples for the 2012 Integrated Report.)



### TIME PERIOD:

Year Round



### DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Data collected between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2011.



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report

D EQ evaluated the following data for toxic substances for the final 2012 Integrated Report:

DEQ LASAR data

- Monitoring results from approximately 275 stations throughout the state when available for 12 toxic substances (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromi um, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc when available) from samples collected for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2011. Fish tissue sampling results for skinless fillet samples from throughout the

state for to tal mercury analyses.October 14 , 2014 65

USGS data

- Monitoring results from approximately 138 stations in the Willamette Basin when available for 11 toxic substances (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc) and 26 othe r toxic pollutants when available from samples collected for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2011. No toxic substance data were available in this time period in

the Umatilla Basin.

City of Gresham

– Monitoring results from 10 sites with 21 68 results for 4 toxic metals (copper, lead, nickel, zinc) and 13 other toxic pollutants.

New or modified fish consumption advisories due to mercury in fish tissue issued for Powder River (Brownlee and Phillips Reservoirs) and Applegate Lake , and PCBs and mercury in the Columbia River.



### DETERMINING APPLICABLE CRITERION: Oregon’s water quality standards for toxic substance criteria contain numeric criteria that protect both human health and aquatic life. Individual toxic pollutants may have multiple criteria for diff ere nt beneficial uses that are protected in most waters in Oregon . For the Integrated Report, the most stringent of either the aquatic life or human health criterion applicable to a water body was used to evaluate site monitoring data and assign an assessment category to the water.

Applying Human Health and Aquatic Life Criteria: Oregon’s toxic substance human health criteria are applicable to waters designated for drinking water and fishing. The criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 include criteria labeled “Water + Organism” that apply where both fishing and drinking water supply are designated uses. The criteria labeled “Organism Only” apply to waters designated for fishing. Most of Oregon’s waters are designated for both public and private domestic water supply (drinking water) and fishing uses, so the human health criteria are widely applicable throughout the state.

Oregon’s toxic substance aquatic life criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 contain numeric criteria that should no t
be exceeded in freshwater and marine waters (saltwater) . Criteria protect aquatic life during both short term (acute 1

- hour average) and long term (chronic 96

- hour average) exposures to concentrations of toxic pollutants that should not be exceeded more than once every three years. The s ite monitoring data available

for the 2012 Integrated Report are not sufficient to calculate averages over the exposure periods to apply the frequency and duration allowance s , so daily site sampling result s were compared t o the most stringent applicable aquatic life criteri on to determine exceedances.

To evaluate site monitoring data, the most stringent human health or aquatic life criterion applicable to the water type was used. To select the most stringent of the criteri a, DEQ applied EPA guidance to determine when freshwater or saltwater (marine) aquatic life criteria for toxic substances were applicable, and additionally considered the human health criteria for each compound. 31

Applying Criteria in Marine Waters:

Marine waters are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(34) as “...all oceanic, offshore waters outside of estuaries or bays and within the territorial limits of the State of Oregon.” EPA recommends using saltwater aquatic life criteria for waters where the salinity is eq ual to or greater than 10 parts per thousand (approximately equivalent to conductivity 20,000 uS/cm). 32 DEQ identified marine waters using geographic information and confirmed the identification using salinity or conductivity data from monitoring sites.

31 2002, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002, U.S. EPA Offic e of Water, EPA 822

- R

- 02

- 047. Page 9. http://www.doeal.gov/SWEIS/OtherDocuments/348%20epa

- 822

- r

- 02

- 047(2002).pdf

32 Monitoring data are more commonly collected for con ductivity. A general conversion is: Salinity 0.1 parts per thousand = 200 microSiemens/cm conductivity at 20°C. Consult on

- line reference table atOctober 14 , 2014 66 Fo r marine waters, DEQ applied the more stringent of the marine acute or chronic aquatic life criteria or the human health criteria for “Organism

- Only” at each sampling site. Ammonia criteria (Acute Criteria CMC and Chronic Criterion CCC) were calculated for these sites using the appropriate equations for saltwater

.

Note : DEQ did not evaluate data or information for toxic substances in marine waters for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Estuarine Waters:

Estuarine waters are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(22) as “.. .all mixed fresh and oceanic waters in estuaries or bays from the point of oceanic water intrusion inland to a line connecting the outermost points of the headlands or protective jetties.” EPA recommends using the more stringent of freshwater or saltwater aquatic life criteria where salinity is between 1 and 10 parts per thousand. In past assessments, DEQ identified estuarine waters using geographic information and confirmed the identification using salinity or conductivity data from monitoring sites. For c onsistency with other pollutant evaluations such as bacteria, the inland extent of estuarine waters was identified as the point where recorded specific conductivity measurements were above 200 uS/cm (a pproximately 0.1 ppth salinity) and DEQ used best profe ssional judgment to resolve uncertain

determinations. However, for the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ identified estuarine sites using names (e.g. “bay”, “slough”) and best professional judgment rather than using conductivity data due to questions about

poten tial accuracy, temporal fluctuations, and representativeness issues with site measurements.

For estuarine waters, DEQ applied the more stringent of the freshwater or marine acute or chronic aquatic life

criteria or the human health criterion for “Organism Only” at each sampling site. Estuarine waters are generally not designated for drinking water use. How ever, if there was no “Organism Only” criterion, the “Water + Organism” criterion was applied if more stringent than the aquatic life criteria. Ammonia c riteria for estuarine waters were calculated using the appropriate equations for freshwater . In addition, hardness

dependent freshwater criteria for metals were applied to the estuarine sites.

Freshwater: DEQ evaluated all w aters that were not identified as marine or estuarine as freshwater. DEQ applied the most stringent of the freshwater acute or chronic aquatic life criteria or the human health criteria for “Water + Organism” or “Organism Only” at each sampling site.



### DETAILED PROTOCOLS FOR SPECIFIC TOX IC POLLUTANTS: The following section describes additional protocols used to apply criteria for specific toxic pollutants to sample results if needed to correctly evaluate data. In order to apply OAR 340

- 041 Table 20 criteria, pollutant chemical names cited in the 1986 guidance document used to develop the criteria were correlated to chemicals identified by their unique CAS registry number and available chemical and CAS registry

i nformation. 33

, 34

, 35

, 36 Criteria i n OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 include both chemical names and CAS registry numbers and are usually clearly identified. 37 DEQ has developed memorand a to address analytical and

http://www.envcoglobal.com/files/u5/Envco%20Conductivity%20to%20salinity%20conversion%20table.pdf attributed to equation of P.K. Weyl, Liminology and Oceanography, 9:75 (1964).

33 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001

34 National Institute of Standards and Technology web site “Search for Species Data by CAS Registry” at http://webbook .nist.gov/chemistry/cas

- ser.html

35 Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry web site at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

36 US EPA Substance Registry Services web site “Substance Search” at http://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/searchandretrieve/substancesearch/search.do

37 EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria website at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfmOctober 14 , 2014 67 monitoring issues that relate to specific toxic poll utants and water quality criteria. 38 DEQ followed t hese guidelines when necessary to resolve questions on how to evaluate data for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Alkalinity Criterion The aquatic life freshwater criterion for alkalinity is “20 mg/L or more as CaCO 3 freshwater aquatic life except where natural concentrations are less.” 39 Alkalinity should not be below this value in order to protect aquatic life.

Alkalinity is a measure of carbonate and bicarbonate ions and the buffering capacity of water to pH changes. Freshwater systems have natural variations in pH that are related to photosynthetic activity and other inorganic and organic chemical reactions. Ap plying the alkalinity criterion as an isolated standard to determine where water is water quality limited may lead to incorrect conclusions about overall natural water quality. For Integrated Report evaluations, analytical data indicating alkalinity less t han the criterion is flagged as a Category 3B Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern . Professional judgment should be used during TMDL development or on a case

- by

- case basis to consider alkalinity information along with information for other related polluta nt pollutants such as pH, chlorophyll a, aquatic weeds or algae growth, and dissolved oxygen when addressing beneficial use support.

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data or information for alkalinity for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Ammonia Criteria

Ammonia cr iteria for aquatic life are established based on the concentration of un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ), which is the principal toxic form of ammonia, and are pH and temperature specific. 40 Monitoring data results are typically reported as “total ammonia as N”. For the assessment evaluation, criteria were calculated for

freshwater and saltwater first for un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ), and then converted to criteria for total ammonia as N in order to evaluate monitoring data results. If temperature or pH data were not avai lable, criteria were not calculated and the sample result was not evaluated. Ammonia criteria for estuarine waters were calculated using the appropriate equations for freshwater.

Ammonia Criteria

– Freshwater

Ammonia criteria for freshwater were calculate d based on pH, temperature, and the presence or absence of

salmonids or other fish with ammonia

- sensitive life stages. For the Integrated Report , salmonids are assumed to be present everywhere . Values for freshwater criteria for un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) ar e calculated first, then converted to criteria for total ammonia as N using the following formulae. 41

, 42 EPA recommends criteria calculations not be extrapolated beyond the pH and temperature limits specified in the following equations.

To calculate criteri a for results with pH values outside the range of pH values specified below (6.5

- 9.0), DEQ used 6.5 when reported pH values were less than 6.5

, and 9.0 when reported pH values were greater
than 9.0.

Note: DEQ evaluated USGS data for ammonia data from the Willamette Basin for the 2012 Integrated Report. The ammonia calculations assumed salmonids were present at every site. DEQ did not evaluate ammonia data for estuarine waters for the 2012 Integrated Report.

38 DEQ Memorandums with Recommendations for Analysis and Implementation of Specific Toxic Pollutan ts http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/toxics.htm

39 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001

40 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Wa ter, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001

41 1985, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

- 1984, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 85

- 001

42 1986, Quality Criteria for Water 1986, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001October 14 , 2014 68 Freshwater Acute Criterion (CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration): Salmonids present:

CMC NH3 = 0.52 / FT / FPH / 2

Where:

FT = 1 when 20  Temperature (T)  30

Or

FT = 10 0.03(20

- T) when 0  T < 20

And:

FPH = 1 when 8  pH  9

Or

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4

- pH when 6.5  pH < 8

1.25

Salmonids absent:

CMC NH3 = 0.52 / FT / FPH / 2

Where:

FT = 0.71 when 25  T  30

Or

FT = 10 0.03(20

- T) when 0  T < 25

And:

FPH = 1 when 8  pH  9

Or

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4

- pH when 6.5  pH < 8

1.25

Freshwater Chronic Criterion (CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration): Salmonids present:

CCC NH3 = 0.80 / FT / FPH / RATIO

Where:

FT = 1.4 when 15  T  30

Or

FT = 10 0.03(20

- T) when 0  T < 15

And:

FPH = 1 when 8  pH  9

Or

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4

- pH when 6.5  pH < 8

1.25

And:

RATIO = 16 when 7.7  pH  9

Or
RATIO = 24*(10 7.7

- pH

/1+10 7.4

- pH ) when 6.5  pH <7.7

Salmonids absent:

CCC NH3 = 0.80 / FT / FPH / RATIO

Where:

FT = 1 when 20  T  30October 14 , 2014 69 Or

FT = 10 0.03(20

- T) when 0  T <20

And:

FPH = 1 when 8  pH  9

Or

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4

- pH when 6.5  pH < 8

1.25

And:

RATIO = 16 when 7.7  pH  9

Or
RATIO = 24*(10 7.7

- pH

/1+10 7.4

- pH ) when 6.5  pH <7.7

Ammonia criteria calculated above are for the un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) fraction. 43 Criteria for total ammonia as N are calculated using the following equations: 44

pKa = 0.09018 + (2729.92/(273.15 + Temperature)) Fraction = 1/(10^(pKa

– pH) + 1)

CMC (Total ammonia as N) = CMC NH3 /Fraction*0.822

CCC (Total ammonia as N) = CCC NH3 /Fraction* 0.822

Ammonia Criteria

– Saltwater

Ammonia criteria for saltwater are established for un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) which is the principal toxic

form of ammonia. 45 The saltwater criteria are calculated for marine sites. Marine sites are identified using

geograp hic information and confirmed with salinity or conductivity data. A default salinity value of 10 ppth was used if site specific data were not available.

Saltwater Acute Criterion (CMC S = Criterion Maximum Concentration):

CMC S NH3 = 0.233 mg/L

Saltwater Chronic Criterion (CCC S = Criterion Continuous Concentration):

CCC S NH3 = 0.035 mg/L

EPA provides a model to approximate the percent un

- ionized ammonia in saltwater using the equations below, and to calculate the criteria in terms of total ammonia as N.

% Unionized Ammonia (UIA) = 100*[1+10^ (pKaS +0.0324*(298

- T) +0.0415*P/T

- pH)]
- 1

Where: S = salinity (g/kg) T = temperature (oK) P = 1 atm pressure (default)

43 1985, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammon ia

- 1984, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 85

- 001. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/library/ambientwqc/ammonia1984.pdf

44 1999, 1999 Update of Ambient Wat er Quality Criteria for Ammonia, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 822

- R

- 99

- 014. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ammonia/99update.pdf

45 1989, Ambient Water Quality Criteria f or Ammonia (Saltwater)

- 1989, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 88

- 004; http://www.epa.gov/ost/pc/ambientwqc/ammoniasalt1989.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 70

And: pK

a S = 9.245+0.116*MIS MIS = Molal Ionic Strength of seawater = (19.9273*S)/ (1000

- 1.005109*S)

To calculate the criteria in terms of total ammonia as N:

Saltwater Acute C riterion ( CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration):

CMC S (Total ammonia as N) = CMC S NH3 /UIA*0.822= 0.233/UIA*0.822

Saltwater Chronic Criterion (CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration):

CCC S (Total ammonia as N) = CCC S NH3 /UIA*0.822= 0.0.035/UIA*0.822

Arsenic Criteria Human health water quality criteria for arsenic were revised and approved by EPA in October 2011. 46 The

revised criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 are based on total inorganic arsenic (CAS No. 7440382)

rather than total recoverable arsenic. The aquatic life criteria for arsenic III in OAR 340

- 041 Table 20 were also considered for the 2012 Integrated Report.

The available data for arsenic are primarily samples analyzed for either total recoverable or total dissolved arsenic. DEQ does not have sufficient data or i nformation for Oregon waters to estimate how much of the total arsenic concentration is in the inorganic arsenic form. A study com pleted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality of 40 sample results from major rivers in Idaho showed the median percent inorganic arsenic in total arsenic sample results equal to 76%. 47

Note: To evaluate available data for the 2012 Integrated Re port, DEQ multiplied total arsenic data results by 76% to approximate the inorganic arsenic fraction and evaluated that amount using the most stringent applicable criterion. 48

Beryllium Criteria

- Withdrawn EPA approved the withdrawal of Oregon’s human hea lth criteria for beryllium in June 2010. Since Oregon does not have aquatic life criteria, there are no currently effective water quality criteria for beryllium. With the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ will remove assessments for beryllium from the report.

P ublic drinking water systems in Oregon are subject to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for beryllium (4 μg/L). If beryllium sample results exceeded the MCL in a water body that was identified as providing source water for a public water system (PWS), and the finished water samples from the PWS also exceeded the MCL, DEQ intended to place the water body in Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) . However, based on data available through June 2013, no Oregon public water systems have reported any incidents of beryllium water supplies exceed ing the MCL.

For water bodies previously listed as Category 5: 303(d) for beryllium, the water body was deli sted in the 2012 Integrated Report and no status category is assigned for the delist ed record since there are no currently effective water quality criteria.

46 Arsenic rulemaking documents at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/metals.htm

47 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. March 2010. Arsenic, Mercury, and Selenium in Fish Tissue and Water from Idaho’s Major Rivers: A Statewide Assessment. Found at: http://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/639752

- arsenic_mercury_fish_tissue_report_0310.pdf

48 November 14, 2012 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation for Total Inorganic Arsenic and Arsenic III Water Quality Criteria http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/Arsenic.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 71 Bis Chloromethyl Ether (CAS No. 542881) Criteria

Current human health criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 include numeric criteria for chloromethyl ether, bis (CAS 542881). There are no analytical methods currently recommended to measure this chemical in water samples. 49

Chlordane (CAS No. 57749) and Heptachlor (CAS No. 76448) Criteria

OAR 340

- 041

- 00 33 Table 2 0 and Table 40 criteria for c hlordane were applied to sample results reported for the technical product (CAS No. 12789036) or non

- specific chlordane (CAS No. 57749), or to the sum of isomers, other constituents, and metabolites of chlordane inclu ding cis

- chlordane (synonym α

- chlordane) (CAS No. 5103719), trans

- chlordane (synonym γ

- chlordane) (CAS No. 5103742), γ

- chlordane (CAS No.

5566347 ), cis

- nonachlor (CAS No. 5103731 ), trans

- nonachlor (CAS No. 39765805 ), and oxychlordane (CAS No. 27304138).

Another known major consti tuent of chlordane mixtures is h eptachlor (CAS No. 76448). OAR 340

- 041

- 0033

Table 2 0 and Table 40 criteria for h eptachlor were applie d separately for this chemical.

Chlorine

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 includes numeric criteria for chlorine to protect aquatic life. There are no corresponding human health criteria. The aquatic life criteria for chlorine in freshwater and saltwater are expressed as “total residual chlorine” which is the su m of free and c ombined chlorine

. The aquatic life criteria for chlorine in saltwater are expressed as “chlorine

- produced oxidants”, which is the sum of free and

combined chlorine and bromine 50

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data or information for chlorine for the 2012 Inte grated Report.

Chromium Criteria Oregon’s human health criteria for chromium III and chromium VI were withdrawn in 2004 and the withdrawal was approved by EPA in June 2011. The aquatic life criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0

include criteria for two oxidation states of chromium

- chromium III (trivalent) and chromium VI (hexavalent). The criteria for chromium III are hardness dependent.

Most sample analyses are done for total chromium and do not report concentrations for the separate oxidation

states. 51 To evaluate available data, results for total chromium are compared to the most stringent applicable

criterion for either oxidation state.

Note : For the 2012 Integrated Report when chromium data were available, DEQ applied the most stringent appl icable criteria listed on OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 which are those for chromium VI (hexavalent). These criteria are not hardness dependent and no hardness correction factor was applied to criteria to evaluate

the total chromium data.

49 March 20, 2013 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation for Water Quality Criterion Bis Chloromethyl Ether (CAS

#: 542

- 88

- 1) http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/BisChloromethylMemo.pdf

50 December 7, 2012 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation Instructions for the Water Quality Criterion Chlorine (CAS #: 778 2

- 50

- 5) http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/chlorineMemo.pdf

51 October 23, 2012 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation Instructions for Water Quality Criteria Ch romium III (CAS

#: 16065

- 83

- 1) and Chromium VI (CAS #: 18540

- 29

- 9) http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/chromium.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 72 Cyanide Criteria

R evised human health criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 for cyanide specify the criteria apply to total cyanide (CAS No. 57125). The OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 aquatic life criteria for cyanide do not specify

the form that is addressed . Information from E PA guidance used to develop Oregon’s criteria indicates the recommended criteria were derived from drinking water MCLs that are based on free cyanide. 52 The numeric criteria for aquatic life are more stringent than the human health numeric criteria. DEQ recommends that total or “available” cyanide data may be used as a conservative surrogate for free cyanide in cases where there are no analytical results based on free cyanide. 53

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for cyanide for the 2012 Integrated Report.

DDT, DDD, and DDE Criteria

Revised human health criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 specify criteria for DDT 4,4 (CAS No. 50293), DDD 4,4 (CAS No. 72548 ) , and DDE 4,4 (CAS No. 72559).

The OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 20 aquatic life criteria for DDT do not include criteria for the DDT metabolites. However, EPA water quality criteria used to develop Oregon’s criteria described the numeric criteria values to app ly to “DDT and its metabolites”. 54 For application of the aquatic life criteria to evaluate data for the Integrated Report and consistent with other DEQ implementation guidance, analytical data results for DDT, DDD, and DDE were summed together and compared to the most stringent aquatic life criteria for

DDT

.. 55

Note: For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ compared data to the most stringent applicable criteria, which were the human health criteria. Data for DDT, DDD, and DDE were evaluated separately using the applicable

human health criterion.

Demeton Criteria

The OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 criteria for d emeton are applicable to sample results reported as demeton (CAS No. 8065483) and d isulfoton (CAS No. 298044). The two pesticides are toxicologically similar and EPA allows use of toxicity data for both compounds. For the Integrated Report, the d emeton criteria are applied to both pesticide products.

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for d emeton for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Dichlorobenzenes Criteria

Criteria for the class d ichlorobenzenes were replaced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 with new criteria for dichlorobenzene (m) 1,3 (CAS No. 541731), dichlorobenzene (o) 1,2 (CAS No. 95501), a nd dichlorobenzene (p) 1,4 (CAS No. 106467). These criteria were approved by EPA in 2011 and are applied to sample results for the individual isomers. Prior to the approved revision, the criteria for the class were applied to the sum of sample results repo rted for the isomers.

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for any of the dichlorobenzenes for the 2012 Integrated Report.

52 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001

53 November 14, 2012 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation Instructions for Free and Total Cyanide Water Quality
Criteria (CAS #: 57

- 12

- 5) 

### http://ww w.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/cyanide.pdf

54 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001, page

55 March 20, 2013 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation Instructions for Water Quality Criterion DDT,

- 4,4’ (CAS #:

50

- 29

- 3) http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/DDTmemo.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 73 Dichloroethylenes Criteria

Criteria for the class d ichloroethylenes were replaced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 with new criteria for dichloroethylene 1,1 (synonyms 1,1

- d ichloroethene or 1,1

- DCE) (CAS No. 75354) and d ichloroethylene trans 1,2 (CAS No. 156605 ). These criteria were approved by EPA in 2011 and are applied to sample results for the

individual chemicals.

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for any of the dichloroethylenes for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Dichloropropene Criteria Criteria for the compound d ichloropropene were replaced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 with new criteria for the compound specifically identified as dichloropropene 1,3 (CAS No. 542756). These criteria were approved by EPA in 2011 and are applied to sample results for that chemical.

Prior to the approved revision, the criteria for the compound d ichloropropene were applied to the sum of sample results reported sum of sample results reported for the isomers cis

- 1,3

- d ic hloropropene (CAS No. 10061015); trans

- 1,3

- d ic hloropropene (CAS No. 10061026); mixtures of cis

- and trans

- 1,3

- d ichlor opropene (CA S No. 542756); 1,1

- dichloropropene (CAS No. 563586); and 1,2

- d ichloropropene (CAS No. 563542).

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for dichloropropene 1,3 for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Dinitrophenols Criteria

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 includes numeric criteria for the class of dinitrophenol isomers (CAS No. 25550587) and for one of the isomers, dinitrophenol 2,4 (CAS No. 51285). For application of the human health criteria to evaluate data for the Integrated Report and consistent with other DEQ implementation guidance, analytical data results measured as dinitrophenol 2,4 will be used as the surrogate for the dinitrophenol criteria. 56

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for dinitrophenols for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Dioxin (2,3,7,8

- TCDD) (CAS No. 1746016) Criteria

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 criteria for dioxin were applied to sample results reported for the specific congener 2,3,7,8

- t etrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) (CAS No. 1746016).

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for dioxin for the 2012 Integr ated Report.

Diphenylhydrazine 1,2 (CAS No. 122667) Criteria

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 includes numeric criteria for diphenylhydrazine 1,2 to protect human health. There are no corresponding aquatic life criteria. Diphenylhydrazine 1,2 is difficult to ana lyze given its rapid decomposition rate in water. Instead, azobenzene, which is a decomposition product of 1,2 diphenylhydrazine, is analyzed as an estimate of this chemical. The water quality criterion for

d iphenylhydrazine 1,2 can be applied to a nalytica l results from azobenzene. 57

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for 1,2 diphenylhydrazine for the 2012 Integrated Report.

56 October 23, 2012 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation Instructions for the Water Quality Criterion Dinitrophe nols (CAS #: 25550

- 58

- 7) http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/dinitrolphenols.pdf

57 November 14, 2012 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation Instructions for the Water Quality Criterion1,2 Diphenylhydrazine (CAS #: 122

- 66

- 7) http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/s tandards/docs/toxics/diphenylhydrazine.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 74 Endosulfan Criteria

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 aquatic life criteria for the group e ndosulfan were applied to sample results reported for e ndosulfan (CAS No. 115297) or to the sum of sample results reported for the isomers α

e ndosulfan (CAS No. 959988) and β

- e ndosulfan (33213659 )

, and the reaction product endosulfan sulfate (CAS No. 1031078) found in technical grade Endosulfan. OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 individual human

health criteria for e ndosulfan Alpha

, e ndosulfan Beta , and endosulfan sulfate.

Note: For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ evaluated data for endosulfan using the most stringent crite ria which were the aquatic life criteria applied to sample results reported for Endosulfan or the sum of the sample

results for the isomers

.

Guthion (Azinphos Methyl) Criteria For the 2012 Integrated Report, OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 aquatic life criteria for Guthion were applied to

results for Guthion (synonym a zinphos m ethyl) (CAS No. 86500) but not for the metabolic breakdown product a zinphos m ethyl o xygen a nalog (CAS No. 961228).

Halomethanes Criteria Criteria for the class Halomethanes were replaced i n OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 with new human health

criteria for b romoform (synonym t ribromomethane) (CAS No. 75252), d ichlorobromomethane (CAS No. 75274), m ethyl b romide (CAS No. 74839), and m ethylene c hloride (synonym d ichloromethane) (CAS No. 75092). Thes e criteria were approved by EPA in 2011 and are applied to sample results for the individual

chemicals.

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for any of the Halomethanes for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Hexachlorocyclohexane, BHC, and Lindane Criteria

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 aquatic life and Table 40 human health criteria for BHC gamma (synonym hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane)) were applied to sample results reported for that chemical (CAS No. 58899). The pesticide product Lindane is generally > 99% the ga mma isomer (synonyms γ

- HCH or γ

- BHC).

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 human health criteria for the isomer BHC alpha (synonyms hexachlorocyclohexane alpha , α

- HCH or α

- BHC) were applied to results for that chemical (CAS No. 319846).

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 h uman health criteria for the isomer BHC beta (synonyms, hexachlorocyclohexane beta, β

- HCH or β

- BHC) were applied to results for that chemical (CAS No. 319857).

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 human health criteria for the hexachlorocyclo

- hexane

- technical (CAS N o. 608731) apply to the technical grade pesticide which is a mixture consisting of α, β, γ, δ, and ε isomers. For application of the human health criteria to evaluate data for the Integrated Report and consistent with other DEQ implementation guidance, DEQ applies the hexachlorocyclo

- hexane

- technical criteria to the sum of analytical results for the four major isomers. 58

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) or BHC for the 2012 Integrated Report.

58 November 14, 2012, DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation Instructions for the Water Quality Criterion Hexachlorocyclo

- hexane

- Technical (CAS #: 608

- 73

- 1) http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/bhcTechnical.pdfOctober 14 , 2014 75 Iron Criteria Oregon’s human health criterion for iron was withdrawn by DEQ in 2011 and the withdrawal was approved by EPA in June 2011. 59

For the 2012 Integrated Report, sample results for iron were compared to the OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 aquatic life. This criterion is applicable to total recoverable concentrations of iron in a water sample. Sample

results for dissolved metal fractions were not considered valid to use to determine attainment of the criteria

and were not counted as valid results to determine attainment or to delist Category 5: 303(d) impaired waters. This is because dissolved metals generally constitute only a fraction of total metal present in an ambient water sample. However, if the dissolved fraction results exceed the applicable criteria, the results were counted as valid results to determine exceedance. Waters that were previously listed as Category 5: 303(d) for iron were delist ed if sufficient data were available to show the aquatic life criterion was met.

Manganese Criteria Oregon’s human health criteria for manganese were revised by DEQ in 2011 and the revisions were approved by EPA in June 2011. 60 Both the human health criterion for “water and fish ingestion” and the criterion for “fish consumption only” in fresh water were withdrawn. OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 4 0 retains the “Organism Only” criterion for total manganese for saltwater in order to protect human health for the consumption of oysters and other marine mollusks. There are no aquatic life criteria for manganese.

Note : For the 2012 Integrated Report, DE Q evaluated data for manganese from estuarine sites and applied the

human health “Organism Only” criterion . Water bodies in freshwater that were previously listed as Category 5: 303(d) were delist ed because there are no currently applicable criteri a

. Other categories assigned in previous assessments using the withdrawn numeric criteria for freshwater may not be accurate.

Mercury and Methylmercury Criteria Human health water quality criteria for mercury were revised and approved by EPA in October 2011. The

revised criterion in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 is expressed as a fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (CAS No. 22967926) rather than total mercury in the water column. The aquatic life criteria for mercury in

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 20 continue to app ly to total mercury in the water column.

For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ reviewed available data for mercury only in skinless fillet fish tissue from resident fish. Data were available for analyses of fish tissue for total mercury using EPA Method 747 3, rather than methylmercury. 61 Scientific literature indicates that 90 % or more of mercury in fish muscle (tissue not including skin) is methylmercury. 62 To evaluate data for the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ used sample results for total mercury in skinless fish fillets reported in mg/kg with “significant figures” limited to two decimal places. Based on the approximation that 90% of the reported mercury was methylmercury, DEQ concluded that any total mercury fish tissue result exceeding the methylmercury cri terion (0.040 mg/kg) would also reasonably approximate an exceedance by the methylmercury component in fish tissue. Fish tissue analyses for mercury may be from skinless fillets of individual fish, individual whole fish analyses, or composited skinless fillets from multiple fish. For the 2012 Integrated Report

, DEQ only assessed waters with

data from individual skinless fillet fish samples. DEQ compared geometric mean concentrations of mercury

from skinless fish fillets in individu al resident fish to the human health fish tissue criterion and assigned an

59 Rulemaking documents at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/metals.htm

60 Rulemaking document s at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/metals.htm

61 2007, Method 7473, Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Amalgamation, and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste

62 Ullrich, S.M., Tanton, T.W. and Abdrashitova, S.A., 2001. Mercury in the Aquatic Environment: A Review of Factors Affecting Methylation. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 31 (3): 241

- 293.October 14 , 2014 76 assessment category following EPA guidance. 63 DEQ did not assess fish tissue results from analyses for

whole fish.

For the2012 Integrated Report, DEQ also reviewed water column data for total mercury for comparison to the

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 aquatic life criteria. DEQ also reviewed fish consumption advisories issued due to mercury levels in fish. Waters placed in Category 5: 303(d) due to fish consumption advisories will not be

delist ed until the advisory has been lifted.

Metals Criteria

– General

Total Recoverable and D issolved Concentrations

Criteria for metals in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 20 and Table 40 hum an health criteria are for total recoverable concentrations (i.e. total and dissolved forms present in an unfiltered water sample). To evaluate water quality data, DEQ compared sample results to the applicable criteria using results that matched the fraction specified by the criterion , when available

. If the data did not iden tify the analysis as total or dissolved, the result was evaluated as if it were a total analysis. ( Note : Most criteria for metals in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 30 aquatic life criteria are expressed in terms of dissolved concentrations, except for

cadmium (acute), copper (freshwater), iron, and mercury which are expressed as total recoverable.)

The dissolved metal concentration in a water sample generally measures only a fraction of the total metal present in the water. When the criterion is expressed as a total fraction, results for dissolved fractions were

counted as valid results if the detected result exceeded the total criterion, but were not considered valid or

counted to determine attainment if the dissolved result was less than the total criterion.

When samples on the same date were reported for both total and dissolved fractions, the fraction best matching the applicable criterion was evaluated and counted as one sample.

Hardness Dependent Criteria The freshwater aquatic life criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 for several metals (cadmium, chromium III, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc) are expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L) in the water column. These criteria are flagged on Table 20 with a “+” notation and footnoted to indicat e the numeric criteria were calculated using a hardness of 100 mg/L. Criteria for these metals are calculated using the following

formulae: 64 Because the criteria are expressed as total recoverable metals, total recoverable hardness values

were used to deri ve criteria

.

Total Recoverable Criterion:

Freshwater Acute Criterion : Criterion maximum concentration CMC = (exp(m

A *[ln(hardness)] + b A ))

Freshwater Chronic Criterion : Criterion chronic concentration

CCC = (exp(m C *[ln(hardness)] + b C ))

63 US EPA Of

fice of Science and Technology, 2001. Guidance for Implementing the January 2001 Methylmercury Water Quality Criterion. EPA 823

- R

- 10

- 001. Washington, D.C.

64 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001October 14 , 2014 77 Table 12 Factors for Hardness Dependent Metals Criteria

Metal Freshwater Acute Criterion

CMC Freshwater Chronic Criterion

CCC

m a b

a m c b

c Cadmium 1.128

- 3.828 0.7852

- 3.490

Chromium III 0.819 3.688 0.819 1.561 Copper 0.9422

- 1.464 0.8545

- 1.465

Lead 1.273

- 1.460 1.273

- 4.705

Nickel 0.8460 3.3612 0.8460 1.1645

Silver 1.72

- 6.520

Zinc 0.8473 0.8604 0.8473 0.7614

If hardness was not measured directly as CaCO 3 , the following equation was used to calculate the hardness

value 65 :

Hardness, equivalent CaCo 3 (mg/L) = 2.497 Ca (mg/L) + 4.1189 Mg (mg/L)

To determine the applicable hardness dependent criteria, DEQ followed EPA federally promulgated water quality standards recommendations in 40 CFR 131to use a minimum of 25 mg/L as calc ium carbonate hardness to calculate criteria even if the actual ambient hardness is less than 25 mg/l as calcium carbonate. 66
The maximum hardness value should not exceed 400 mg/L as calcium carbonate, even if the actual ambient hardness is greater than 400 mg/l as calcium carbonate. Additionally, if no hardness data were available, DEQ applied a default hardness of 25 mg/L to calculate the criteria. Hardness

- dependent freshwater criteria for metals were applied to the estuarine sites.

Note: For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ evaluated data for metals chromium, iron, manganese, mercury, silver, and thallium as well as the hardness

- dependent metals cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. DEQ applied the most stringent applicable criteria listed on OAR 340

- 041 Table 20 for chromium VI, which is not hardness dependent, and silver, which is the freshwater chronic criterion that is not hardness dependent.

Nitrosamines Criteria Oregon’s human health criteria in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 were revised in 2011 for the nitrosamine class of nitrogen containing chemicals as well as for the following individual derivatives in the class:

 Nitrosodibutylamine N

- (CAS No. 924163)

 Nitrosodiethylamine N

- (CAS No. 55185)

 Nitrosodimethylamine N

- (CAS No. 62759)

 Nitr osodi

- n

- propylamine, N (CAS No. 621647)

 Nitrosodiphenylamine N

- (CAS No. 86306)

 Nitrosopyrrolidine N

- (CAS No. 930552)

65 1998, Standard Metho ds for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edition, American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation

66 40 CFR Section 131.36(c)(4)(i).October 14 , 2014 78 For the Integrated Report, the sum of all the results for individual nitrosamines was compared to the criteria for nitrosodiethylamine, N. This is the most toxic of the nitrosamine derivatives and its numerical criteria are equal to the criteria established for total nitrosamines. 67

Note: DEQ did not evaluate data for nitrosamines for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Parathion Criteria

The OAR Table 2 0 aquatic life criteria for parathion were applied to results for ethyl parathion (CAS No. 56382). In previous assessments , the criteria were also applied to results for methyl parathion (CAS No. 298000). Both pesticides were registered and in use when previous Table 20 criteria were established.

Note: For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ evaluated data and applied the criterion for parathion.

PCB Criteria

OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 and Table 40 criteria for PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) were applied to

either the sum of sample results reported as Aroclors, or the sum of sample results reported as individual

congeners.

Note : For the 2012 Water Quality Assessment, DEQ evaluated P CB data from USGS. The data were reported as “total PCBs”; and the results were not identified as using either congener or Aroclor analytical methods. DEQ also reviewed fish consumption advisories to update assessment.

Pentachlorophenol Criteria Oregon’s human health criterion on OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 for pentachlorophenol was revised in 2011. Freshwater aquatic life criteria on OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 remain in effect. The aquatic life criteria for Pentachlorophenol (CAS No. 87865) are pH dependent and can be calculated by: 68

Acute Criterion (CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration) CMC=(exp(1.005(pH)

- 4.8 30 )

Chronic Criterion (CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration): CCC=exp(1.005(pH)

- 5. 290 ).

Generally, as pH decreases, the toxicity of pentachlorophenol increases. A pH of 7.8 was used to generate the

numeric criteria in Table 20. To evaluate pentachlorophenol, criteria can be calculated following the 1986 guidance using the equations shown abov e. If pH data were not available, the freshwater criteria for pentachlorophenol could not be calculated. Human health criteria for pentachlorophenol are not pH dependent and water quality data can be directly compared to the criteria

.

Note: For the 2012 I ntegrated Report, DEQ did not evaluate data for pentachlorophenol.

Phosphorus Criterion/Phosphate Phosphorus Benchmark

The OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 2 0 aquatic life criterion of 0.1 μg/L applies to elemental phosphorus (P) in

marine or estuarine waters. This is based on the EPA criterion to protect marine organisms against toxic

effects. 69

67 October 23, 2012 DEQ Memorandum RE: Implementation Instruct ions for the Water Quality Criterion Nitrosamines (CAS#: 35576

- 91

- 1) http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/nitrosamines.pdf

68 1986, Ambient Water Quality Crite ria for Pentachlorophenol, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 009.

69 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001 for PhosphorusOctober 14 , 2014 79 Neither Oregon nor EPA has set a criterion for phosphate phosphorus. EPA has recognized the relationship between phosphates, as major nutrients, and excessive aquatic weed and algae growth, and lake and reservoir eutrophication. 70 EPA recommends that total phosphates as phosphorus (P) should not exceed 50 ug/L in streams to control excessive aquatic growths. For the 201 0 Water Quality Report, this value is used as a

benchmark to evaluate water quality data for phosphate phosphorus. Water bodies with total phosphates as phosphorus (P) greater than 50 ug/L are a Category 3B Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern for conditions that may result in not meeting water quality standard s.

Note: For the 2012 Integrated Report, DEQ did not evaluate data for phosphorus or phosphate phosphorus.

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Criteria Criteria for the group Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were replaced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0033 Table 40 with human health criteria for the following: Acenaphthene (CAS 83329) Anthracene (CAS 120127) Benz[a]anthracene (CAS 56553) Benzo[a]pyrene (CAS 50328) Benzo[b]fluoranthene (CAS 205992) Benzo[k]fluoranthene (CAS 207089) Chrysene (CAS 218019) Dibenz[a,h]anthracene (CAS 53703) Fluoranthene (CAS 206440) Fluorene (CAS 86737) Indeno[1,2,3

- c,d]pyrene (CAS 193395) Pyrene (CAS 1290000)

These criteria were approved by EPA in 2011 and are applied to sample results for the individual chemicals.

Note: D EQ evaluated data where available for the individual chemicals for the 2012 Integrated Report.

70 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001 for Phospha te PhosphorusOctober 14 , 2014 80October 14 , 2014 81 

## PARAMETER: Turbidity

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Resident Fish and Aquatic Life Water Supply

Aesthetics

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0007 (10

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0036

340

- 041

- 0007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (10) The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other conditions that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or affect the potability of drinking water or the palatability of fish or shellfish may not be allowed;

340

- 041

- 0036 Turbidity Turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Units, NTU): No more than a ten percent cumulative increase in natural stream turbidities may be allowed, as measured relative to a control point immediately

u pstream of the turbidity causing activity. However, limited duration activities necessary to address an emergency or to accommodate essential dredging, construction or other legitimate activities and which cause the standard to be exceeded may be authorize d provided all practicable turbidity control techniques have been applied and one of the following has been granted: (1) Emergency activities: Approval coordinated by the Department with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife under conditions they may prescribe to accommodate response to emergencies or to protect public health and welfare; (2) Dredging, Construction or other Legitimate Activities: Permit or certification authorized under terms of section 401 or 404 (Permits and Licenses, Federal Water Pollution Control Act) or OAR 14l

085

- 0100 et seq. (Removal and Fill Permits, Division of State Lands), with limitations and conditions governing the activity set forth in the permit or certificate.



### ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:
Category 5: Water Qua lity Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) A systematic or persistent increase (of greater than 10%) in turbidity due to an operational activity that occurs on a persistent basis (e.g. dam release or irrigation return, etc.); Or, For impairments to beneficial use as drinking water supply, Public Water System operator indicates that high turbidity days (days with turbidity ≥5 NTU) are causing operational difficulty and source water data validate this impairment. The data are conside red to validate an impairment if more than 45 high turbidity days per year occur for any year for which data are available.

Category 3: Insufficient Data For beneficial use as drinking water supply, available data are not sufficient to determine if the us e is impaired. One or more turbidity shutdowns are documented in the Safe Drinking Water Information System database, but there are not data to show whether shutdown is normal after a large storm event, or indicates a problem and impaired beneficial use.October 14 , 2014 82 Category 3B: Potential Concern, Insufficient Data For beneficial use as drinking water supply, available data are not sufficient to determine if the use is impaired, but indicate a potential concern. The Public Water System operator indicates that high turbidity days are causing operational difficulties, but there are not data available to validate this impairment, or if shutdowns due to high turbidity may be the result of unusual or infrequent weather events.

Category 2: Attaining

For beneficial use as drinking water supply, Public Water System operator indicates that high turbidity days are not causing operational difficulty and/or source water data show water quality is good. Water quality is considered good if there are 45 or less high turbidity days per year for all years for which data are available.



### TIME PERIOD:

Year Round



### DATA REVIEWED: 2012 Integrated Report DEQ did not evaluate data or information for turbidity for the 2012 Integrated Report.

Last Data Review DEQ evaluated data and informatio n for turbidity for the 2010 Integrated Report.

# Appendix 1. June 22,1998 DEQ Letter to EPA, Policy Clarification of Oregon Water Quality Standards Revisions

### Appendix 1

### Appendix 1 June 22, 1998

Philip Millam Director, Office of Water, OW

- 134 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101

Dear Phil:

This letter is to provide policy clarification of the Oregon water quality standards

revisions that were submitt ed for Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval on July 10, 1996. Specifically, this letter addresses how the Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ ) is interpreting certain language contained in the Oregon Water Quality Standards (OAR 340

- 41) and responds to questions that EPA has raised in its review of

the standards.

The regulatory clarifications included herein will be incorporated into the water quality standards, to the extent possible, during the next triennial review. As there are quit e a number of issues that are candidates for review in the next triennial review, we will need to carefully prioritize these issues working with EPA and the next Policy Advisory
Committee.

The following comments are organized in the following manner: bene ficial use issues, numeric criteria issues and implementation issues.

BENEFICIAL USE ISSUES:

Bull Trout Waters : The language in the rule (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(b)(A)) reads: “...no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (v) In waters determined by the Department to support or to be necessary to maintain the viability of native Oregon bull trout, when surface water temperatures exceed 50.0o F (12.8o C)” . [Please note that the specific citation for the temperature criteria for Bull Trout may vary slightly in its numbering depending on the basin, this example and subsequent citations are from the standards for the Willamette Basin (OAR

340

- 41

- 445)].

The Department has consulted with the Oregon Depa rtment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to make a determination of the current distribution of Bull Trout. Maps have been developed by ODFW as part of an effort to develop plans to protect and restore Bull Trout populations. These maps can be found in the follo wing publication: “Status of Oregon’s Bull Trout” (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; October 1997; Buchanan, David, M. Hanson, and R. Hooton; Portland, OR) which is available from ODFW or viewed in the “StreamNet” website (www.streamnet.org). A map s howing the most recent Bull Trout distribution (export file dated June 1997) has been sent separately to EPA and a digital version can be provided to EPA.

### Appendix 1

The Department will use the 1997 Bull Trout distribution maps contained in the 1997 ODFW publicatio n to clarify the phrase “waters determined by the Department to support or to be necessary to maintain the viability of native Oregon Bull Trout.” The temperature criteria of 50oF applies to the stream reaches which indicate that “Spawning, Rearing, or

Res ident Adult Bull Trout” populations are present. These waters are shown by a solid green line on the maps that are referenced.

The mapping and planning effort is an on

- going effort by ODFW. Any changes made to the mapped distribution will represent a cha nge in the standard which would be submitted to EPA for approval. The Bull Trout portion of the standards will be revised to incorporate a reference to the 1997 ODFW publication or identify any other means for determining waters that support or are necessa ry to support Bull Trout in the next

triennial standards review.

Waters supporting spawning, egg incubation and fry emergence: The language in

the rule reads:

Temperature (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(b)(A)): “... no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (iv) In waters and periods of the year determined by the Department to support native salmonid spawning, egg incubation, and fry emergence from the egg and from the gravels in a

basin which exc

eeds 55oF (12.8oC)”.

Dissolved Oxygen (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(a)(A)): “For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing salmonid spawning, during the periods from spawning until fry emergence from the gravels, following criteria apply...”

The Benef icial Use Tables (Tables 1

- 19 in the Oregon water quality standards) indicate the recognized beneficial uses to generally be protected in the basin . In some basins (e.g. Table 15, Malheur River Basin), the information in the Tables has been refined for particular water bodies. In general, salmonid spawning and rearing are shown on the tables to be found in all basins. In order to make the spawning determinations, information on location and timing in a specific waterbody is further developed through

cons ultation with ODFW as spawning does not occur at all times of the year or in all locations in the basin. In addition, timing often varies from year to year depending on seasonal factors such as flow. ODFW, in cooperation with other federal and tribal fishe ry agencies has begun to map out this information on a species by species basis (StreamNet Project) but this work is still several years from completion.

ODEQ is submitting the attached table that identifies when the spawning criteria listed

under the dis solved oxygen and temperature standards will be applied to a basin. This table provides the generally accepted time frame during which spawning occurs. However, spawning periods for Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead vary with elevation (e.g. Spring Chino ok tend to spawn earlier and fry emergence occurs later in the Spring for Winter Steelhead in streams at higher elevations). Therefore, to address differences in actual spawning periods, the Department will consult directly with the ODFW to
determine if wa terbody specific adjustments (which would be changes to the standards)

are necessary.

### Appendix 1

Furthermore, the Department will apply the antidegradation policy in specific actions, e.g. permits, 401 certification and 303(d) listing, to protect spawning that occ urs outside the identified time frames or utilize the narrative temperature criteria that applies to threatened or endangered species.

Application of the warm water Dissolved Oxygen Criteria (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(a)(F)) : The language in the rule reads: “For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing warm

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 5.5 mg/l as an absolute minimum...”

Warm

- water criteria is applied in waters where Salmonid Fish Rearing and Salmonid Fish Spa wning are not a listed beneficial use in Tables 1

- 19 with the exception of Table 19 (Klamath Basin) in which the cool water dissolved oxygen criteria will be applied (see Klamath TMDL supporting documentation, (Hammon 1998)). Specifically, the warm

water criteria would be applied to:

Table 15 : Malheur River (Namorf to Mouth), Willow Creek (Brogan to Mouth), Bully Creek (Reservoir to Mouth);

Table 16: Owyhee River (RM 0

- 18);

Table 17: Malheur Lake Basin

- Natural Lakes;

Table 18: Goose and Summer Lakes Basin

- High Alkaline & Saline Lakes.

Application of the cool

- water Dissolved Oxygen Criteria (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(a)(E)) : The language in the rule reads: “For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing cool

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 6.5 mg/l
as an absolute minimum...”

Cool

- water aquatic life is a sub

- category of cold

- water aquatic life and is defined under
OAR 340

- 41

- 006 (52) as “the aquatic communities that are physiologically restricted to

cool waters , composed of one or more species having dissolved oxygen requirements

believed similar to the cold

- water communities. Including but not limited to Cottidae, Osmeridae, Acipenseridae, and sensitive Centrachidae such as the small

- mouth bass.”

This criteria will be applied on an ecoregional basis 1 (see attached map) as follows:

West Side:
Cold Water : Coast Range Ecoregion

- all, Sierra Nevada Ecoregion

- all, Cascade

- all, Willamette Valley

- generally typical including Willamette River above Corvallis, Santiam (including the North and South), Clackamas, McKenzie, Mid Fork and Coast

Fork mainstems.
Co ol Water : Willamette Valley Ecoregion

- most typical.

East Side (with the exception of waters listed under warm water criteria in Tables 15

- 19) :

1 The original Ecoregions described in “Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest” (James Omernik and A. Gallant, 1986,

EPA/600/3

- 86/033) were used. This work is currently being updated but is not complete for Oregon . The terms most typical and generally typical are defined as follows: “The most typical portions of ecoregions are generally those areas that

share all of the characteristics that are predominant in each ecoregion. The remaining portions, generally typica l of each ecoregion, share most, but not all, of these same characteristics. These areas are defined on maps included in the publication referenced above and have been sent separately to EPA.

### Appendix 1

Cold Water: Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills

- most typical, Blue Mountain

- most typical.
Cool Water: Remainder of Eastern Oregon Ecoregions.

NUMERIC CRITERIA ISSUES:

Temperature criteria for waters without a specific numeric criterion: The temperature criteria of 64oF will be applied to all water bodies that support salmonid fish rearing as identified in Tables 1

- 19. This would include all waters except those listed as warm water above. Currently, there is no numeric criteria for those waters listed as warm water. This was an inadvertent oversight for the rivers described under 2 and 3 below

which wil l be corrected by setting site specific criteria during the next triennial review. In the mean time, these waters will be protected as follows:

1. There is a criteria that covers natural lakes and would cover lakes in the Malheur Lake Basin (Table 17) and G oose and Summer Lakes Basin (Table 18). This criteria (OAR 340

- 41

- 922 (2)(b)(A)) reads: “...no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (vii) In natural lakes”

.

2. The waters shown in the Klamath Basin (Table 19) are currently listed in Oregon’s 1994/96 303(d) list for temperature based on exceedence of the criterion that is linked to dissolved oxygen. This criterion (OAR 340

- 41

- 965 (2)(b)(A)) reads: “...no measurable surface water temperature increase re sulting form anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (vi) In Oregon waters when the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are within 0.5 mg/l or 10 percent saturation of the water column or intergravel DO criterion for a given stream reach or subbasin.” An addition al narrative criterion would apply to these waters as they contain a federally listed Threatened and Endangered species

- Lost River Sucker and Shortnose Sucker, both of which are listed as endangered (USFWS, 7/88, 53FR27130). This criterion (OAR 340

- 41

- 96 5 (2)(b)(A)) states: “no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting form anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (v) In stream segments containing federally listed Threatened and Endangered species if the increase would impair the biological

in tegrity of the Threatened and Endangered population.” A Site Specific Criteria is currently being developed as part of a TMDL for these waters and a new criteria for temperature will be established. This criterion will be adopted by the EQC and

submitted t o EPA for approval prior the completion of a TMDL. This work should be accomplished during our next triennial standards review (1998

- 2000). The TMDL schedule is currently being negotiated with EPA.

3. Warm water streams in the lower Malheur and Owyhee (Ta ble 15 and 16) would be addressed in a similar manner using temperature criterion that relates to dissolved oxygen. These waters were not listed on the current 303(d) list as the waters were not within 0.5 mg/l or 10 percent saturation of the water column DO criterion. These waters are included in beneficial use survey work that the Department is undertaking in the Snake River Basin/High Desert Ecoregion. This work, which will include the development of numeric temperature criteria for these waters, will be accomplished during our next triennial standards review (1998

- 2000).

Willamette and Columbia River Temperature Criteria: The language in the rule (OAR

340

- 41

- 445 (2)(b)(A)) reads: “...no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropo genic activities is allowed: ... (ii) In the Columbia River or its

### Appendix 1

associated sloughs and channels from the mouth to river mile 309 when surface water temperatures exceed 68.0oF (20.0oC); (iii) In the Willamette River or its associated sloughs and channels f rom the mouth to river mile 50 when surface water temperatures exceed 68.0oF (20.0oC);”

For the Columbia River, this is not a change to the previous standard (OAR 340

- 41

- 445 (2) (b) (D). The Columbia River forms the boundary between the states of Oregon a nd Washington and this criterion is consistent with the current temperature standard for the State of Washington.

For the Willamette River, this value represents a decrease from the previous temperature criteria of 70oF and makes it consistent with the C olumbia River numeric criteria. The technical committee had recommended the 68oF criteria for these large, lower river segments recognizing that temperatures were expected to be higher in these segments as factors such as the naturally wide channels would minimize the ability to shade these rivers and reduce the thermal loading.

Both of these rivers are water quality limited for temperature and the temperature criteria can be revisited as part of the effort to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads. The Depart ment is currently working with EPA to develop a temperature assessment for the Columbia River and is participating in a Willamette Basin Reservoir Study with the Corp of Engineers and other state agencies. The timing of specific TMDLs is currently being

ne gotiated with EPA.

64o F Temperature Criteria: EPA has expressed concern that the 64oF criterion may not be fully protective. The Final Issue Paper on Temperature indicates that “the

incidence of disease from Chondrococcus columnaris increases above 60

- 62o F and cites various sources for this statement (page 2

- 4 and Appendix D of the Final Issue Paper on Temperature). This is based both on observations from laboratory studies and
field studies.

A review of this literature indicates t hat it is difficult to establish a temperature criteria for waters that experience diurnal temperature changes that would assure no affects due to
C. columnaris . For example, J. Fryer and K. Pilcher (“Effects of Temperature on Diseases of Salmonid Fishes, EPA

- 660/3

- 73

- 020, 1974) conducted in the laboratory studies using constant temperatures and concluded:

“When coho and spring chinook salmon, and rainbow trout are infected with C.

columnaris by water contact, the percentage of fatal infections is high at temperatures of 64oF and above, moderate at 59oF and approaches zero at 49oF and below. A temperature of 54oF is close to the threshold for development of fatal infection of salmonids by C. columnaris.”

There is literature that suggests that fish pathoge ns which affect Oregon’s cold

- water fishes become more infective and virulent at temperatures ranging from the lower mid

sixties to low seventies (Becker and Fujihara, 1978). Ordal and Pacha (1963) found that

mortalities due to C. columnaris outbreaks are lessened or cease when temperatures are reduced below 65oF. Bell (1986) suggested that outbreaks of high virulence strains
of C. columnaris occur when average water temperatures reach 15.5oC and the low virulence strains become apparent with average water temperatures over 20oC.

### Appendix 1

A good discussion of field studies is given in the report “Columbia River Thermal Effects Study” (EPA, 1971).

“Natural outbreaks of columnaris disease in adult salmon have been linked to high water temperatures in the Fraser Riv er, British Columbia. ...The pathological effects of the disease became evident when water temperatures along the migration route, and in spawning areas, exceeded 60oF. Prespawning mortality reached 90 percent in
some tributaries. Columnaris is the infected sockeye spawners was controlled when temperatures fell below 57

- 58oF and mortalities were reduced. “

“Data collected on antibody levels in the Columbia River fish “...suggest peak yearly effective infection of at least 70 percent to 80 percent of most adult river fish species” (Fujihara and Hungate, 1970). Occurrence of the disease was generally associated with temperatures above 55oF; the authors further suggest that the incidence of columnaris may be increased by extended periods of warm temperatures than by peak summer temperatures.”

“Other factors including the general condition of the fish, nutritional state, size, presence of toxicants, level of antibody protection, exposure to nitrogen supersaturation, level of dissolved oxygen, and perhaps other fact ors interrelate in the infection of fish by diseases. However, the diseases discussed here are of less importance at temperatures below 60oF; that is, in most instances mortalities due to
columaris are minimized or eliminated below that level.”

As indicat ed in the section on “Standard Alternatives and Technical Evaluation” in the Temperature Issue Paper, the technical committee had recommended a temperature range (58

- 64oF) as being protective for salmonid rearing. While 64oF is at the upper
end of the ra nge, the key to this recommendation is the temperature unit (page 3

- 2) that

is used in the standard

- the seven

- day moving average of the daily maximum temperatures. Exceedence of the criteria is based on the average of the daily maximum temperatures that a waterbody experiences over the course of seven consecutive days exceeding 64oF.

Streams experience a natural fluctuation of daily temperatures so streams that were just meeting the temperature standard would be experiencing temperatures over 60oF for

o nly short periods of time during the day and have lower average temperatures. For example, the Department has summarized temperature data collected at 6 sites around
the state which are near the 7

- day average of the daily maximum of 64oF (see table below). As shown, the daily average temperatures typically range between 55

- 60oF. Risks should be minimized at these average temperatures.

In conclusion, the criteria does not represent an assured no

- effect level. However, because the criteria represent a “maxi mum” condition, given diurnal variability, conditions will be better than criteria nearly all of the time at most sites.

### Appendix 1 7

- Day
Statistic Average Daily Temperatures

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Grande Ronde Basin

East Fork Grande Ronde River 64.7 57.8 58.1 57.4 57.1 57.3 58.0 58.1 Beaver Creek (upstream La Grande Res.) 65.2 55.1 56.5 58 58.2 59.7 60.1 59.9

Umpqua Basin

Jim Creek (mouth) 62.5 58.2 59.5 59.9 60.1 58.6 55.7 56.8 Pass Creek (upper) 64.4 59.0 58.7 58.1 58.5 59.1 59.3 57.7

Tillamook Basin

Myrtle Creek (mouth) 65.0 57.7 59.1 58.6 57.9 58.0 57.6 56.8 Sam Downs Creek (mouth) 63.9 55.8 55.9 55.5 55.5 55.7 55.6 56.1

Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Criteria for Cool Water and Warm Water Species:

Warm Water: The Oregon warm water criteria for dissolved oxygen is 5.5 mg/l as a 30 day mean and 4.0 mg/l as a minimum. These values meet or exceed the recommended national criteria for warm water criteria for other life stages (5.5 mg/l as a 30 day mean

a nd 3.0 as a 1 day minimum as shown in Table 1 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 (EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001)). These values are slightly below national criteria suggested for protection of early life stages (6.0 mg/l as a 7 day mea n and 5.0 as a 1 day minimum as shown in Table 1 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water, 1986) . As shown on Table 2 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 , this would represent a slight impairment for e arly life stages.

This criteria would be applied to both native and non

- native warm water species. Table

2

- 3 in the Temperature Issue Paper (page 2

- 14) contains a list of non

- salmonid fish species present in Oregon. Warm water species include: Borax Chub; Cyprinids (goldfish, carp, fathead minnows); Centrarchids (Bluegill, Crappie, Large

- mouth Bass); and Catfish. The only known warm

- water species that is native to Oregon is the Borax Chub, which is found near a hot springs. The others have been introduced and now perpetuate themselves in some basins. These species are typically Spring spawners (April

- June) during which times dissolved oxygen values are not at the seasonal lows (July

- August) and typically have not been found to be a problem. In addition, salmonid spawning criteria, which are more protective, typically apply during these time period.

It should be noted that most of the introduced warm water species now compete with the native cold and cool water species for habitat and food. There are num erous recovery plans being developed for these native species. A level of protection that may have a slight production impairment for non

- native warm water species is not necessarily

undesirable.

Cool Water: A cool water classification was created to pro tect cool water species where

cold

- water biota may be present during part or all of the year but would not form the dominate community structure. The cool water criteria match the national coldwater

criteria

- other life stages criteria.

### Appendix 1

Table 2

- 3 in the Temperature Issue Paper (page 2

- 14) contains a list of non

- salmonid fish species present in Oregon. Cool water species include: Chub; Suckers; Sandroller; Sturgeon; Centrarchids (Small

- mouth Bass); Striped Bass; and Walleye. Small mouth bass, striped bass and walleye are introduced species. This category was set up to provide more protection than that afforded by the other life stage criteria for warm water fish and, as discussed in the Gold Book, we provided these cool water species with the cold water spe cies protection suggested in the national criteria (Table 1 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water , 1986). These species are typically Spring spawners (April

- June) during which times dissolved oxygen values are not at the

seasonal lows (July

- August) and typically have not been found to be a problem.

Table 2

- 2 of the Dissolved Oxygen Issue Paper indicates that salmonids and other cold

water biota may be present during part or all of the year but may not dominate community structu re. Any salmonid spawning would still be covered by the salmonid spawning standard. The Oregon standards provide higher protection for salmonid spawning and cold water rearing than that recommended under the national criteria by choosing the “no production impairment” levels suggested in Table 2 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water , 1986.

When adequate information/data exists: The dissolved oxygen standard provides multiple criteria for cold, cool and warm water aquatic life. For example, OAR 340

- 41

- 445 (2) (a) (D) reads: “For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing cold

water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen sh all not be less than 8.0 mg/l as an absolute minimum. Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of the 8.0 mg/l, dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 90 percent of saturation. At the discretion of the Departm ent, when the Department determines that adequate information exists, the dissolved oxygen shall not fall below 8.0 mg/l as a 30

- day mean minimum, 6.5 mg/l as a seven

- day minimum mean, and shall not fall below 6.0mg/l as an absolute minimum (Table 21).”

I n this example, the Department would routinely compare dissolved oxygen values against 8.0 mg/l criteria (the higher dissolved oxygen criteria). Most dissolved oxygen data are collected by a grab sample during the day time and would not reflect minimum

con ditions, that is why we would use a more restrictive criteria. Adequate information to use the other criteria would involve the collection of diurnal data over long enough periods of time (e.g. multiple days or multiple weeks) during critical time periods (e.g. low flow periods, hottest water temperature periods, period of maximum waste discharge). Such data would be collected through continuous monitoring with proper quality assurance. Based on this data collection, sufficient data would be available to ca lculate means, minimum means and minimum values and to compare to the appropriate criteria. Models that would provide these statistics could also be compared to the appropriate

criteria.

In addition, for actions such as permitting and developing TMDLs, a dditional information on the beneficial uses of the waterbody will be considered such as: species present; listing status of those species; locations, time periods and presence of sensitive early life stages, etc. Based on presence of early life stages or T&E species, the more

conservative criteria would be used.

### Appendix 1

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES:

Air temperature exemption to the water temperature criteria: OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(b) (B) specifies that “an exceedence of the numeric criteria identified subparagraph (A) ... of this subsection will not be deemed a temperature standard violation if it occurs when the air temperature during the warmest seven

- day period of the year exceeds the

90 th percentile of the seven

- day average daily maximum air temperature calculated in a yearly series over the historic record. However, during such periods, the anthropogenic sources must still continue to comply with their surface water temperature management plans developed under OAR 340

- 41

- 026(3)(a)(D).”

This policy identifies criteri a to be used in certain limited circumstances to determine whether a violation of the temperature water quality standard has occurred. This interpretation would be applied for the purposes of enforcement of standards and the 303(d) listing determinations. Our interpretation of how this air temperature exemption would be applied has been sent to you separately. In the 1994/96 303(d) list, no water
bodies were excluded from the list for this reason.

Exceptions to the policy that prohibits new or increased d ischarged load to receiving streams classified as being water quality limited:

OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (C) states “the new or increased discharged load shall not be granted if the receiving stream is classified as being water quality limited under OAR

340

- 41

- 0 06(30)(a), unless...”

OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (a) C (iii) added new language under this policy which defines a condition under which a new or increased discharged load could be allowed to a water quality limited waterbody for dissolved oxygen. The language stat es: “ (iii) Effective July 1, 1996, in waterbodies designated water

- quality limited for dissolved oxygen, when establishing WLAs under a TMDL for waterbodies meeting the conditions defined in this rule, the Department may at its discretion provide an allowa nce for WLAs calculated to result in no measurable reduction of dissolved oxygen. For this purpose, “no measurable reduction” is defined as no more than 0.10 mg/l for a single source and no more than 0.20 mg/l for all anthropogenic activities that influenc e the water quality limited segment. The allowance applies for surface water DO criteria and for Intergravel DO if a

determination is made that the conditions are natural. The allowance for WLAs would apply only to surface water 30

- day and seven

- day means, and the IGDO action level.”

This is an implementation policy for OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (C) and clarifies that we could allow for an increase in load in a waterbody that is water quality limited for dissolved oxygen as long as it did not result in a measur able reduction of dissolved oxygen as
defined above and it was determined that the low DO values were due to a natural condition. A site specific criteria for the waterbody would need to be developed and submitted to EPA for review and approval.

All feas ible steps: OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (D) indicates that: “Sources shall continue to maintain and improve, if necessary, the surface water temperature management plan in order to maintain the cooling trend until the numeric criterion is achieved or until the Depa rtment, in consultation with the Designated Management Agencies (DMAs), has

### Appendix 1

determined that all feasible steps have been taken to meet the criterion and that the designated beneficial uses are not being adversely impacted. In this latter situation, the

tem perature achieved after all feasible steps have been taken will be the temperature criterion for the surface waters covered by the applicable management plan. The determination that all feasible steps have been taken will be based on, but not limited to,

a site

- specific balance of the following criteria: protection of beneficial uses; appropriateness to local conditions; use of best treatment technologies or management practices or measures; and cost of compliance.”

As indicated, if the waters do not com e into compliance with the standard after all feasible steps have been taken, the Department would develop a site

- specific criteria which would be submitted to EPA for approval pursuant to EPA policy.

1.0o F increase for new or increased discharge loads f rom point sources or hydro

power projects in temperature water quality limited basins: OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (F), (G), (H) state: “(F) In basins determined by the Department to be exceeding the numeric temperature criteria, and which are required to develop surface water temperature management plans, new or increased discharge loads from point source sources which require an NPDES permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act or hydro

- power projects which require certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act are allowed a 1.0oF total cumulative increase in surface water temperatures as the surface water

temperature management plan is being developed and implemented for the water quality
limited basin if: (i) in the best professional judgment of the Department, the new or increased discharge load, even with the resulting 1.0oF cumulative increase, will not conflict with or impair the ability of the surface water temperature management plan to achieve the numeric temperature criteria; and (ii) A new or expa nding source must demonstrate that it fits within the 1.0oF increase and that its activities will not result in a measurable impact on beneficial uses. This latter showing must be made by demonstrating to the Department that the temperature change due to i ts activities will be less than or equal to 0.25oF under a conservative approach or by demonstrating the same to the EQC with appropriate modeling.

(G) Any source may petition the Department for an exception to paragraph (F) of this subsection, provided: (i) The discharge will result in less than 1.0oF increase at the edge of the mixing zone, and subparagraph (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph applies; (ii) The source provides the necessary scientific information to describe how the designated beneficial uses would no t be adversely impacted; or (iii) The source demonstrates that: (I) It is implementing all reasonable management practices; (II) Its activity will not significantly affect the beneficial uses; and (III) The environmental cost of treating the parameter to the level necessary to assure full protection would outweigh the risk to the resource.

OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (F) and (G) reflect an implementation policy for OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (C). They clarify under what conditions the Department could allow for an increase in

load to a waterb ody that is water quality limited for temperature as long as the load did not result in a measurable increase in temperature (less than or equal to 0.25oF) or a

### Appendix 1

cumulative increase of 1.0oF under (F) but a source could petition for up to the

cumulative inc rease of 1.0oF under (G). The cumulative increase typically addresses the situation where there may be multiple new or increased discharges. A TMDL would still be developed to bring the waterbody back into compliance with the temperature criteria.

The WLA and the permit for the new or increased source would target the appropriate temperature criteria using a conservative approach as shown below (e.g. calculations would be made using 63oF so that the cumulative increase would not be above the

standard of 64o F). 2

OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (H) states: “ Any source or DMA may petition the Commission for an exception to paragraph (F) of this subsection, provided: (i) The source or DMA provides the necessary scientific information to describe how the designated beneficial us es would not be adversely impacted; or (ii) The source or DMA demonstrates that: (I) It is implementing all reasonable management practices; (II) Its activity will not significantly affect the beneficial uses; and (III) The environmental cost of treating the parameter to the level necessary to assure full protection would outweigh the risk to the resource. “

This exemption is a variance policy in which a source can petition the Commission to allow the temperature to increase by a specified amount for a limited period of time in order to allow for new or increased point source discharges to water quality limited waters until a TMDL is prepared. The variance would be submitted to EPA for review and approval. These variances would be reviewed again during the development of a

TMD L or at permit renewal.

Source Petition for an exception to temperature criteria: OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(b)(C) specifies that “Any source may petition the Commission for an exception to subparagraph (A)...of this subsection for discharge above the identified criteria if: (i) The source provides the necessary scientific information to describe how the designated beneficial uses would not be adversely impacted; or (ii) a source is implementing all reasonable management practices or measures; its activity will no t significantly affect the

2 Examples of various of discharge scenarios using a conservati ve mass balance analysis. The odd numbered examples show a scenario when the stream meets standards. The subsequent even numbered example shows the scenario when the stream is above standard. Examples 1

- 4 would be addressed under OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (F); examples 5

- 8 would
be addressed under OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (G); and examples 9

- 10 would be addressed under OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (H).

Example Upstream Effluent Downstream Change in

Flow Temp Flow Temp Flow Temp Temp

1 10 63 0.4 69.5 10.4 63.25 0.25

2 10 73 0.4 69.5 10.4 72.87

- 0.13

3 10 63 0.1 88 10.1 63.25 0.25

4 10 73 0.1 88 10.1 73.15 0.15

5 10 63 0.4 79.5 10.4 63.63 0.63

6 10 73 0.4 79.5 10.4 73.25 0.25

7 10 63 0.4 89 10.4 64.00 1.00

8 10 73 0.4 89 10.4 73.62 0.62

9 10 61.5 1 89 11 64.00 2.50

10 10 73 1 89 11 74.45 1.45

### Appendix 1

beneficial uses; and the environmental cost of treating the parameter to the level necessary to assure full protection would outweigh the risk to the resource.”

This will be, for most cases, a variance policy which allows the t emperature to increase by a specified amount for a limited period of time in order to allow for an existing point source to discharge to water quality limited waters until a TMDL is prepared. In the case where that source would be the major cause for the t emperature criteria to be exceeded and a TMDL would not be developed for that waterbody to bring it back into compliance, a site specific criteria would be developed and submitted to EPA for approval.

pH Standard exception: OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2) (d) state s “The following exception applies: Waters impounded by dams existing on January 1, 1996, which have pHs that exceed the criteria shall not be considered in violation of the standard if the Department

determines that the exceedence would not occur without the impoundment and that all practicable measures have been taken to bring the pH in the impounded waters into compliance with the criteria.”

This language was intended to address the situation where a hydroproject would be applying for a 401 re

- certific ation and it was found that the action of impounding the waters caused algal growth which caused the reservoir to subsequently exceed the pH standard. This might set up the situation where the only way to re

- certify the project would be to destroy the dam which may not be the preferred option. In the cases where this exception would be applied, the Department would develop either a TMDL for nutrients in the upstream watershed, develop a site specific criteria for the waterbody or develop a use attainability analysis to modify the uses for portions of the reservoir.

Final Note: ODFW has a great deal of knowledge regarding location and timing for presence, spawning, etc of fish in Oregon streams. Much of this information is either in
the files contained in lo cal field offices or is gained from the judgment of the local biologist. Until recently, it has not been mapped. A mapping effort is underway and is furthest along for Bull Trout and Anadromous fish species. There is a coordinated effort underway entitled “StreamNet” (www.streamnet.org). This work is focused on a species by species mapping which would need to be generalized to match cold, cool, warm

water classification and spawning vs rearing groupings indicated in the standards. Issues such as mapping sca les and coverage would still need to be worked out. This effort, to better categorize aquatic life uses, could be addressed in subsequent triennial standards reviews but will need additional funding to complete.

There are quite a number of standards relat ed issues that are candidates for consideration during the next triennial review. ODEQ and EPA should get together once ODEQ has hired a new standards coordinator to discuss priorities and approaches for conducting the next triennial review process.

Please feel to contact Andy Schaedel (503

- 229

- 6121) or Lynne Kennedy (503

- 229

- 5371) if you have further questions. Sincerely,

Michael T. Llewelyn Administrator, Water Quality Division

cc: Water Quality Managers

# Appendix 2. February 4, 2004 DEQ Letter to EPA Region 10, Oregon Responses to EPA Questions on State’s Water Quality Temperature Standards

### Appendix 2

### Appendix 2 

# O regon Department of Environmental

Quality Headquarters

Theodore Kulongoski, Governor 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204

- 1390 

### (503) 229

- 5696

FAX (503)229

- 6124 TTY (503) 229

- 6993 

### February 4, 2004

Mr. Randy Smith, Director

Office of Water U.S. EPA Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101

Re: Oregon Responses to EPA Questions re the State’s water qual ity temperature

standards

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter is a follow up to our similar correspondence of December 19, 2003, which described Oregon’s newly adopted antidegradation and temperature rules. There are three purposes for this letter. First, we are offering similar clarifications regarding the State’s intended methodology for identifying natural conditions for parameters other than temperature. Second, we are commenting on several proposed conservation measures EPA is developing pursuant to consulta tion under the Endangered Species Act. Finally, we are providing your Agency with information on the application of the dissolved oxygen criteria to resident fish spawning.

Natural Conditions

As we indicated in our earlier letter, our revised rules make it clear that where ODEQ identifies a natural condition which is less stringent than the numeric criteria set out in the State’s water quality standards, the natural condition supercedes the num eric criteria. Very similar language appeared in our previous rules, which were previously approved by EPA.

By definition, “natural conditions” are those pollutants that are present in the State’s waters that are not attributable to anthropogenic activit ies. Rather, these conditions are caused by local geophysical, hydrological and meteorological processes and wildlife. ODEQ anticipates that site

- specific natural conditions might be identified for the following parameters:

 Bacteria (attributed to wildlif e)

### Appendix 2

 Metals (attributed to naturally eroding ore deposits)

 Nutrients (attributed to background soil, vegetation and/or wildlife conditions)

 Sediments and Turbidity (attributed to soil erosion and/or organic matter not accelerated by human activities)

 Other p arameters attributed to similar natural processes. Prior to a natural condition superceding otherwise applicable numeric criteria, ODEQ will make a finding as to the level at which the pollutant is present with no influence from anthropogenic activities. S imilarly, ODEQ will document the natural process contributing to the presence of the pollutant. The specific methodology used to support a natural condition finding may vary in each local situation. However, in general the methodologies used will be simila r to that described in our December 19, 2003 letter:

 Reference streams,

 Pollutant transport models,

 DNA testing,

 Historical data (where available) and/or

 Other sampling methods and studies.

The public will have specific notice of these natural conditio ns whenever they are relevant to one of the Clean Water Act regulatory programs. The public notices and documentation accompanying the biannual 303(d) listing process, draft TMDLs, draft NPDES permits and 401 water quality certifications will indicate that the otherwise applicable numeric criteria have been superceded by a natural conditions finding. Moreover, since 303(d) listings and TMDLs are transmitted to EPA for approval, the Agency will have an opportunity to review ODEQ ’s natural conditions conclus ions. ODEQ is committed to work with EPA as natural condition methodologies are refined in the TMDL, NPDES and 303(d) listing contexts.

ODEQ expects that natural conditions will most commonly be identified through the TMDL process. In that circumstance, E PA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate any natural condition determination as part of its TMDL approval action. ODEQ will list the water bodies where “natural conditions” findings have been made on our standards web page to ensure that the publ ic is aware and notified of natural conditions,

It should be noted that it is possible, at some locations in the State, that the natural condition will not support, and never has supported a designated beneficial use. In such circumstances, ODEQ will mod ify the designated use to properly adjust the beneficial use to better reflect the existing use of the water segment.

Proposed Conservation Measures

ODEQ is aware that EPA is considering several conservation measures associated with its approval of the State water quality standards revisions. EPA has inquired whether ODEQ would participate in these conservation measures if they are pursued. To begin

wi th, ODEQ notes that most of these conservation measures pursue information on the

future implementation of the State’s standards. They are best categorized as efforts

### Appendix 2

intended to identify additional information supporting the use of our standards once they are in place.

Since Oregon has a strong interest in these federal initiatives, ODEQ will, resources allowing, participate in the proposed conservation measures as described in EPA’s Biological Evaluation: Temperature Monitoring and Use Designations (2.5. 1) and the Two Year Review (2.5.2).

Dissolved Oxygen and Spawning

The revised Oregon rules clarified spawning locations and timing for anadromous fish and Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. Due to a lack of site specific data for species other than these, and sin ce temperature criteria for spawning were not established for other species, no similar clarification was made for resident trout (i.e., rainbow, redband, Westslope cutthroat and coastal cutthroat) or char (bull trout) spawning. However, the dissolved

oxyg en criteria contain provisions that continue to apply to resident trout and char spawning areas. ODEQ will use the following dates to apply the dissolved oxygen spawning criteria (throughout the range where the Oregon maps indicate trout rearing,

redband t rout and core cold water habitat uses are identified).

Resident Trout Spawning (Redband, Rainbow, Westslope and Coastal Cutthroat)

 For waters designated as trout rearing, or redband trout use, spawning is deemed to occur from January 1

– May 15 each yea r;

 For waters designated as core cold water habitat, or bull trout spawning and rearing use, resident trout spawning is deemed to occur from January 1

– June 15 each year; and

 For trout rearing waters upstream from core cold water habitat, spawning is a lso deemed to occur from January 1

– June 15 each year.

Char (Bull Trout) Spawning

The following dates apply to all reaches designated as having “bull trout spawning and rearing use” within the specified basin or subbasin:

Basin Subbasin Spawning Period Source of Information

South Willamette Aug 15

– May 30 ODFW

John Day Sept 1

– April 30 ODFW

Umatilla Sept 1

– April 30 ODFW

### Appendix 2

Walla Walla Sept 1

– April 30 ODFW

Grand Ronde Upper G. R. Sept 1

– April 15 ODFW

Wallowa Sept 1

– May 15 ODFW

Wenaha Aug 15

– March 31 ODFW

Imnaha Aug 15

– May 31 ODFW

Hood Aug 15

– May 15 USFWS

Deschutes Aug 15

– May 15 USFWS

Powder Aug 15

– May 15 USFWS

Malheur Aug 15

– May 30 USFWS

Klamath Aug 15

- May 30 USFWS

This timing information will be circulated to ODEQ field staff responsible for implementing the dissolved oxygen criteria. ODEQ will continue to refine all of these designations as more information is developed on resi dent trout and char spawning

activities.

Oregon looks forward to EPA’s review and approval of our water quality standards. If you require any additional information or clarification of these rules, please contact me or have your staff call Mark Charles, water quality standards manager at (503) 229

- 5589.

Sincerely,

Michael T. Llewelyn, Administrator Water Quality Program

Cc: Stephanie Hallock

- ODEQ

Mark Charles

- ODEQ Paula van Haagen

- EPA Mary Lou Soscia

- EPA

# Appendix 3. June 8, 2010 DEQ Memorandum, Application of Dissolved Oxygen Criteria to "Salmon and Trout Rearing and Migration" Beneficial Use and

"Redband or Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout" Beneficial Use

### Appendix 3

### Appendix 3

### Appendix 3

### Appendix 3

### Appendix 3

### Appendix 4 

# Appendix 4. Toxic Substance Human Health and Aquatic Life
Criteria Used for the 2012 Integrated Report

### Appendix 4

### Appendix 4 

# Toxic Substance Human Health and Aquatic Life Criteria Used for the 2012 Integrated Report

The following table combines the aquatic life criteria from OAR 340

- 041 Table 20 and the human health toxic substance criteria from OAR 340

- 041 Table 40. These criteria are applied for the 2012 Integrated Report. The aquatic life toxic criteria in this table do not ref lect EPA’s Jan. 31, 2013 approval and disapproval a ctions on Oregon’s aquatic life criteria which were revised and adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC)

in 2004. The EQC has not officially adopted this table and it does not replace OAR 340

- 041Table 20 or OAR 340

- 041 Table 40.

Effective Human Health and Aquatic Life Criteria for CWA Purposes (Based on Tables 20 and 40)

No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Human Health
Criteria: Water + Organism (μg/L) Human Health

Criteria: Organism Only (μg/L) Freshwater

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Freshwater

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L Marine

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Marine

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L

1 Acenaphthene 83329 n 95 99

-- -- -- -- 2 Acrolein 107028 n 0.88 0.93

-- -- -- -- 3 Acrylonitrile 107131 y 0.018 0.025

-- -- -- -- 4 Aldrin 309002 y 0.0000050 0.0000050 3

-- 1.3

-- 5 Alkalinity

-- -- -- 20,000

-- -- 6 Ammonia 7664417

-- -- All criteria are pH and temperature dependent See document USEPA January 1985 (Fresh Water) See document USEPA April 1989 (Marine Water)

7 Anthracene 120127 n 2900 4000

-- -- -- -- 8 Antimony 7440360 n 5.1 64

-- -- -- -- 9 Arsenic (inorganic) 7440382 y 2.1 2.1 (freshwater) 1.0 (saltwater) -- -- -- --

The arsenic criteria are expressed as total inorganic arsenic. The “organism only” criteria are based on a risk level of approximately of 1.1 x 10

- 5, and the “water + organism”

criterion is based on a risk level of 1 x 10

- 4.

10 Arsenic (tri)

-- -- 360 190 69 36

11 Asbestos 1332214 y 7,000,000 fibers/L

-- -- -- -- -- The human health risks from asbestos are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

12 Barium 7440393 n 1000

-- -- -- -- -- The human health criterion for barium is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980 me thodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drink ing water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contamina nt Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

13 Benzene 71432 y 0.44 1.4

-- -- -- -- 14 Benzidine 92875 y 0.000018 0.000020

-- -- -- -- 15 Benz(a)anthracene 56553 y 0.0013 0.0018

-- -- -- -- 16 Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 y 0.0013 0.0018

-- -- -- -- 17 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3,4 205992 y 0.0013 0.0018

-- -- -- -- 18 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 y 0.0013 0.0018

-- -- -- --

### Appendix 4 No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Human Health
Criteria: Water + Organism (μg/L) Human Health

Criteria: Organism Only (μg/L) Freshwater

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Freshwater

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L Marine

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Marine

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L

19 BHC Alpha 319846 y 0.00045 0.00049

-- -- -- -- 20 BHC Beta 319857 y 0.0016 0.0017

-- -- -- -- 21 BHC Gamma (Lindane) 58899 n 0.17 0.18 2.0 0.08 0.16

-- 22 Bromoform 75252 y 3.3 14

-- -- -- -- 23 Butylbenzyl Phthalate 85687 n 190 190

-- -- -- -- 24 Cadmium 7440439

-- -- 3.9* 1.1* 43 9.3

* The freshwater criteria are hardness dependent (100 mg/L used).

25 Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 y 0.10 0.16

-- -- -- -- 26 Chlordane 57749 y 0.000081 0.000081 2.4 0.0043 0.09 0.004

27 Chloride 16887006

-- -- 860,000 230,000

28 Chlorine 7782505

-- -- 19 11 13 7.5

29 Chlorobenzene 108907 n 74 160

-- -- -- -- 30 Chlorodibromomethane 124481 y 0.31 1.3

-- -- -- -- 31 Chloroethyl Ether bis 2 111444 y 0.020 0.05

-- -- -- -- 32 Chloroform 67663 n 260 1100

-- -- -- -- 33 Chloroisopropyl Ether bis

2 108601 n 1200 6500

-- -- -- --

34 Chloromethyl ether, bis 542881 y 0.000024 0.000029

-- -- -- -- 35 Chloronaphthalene 2 91587 n 150 160

-- -- -- -- 36 Chlorophenol 2 95578 n 14 15

-- -- -- -- 37 Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,

- TP) 93721 n 10

-- -- -- -- --

The Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,

- TP) criterion is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primar ily from drinkin g water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established u nder the Safe Drinking Water Act.

38 Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4

- D) 94757 n 100

-- -- -- -- --

The Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4

- D) criterion is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980 methodology and did not uti lize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established u nder the Safe Drinking Water Act.

39 Chlorpyrifos 2921882

-- -- 0.083 0.041 0.011 0.0056

40 Chromium (Hex) 18540299

-- -- 16 11 1100 50

41 Chromium (Tri)

-- -- 1700 210

-- -- Freshwater criteria hardness dependent (100 mg/L used)

42 Chrysene 218019 y 0.0013 0.0018

-- -- -- -- 43 Copper 7440508 n 1300▪

-- 18* 12* 2.9 2.9

▪ Human health risks from copper are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The “ water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

* Freshwater criteria hardness dependent (100 mg/L used)

44 Cyanide 57125 n 130▪ 130▪ 22 5.2 1 1

▪ The cyanide criterion is expressed as total cyanide (CN)/L.

45 DDD 4,4' 72548 y 0.000031 0.000031

-- -- -- --

### Appendix 4 No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Human Health
Criteria: Water + Organism (μg/L) Human Health

Criteria: Organism Only (μg/L) Freshwater

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Freshwater

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L Marine

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Marine

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L

46 DDE 4,4' 72559 y 0.000022 0.000022

-- -- -- -- 47 DDT 4,4' 50293 y 0.000022 0.000022 1.1 0.001 0.13 0.001

48 Demeton 8065483

-- -- -- 0.1

-- 0.1

49 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53703 y 0.0013 0.0018

-- -- -- -- 50 Dichlorobenzene(m) 1,3 541731 n 80 96

-- -- -- -- 51 Dichlorobenzene(o) 1,2 95501 n 110 130

-- -- -- -- 52 Dichlorobenzene(p) 1,4 106467 n 16 19

-- -- -- -- 53 Dichlorobenzidine 3,3' 91941 y 0.0027 0.0028

-- -- -- -- 54 Dichlorobromomethane 75274 y 0.42 1.7

-- -- -- -- 55 Dichloroethane 1,2 107062 y 0.35 3.7

-- -- -- -- 56 Dichloroethylene 1,1 75354 n 230 710

-- -- -- -- 57 Dichloroethylene trans 1,2 156605 n 120 1000

-- -- -- --

58 Dichlorophenol 2,4 120832 n 23 29

-- -- -- -- 59 Dichloropropane 1,2 78875 y 0.38 1.5

-- -- -- -- 60 Dichloropropene 1,3 542756 y 0.30 2.1

-- -- -- -- 61 Dieldrin 60571 y 0.0000053 0.0000054 2.5 0.0019 0.71 0.0019

62 Diethyl Phthalate 84662 n 3800 4400

-- -- -- -- 63 Dimethyl Phthalate 131113 n 84000 110000

-- -- -- -- 64 Dimethylphenol 2,4 105679 n 76 85

-- -- -- -- 65 Di

- n

- butyl Phthalate 84742 n 400 450

-- -- -- -- 66 Dinitrophenol 2,4 51285 n 62 530

-- -- -- -- 67 Dinitrophenols 25550587 n 62 530

-- -- -- -- 68 Dinitrotoluene 2,4 121142 y 0.084 0.34

-- -- -- -- 69 Dioxin (2,3,7,8

- TCDD) 1746016 y 5.1E

- 10 5.1E

- 10

-- -- -- -- 70 Diphenylhydrazine 1,2 122667 y 0.014 0.020

-- -- -- -- 71 Endosulfan 115297

-- -- 0.22 0.056 0.034 0.0087

72 Endosulfan Alpha 959988 n 8.5 8.9

-- -- -- -- 73 Endosulfan Beta 33213659 n 8.5 8.9

-- -- -- -- 74 Endosulfan Sulfate 1031078 n 8.5 8.9

-- -- -- -- 75 Endrin 72208 n 0.024 0.024 0.18 0.0023 0.037 0.0023

76 Endrin Aldehyde 7421934 n 0.030 0.030

-- -- -- -- 77 Ethylbenzene 100414 n 160 210

-- -- -- -- 78 Ethylhexyl Phthalate bis

2 117817 y 0.20 0.22

-- -- -- --

79 Fluoranthene 206440 n 14 14

-- -- -- -- 80 Fluorene 86737 n 390 530

-- -- -- -- 81 Guthion 86500

-- -- -- 0.01

-- 0.01

82 Heptachlor 76448 y 0.0000079 0.0000079 0.52 0.0038 0.053 0.0036

83 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024573 y 0.0000039 0.0000039

-- -- -- -- 84 Hexachlorobenzene 118741 y 0.000029 0.000029

-- -- -- --

### Appendix 4 No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Human Health
Criteria: Water + Organism (μg/L) Human Health

Criteria: Organism Only (μg/L) Freshwater

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Freshwater

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L Marine

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Marine

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L

85 Hexachlorobutadiene 87683 y 0.36 1.8

-- -- -- -- 86 Hexachlorocyclo

- hexane

Technical 608731 y 0.0014 0.0015

-- -- -- --

87 Hexachlorocyclopentadie

ne 77474 n 30 110

-- -- -- --

88 Hexachloroethane 67721 y 0.29 0.33

-- -- -- -- 89 Indeno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene 193395 y 0.0013 0.0018

-- -- -- -- 90 Iron 7439896

-- -- -- 1000

-- -- 91 Isophorone 78591 y 27 96

-- -- -- -- 92 Lead 7439921

-- -- 82* 3.2* 140 5.6

* The freshwater criteria are hardness dependent (100 mg/L used)

93 Malathion 121755

-- -- -- 0.1

-- 0.1

94 Manganese 7439965 n

-- 100

-- -- -- -- The “fish consumption only” criterion for manganese applies only to salt water and is for total manganese. This EPA recommended criterion predates the 1980 human health methodology and does not utilize the fish ingestion BCF calculation method or a fish consumption rate.

95 Mercury 7439976

-- -- 2.4 0.012 2.1 0.025

96 Methoxychlor 72435 n 100▪

-- -- 0.03

-- 0.03

▪ The human health criterion for methoxychlor is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1 980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established u nder the Safe Drinking Water Act.

97 Meth yl Bromide 74839 n 37 150

-- -- -- -- 98 Methyl

- 4,6

- dinitrophenol

2 534521 n 9.2 28

-- -- -- --

99 Methylene Chloride 75092 y 4.3 59

-- -- -- -- 100 Methylmercury (mg/kg) 22967926 n

-- 0.040 mg/kg

-- -- -- -- This value is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury. Contaminated fish and shellfish is the primary human route of exposure to methylmercury

101 Mirex 2385855

-- -- -- 0.001

-- 0.001

102 Nickel 7440020 n 140 170 1400* 160* 75 8.3

* The freshwater criteria are hardness dependent (100 mg/L used).

103 Nitrates 14797558 n 10000

-- -- -- -- -- The human health criterion for nitrates is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drink ing water, therefore no “organism only” criterion was developed. The “water + organism” criterion is based on the Maximum Contamina nt Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

104 Nitrobenzene 98953 n 14 69

-- -- -- -- 105 Nitrosamines 35576911 y 0.00079 0.046

-- -- -- -- 106 Nitrosodibutylamine, N 924163 y 0.0050 0.022

-- -- -- -- 107 Nitrosodiethylamine, N 55185 y 0.00079 0.046

-- -- -- -- 108 Nitrosodimethylamine, N 62759 y 0.00068 0.30

-- -- -- -- 109 Nitrosodi

- n

- propylamine,

N 621647 y 0.0046 0.051

-- -- -- --

110 Nitrosodiphenylamine, N 86306 y 0.55 0.60

-- -- -- -- 111 Nitrosopyrrolidine, N 930552 y 0.016 3.4

-- -- -- --

### Appendix 4 No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Human Health
Criteria: Water + Organism (μg/L) Human Health

Criteria: Organism Only (μg/L) Freshwater

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Freshwater

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L Marine

Acute
Criteria (CMC) μg/L Marine

Chronic
Criteria (CCC) μg/L

112 Parathion 56382

-- -- 0.065 0.013

-- -- 113 Pentachlorobenzene 608935 n 0.15 0.15

-- -- -- -- 114 Pentachlorophenol 87865 y 0.15 0.30 20* 13* 13

--

* The freshwater criteria are pH dependent (7.8 pH used).

115 Phenol 108952 n 9400 86000

-- -- -- -- 116 Phosphorus Elemental 7723140

-- -- -- -- -- 0.1

117 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) NA y 0.0000064▪ 0.0000064▪ 2 0.014 10 0.03

▪ This criterion applies to total PCBs (e.g. determined as Aroclors or congeners).

118 Pyrene 129000 n 290 400

-- -- -- -- 119 Selenium 7782492 n 120 420 260 35 410 54

120 Silver 7440224

-- -- 4.1* 0.12 2.3

* The freshwater acute criterion is hardness dependent (100 mg/L used).

121 Sulfide Hydrogen Sulfide 7783064

-- -- -- 2

-- 2

122 Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5

- 95943 n 0.11 0.11

-- -- -- --

123 Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2 79345 y 0.12 0.40

-- -- -- --

124 Tetrachloroethylene 127184 y 0.24 0.33

-- -- -- -- 125 Thallium 7440280 n 0.043 0.047

-- -- -- -- 126 Toluene 108883 n 720 1500

-- -- -- -- 127 Toxaphene 8001352 y 0.000028 0.000028 0.73 0.0002 0.21 0.0002

128 Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4 120821 n 6.4 7.0

-- -- -- -- 129 Trichloroethane 1,1,2 79005 y 0.44 1.6

-- -- -- -- 130 Trichloroethylene 79016 y 1.4 3.0

-- -- -- -- 131 Trichlorophenol 2,4,6 88062 y 0.23 0.24

-- -- -- -- 132 Trichlorophenol, 2, 4, 5

- 95954 n 330 360

-- -- -- -- 133 Vinyl Chloride 75014 y 0.023 0.24

-- -- -- -- 134 Zinc 7440666 n 2100 2600 120* 110* 95 86

* The freshwater criteria are hardness dependent (100 mg/L is used).

### Appendix 4

### Appendix 5 

# Appendix 5. OAR 340

- 041 Table 20 Water Quality
Criteria

### Appendix 5