# State of Oregon Use Attainability Analysis And Site-Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive

Prepared By: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 811 SW Sixth Avenue

Portland, OR 97204

April 2, 2007Acknowledgments List ofAcronyms Executive Summary TABLE ofCONTENTS

Chapter 1: Water Quality Standards Overview Chapter 2: Process for Site Specific Criteria orUse Attainability Analysis Chapter 3: Technical Basis Analysis ofUse Waterbody Survey Waterbody SurveyDesign Review Biological Indicators Water Quality Indicators Habitat Indicators Review ofWaterbody SurveyResults Attainable Use Point Source and Nonpoint Source Controls Benefits to the Resource Chapter 4: Determining the Cost ofUse Attaimnent Chapter 5: Standards Review, Consultation and Approval/Disapproval Process Chapter 6: Integration ofUAAs and Site Specific Criteria with other Water QualityPrograms Chapter 7: What alternative methods are available? Variances Trading REFERENCES Appendix A Checklist ofAquatic Life Indicators Appendix B Checklist for EQC Submission Checklist for EPA submission Appendix C Regional and national context for UAAs

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive Page i 4/02/07

## Acknowledgments

This Oregon Department ofEnviromnental Quality Intemal Management Directive was developed with assistance from an advisory workgroup with membership from federal and state agencies, tribal govemments, public interest groups and private industry. This workgroup met from June until December 2004 and provided advice and guidance to DEQ in the development of the directive. Participation in the review ofthis document does not imply agreement with or endorsement ofthe directive by any ofthe participants. The U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agencyprovided funding and management ofcontract support for facilitation ofthe advisory workgroup to Systems Research and Applications Corporation through EPA Contract EP-W-04-015. Technical support for the development ofthe directive was provided byTetraTech through EPA Contract EP-C-04-030.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Oiteria Internal Management Directive Page ii 4102107BA BMPs CFR 

## cso CWA DMAs EMT EPA EQC ESA FERC 

### IBI NOAA NPDES OAR ODEQ ODFW OWEB PHABSIMM TAG TMDLs UAA USDA USFWS WQMP 

## List of Acronyms

Biological Assessment Best Management Practices Code ofFederal Regulations Combined Sewer Overflow Clean Water Act Designated Management Agencies Executive Management Team Environmental Protection Agency Environmental QualityCommission Endangered Species Act Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Index ofBiotic Integrity National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Oregon Administrative Rules OregonDepartment ofEnvironmental Quality Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Physical Habitat Simulation Model Technical Advisory Group Total Maximum DailyLoads Use Attainability Analysis US Department ofAgriculture US Fish and Wildlife Service Water QualityManagement Plan

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Oiteria Internal Management Directive Page iii 4/02/07

## Executive Summary

State Federal regulations require states to develop water quality standards. The uses designated uses specified by states in their water quality standards are designated uses.

Federal Ifa state decides to remove a designated use from the water quality standards definition ofa this is done by completing a use attainability analysis (UAA). According to use attainability federal regulations (40 CFR Section 131.3(g)) a UAA is: analysis

Purpose

Scope

Applicability

Components of this internal management directive "a structuredscientific assessment of thefactors affecting the attainment of the use which may includephysical, chemical, biological, andeconomic factors as described in Sec. 13J.IO(g)."

This document is intended to describe a process for determining ifa use attainability analysis or adoption ofsite specific criteria is appropriate and if so, what information shouldbe reviewed.

The information provided in this document is meant to guide DEQ in its internal procedures for applying existing statutes and rules related to use attainability analysis and site specific criteria. As such, the Internal Management Directive does not create rights or obligations on the part ofthe public orregulated entities.

This internal management directive maybe reviewed and implementedby: • Staffresponsible for reviewing and revising water quality standards; • Staffissuing new orrenewal NPDES permits, in which water quality standards attaiument is an issue; • Staffissuing 401 water quality certifications in which water quality standards attainment is an issue; • Staffdeveloping TMDLs.

This directive addresses procedural and datarequirements for a use attainability analysis (UAA) or site specific criteriato be considered for review byDEQ. The document also contains background information describing the various state and federal regulations that will influence the analysis. The document is not meant to be a primer on the Clean Water Act or federal regulations addressing water quality or threatened and endangered

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Pageiv 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveDEQ's expectations andlimitations

Contactfor Questions species. The reader is referred to appropriate citations.
DEQ expects that existing water quality will be maintained and improved. At the time ofadopting this Internal Management Directive, DEQ does not have sufficient general fund revenue to support changing the water quality standards via a use attainability analysis or adoption ofsite specific criteria. DEQ currently does not have a fee structure for this work. DEQ would considerreceipts authority only after requesting the Legislature or, in the interim, the Emergency Board provide general funds for the work. Ifthe Legislature does not provide general funds, DEQ would consider receipts authority only as part ofa transparent publicprocess and public comment opportunity on the question ofwhetherthe work should be done under receipts authority. Following the public comment on use ofreceipts authority DEQ may decide to proceedusing receipts authority. DEQ C(illllot commit to a rulemaking and as a result may decline to proceed at any time in the process. In determining whetherto pursue a changeto the designated use or adopt site specific criteriaDEQ may consider ifthe process will lead to an overall environmental improvement. Economic benefit will be part ofthe analysis but will not be the main consideration in changing a water quality standard. Any proposed changes to designated uses or adoption ofsite specific criteria will be subject to an openpublic process and likely undertaken as part ofthe water quality standards triennial review.

For questions about this directive contact the water quality standards staffin the Water Quality Division.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: final Page v 4/02107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management DirectivePurpose

Goals ofthe Clean Water Act

Review of federal regulations

What are designated uses? 

## Chapter 1: Water Quality Standards Overview

The purpose ofthis chapteris to provide an overview ofthe federal and state regulations that govem the development ofwater quality standards. Specificallythe chapter discusses federal regulations regarding removal of designated uses or adoption ofsub-categories ofdesignated uses and development ofsite specific criteria.

The objective ofthe Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity ofthe Nation's waters" (Section lOl(a)). In orderto achieve this objective the Act sets an interim goal ofwater quality to provide for the protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water.

Federal regulations require states 1to develop water quality standards. Water quality standards are "provisions ofState orFederal law which consist ofa designated use or uses for the waters ofthe United States and water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses"[40 CFR Section 131.3(i)]. In addition, States develop an antidegradation policy to protect existing water quality. States must specify appropriate uses to be achieved and protected. Suchuses may include "public water supplies, protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agricultural, industrial, and otherpurposes including navigation" [40 CFR Section 131.10 (a)].

The uses specified by States in their water quality standards are referred to as "designated uses." Designated uses are specified for a waterbody or a waterbody segment and may ormaynot be currently attained. Oregon defines a designated beneficial use as "the purpose orbenefit to be derived from a waterbody" (OAR 340-041-0002(17)). The tenn "designated beneficialuse" is the same as the term "designated use" in federal regulations.

1States include: The 50 States, the District ofColumbia, Guam, the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Trust Territory ofthe Pacific Islands, the Commonwealth ofthe Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines to be eligible for purposes ofwater quality standards program. (40 CFR 131.3(j))

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria lntemal Management Directive Page 1-l 4102107What are existing nses?

Oregon's designated nses Federal regulations require states to protect existinguses which are defined as "

...those uses actuallyattained in the waterbody on orafterNovember 28, 1975, whether ornot they are includedin the waterquality standards" [40 CFR Section 131.3(e)]. Ifthe existing use is not included in the water quality standards, the water quality suitable to support the existing use mustbe protected. As stated in 40 CFR Section 131.12(a)(l): "Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary toprotect the existing uses shall be maintainedand protected."

Oregon's designated uses are contained in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 41 (see:http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARs

_300/0AR _340/340

_04l.html). OAR 340-041-0101 through 340-041-0340 contains designated use tables for the 19 majorriver basins in the state. Numeric criteriato support the designated uses are found in OAR 340-041-0009 through 340-041-0036 as well as in basin specific sections. Frequently, the designated uses apply basin wide and state-wide since the uses are often repeated for each basin. In Oregon, for example, the designated use "water contactrecreation" is applied to all waters in the state, except the Bull Run River and its tributaries. Oregon's designated uses include :

• Public and private domestic water supply • Industrial water supply • Water contact recreation • Fishing • Fish and aquatic life • Hydropower, and others. An example ofa general designated use table for the Willamette Basin is shown in Table 1.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page l-2 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intcmal Management DirectiveWillamette River Tributaries Mainstem Willamette River
oil 

## "' a; 

# ... 

# - ... "' -a; c 0 E 0



## ... c 

# - 1.1.. 

# "' ... E E en'" !!J. 

## "' Beneficial Uses > 

## "' 

# .. iii 

# -

... 

# ... cuc.c iii 

# "' ii: 

# ... "' .2: 

## "' I!! 

### :=:oo rn 

# .. "'**~** l:r:

### ~ 

# - 1.1.. 

### ,g 0 

# "' >

### ~.~ S::o.c 

## "' 0 

# .. ii: 

## "' 

# _,. ie' E E ·;;; c 

## "'

... .sgs !? 

### ,g 

# .. .!!! 

# .. c 

# "' .c<U .c-0 E"' 

## "' E 

# ...**~** .!!! 

# -- ,Q iii 

# "' 0,5

- •C 

### ,..c 

## " 0 c 

# ..**:so!!~** =il=

### ~ 

# "' 

# .. .. " 

# " = 't: 0-" 

# ·-"' iii 

### 0 2 

### rn 2 1- <(I-**2~2** S:z z 

### rn Public Domestic Water X X X X X X X X X X Supply1 Private Domestic Water X X X X X X X X X X Suppli Industrial Water Supply X X X X X X X X X X Irrigation X X X X X X X X X X Livestock Watering X X X X X X X X X X Fish 

### &Aquatic Life2 X X X X X X X X X X Wildlife 

### & Hunting X X X X X X X X X X Fishing X X X X X X X X X X Boating X X X X X X X X X X Water Contact Recreation X X X X X X X 

# x3 X X Aesthetic Quality X X X X X X X X X X Hydro Power X X X X X X X X Commercial Navigation 

### & X X X Transportation ' With adequate pretreatment and natural quality that meets drinking water standards. " See also Figures 1 and 2 for fish use designations forthis basin.

o Not to conflict with commercial activities in Portland Harbor.



## .. Table 

### 1: Des1gnated Benef1c1al Uses Willamette Basin



### (340-041-0340)

Oregon'sfish use designation maps Maps are available that note the spatial extent ofparticular designated uses for fish as related to temperature criteria only. The designated uses for fish identified in the maps include:

• Salmon and steelhead spawning (with timing periods)
• Bull trout spawning andjuvenilerearing
• Core cold water habitat

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intema! Management Directive Page 1-3 4102107• Salmon and trout rearing and migration
• Salmon and steelhead migration corridors
• Redband and Lahontan cutthroat trout
• Cool water species Examples ofdesignated fish use maps for the same basin are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Crite1ia Internal Management Directive Page 1-4 4102107

### Figure 1: 

### Fish Use Designations Willamette Basin
Rgure340A Rth UseCel'ignations* Wllamette Basin, O"eg;n

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive Page IM5 4/02/07

### Figure 2: Salmon and Steelhead Spawning

Rgure 3408 SalmonandElee/headEp8'M1ingll;e09Sgnations* Wllarnette Basin, O"egJn

D3sigrlat€d&timon and SteelheadSpav.nlng LSe*: B..rll TrCl.lt 2pa'-Mlingand Rearlng Use: Alg.ISI1 SJ.me 15 (\) S:pt<mOOr 1 SJ.ne 15 (\) (\) B.ll1Trout$9Mli"lgan:!Rea-hg11'.1!jtat {\) &.'pl<!m00r1-Way15 

## rv Qiober1s.May15 (\) S:ptan\W1.J.Jre15 Q:tobe"15J..rne15 (\)**~€mb¥1SMay15** 

### r\J J;muary1.JV1ay15

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive Page 1¥6 4/02/07How are designated uses changed?

Six conditions allowing removal ofa designated use

Federal definition ofa use attainability analysis Federal regulations establish six conditions under which a designated use may be removed. The same six conditions must be reviewed and one ormore must be met for a sub-category ofa designated use to be adopted.

A State may remove a designated use or establish a sub-category ofa use, if the State can demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible because [40 CFR Section 131.1O(g)]: (1) Naturally occurringpollutant concentrationsprevent the attainment of the use; or (2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent orlow flow conditions or water levelspreventthe attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effiuent discharges without violating State water conservation requirements to enable uses to be met; or (3) Human caused conditions orsources of pollutionprevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied orwould cause more environmentaldamage to correct than to leave inplace; or ( 4) Dams, diversions orother types of hydrologic modificationspreclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the waterbody to its original condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the use; or (5) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of apropersubstrate, cover,flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality,preclude attainment of aquatic lifeprotection uses; or (6) Controls morestringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of theActwould result in substantialandwidespread economic andsocial impact.

The process for considering the removal ofa designated use or adoption ofa sub-category ofa designated use is called a use attainability analysis (UAA). According to federal regulations (40 CFR Section 131.3(g)) a UAA is: "a structuredscientific assessment of thefactors affecting the attainment of the use which may includephysical, chemical, biological, andeconomicfactors as described in Sec. 13l.JO(g)." The use attainability analysis is only the analysis to support the decision as to

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 1-7 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveWhen is a use attainability analysis required?

What are criteria?

How states develop criteria

Federal regulations addressing site specific criteria

When are site specific criteria appropriate? whether the removal ofa designated use is appropriate. Ifthe analysis supports removal ofthe designated use (or adoption ofa sub-category ofa designated use), there is a separate rule-making process to change the water quality standard.

Under federal regulations [40 CFR Section 13l.IO(j)J, a use attainability analysis must be done whenever:

• The State designates orhas designated uses that do not include the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Clean WaterAct ("water quality whichprovides for theprotection andpropagation of fish, shel!fish, and wildlife andprovides for recreation in andon the water'') [40 CFR Section 131.10(j)(1)]; or

• The State wishes to removea designated use specified in section 101(a)(2) of theActoradopt subcategories of the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of theAct that require less stringent criteria [40 CFR Section 131.10(j)(1)].

As stated in 40 CFR 131.3(b): "Criteria are elements ofState water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, ornarrative statements, representing a quality ofwater that supports a particularuse. When criteria are met, waterquality will generallyprotect the designated 

### use."

States must provide a scientific rationale with any criteria submitted to EPA for approval. As stated in40 CFR 13l.ll(a) "(1) States must adopt those water quality criteriathat protect the designated use. Such criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficientparameters or constituents to protect the designated use."

When States submit site specific criteriato EPA for review the State must submit "the methodologies used for site-specific criteria development," as well as "any general policies applicable to water quality standards and any revisions ofthe standards to the Regional Administrator ofEPA for review and approval, within 30 days ofthe final State action to adopt and certify the revised standard,

.." (40 CFR 131.20(c)).

Under section 304(a) ofthe Clean Water Act, EPA publishes water quality criteriabased on scientific information regarding concentrations ofspecific chemicals or levels ofparameters in water that protect aquatic life and human

Oregon Department ofEnviromnental Quality: Final Page 1**~8** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management DirectiveWhat are the differences between a UAA and adopting site specific criteria? health (USEPA 1994). EPA's section 304(a) guidance on waterquality criteria, which are intended to provide protection for all surface waters on a national basis, is broad. These broad criteria can be tailored to select localized, site-specific conditions. Site-specific criteria (SSC) are sometimes justifiedbecause:

• Species at the site maybe more sensitive or less sensitive than those used byEPA to develop Section 304(a) criteria (USEPA 1994);

• Physical and/or chemical characteristics ofthe site alter the biological availability and/or toxicity ofthe chemical (e.g., alkalinity, hardness, pH, suspended solids and salinity influence the concentration(s) ofthe toxic form(s) ofsomeheavymetals, ammonia and other chemicals) (USEPA 1994);

• EPA maynot have criteriarecommendation for a pollutant adversely affecting the designated use at a particular location.

Under a UAA: • Designateduses mayberemoved only ifone ofsix conditions are met as discussed on page 1-7; • The designated use mustbe determined to not be feasible to attain before it canbe removed; • Feasibilitymay include a consideration ofcosts; • Factors affecting attainment ofthe designated use mustbe described; • The attainable use mustbe described; • Appropriate criteria mustbe applied or site specific criteriadeveloped; • The most sensitive designated use must be protected bythe criteria. Site specific criteria: • Federal regulations do not describe any unique conditions to allow adoption ofsite specific criteria (i.e. there is no comparable language to that in 40 CPR Section 131.1O(g)); • Site specific criteria must bebased on sound scientific rationale; • The designated use is not changed; • Are preferable when the designated use is an existing use; • Feasibility ofattaining the criteria is not considered; • The most sensitive designated use must be protected by the criteria.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 1-9 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive

## Chapter 2: Process for Site Specific Criteria or Use Attainability Analysis

Purpose

How is the process initiated?

Decision on scoping discussion The purpose ofthis chapteris to describe the process that will likely occur in the development and completion ofa use attainability analysis or development ofsite specific criteria. This chapter outlines steps that will be taken by DEQ staffas well as those likely to be taken bythe entityrequesting the change to the water quality standards. Details on some ofthe steps are provided in later chapters which are cited when appropriate.

The applicant for the use attainability analysis or development ofsite specific criteria should send a letter ofrequest to the regional waterquality manager and the manager ofthe water quality standards program at DEQ headquarters. Alternatively, DEQ may decide to initiate a UAA or adopt site specific criteria. In this case the process would begin with the triennial review.
Following receipt ofa request for DEQ to develop a use attainability analysis or site specific criteria, the regional water quality manager and the manager of the water quality standards program at DEQ headquarters will decide whether to proceed with a "scoping" discussion. As part ofthe decision the managers will consider whether DEQ has the funding to undertake the scoping work. The decision whetherto conduct a scoping discussion will be documented in a memo to the water quality standards files and to the applicant for the change inthe water quality standards. Ifthe managers decide to proceed to a scoping discussion, the applicant and DEQ waterquality standards staffand appropriate regional staffwill discuss the following issues:

• Funding- whether DEQ has funding to undertake the rulemaking that wouldbe required for a change to designated uses or adoption of site specific criteria; • Water quality standards interpretation and application, including identification ofthe designated uses and existing uses, as well as the applicable time period for the criteria; • Water quality limited status for any parameters; • Status ofTMDL development; • Ability ofthe applicant to achieve water quality standards through allocations in a TMDL; • Status ofdevelopment ofthe temperature management plan, water quality management plan or other implementation plans. Specifically DEQ will determine whether an implementation plan has been submitted and ifthe plan is adequate. The contents ofan

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 2-1 4/02/07 Usc Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directiveimplementationplan are described in OAR 340-042-0080(3)(a); • Status ofimplementation oftechnology based controls for point sources; • Status ofdraft 401 certification application, ifa 401 hydropower certification is required by the applicant; • Information availability. Such information may include waterquality data and data on the status ofthe designated use. Available data must be compared to the water quality standards; • Alternatives to changing water quality standards such as variances, compliance schedules, department orders ortrading.

Staffrecomm- After the scoping discussion the DEQ headquarters water quality standards endation memo staffand regional staffwill make a recommendation as to whether DEQ should proceed with the use attainability analysis or review ofsite specific criteria. The staffrecommendation memo will: 

## • • • •



## •

•

•



## • 

## • • •
• • 

## • Identify the proponents ofthe change to the water quality standards; Identify funding and resource limitations, ifany, and proposed sources offunding; Describe anypossible potential benefit to the environment; Determine ifthe effluent limits required under sections 30l(b) and 306 ofthe Clean Water Act have been implemented. The effluent limits are those developed under EPA's effluent guidelines program. These effluent limits mustbe implemented before a rule change proceeds; Evaluate whetherthe waterbody is water quality limited. TheTMDL allocations should be evaluated to determine ifthe waterquality standard could be attainedby re-allocation ofthe pollutant load; Determine ifthe implementationplans have been written. The rulemaking should not proceed until the implementationplans have been reviewed to determine ifthe standard canbe attained; Determine ifthe cost-effective and reasonable best management practices have been implemented. Ifthe practices havebeen implemented, adaptive management is preferred to a rule change; Identify the environmental problem to be addressed; Describe the magnitude, extent, duration and timing ofthe problem; Discuss the evaluation ofalternatives; Estimate staffresources needed to undertake the work (including work with advisory committees); Identify existing information; Identify information gaps; Determine whetherthe change to the water quality standards will remove a designated use or set site specific criteria.
Oregon Depa1iment ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 2-2 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveDecision memo The manager ofthe waterquality standards program and the regional water quality manager will review the recommendation ofthe staffand issue a recommendation memorandum to the water quality division administrator confirming orrejecting the staffrecommendation. Water quality standards staff, the applicant and the regional water quality staffand manager will be copied on the memorandum.

What is the triennial review? Ifthe water quality division administrator decides that the work should proceed, the proposal generally will be included in the triennial review. The water quality division administrator's decision will be documented in a decision memorandum.
According to 40 CFR 131.20 States must hold public hearings for the purpose ofreviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. This review must take place at least once every three years. As part ofthe triennial review DEQ will selectpotential rule changes and acceptpublic comment on the proposal at an initial public hearing. Waterbodies approved for use attainable analysis or site specific criteriabythe waterquality division administratorwill be part ofthis triennial review hearing. Followingthe review, the water quality division administrator, in consultation with the water quality standards manager will determine whichproposed changes to the water quality standards will proceed to the rulemaking process. The standards review process is outlined in Figure 3. The next step is to plan the rulemaking, which is described in Chapter 5 and is the first step in Figure4 in Chapter 5.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 2-3 4102107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intema1 Management Directive

### Figure 3: UAA/SSC Review Process

Public comment

Yes No No

review hearing materials

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Usc Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive Yes Scoping discussion

Proceed memo

Page 2·4 4/02/07Whatifthe timeline for a rule change does not coincide with a triennial review?

How will the work be paid for? Ifthe request for DEQ to develop a use attainability analysis or site specific criteria will take place on a different timeline than the triennial review process, and DEQ decides to proceed with the request, DEQ staffmayuse the following process: • DEQ mayhold a public meeting on the request for a water quality standards review. • DEQ mayprovide the request letter and decision memo to the public as part ofthe public review and comment. • Following the review, the waterquality division administrator, in consultation with the water quality standards manager, may determine which proposed changes to the water quality standards will proceed to the executive management team for the start rnlemaking discussion.
DEQ does not have staffavailable to change the water quality standards via a use attainability analysis or adoption ofsite specific criteria without the commitment ofadditional resources. DEQ will only conduct such work if funds are made available. DEQ prefers not to accept receipts authority from a private partyto change water quality standards. DEQ will considerreceipts authority only after requesting the Legislature or, in the interim, the EmergencyBoard to provide general funds for the work. Ifthe Legislature does not provide general funds, DEQ would considerreceipts authority only as part ofa transparent public process and public comment opportunity on the question ofwhether the work should be done underreceipts authority. Following the public comment on use ofreceipts authority DEQ maydecide to proceed using receipts authority. DEQ cannot commit to a rnlemaking and as a result may decline to proceed at anytime in the process.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**2~5** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management DirectiveGovernment to Government Relations

Executive Management Team Review

Petition to the Environmental Quality Commission DEQ water quality standards staffmust considertribal interests when considering a water quality standards change. Tribes are sovereign governments and Oregon's legislature has directed state agencies to develop a policy that "promotes positive government-to-government relations between the state and tribes" (ORS 182.164(c)). Staffshould determine whichtribes have (1) indicated an interest in UAAs or SSC and (2) have fishing rights or other rights (such as ceremonial rights) inthe waterbody ofinterest. DEQ has a designated tribal liaison who should be contacted for this information. DEQ water quality standards staffshould then contact the affected tribes priorto proceeding with the water quality standardreview process outlined in this chapter. Ifthe tribes raise issues orconcerns about the standards review, DEQ staffshould beprepared to meet with the tribal contacts one-on-one as part of the government-to-government obligations. Issues raised bythe tribes should be included in the information provided to DEQ's executive management team, as described in the next section. Additional information about government-to-government relations is provided in Chapter 5.

Oncethe water quality division administratorhas determined that a rule change is appropriate to propose, the project lead (the designated water quality standards staff) will scope the rulemaking. The rulemakingproposal must be presented to the executive management team (EMT). The EMT includes the agency director, the deputy director, and the administrators ofthe divisions as well as the administrators ofthe regional offices and the laboratory. DEQ water quality standards staffwill draft a "start rulemaking proposal." In the "start ru!emaking proposal" staffneed to provide enough information on the proposal so that the EMT can consider alternative approaches to rulemaking, cross program coordination, prioritypolicy issues, key stakeholders, resource constraints and issues requiring special management attention. The EMT will determine ifthe rulemaking is a priority for DEQ. Ifthe EMT decides against proceeding with the rulemaking then the process ends and no further action will be taken on the request for a UAA or a SSC. The rulemaking process is described in more detail in Chapter 5.

In addition to the internal process, any interested person may file a petition with the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) for a rule modification. The EQC has 90 days to decide whether to grant or deny the petition. Ifthe EQC grants the petition DEQ must initiate arulemaking.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality; Final Page 2-6 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management DirectiveTechnicalPeer Review

Who should be part ofthe technical review? Ifthe EMT determines that a changeto the beneficial uses or adopting a site specific criterion is a rnlemaking priority or ifthe EQC decides to grant a petition for rnlemaking, DEQ willprovide for technicalpeerreview. The review maybe conducted by a technical advisory group (TAG), by an existing committee, such as the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) orby selected technical experts. The purpose ofthe technical review is to identify and review the information the applicant for the standards change shouldprovide to DEQ for DEQ to make a decision regarding changing the water quality standard.

The technical review may involve stafffrom: • DEQ; • USEPA; • Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW); • Other affected state agencies; • NOAA Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service ifthe waterbody under review has threatened and endangered species; Tribal technical staffifa tribe(s) is a co-manager ofthe fishery resource; 

## • • 

## • Other technical experts (e.g. university faculty); and The applicant for the water quality standards change

.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 2*7 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management DirectiveRole ofthe technical review group

Policy review and stakeholder input Afterreview ofthe available information, the reviewers may determine any of the following: • Future additional studies mustbe conducted and evaluated; • The designated use shouldbe removed; a sub-category ofthe designated use should be adopted; or site-specific criteria should be developed; • There is insufficientbasis or support for proceeding with the UAA or 

## sse proposal; • An alternative to meet the water quality standard exists. As part ofthe technical review, DEQ will determine ifit is appropriate to retain the designated use as a goal for the waterbody. Ifso, and ifthe review determines that an alternative to meet the water quality standard exists, the DEQ staffmay issue a memo to the water quality division administrator and the waterquality standards managerrecommending that the rule change not proceed. Ifthe technical review demonstrates that additional studies shouldbe conducted, DEQ will ask the reviewers to: • Identify additional studies and methodologies; • Review the survey design (for biological and habitat surveys); • Review a quality assurance project plan (for chemical surveys); • Review the study or surveyresults; • Review alternatives; • Develop technical basis for the change to the water quality standard; and • Recommend criteria.
DEQ will also provide for review ofthe policy issues raised by the proposal for a water quality standards change. The review may include formation ofa policy advisory committee to considerthe social, economic and political implications ofpolicy decisions. Generally, the technicalreview would identify the technically sound option for the policy advisory committee to consider. The policy advisory committee is expected to provide consultative recommendations (i.e. consensus is not expected). DEQ may also hold town hall meetings orpublic hearings for review ofthe policyissues.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveWho should be partofa policy advisory committee?

Nominating committee for Use Attainability Analyses

Fiscal Impact Considerations

Antidegradation review • Stakeholders from the regulated community affectedby the proposed rulemaking; • Stakeholders from the conservation community with an interest in the proposed rulemaking; • Representatives oftribal governments with an interest in the proposed rulemaking; • Stakeholders from agriculture, forestry and fishing with an interest in the proposed rulemaking; • Representatives from EPA and other federal agencies to serve as exofficio members; • Representatives from state agencies to serve as ex-officio members.
IfDEQ receives a request for a use attainability analysis, and funding for the work is secured, DEQ will convene the nominating committeeper ORS 468B.062. DEQ will convene the committee to recommend for which waters itbelieves a UAA is most warranted. DEQ mayuse either a technical advisory committee or a policy advisory committee as the nominating committee.

Under ORS 183.333, ifDEQ appoints an advisory committee for consideration ofa rule DEQ shall seekthe committee's recommendations on whether the rule will have a fiscal impact, what the extent ofthat impact will be and whetherthe rule will have a significant adverse impact on small businesses. IfDEQ does not appoint an advisory committee, DEQ maybe required to convene a fiscal impact advisory committee, ifat least I0 persons likely to be affected bythe rule object to DEQ's statement offiscal impact.
Proposed changes to the water quality standards are required to undergo the State's antidegradation review. DEQ water quality standards staffwill conduct the antidegradation review. Oregon's antidegradation policy is designed to protect existing water quality. Therefore, a change which will not degrade existing water quality would not require a detailed antidegradation review. Formore information on antidegradation consult the water quality standards staff.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**2~9** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Oitelia Internal Management DirectiveFinal DEQ staff Once the policy advisory committee has made a recommendation or series of review recommendations to DEQ for a change to designated uses or site specific criteria, DEQ staffshould review the following questions:

Public Comment

Environmental Quality Commission Role 

## •

•

•



## •
• •

•
•

• Will adoption ofthe new water quality standardresult in better protection ofthe resource? Is the designated use an existing use? The existing use mustbe protected. Ifthe water quality criterion can'tbe attained, site specific criteria should beproposed. Have all technologically feasible options to attain the designated use been evaluated? Ifnot, additional options shouldbe reviewed before a rule change is adopted. Ifa technologically feasible option to attain the designated use exists, has it been demonstrated that the option is not economically feasible? Has water quality trading to attain the designated use been evaluated? Has 

### it been demonstrated that downstream designated and existing uses will not be impacted byremoval ofthe designated use or adoption ofa sub-category ofthe designated use? Has itbeen demonstrated that downstream designated and existing uses willnot be impactedby adoption ofsite specific criteria? Will any new activity that will degrade existing water qualitybe proposed based onremoval ofthe designated use or adoption ofa subcategory ofthe designated use or adoption ofsite specific criteria? If so, an in depth antidegradation review will be required before the new activity can occur. Has the UAA or SSC received comprehensive internalreview, includingreview byregional staff, water quality model staffand lab staff?

DEQ is required to receivepublic comment on the proposed rule change. The rulemaking coordinator 

### in the water quality program canprovide more information about the public comment process. The changes to water quality standards require adoption bythe EQC, DEQ's policy and rulemaking board. The EQC meets regularly to, among other business; adopt rules including those constituting changes in Oregon's water quality standards. As a part ofthe documentation for the rule change, staff drafts a report outliningtheproposed changes and implications. An issue paper is often included as an appendix to this staffreport, which provides a more detailed description ofthe proposed changes.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page2-10 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveEnvironmental Protection Agency Review

DEQTriennial Review The changes adopted bythe EQC mustbe approved byEPA. EPA reviews the changes to determine compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and applicable federal regulations. Ifthreatened and endangered species are present, EPA reviews the request to meet the requirements ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA) in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAAFisheries Service) as appropriate. Additional information onEPAreview and consultation is provided in Chapter 5.
IfDEQremoves any designated use that is specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CleanWater Act, DEQ must determine ifany new information has become available as part ofthe next triennial review (40 CFR 131.20(a)). If such new information indicates that the uses specified in section 10l(a)(2) of the Act are attainable, DEQ will revise its standards accordingly.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 2-11 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectivePurpose

Who will provide the iuformatiou? 

## Chapter 3: Technical Basis

The purpose ofthis chapter is to describe the information that willprovide the technical basis for the issue paperprovided to the Environmental Quality Commission as an addendum to the Director's staffreport.
DEQ expects that individuals or groups will request a change to the water quality standards as described in Chapter 2. Ifa third partyrequests the change and funding is secured, the technical basis outlined in this chapter will be reviewed byDEQ staffand the TAG. DEQ staffwill then write a technical basis review memo which will describe whether the TAG and DEQ concur with the results and conclusions ofthe technical informationprovided by the applicant. The technical basis memo provides the basis for the issuepaper provided to the Environmental Quality Commission as the Commission determines whether to adopt a change to the water quality standards. IfDEQ initiates the review, DEQ staffwill generate the technical information described in this chapter.
DEQ staffroles DEQ water quality standards staffwill review the technical basis for completeness. DEQ laboratory staffmaybe asked to assist in the review of waterbody survey data and conclusions. DEQ modeling staffmaybe asked to assist in the review ofanalysis ofalternatives to determine the attainable use. Ifthe proposed water quality standard change is for a waterbody affected by a hydropower facility, the regional401 certification staffwill be asked to assist in thereview ofthe data and analysis ofalternatives.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive Page**3~1** 4/02/07Elements ofthe technical basis fora UAA

WiD all UAAs require the same technical information? The technical information expected to be part ofa use attainability analysis are summarizedbelow and described in more detail in the remainder ofthe chapter. 

## • • • • •
• Identification ofthe designated uses. Is the designated use an existing use? Determination ofwhether a waterbody survey is needed, and ifso, snmmarize the results ofthe survey. Determination ofthe causes ofimpairment ofthe designated use. Identification ofcontrol strategies ormanagement practices to attain the designated use. Identification ofthe costs ofcontrol strategies ormanagement practices to attain the designated use. Identification ofthe attainable use, ifit is not feasible to attain the designated use.

DEQ anticipates that there will be situations in which the UAA will not require all ofthe technical information described in this chapter. This maybe the case if: • The designated use is not an existing use. • The designated use is not necessary as a goal for the waterbody. • Theproposed changes to a designated use are corrections to the water quality standards. For example, when DEQ adopted the revisions to the temperature standard in 2003, the designated uses were based on large scale data. However, ifsite specific information has become available to refine the large scale data then some ofthe designations which were based onthe professionaljudgment ofthe fisheries biologists who participated in the rulemaking or were based on default assumptions mayneed to be updated. The data may also be refined as the OregonDepartment ofFish and Wildlife update their fish distribution database. • The designated use is not impaired due to an anthropogenic impact. In these cases the new teclmical information may support removing the designated use without a detailed study ofthe status ofthe waterbody or an analysis ofthe attainable use.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-2 4/0UJ7 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveElements ofthe technical basis for a 

## sse

What are the designated beneficial uses?

What arethe existing nses?

How can the existing nses be documented? The technical information expected to be part ofajustification for site specific criteriais summarizedbelow and described in more detail in the remainder ofthe chapter.

• Use status- Identify the designated use. Is the designated use an existing use? • Determine ifa waterbody survey is needed, and ifso, summarize the results ofthe survey. • Determine ifspecies specific or waterbody specific studies are needed. Ifso, summarize the results ofthe studies. • Identify the site specific criteriato protect the designated use. 

## Analysis of Use

The technical basis should include a section entitledDesignatedBeneficial Uses which identifies the designated beneficial uses as currently defined in Oregon AdministrativeRules for all waters that are within the scope ofthe review. The correspondingcriteriato protect the beneficial use should also be identified.

The determination ofwhether the designated uses are existing uses is a critical component ofa UAA since federal regulations prohibitthe removal of existing uses (40 CFR Section 131.10(h)(l)). Designated uses are assumed to be existing uses unless proven otherwise. An existing use is defined as those uses actually attained inthe waterbody on or after November 28, 1975.

The technical basis should provide a comprehensive description ofthe methodology, sources ofinformation, and rationale used to make the determination regarding existing uses. The technical basis should include a review and summary ofexisting information on the existing uses in the waterbody for which the change is being requested. Sources ofsuch information include: • ODFW fish distribution database; • DEQ and ODFW monitoring results; • Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) basinplans; • Watershed councils; • Tribal contacts; • Watershed analyses; • Bureau ofLand Management;
Oregon Depm1ment ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-3 4/02/07 Usc Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectivePurpose ofa waterbody survey • US Forest Service; • USFWS; • NOAA Fisheries Service; • Oregon Parks Department (on boating, windsurfing); • Oregon Health Division (swimming orfishing); • Municipalities; counties; regional governments; • Universities. According to EPA, small marginal populations may not constitute an existing use, ifthe natural conditions are not suitable for that use. An analysis should be conducted to determine ifthe population is a stablepopulation (USEPA 1994). Assuming that the information review indicates that the designated uses have not been observed (e.g., evidence that swimming, salmonid spawning orother designated uses do not occur), the next step is to determine ifphysical conditions ofthe waterbody support the uses. For example, because it is difficult to prove that salmonids are not in a particular stream (and have not been since November 28, 1975), field observations maybe used to indicate some likelihood that salmonids are notpresent. Since anadromous fish may not be present in waterbodies that do not provide suitablehabitat DEQ staff shouldreview the technical basis for descriptions oflimitingfactors regarding habitat in the relevant waterbodies that affect support ofthe designated use. Some limiting factors include: gradient; watershed size/flow; natural barriers; channel confinement (floodplain, restricted byrock); and manmadebarriers (dams withoutprovisions for fish passage that existed priorto November 28, 1975). IfDEQ determines the designated use is an existinguse after review ofthis information, the designated use may not beremoved. Development ofsite specific criteria shouldbe considered byDEQ and the applicant at this point. 

## Waterbody Survey

A waterbody survey should help determine the existing uses and the most sensitive use as well as identify the natural or anthropogenic factors influencing use attainment. DEQ staffand the TAG should review the waterbody surveyto ensure the inclusion ofan assessment ofthe physical, chemical and biological factors that affect attainment ofthe designated use.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-4 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Jntemal Management Directive

### Waterbody survey overview

What are the objectives of the survey? A UAA or SSC addressing aquatic life uses may require biological data, chemical data, and physical data. Staffshould remember that the aquatic life beneficial use is not limited to fish species. As stated in OAR 340-041- 0002(6): Aquatic species means plants or animals that live at least part of their life cycle in waters ofthe State. DEQ staffshouldbe involved in at least two phases ofthe waterbody survey: the initial review ofthe design and the review ofthe results. Priorto conducting the surveyDEQ staffshould review the waterbody survey design to ensure that the survey will provide data that can be used as the basis for making water quality management decisions regarding existing uses, most sensitive uses and attainable uses. The survey design shouldidentify (1) the survey objectives (2) what new data shouldbe collected and analyzed (3) approved methodologies/tools (4) a quality assurance projectplan. As stated in Chapter 2, the TAGmayhelp to review the waterbody survey design. DEQ staffwill issue a review memo on the design ofthe waterbody survey. 

## Waterbody Survey Design Review

The survey should provide enough information to:


### • determine which aquatic life uses are currently being achieved in thewaterbody. The determination ofthe aquatic life uses attained in the waterbody will require the evaluation ofthe biological data and the existing uses previously defined for the waterbody. For example, it mayhave been determined that the beneficial use "fish and aquatic life" is an existing use in the waterbody, but the specific species present have notbeen identified. Thebiological data should help to identify the specific species present in the waterbody; therefore the design should be reviewed with this in mind. The data will also help identify the most sensitive aquatic life use to be protected.



### • determine the causes ofanyimpairmentofthe aquatic uses. It maynot bepossible to identify the causes ofimpairment, but the data collected in the survey will be necessary to make a thorough evaluation as to whether ornot that is the case.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-5 4/02107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveWaterbody survey parameters

Reference Sites

Fish and Vertebrate Sampling

Invertebrate Sampling The types ofinformation that might be needed to characterize the waterbody are discussed below, and are summarized in a checklist in Appendix A. Not all ofthe data described will need to be collected in all cases. Some information can be found in existing databases orpublications. Some information maybe derived from maps. However, in many cases, not all of the information needed to assess use status will be available, and further monitoring ofrelevant indicators will be needed to provide adequate data to support a change to water quality standards. The indicators measured will be different according to the type ofwaterbody(e.g., marine, streams, lakes). The indicators shouldbe described in the applicant's monitoring plan and survey design. DEQ staffand the TAG should use the following indicators to review both the waterbody survey design and the results ofthe waterbody survey. 

## Biological Indicators

Ideally, reference sites should represent minimally disturbed locations that have similarphysical and hydrological characteristics to the sites being evaluated. For example, a comparison ofbenthic invertebrate orfish communities found in the fast flowing headwaterregions ofa stream with populations found further downstream in slower-movingpool habitats would notbe appropriate. Reference sites are often used to provide a measure of what is optimal for aquatic life. Suitable reference sites maynot be found within a given watershed and it maybe necessary to make comparisons with other similar watersheds, orto develop hypothetical biological indices that characterize the "potential aquatic community."

Fish orvertebrate samples should be collected following the Enviromnental Monitoring and Assessment Protocols (EMAP) (Peck eta!. 2001) developed byEPA. The results can be analyzed to determine vertebrate community composition. Depending upon the waterbody or stream size, an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) (Hughes 1987, Hughes 2004, Mebane 2003) can also be calculated. The individual metrics (e.g., percent coldwater native species) that make up an IBI can be used to evaluate the aquatic life use status, as well as allow for comparison to reference conditions.

Stream invertebrates can also be analyzed to determine community composition. The invertebrates should be collected following DEQ protocols (DEQ 2003). The biological integrity ofthe site canbe directly compared to the reference conditions using apredictive model such as PREDATOR (PREDictive Assessment Tool for ORegon) (Shannon Hubler, personal

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-6 4/02107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveWhen should monitoring occur?

Assessing impairment

Whatwater quality data should be collected?

When and how should databe collected? communication 1 0/19/2006).
Biological data generally should be collected during the time ofgreatest stress for the macroinvertebrates and vertebrates. Generally, this occurs during the low flow periods when stress is most pronounced (due, for example, to low dissolved oxygen and high temperature). Additionally, fine sedimentthat has accumulated during the higher flow periods and is associated with poorbank stability/landuse sources at all times ofthe year can still be detected during the summer low flow period (Doug Drake, DEQ, personal communication, 3/2/2005). The summer low flow period shouldbe chosen because it represents the period ofgreatest stability and thus lowest error in sampling and assessments. Spawning and rearing uses, however, should be assessed at appropriate seasons for the species ofinterest.

Indices ofbiotic integrity orpredictive models can measure changes in biological communities, be compared to reference sites and be used to infer potential impacts onbiological communities. It may notbe possible to identify the causes ofimpairment, but the biological data will be necessary to make a thorough evaluation as to whether or not that is the case. The identification ofstressors (suspected causes) is a process that DEQ is currently developing (Shannon Hubler, DEQ, personal communication, 9/13/2006) for temperature and sediment. The tools are mosthighly developed to identify stressors to macroinvertebrates but could also be expanded to include aquatic vertebrates (fish and amphibians).


## Water Quality Indicators

The examination ofwater quality parameters may allow identification of factors that maybe impairing the propagation and protection ofaquatic life. Chemical and physical properties ofthe waterbody (see checklist in Appendix A) should be collected to determine ifwater quality meets the applicable water quality criteria for the designated use under review. Results for toxic pollutants must be compared to the applicable criteria in OARDivision 41 Tables 20, 33A and 33B. The data will also indicate whether waterquality is within a range that can support the aquatic life species encompassed in the designated use.

Data should be collected to evaluate the status ofthe designated use during applicable time periods stated in the water quality standards orwhen the designated use is expected to occur or during the time periods proposed for a

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-7 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria lntemal Management DirectiveWhat indicators should be evaluated? seasonal water quality standard. Temperature data should be collected as continuous samples to allow for comparison with the seven daymoving average maximum temperature as defined in the water quality standards. The presence ofcold waterrefugia (as defined in OAR 340-041-0002(10)) should be documented. Ifonly certainparameters are chosen for analysis, an explanation shouldbe given. Chemical samples shouldbe analyzed in accordance with methods cited in the mostrecent edition ofStandardMethodsfor the Examination ofWater and Waste Water, orusing EPA approved methods listed in the most recent update of40 CFR Section 136 orpeerreviewed methodologies used for the determination ofcontaminant levels in the water column. 

## Habitat Indicators

The examination ofphysicalparameters may allow identification offactors that maybe constraining the propagation and protection ofaquatic life. The physical parameters that describe the habitat ofa waterbody are useful to assess the nature ofthe aquatic ecosystem and the types and number of species that canreside in a particularbodyofwater. Parameters in this categoryinclude descriptions ofwatershed characteristics (e.g., watershed area, precipitation and water flow characteristics, and watershed land use descriptions), bank and riparian condition (e.g., streamside vegetative cover, overhead canopy cover, bank material composition, bank slope, and presence ofbank erosion), channel morphology and structure (e.g., water channel dimensions, channel gradient, percentage ofthe stream comprised ofpools, riffles and runs, presence oflarge in-stream structures, channel alterations and natural barriers to fish passage), and streambed composition (percent composition ofstreambed material, percent embeddedness, and the percentage ofsmall and particulate organic material).

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**3~8** 4102107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveWhat protocols should be used?

When should databe collected? The EMAP protocol (Peck et al. 2001) describes manyphysical habitat indicators. Although use ofthe EMAP protocol is notrequired, DEQ has developed a dataset ofapproximately 200 reference sites for first, second and third order wadeable streams. These sites represent stream segments with the least amount ofhuman disturbance for a given region. Some ofthe reference data have been collated by ecoregion, basin orin some cases, by geology. The availability ofthe reference dataset allows for assessment ofcurrent conditions in a waterbody versus those expected in an undisturbed system. Additional dataregarding riparian characteristics, stream channel and bed features can be collected following protocols developed for Rosgen Level III analysis (Rosgen 1996). These data canbeused to assess the stability ofthe stream channel. Some ofthese data will be similar to those collected under the EMAP protocols.
Although physical habitat canbe evaluated during any season, it wouldbe most effective ifhabitat evaluations were concurrent withbiological sampling. According to EPA, generally the most advantageous time for biological sampling is in a low flow season and not closely following major flood events (Kaufinann 1999). Some ofthe physical habitat indicators are flow dependent, such as width, depth, %pools, and %riffles. Because these parameters are flow dependent it maybe necessary to collectthese data other than during the low flow season. The season(s) chosen shouldreflect the time period when the designated use being evaluated is expectedto occur orwhen the designated use applies according to the water quality standards. Other indicators are not flow dependent, such as canopy, shade and substrate, so collection ofdata during the low flow season is appropriate. Ifseasonal site specific criteria are proposed the data should be collected during the proposedperiod ofapplication ofthe criteria.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-9 4/02107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveAdditional indicators

Interpretation ofwaterbody survey results Anthropogenic alterations and disturbances should be described. An assessment ofthe frequency and extent ofin-channel human activities and disturbances should be conducted. In-channel disturbances include channel revetment, pipes, straightening, bridges, culverts, trash (e.g., carbodies, grocery carts, pavement blocks, etc.), and gravel bar mining extractions. Anthropogenic barriers should be noted including dams and water withdrawal. The date dams and other hydrological modifications and water withdrawals were put in place should be documented. Natural barriers, such as waterfalls, should be described as well. Finally, ODFW and othernatural resource agencies should be consulted regarding their available data for the waterbody, their management objectives for the waterbody, and theirperspective on the aquatic resource potential of the waterbody. 

## Review ofWaterbody Survey Results

The technical basis should include a summary and interpretation ofthe results ofthe waterbody survey. DEQ staffand the TAG will review the results and analysis ofthe waterbody survey for the accuracy ofits conclusions. DEQ staffwill include an evaluation ofthe technical basis in the technical basis review memo. The technical basis review memo will include: • An analysis that identifies and documents precise sampling site location(s), preferablybylatitude and longitude in decimal degrees; • A description ofwhythe sampling locations are considered representative ofthe waterbody; • A reference to the date and time the samples were collected; • A map ofthe waterbody with sampling locations noted; • Anyphysical or hydrologic barriers; • Thepresence and abundance ofthe species present; • The biological assemblage used to determine the dominant aquatic life present such as cold versus cool water fish or cool versus warm water fish; • The macroinvertebrate data used to determine ifthe site is impaired for aquatic life uses by comparison with the biological communityinreference sites; • The biological indicators used to infer the relative impact of sources or anthropogenic activity on the biological communities; • The waterquality data used to compare to the applicable criteria. The data analysis should present the magnitude, duration, and frequency ofexceedance ofthe applicable criteria; • A reference to the water quality status ofthe waterbody (e.g. is the

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**3~10** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveDetermining the attainable use

Must alternatives always be evaluated? waterbody onthe 303(d) list for any parameters); • The extent ofimpact ofany identified impairment; • Anycauses ofdesignated use impairment that have been identified; and • Any conclusions that maybe drawn from the habitat survey. The waterbody surveyresults should serve as the basis for evaluation ofcontrol strategies orrestoration options discussed in the following sections.



## Attainable Use

In addition to design, implementation and interpretation ofa waterbody survey, the determination ofattainable uses within a waterbody mayrequire that DEQ staff: • Considerbest managementpractices and pollution control strategies to determine the water quality that canbe achieved; • Use water quality data, habitat data and biological data to determine the highest level ofuse attainable; • Evaluate alternatives to support the attainable use. DEQ staffwill review the informationprovidedbythe applicant for the UAA in the technical basis. DEQ staffwill then, in consultation with the TAG, determine whetherthe review ofmanagementpractices and control strategies is complete. Finally, DEQ staffwill summarize the results ofthe review in the technical basis review memo.

Not all ofthe data described below will be necessary for every UAA. For example, ifa designated use is not identified as an existinguse, the determination ofthe attainable use may not require an analysis ofcontrol strategies. As an example, salmonid spawningmayhave been identified in the water quality standards as a designated use above a waterfall. The natural barrier prevents the attainment ofthe designated use. The UAA should identify the natural barrier as the cause ofnon-attaimnent ofthe designated use.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-11 4102107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveManagement practices and control strategies

What alternatives should be considered for dams? As stated in 40 CFR Section 131.1O(g) in order to remove a designated use or establish a sub-category ofa use, a Statemust demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible. To determine feasibility, the applicant should evaluate control strategies to address the source ofimpairment identified in the waterbody survey. This evaluation shouldbepart ofthe technical basis reviewed byDEQ staffand the TAG. The technical basis should include an evaluation ofmanagement and control strategies to determine whetherthe designated use is attainable and ifnot, the highest level ofuse attainment feasible. The strategies will vary with the source ofthe impairment and the extent (temporal and spatial) ofthe impairment. DEQ staffmust determine ifthe following federal requirements havebeen met: "At a minimum, uses are deemed attainable ifthey canbe achieved by the imposition ofeffluent limits required under sections 30l(b) and 306 ofthe Act and cost-effective and reasonable bestmanagement practices for nonpoint source control" (40 CFR Section 131.10 (d)). DEQ staffand the TAG should review the alternatives analyzed and determine ifthe analysis is complete. DEQ staffshould then document the conclusions in the technical basis review memo. 

## Point Source and Nonpoint Source Controls

Several alternatives for dam operation and design may be evaluated. The options will depend on manyproject-specific details (e.g. mode ofoperation, civil structure constraints, size ofthereservoir, etc.) and the parameter affected. The following options, while not a comprehensive list, are examples ofalternatives that maybe evaluated in the technical basis. For any water quality parameterthe analysis should include a review ofalternatives to current operation and maintenance ofthe dam that could improve water quality, including coordination ofoperations between dams and any structural modifications to the dam that could improve water quality. Some options to manage dams for discharge temperatures are: • Alternative methods ofoperatingturbines to encouragebetter mixing where there is a horizontally- orvertically-stratified forebay;
• Modifications to flood control curves to allow additional flows in the summer months without impacting refill;
• Modifications to upperreservoir refill probabilities to allow additional flows in the summer months;

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**3~12** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive• Flow augmentation;
• Reductions in the cross section areas ofthe water columnbehind the dams;
• Temperature control structures;
• Bubble upwelling;
• Installation ofpumps to bring cooler water into fishways;
• Shading offishways;
• Evaluation ofstructural versus operational alternatives; and
• Evaluation ofshort term versus long term alternatives. Some options to manage dams for total dissolved gas are: • Install deflectors;
• Install or extend flow separation walls at appropriate dams;
• Add spillbays to spread out spill and dissipate energy; • Selective use ofspillgates and bays yielding reduced elevation oftotal dissolved gas; • Scheduleroutine turbine maintenance and repair during lowpower load and river flow periods;
• Provide preventive maintenance ofturbines to prevent breakdown;
• System management ofwater release from upstream storage reservoirs to minimize involuntary spills at dams;
• Improve management ofstorage and water release at the given dam to minimize spill events;
• Raise stillingbasins;
• Raise tailraces;
• Optimize powerpurchasing to allow maximum use of powerhouse capacity and minimization ofinvoluntary spill.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Critelia Intemal Management Directive Page**3~13** 4/02/07Controls for nonpoint sources

Who arethe designated management agencies?

When would DEQ consider a change to a water quality standard related to nonpoint sources? Cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control have not been identifiedby EPAregulations. IfDEQ determines that nonpoint sources are impairingthe designated use, DEQ will first require that adaptive managementbe implemented to meet the standards instead of changing the water quality standards. This decision maybe made after the scoping discussions outlined in Chapter 2 ormaybe made after evaluation of the waterbody survey results. Under adaptive management, an iterative approach is used to determine which managementpractices are protective of water quality, the waterquality to be monitored and the managementpractice adjustment needed to improve water quality. DEQ will work with the designated management agencies to identify and implement the management practicespriorto any consideration ofa change to the waterquality standards.

On federal lands, the management agency, principallythe USDA Forest Service orUS Department ofthe Interior (USDI) Bureau ofLand Management is responsible for meeting water quality standards on lands they administer. Agency land managementplans and federal rules are the principal mechanisms for compliance. Forprivately owned lands and lands administered by state and local government, state statutes assign designated management agency responsibility to the state Department ofAgriculture (ODA) for agricultural and developed rural lands and to the Board ofForestry and Department of Forestry (ODF) for forest lands.

At a minimum, DEQ would not consider a UAA or SSC request unless all management practices under the ForestPractices Act were being complied with and, for agriculture, all BMPswere implemented or all prohibited conditions were ended as required by ORS 568.900- 933. DEQ would have to exhaust procedures in statute which describe interactionbetween DEQ and the Board ofForestry orthe Department ofAgriculture before a UAA or SSC onwaters impacted bynonpoint sources could be considered.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3w!4 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specif!c Criteria Internal Management DirectiveWho is responsible for agricultural controls?

How doesDEQ coordinate with ODA?

Who is responsible for forestry controls? The water quality program at Oregon Department ofAgriculture (ODA) is responsible for addressing water quality problems associated with agricultural lands and activities. ORS 568.900-933 authorizes ODA to develop Agricultural Water QualityManagement AreaPlans which outline ways to mitigate the water quality problems. To implement ORS 568.900-933, ODA developed goal-oriented approaches, not prescriptive approaches for landowners to follow in order to be in compliance with the rules. Landowners are given an opportunityto achieve the conditions described in the management plan voluntarily, but ODA can require specific practices of landowners. Technical assistance is available for landowners from the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the local Soil and Water Conservation District and the Oregon State University agricultural extension service.

DEQ nonpoint staffparticipates in the review ofagricultural waterquality management areaplans. IfDEQreceives a request to change the water quality standard (either through removal ofa designated use or adoption ofsite specific criteria) for a waterbody impacted by agricultural sources, DEQ water quality standards staffwill consult with the DEQ nonpoint source staff and DEQ regional water qualitybasin coordinators to determine the status of implementation ofthe BMPs.

The State Forest Practices Act (ORS 527.610 to 527.770, 527.990 (1) and 527.992) provides the legislative framework for regulation offorest operations onprivate and non-federal public ownership. The Act assigns"

. the State Board ofForestry exclusive authority to develop and enforce statewide and regional rules

...." (ORS 527.630 (3)) This includes BMPs to maintain water quality. The statue states "The board shall establishbest management practices and other rules applying to forest practices as necessary to insure that to the maximum extent practicable nonpoint source discharges ofpollutants resulting from forest operations on forestlands do not impair the achievement and maintenance ofwater quality standards establishedbythe Environmental Quality commission for waters ofthe state" ((ORS 527.765 (1)). The managementpractices are established in OAR 629- 600- OAR 629-665.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**3~15** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Crite1ia Intemal Management DirectiveHowdoesDEQ coordinatewith Oregon Department of Forestry?

Point source controls

Effluent guidelines DEQ nonpoint source staffprovideboth technical and policy recormnendations to Oregon Department ofForestry during revisions to the Forest Practices Act. IfDEQreceives a request to change the water quality standard (either through removal ofa designated use or adoption ofsite specific criteria) for a waterbody impactedby forestry activities, DEQ water quality standards staff will consult with the DEQ nonpoint source staffand DEQ regional water quality basin coordinators to determine the status ofimplementation ofthe best managementpractices.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program requires anyone adding a pollutant from a point source into water ofthe United States to obtain an NPDES permit. Descriptions ofOregon'sNPDES permitprocess and specific infonnation on different categories ofpoint source dischargers canbe found at the following location: http://www.deg.state.or.us/wq/wqpermit/pem1its.htm

Sections 301(b) and 306 ofthe Clean Water Act describe the effluent limitations to be achieved by application ofvarious levels ofpollutant control technology depending on the type ofpollution or whether the facility is a new source. EPA develops effluent guidelines for point source discharges of pollutants. The guidelines are published in 40 CFR Sections 400-471. Ifan industry is not subject to these effluent limit guidelines, the permit authority is to develop such requirements based on abest professionaljudgmentbasis. A designated use can not be removed from a waterbody ifimplementation of the technology-based controls wouldresult in attainment ofthe designated use. DEQ water quality permit stafftypically detennines ifthe technology based controls are inplace as part ofthepermit review.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3Ml6 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveUrban runoff

Concentrated animal feeding operations

Selection and evaluation of management practices and control strategies Some recommended BMPs for urban runoffcan be found in Water Quality Model Code and Guidebook (Department ofLand Conservation and Development and DEQ, 2000). Section 4.2 ofthe above reference provides a matrix ofBMPs for controlling different parameters ofconcern (increased erosion and sedimentation; increased runoffvolume; nitrogen, phosphorus, metals and otherpollutants; temperature).

Concentrated animal feeding operations are defined as point sources under OAR 340-045-0010(16). These facilities are regulated byNPDESpermits. The Oregon Department ofAgriculture and DEQ currently workjointly to regulate federally-defined concentrated animal feeding operations under an interagencyMemorandum ofUnderstanding. The Memorandum specifies NPDES program roles andresponsibilities for each agency until the Department ofAgriculture is delegated NPDES authority from the Environmental Protection Agency. (The 2001 Oregon Legislature directed transfer ofthe NPDES permitprogram from DEQ to the Department of Agriculture.) Until EPA approves ofthe transfer, NPDES permits are issued jointlybythe Department ofAgriculture and DEQ, but Department of Agriculture is the lead agency for day-to-dayprogram operations (e.g., permit registration, inspections, plan review, enforcement, etc).

Practices and strategies shouldbe evaluated to determine which alternatives, ifany, will address the causes ofimpairment thatprevent the attainment of the designated use. Ifthe designated use cannotbe attained, the evaluation of the practices and strategies should demonstrate this. DEQ staffand the TAG will evaluate the results ofthe evaluation for completeness and DEQ staffwill document the results in the technical basis review memo.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**3~17** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria lntemal Management DirectiveWater quality models

Field studies

Qualitative assessmeut The influence ofimplementation ofsome ofthe practices on water quality maybe evaluated quantitatively with a water quality model. A comprehensive assessment ofavailable water quality models is available from the water quality modeling staffat DEQ headquarters. Additional information maybe found at: http

### :I lwww.epa.gov /waterscience/models/ A description ofthe process to select a water qualitymodel shouldbe included in the technical basis. The selectionprocess may consider factors such as: • Availability ofdata sets to calibrate and verify model; • Cost to develop/run model; • Expertise ofstaff; • Time available for analysis; • Complexity ofthe model; and • Complexity ofthe system being modeled. DEQ will review the calibration/verification information for the model and identify any additional data needs. DEQ staffwill then summarize the conclusions ofthe modeling in the technical basis review memo.

The effects ofcontrol strategies may also be evaluatedbyfield/pilot studies. With either approach, the effect ofthe strategy on the waterquality parameter ofinterest should be summarized inthe technical basis. DEQ will summarize the results ofthe field/pilot studies in the technical basis review memo.

The effects ofsome management practices maybe evaluated qualitatively when the effectiveness ofthese practices can notbe quantitatively evaluated. In this case, the evaluation should discuss, in general terms, the expected effect on water quality. DEQ will summarize the results ofthe assessment in the technical basis review memo.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-18 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveReview of The technical basis review memo produced by DEQ staff(in consultation technical basis with the TAG) should document:

Trading

Costs of alternatives

Site specific criteria • Ifall the best alternatives have been considered; • What level ofwater quality canbe attained with each alternative; • Which alternative leads to the maximum protection ofthe designated use; • Which alternative leads to the highest level ofwaterquality; • Which alternative would cause the least environmental damage; and • Ifdownstream designated uses will be protected.

The technical basis review memo should describe ifwater qualitytrading was evaluated. DEQ is encouraging water quality trading as an innovative wayto attain water quality standards and improve habitat. More information on water quality trading maybe found at: http://www.deg.state.or.us/wq/pubs/imds/wqtrading.pdf Waterquality trading is also discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Ifthe designated use is not attainable, the highest attainable use mustbe described in the technical basis. There maybe several options to attain the use. Ifthere are competing options, the cost ofeach shouldbe evaluated. The analysis should also identify the costs to downstream communities associated with water quality impacts. Additional infonnation on economic analysis is provided in chapter 4. As stated in Chapter4, DEQ may seek funding for the services ofthe state economist or an economic analysis consultant. Iffunding is secured, the economist will review the conclusions ofthe economic analysis.

As stated previously, ifthe designated use is an existing use, DEQprefers that a site specific criterion be adopted to protectthe designated and existing uses. The applicant should determine ifsite specific criteria support the designated use. The criteriamaybe based on the species present, the waterbody's characteristics orthe health ofthe population affected bythe criteria.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-19 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveSpecies specific conditions

Waterbody specific conditions Ifthe applicant requesting adoption ofsite specific criteriabelieves that the most sensitive use present in the waterbody canbe supported with less restrictive criteria, analysis ofdata should demonstrate that the species present in the waterbody ofinterest are different than the species used to develop the criteria. This approach maybe used for toxic pollutants as well as conventional parameters. The recalculation procedure is an example ofa species specific evaluation. EPA has developed the recalculation procedure to take into account relevant differences between the sensitivities ofthe aquatic organisms in the national dataset used to develop EPA criteria and the sensitivities oforganisms that occur at the site. The recalculation procedure was developed for toxic metal pollutants (USEPA 1994). Underthe recalculation procedure, new criteria may bejustifiedbydemonstrated toxicological differences between the aquatic species that occur at the site and those that were used inthe derivation ofthe national criterion (USEPA 1994). Temperature criteria for salmonid designated uses were developed to cover all native salmonids present in Oregon. The criteria are based on the needs ofthe salmonids most sensitive to water quality and do not account for variability among the species. The species present in the waterbody ofinterest mustbe identified. The specific water quality needs ofthe species present maybe gleaned from literature values and field studies. Information onthe temperature requirements ofsalmonids may be found in the Issue Papers prepared as part ofthe Region 10 temperature criteria guidance development project (USEPA 2001). DEQ staffwill review any conclusions drawn and document the findings in the technical basis review memo.

EPA has developed the water-effect ratio procedure to take into account relevant differences between the toxicities ofa chemical in laboratory dilution water and in site water. As with the recalculation procedure, the water-effect ratio was developed for toxic metal pollutants. The resident species procedure is intended to address both differences in the sensitivities oforganisms and differences between laboratory water and site water (USEPA 1994). Waterbody specific conditions mayjustify adoption ofsite specific criteria for other water quality parameters, including dissolved oxygen and temperature. Under this approach, DEQ and the TAG will review datato determine if conditions at a particular locationjustify an alternative numeric criterion to support the designated salmonid use. The conditions evaluated may include habitat condition and/or lack ofspecific stressors. DEQ staffand the TAG will review any conclusions drawn and DEQ staffwill document the findings in the technical basis review memo.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-20 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management DirectiveThe temperature criteria

Justifying less restrictive criteria The data needed to support adoption ofa site specific criterion under the temperature standard are as follows (OAR 340-041-0028(13)(b)): The Department may use, but is not limitedbythe following considerations when calculating site-specific criteria: (A) Stream flow; (B) Riparian vegetation potential; (C) Charmel morphology modifications; (D) Cold water tributaries and groundwater; (E) Natural physical features and geology influencing stream temperatures; and (F) Otherrelevant technical data. These characteristics (A-E) maybe used to understand the observed temperature. This information maybe used to determine the natural or site specific criteria. The habitat quality may affect the water quality needed to support the beneficial use. For example, the presence ofcold waterrefugia may allow for a warmer water temperature that is stillprotective ofthe beneficial use. The waterbody surveyresults will be critical in this evaluation.

In addition to the factors previously discussed, other factors may be evaluated to determine ifless restrictive criteria will support the designated use. For example, criteriamaybe set at the most conservative values assuming that there are stressors on the species in all waterbodies. Ifit can be demonstrated that the stressors do not exist in the waterbody ofinterest, a less conservative criterion maybejustified. For example, according to EPA "Optimal temperature conditions depend, in part, on the food supply. Optimal growth temperatures under limited food supply are lowerthan those under unlimited/satiated food supply. Generally, EPAbelieves that laboratory studies under limited food availability are most reflective ofenvironmental conditions fish typically experience. However, there are likely situations where food is abundant, with the result that optimal growth temperatures would be higher" (USEPA 2003 pg. 20). Iffood abundance is measured and determined to be at a level to allow satiation, the temperature criterion maybe increased. "Factors influencing stream productivity include nutrient availability, input oforganic matter from external sources, the channel's capacityto store and process organic matter, and light" (Cederholm eta!. 2000 as citedbyUSEPA 2001). Additional stressors include disease, competition and toxics.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-21 4102107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveOther approaches to site specific criteria

Habitat restoration The technical basis for site specific criteriamayinclude the results ofstudies on the species present in the waterbody ofconcern tojustify a less restrictive criterion. The studies mustrepresent the local population. For example, spawning maybe broadly applied in the basinbut the specific timing ofpeak spawning in the waterbody maybe reviewed. The current status ofthe "run" maybe compared to the historic status ofthe run. The studies must identify whichwaterquality orhabitat features the local population has acclimated to. The waterbody survey should be designed to address these issues. Any aquatic life site specific criteriamust prevent both lethal and sub-lethal effects that lead to impaired survival ofthe population. Sub-lethal effects include bothbehavioral and physiological effects that canbe directly linked to impaired survival ofthe population. In salmonids physiological effects include reducedjuvenile growth, increased incidence ofdisease, reduced viability ofgametes in adults prior to spawning, increased susceptibilityto predation and competition, increased susceptibility to disease and suppressed or reversed smoltification (USEPA 2003). Behavioral effects that maybe linked to impaired population and survival include aggressive behavior, avoidance behavior, and changes to feeding, spawning ormigrationbehavior. DEQ staffand the TAG will review any conclusions drawn regarding lethal and sub-lethal affects and document the findings in the technical basis review memo. 

## Benefits to the Resource

As stated in the Executive summary and Chapter 2, DEQ will consider possible restoration ofthe resource whenreviewing a request to change a water quality standard. Betterprotection for the resource couldbe demonstrated byhabitat restoration achieved through mitigation or trading. DEQ encourages the exploration ofrestoration ofhabitat to improve the level ofuse support. For example, opportunities for flow augmentation, riparian restoration, stream channel restoration, building coldwaterrefugia and flood plainrestoration maybe considered in the technical basis to improve the level ofuse support. Flow augmentation can reduce stream temperature by increasing stream flow. Increasing the flow in a stream increases both the stream's thermal mass as well as its velocity. This reduces the impact ofa given solar load on the stream's temperature. DEQ staffand the TAG will review any proposed habitat improvements and document the findings in the technical basis review memo.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**3~22** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveRiparian restoration

Channel restoration Riparian restoration refers to the planting ofstreamside (riparian) areas. Riparian shadereduces the amount ofsolarradiation received bythe stream, thereby reducing the rate at which the stream warms up. Riparian restoration can also help to restore bank stability, restore natural channel morphology and aid in large woody debris recruitment.

Channel restoration refers to restoring the channel's natural configuration. Whole channel alterations include restoring meanders inbroad flood plain streams, realigning and moving stream channels, re-watering historic channels, dredging and re-sculpting stream channels, and creating or reconnecting side channels or removing side channels along stream reaches (The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, May 1999). By increasing channel sinuosity and complexity, the amount ofriparian area is increased. 

### In combination withriparian restoration, this can result in narrower channels with increased shade levels. Reconnecting streams with floodplains can reduce watertemperature byincreasing groundwater and hyporheic exchanges (USEPA 2003).

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-23 4/02107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Jntema! Management DirectiveSources of restoration information

How can restoration alternatives be chosen? The following are some sources ofinformation for assessing physical factors for selecting restoration options. Use ofthese sources shouldbe documented in the technical basis. DEQ staffand the TAGwill review the technical basis and document concurrence ornon-concurrence with the findings.

• Oregon WatershedAssessmentManual- This document provides an overview ofwatershed processes and how these processes canbe altered byhuman activities, instruction on how to compile and evaluate watershed data, and guidance on how to evaluate the condition ofwatersheds. http://oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/ws assess manual.shtml

• OregonAquaticHabitatRestoration andEnhancement Guide

- Developed by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), this document categorizes restoration options as upslope, riparian/wetlands, and in-channel watershed function categories. Forexample, upslope watershed function activities include: correctingroad/stream crossingproblems; road re-construction/obliteration activities and erosion control. http://oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/habguide99-complete.pdf

• PhysicalHabitatSimulation Model 

### (PHABSIMM)- A set of publicly-available programs designed to predict the microhabitat (depth, velocities, and channel indices) conditions in rivers as a function ofstream flow, and the relative suitability ofthose conditions to aquatic life. http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/products/software/phabsim/phabsi m.asp

Thejustification for the selection ofrestoration altematives may include: • Available funding to implement the altemative; • Development ofrestoration plans bylocal govemments; and • Interested partners. As discussed for management options and control strategies, the results ofthe evaluation should be summarized in the technical basis. The benefit to the resource may need to be evaluated qualitatively.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 3-24 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveOutcome of aualysis The technical basis review may result in one ofthe following outcomes2:
• The designated use is confirmed as attainable. The designated use is retained in the water quality standards.

• The designated use is not an existing use, and is removed or a subcategory ofthe designated use established ifthe designated use is not attainable.

• The designated use and appropriate criteria are made more stringent based on existing orpotential uses.

• The designated use is an existing use. Site specific criteriamaybe adopted to support the designated use.
The relevant outcome will be documented byDEQ staffin the technical basis rev1ew memo.

2 Adapted from "A Comprehensive UAA Technical Reference," Project 91-NPS-1, Water Environment Research Foundation, 1997.
Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive Page**3~25** 4/02/07

## Chapter 4: Determining the Cost of Use Attainment

Purpose

Economic impact

EPA guidance The purpose ofthis chapter is to describe the economic and financial analysis that may accompany the biological, chemical and physical information submitted as part ofa UAA. The chapter addresses the "abilityto pay" ofan applicant as well as the evaluation ofcost ofalternatives to attain water quality standards. CurrentlyDEQ does not have an economist on staff. If funding is secured as described in Chapter 2, DEQ would likely hire the state economist or a consultantto review financial data provided bythe applicant for a designated use change.

As discussed in Chapter 1.0, a designated use maybe removed, or subcategories ofa use adopted, onlyifone ormore ofthe six conditions specified under 40 CFR Section 131.1O(g) are met. Condition (g)(6) specificallyrefers to substantial and widespread economic and social impact:

.. a State can demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible because: Controls more stringent than those required by Sections 301(b) and 306 ofthe Clean Water Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact."The terms substantial and widespread are defined via analysis ofthe financial information ofthe applicant for the water quality standards change and the surrounding community.

EPA has developed guidance which describes the steps involved in the determination of"substantial and widespread economic and social impact" for point sources covered by Sections 301(b) and 306 ofthe Clean Water Act. The information included in this chapter is primarily derived from this guidance: EconomicInterim Guidance for Water Quality Standards

- Workbook (USEPA 1995). This EPA document is not an exhaustive description ofall appropriate economic analysis; additional information and tests maybe necessary and/or desirable in certain circumstances (USEPA 1995). Parties requesting a change to the designated use are referred to the EPA guidance. Itis reasonable to expect that for EPA to approve the proposed removal ofa designated use, the UAA needs to be consistent with the EPA guidance.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**4~1** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveFeasibility

Gaps in EPA guidance

Two parts of the economic analysis Although only condition (g)(6) requires an economic analysis for a UAA, DEQ has determined that feasibility analysis includes the analysis of alternatives described in Chapter 3 as well as their economic feasibility. Economic feasibility analysis includes an analysis ofthe applicant's ability to pay for water quality orhabitat improvements to support the designated use or both as well as the effect on the surrounding communityifthe applicant does so.

The EPA guidance does not address all entities who mayrequest a designated use change under 40 CFR 131.1O(g). Specifically, federal dams and dams that have othertypes ofownership are not addressed in the EPA guidance. The information in the EPA guidance can be used as a foundation for the economic analysis for these sources. Additional information will be requested on a case-by-case basis with input from EPA Region X.

The economic analysis described in the EPA guidance consists oftwo parts: determination ofsubstantial adverse impacts and widespread adverse impacts.

• Substantial adverse impacts

- for a public-sector orprivate-sector entity, that the entity would face substantial adverse financial impacts due to the costs ofimplementing the necessarypollution controls.

• Widespread adverse impacts -the affected community/communities will incur widespread adverse economic and social impacts ifthe entity is required to meet existing orproposed water quality standards.

Public vs. The choice ofmethods used to evaluate the economic impacts ofmeeting private entities water quality standards depend, in part, on whetherpollution control is the responsibility ofa private-sector orpublic-sector entity. In an economic impact analysis, the distinction between private-sector and public-sector entities is important as it determines not only who will pay for the necessary pollution control, but also the types offunding mechanisms available.

What is a A public sector entityrefers to any governmental unit that must comply with public entity? pollution control requirements in orderto meet water quality standards. For a public sector entity, the analysis focuses on that entity and the community or communities it serves.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive Page 4-2 4/02/07Determining substantial adverse impact on a public entity

Additional information The determination ofa substantial adverse impact on a public sector entity involves the following five steps. The EPA guidanceprovides a series of worksheets to complete the five steps as follows (USEPA 1995): 1) Verifythe pollution control project costs and calculate the total annualized capital and operating and maintenance cost ofthe pollution control project; 2) Calculate the total annualized pollution control costsperhousehold served bythe public entity; 3) Calculate a "screener" score which identifies onlythose communities that clearly will not face any substantial impacts; 4) Applythe secondarytest- This test indicates the community's ability to obtain financing and describes the socioeconomic health ofthe community; and 5) Assess where the community falls inThe Substantial Impacts Matrix providedin the EPAguidance- This matrix evaluates whether ornot communities are expected to incur substantial economic impacts due to the implementation ofthe pollution control costs.

EPA's

### Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards- Workbook includes a series ofworksheets to assist in completion ofeach step ofthe analysis. In addition to reviewing the worksheets, the following information mayberequested ofthe applicant:

• A copy oflast year's budget, this year's budget, and next year's proposed budget;

• A copy oflast year's financial statements (preferably audited), and this year's financial statement (yearto date). Financial statements to include (but not limited to): balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow;

• For any majorplanned project(s) not described in the budget or financial statement orthe application worksheets, a description ofthat project, its planned implementation date and its annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs; and

• Information on assets the entityhas available which are notneeded for the on-going operation ofthe entity.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 4-3 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveConclusion of substantial adverse impact analysis

Demonstrating widespread impact Iftheprevious analysis does not demonstrate substantial adverse impacts, the applicant will be required to meet existing water quality standards. Ifimpacts are expected to be substantial, then the next step is to determine whether they are also expected to be widespread.

In demonstrating that impacts will be substantial, the economist will have determined that compliance with water quality standards would be burdensome to the community. To demonstrate that impacts will also be widespread, the economist should examine the estimated change in socioeconomic conditions that occur as a result ofcompliance. There are no explicit criteria identified byEPAbywhich to evaluate widespread impacts. Itis recommended that at a minimum, changes in the socioeconomic indicators listed belowbe considered. For each indicator listed, the economist should estimate the potential change from pre-compliance conditions ifthe communitywere to adopt pollution controls: 

## • • 

## • • 

## • 

## • Median household income; Communityunemployment rate; Overall net debt as apercent offull market value oftaxable property; Percent ofhouseholds below poverty line; Impact on community development potential; and Impact onproperty values

. In addition to changes in income, unemployment, and debt, affected communities maybe faced with impaired development opportunities if pretreatmentrequirements or significantlyhigheruser fees are imposed. The analysis should therefore assess the potential for the loss offuturejobs and personal income to the communityifbusinesses chose not to locate in the affected community. The potential for impaired development opportunities canbejudged, in part, by comparing post-compliance costs to related costs in neighboring communities. The cost ofpollution control may also have an adverse effect onproperty values. Where propertytaxes are used to finance the project, property values may fall inresponse to higher taxes. Similarly, if the project will be financed through user fees, demand for property in the communitymay fall, thus decreasing the value ofproperty in the community. The extent to which estimated changes canbe interpreted as significant will depend on the health ofthe communitybefore compliance. It is therefore not possible to identify acceptable or unacceptable estimated changes for each indicator. In addition, there maybe secondary impacts to the community (e.g., depressed economic activity in a community resulting from loss ofpurchasing powerbypersons losing theirjobs due to increaseduser fees).

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 4A 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveDetermining substantial adverse impact on a private entity

Additional information For facilities owned bytheprivate sector, measuring substantial impacts requires estimating the financial impact on the entitythat will pay for the pollution controls. Ifthe analysis shows that the entitywill not incur any substantial adverse impacts due to the cost ofpollution control, thenthe analysis is complete and there is no need to perform thewidespread analysis. However, ifthe analysis shows that there willbe substantial adverse impacts onthe entity, then impacts on the surrounding communitymustbe considered. The analysis ofsubstantial impacts for a private sector entity includes two steps (EPA 1995): 1) Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Aunual Cost ofthe Pollution Control Project. 2) Analyze Financial Impact- In this analysis financial tests are applied to measure the impacton the applicant. The primarymeasure isprofitability. The secondarymeasures include indicators ofliquidity, solvency, and leverage. Additional information may also be considered ifit provides for betterunderstanding ofhow the proposed project impacts the entity's financial health.

EPA'sInterim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards- Workbook includes a series ofworksheets to assist in review ofeach step ofthe analysis. In additionto the worksheets, the following information maybe reviewed by the economist:

• A copyofprevious financial statements (preferably audited) and current financial statements (yearto date). Financial statements are to include (butnot limitedto): balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow.

• A description ofanyplannedmajorproject(s) not described in the financial statements or onthe application worksheets. The description ofthatproject should include its planned implementation date and its annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.

• Information on assets the entity has available which are notneeded for the on-going operation ofthe entity.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: final Page**4~5** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveDemonstrating widespread impact for a private entity

Opportunity costs

Evaluation of options

Economic benefits of clean water Ifthe financial tests suggest that a private entity or group ofentities will have difficulty paying for pollution controls, then an additional analysis must be performed to demonstrate that there will be widespread adverse impacts on the community or surrounding area. The EPA guidance provides worksheets to help the economist in the determination ofwidespread impacts.

The economic analysis should include a qualitative analysis ofthe opportunity costs ifthe water quality standards are not met (e.g. the designated use is removed or a sub-category ofthe designated use is adopted). Such an analysis should identify the costs to: the resource (loss offish, other aquatic life); business (loss ofcustomers, loss offish/water/amenities, and loss oftourism); communities (drinking water, wastewater) and changes in property values inthe affected and downstream areas. As a startingpoint, the beneficial uses for the waterbody shouldbe identified and the effect ofnonsupport ofthe beneficial uses should be discussed. The discussion of opportunity costs will bepart ofthe informationpackage submitted to the EQC for review.

As stated in chapter 3, DEQ staff, in consultation withthe technical advisory group and the economist, should determine whether all strategies to support the designated use have been evaluated. Ifthere is no feasible strategy (considering technology and economics) to support the designated use, DEQ staffshould determine what designated use canbe attained.

In many cases, there maybe economic benefits that accrue to the affected community from cleaner water. For example, in a rural community where the primary source ofemployment is agriculture, the reduction offertilizer and pesticide runofffrom farms would reduce the cost oftreating source water to drinking water standards for downstream users. The economic benefit is the dollar value associated with the decrease in treatment cost. The types of economic benefits that might be realized will depend onboth the characteristics ofthe polluting entity and characteristics ofthe affected community, and shouldbe considered on a case-by-case basis.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 4-6 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectivePurpose



### DEQ rulemaking process 

## Chapter 5: Standards Review, Consultation and Approval/Disapproval Process

The purpose ofthis chapteris to further describe the steps that will occur if the EMT agrees that removing a designated use or developing site specific criteriais a rulemaking priority.
Any change in Oregon's water quality standards must go through a rulemaking process. Information on DEQ's rulemaking process is available on DEQ's internal website and from the water quality division rule coordinator. The rulemaking process includes: internal review, public participation, responding to comments and revising the rules as needed, submission ofproposed rules to the EQC, submission ofrules to the agency rules coordinator for filing with the Secretary OfState and Legislative Counsel, and submission ofrules to EPA for review and approval/disapproval. The rulemaking process is outlined inFigure 4. The rulemaking should be included on DEQ's rulemaking agenda, which is updated annually. To support the annual update, prior to October, each division, region, and office must submit to the Executive ManagementTeam (EMT) updates ofthe proposed rulemaking topics planned for the next two years. Programs must consider the need for, and alternatives to, changing rules and evaluatepriorities. Each October, the EMT will review rule modifications proposed for all programs and determine which to include on the DEQ Rulemaking Agenda.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 5-l 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria lnternal Management Directive

### Figure 4: RulemakingProcess

Plan Rulemaking

(2-6 Months) 

# Rulemaking Process
Propose Rulemaking

(3-18 months)

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 

# WQ Standards
Adopt Rules

(3-6 Months)

Page**5~2** 4/02/07 Obtain EPA Approval (Indeterminate)When is consnltation reqnired?

Who is partof the consnltation?

What does EPA do? Once the EQC adopts a water quality standard change, it is submitted to the EPA for review and approval or disapproval in accordance with Section 303 ofthe Clean Water Act. Ifthe water quality standard change involves a waterbody with Endangered Species Act-listed species, EPA must consult with NOAA Fisheries Services orUS Fish and Wildlife Service orboth to determine whether the proposed changes to designated uses orwater quality criteria couldjeopardize ESA-listed species or adversely modify their critical habitat.

The two federal fisheries services are responsible for the protection of different species. TheNOAA Fisheries Service is consulted when there are marine mammals or anadromous fish present in the waterbody. USFWS is consulted when resident fish or wildlife are present in the waterbody.

EPA must describe the proposed action and its potential for affecting listed species in a document called abiological assessment (BA). The BA must consider: • Effects on survival ofany life stage, including the potential for delayed mortality; • Effects on behavior, physiology, growth, competitive ability; • Effects onhabitat components and processes; • Effects on preybase; and • Effects on predators.

What do the The BAis submitted to the federal fisheries services for review. The federal services information presented in the BA will be used bythe Services to decide do? whether ornot to concur with EPA's determination ofthe effect ofthe water quality standard change on the listed species. Ifone ofthe Services determines that the action is likely to adversely affect a listed species, it will prepare a biological opinion.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria IntelT!al Management Directive Page 5-3 4/02/07Whatis DEQ's role in the consnltation process? In order to expedite review ofthe proposed water quality standard, DEQ staff should include stafffrom EPA and the federal fisheries services on the Technical Advisory Group. Suchparticipation may allow DEQ to be forewarned ofthe concerns ofEPA and the fisheries services. Participation on the TAG should help EPA and the fisheries services understand DEQ's ISSUes. DEQ staffshould beprepared to explain to EPA why DEQ believes the water quality standards are protective ofthe listed species. This information is usually summarized in the issue papers or technical support documents which are sent to EPA and the fisheries services with the proposed water quality standard change. DEQ staffshould beprepared to answer questions from EPA and the fisheries services about any ofthe following issues:

• Implementation ofthe proposed water quality standard; • Criteria for protection ofhealthy populations orpopulations at risk; • Uncertainties associated with the new criteria; and • Alternatives to changing the designated use/criteria. Ideally, DEQ staffshould work with EPA and the fisheries services throughout the water quality standard development process to address issues and concerns in a pre-emptivemanner.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveEPAto Tribal Government Consultation

Oregon State policy on State to Tribal Government Relations When EPAreviews the water quality standard change proposal, it must consider its tribal trust responsibilities. Tribes are sovereign governments and under Clean Water Act Section 518, EPA is authorized to treat tribes as states under certain circumstances. In addition, the federal government has special trust responsibilities withrespect to tribal governments and tribal members. These trust responsibility arise out ofconstitutional doctrines and treaty obligations. The federal responsibility to tribes is outlined in executive orders, treaties and case law. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, describes the fundamental principles that should guide federal agencies in formulating or implementing policies that have tribal implications (Federal Register 65, No. 218, November 9, 2000). Section 5 of the Executive Order specifies that "Each agency shall have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely inputbytribal officials in the development ofregulatory policies that have tribal implications." Since a change to a designated use or adoption ofsite specific criteria is a change to water quality standards, EPA will follow Agencytribal consultation policies and guidance for EPA's mandatory duty under Section 303(c)(2)(A) ofthe CWA. EPA must review the state's proposed water quality standard revision for consistency with requirements ofthe CW A and to approve or disapprove the standard change. EPA can offertribal governments the opportunity to consult as soon as UAA or SSC work efforts may start to enable adequate time for necessary consultation and coordination on EPA's final decision under Section 303( c). EPA can provide different forums for tribal government consultation and coordination including letters, meetings, conference calls and other ways to share information.

Under ORS 182.164 state agencies are required to have reasonable policies for relationships and cooperation with tribes. Thesepolicies mustpromote "government-to-government" relationships and address both the development and implementation ofprograms that affect Tribes. (By an earlier executive order, the Governor has also directed state agencies to engage in governmentto-government relations with the nine federally recognized tribal governments in the State. [E0-96030])

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 5-5 4/02107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management DirectiveDEQ statement ofintent

DEQ snbmission of water qnality standards revisions

EPA Action and timelines

What arethe components of the packages to be snbmittedto EPA? In response to the statute, DEQ adopted a statement ofintent onJanuary 14, 2002. Under this policy, staffis directed, among other things, to:

• Establish a list ofkeytribal contacts and provide these contacts with notice ofdepartment policy and plam1ing efforts; • Request at least bieooially that the tribes update or identify DEQ programs that affect or are ofinterest to the tribe; • Support the exchange ofdata collectedbyDEQ staffand tribal govelllli1ents; • Support and participate in cooperative efforts between federal, tribal, state, and local entities to address enviromnental concerns that cross jurisdictional boundaries; and • Invite tribes to participate onDEQ advisory committees that are of interest to the tribes and to provide tribes with annual updates of advisory committee activities that are ofinterest to the tribes.

When DEQ submits the waterquality standards revisions to EPADEQ must submit any supporting information for the use attainability analysis, the methodologies used for site-specific criteria development, and any general policies applicable to waterquality standards. The revisions to the water quality standards must be submitted to the EPARegional Administrator for review and approval within 30 days ofthe final State action to adopt and certify the revised standard.

Requirements for EPA action on the States revision to water quality standards are outlined in 40 CFR Section 131.21. After DEQ submits its officially adopted revisions, EPA shall either: (I) notify DEQ within 60 days that the revisions are approved, or (2) notify DEQ within 90 days thatthe revisions are disapproved. IfEPA disapproves the revisions, EPA shall explain why the revisions do not comply with the requirements ofthe CWA and federal regulations. The original designated use will remain in effect.

Appendix B summarizes the information expected to be developed and submitted to the Environmental Quality Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 5"6 4102107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive

## Chapter 6: Integration of UAAs and Site Specific Criteria with other Water Quality Programs

Purpose

Total Maximum Daily Loads

Water Quality Management Plans The purpose ofthis chapter is to describe those waterquality programs in which standards attainment must be determined and describes when initiation ofthe standards review process maybe appropriate in relationship to these water quality programs.

When a waterbody is determined to be water quality limited, a TMDLmust be developed. A TMDL must be calculated for eachpollutant that contributes to water quality standards violations. When the TMDL is developed, it must be calculated based on the current applicable water quality standards. In general, before DEQ would considerundertaking water quality standards review, DEQ needs to review information demonstrating that the applicable standards are unattainable through the load allocations and waste load allocations. Much ofthe information would be developed in a TMDL analysis. The analysis would include: a review ofcurrent water quality data; determination ofthe magnitude, frequency and duration ofthe criteria exceedances; evaluation ofthe management alternatives; and evaluation of restoration alternatives.

In addition to the TMDL, DEQ writes a water qualitymanagementplan (WQMP) which identifies the designated management agencies (DMAs) responsible for developing implementation plans. Under State regulations the implementation plan must identify the management strategies the DMAwill use to achieve the load allocations. Ifduring evaluation ofthe management strategies the DMA determines that the allocations are unattainable, the DMA should initiate discussions with DEQ. DEQ will determine whether: the allocation strategy shouldbe revised, whether other alternatives shouldbe reviewed, or ifthe applicable water quality standards shouldbe reviewed.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 6-1 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria

### 401 Certifications Under Section 401 ofthe CleanWater Act, a water quality certification must be issued for any activity that requires a federal permit orlicense ifthat activity mayresult in a discharge to waters ofthe State. The 401 certification will have conditions to ensure that water quality standards will be met. DEQ can deny a 401 certification ifthe project can not meet water quality standards. Once DEQ has received a complete application for a 401 certification, DJ;IQ has one year to issue the 401 orwaives its right to issue the 401 certification. 401 certifications canbe divided into non-hydropower and hydropower activities. Non-hydropower activities that require a 401 certification include but are not limited to:

• Creek crossings • Dredging • Placing fill materials in waterways orwetlands • Constructing Docks/marinas • Restoring Wetlands • Restoring Streams • Replacing Culverts
In the case ofnon-federal hydroelectric projects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) administers the licensing program, and DEQ certifies the project's application for licensing orre-licensing. Hydropower 40I certifications are incorporated into FERC licenses, which are issued for a 30-50 year time period. The 401 certification must be based on current applicable water quality standards. Whether the activity is hydropower ornon-hydropower, ifa water quality standard change is desired the change mustbe completed (including EPA approval) before a 401 certification determination canbe made under the new water quality standard. In general, before DEQ would consider undertaking a water quality standards review, the applicant for the 401 certification wouldbe expected to demonstrate that the attaining the applicable water quality standards is not feasible. Ifremoval ofa designated use is proposed the feasibility analysis includes an analysis ofthe control strategies and their costs.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**6~2** 4/02/07

.Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific CriteriaNPDES Permits National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are written to meet current water quality standards and approved waste load allocations. Ifa permittee believes that a designated use for the receiving waterbodyis not an existing use and is not an attainable use, orthat site specific criteria will protect the designated use, the permittee should discuss this with the DEQ permit writer well before the permit is up for renewal. The pem1it writer should discuss the issue with the water quality standards staff and determine ifthe issue maybe addressed during the triennial review ofthe water quality standards. Ifthe designated use is an existing use, adoption ofsite specific criteriamay be consideredbefore the permit is up for renewal. As discussed previously, the permittee will have to demonstrate that they have evaluated available technologies to support the designated use. The permitreview and renewal will not be held up for a review ofthe water quality standards. Ifthe permittee needs additional time to complywith permit limits, a variance from the water quality standards mayberequested. The EQC determines whether to grant the variance. The variance mustbe submitted to EPA for review and approval. According to OAR 340-041-0061(2)(d)(B) the variance may not exceed three years or the term ofthe NPDES permit, although the variance maybe renewed. The variance is not effective until approved byEPA (OAR 340-41- 0061(2)(d)(C)). Variances are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria

## Chapter 7: What alternative methods are available?

Purpose

Variances

When may a variance be granted? The purpose ofthis chapter is to explore alternatives to changing water quality standards. 

## Variances When a point source cannot meet waterquality standards, a variance maybe granted under certain circumstances. The variance applies onlyto the point source requesting the variance and onlythe pollutant orpollutants specified in the variance. The authority for states to grant variances is provided in 40 CFR 131.13 which describes general policies pertaining to water quality standards, and states: States may, at theirdiscretion, include in their State standards,policies generally affecting their application and implementation, such as mixingzones, low flows and variances. Suchpolicies aresubjectto EPA review and approval.
The Oregon Administrative Rules describe how such variances maybe applied. Specifically, OAR 340-041-0061 states: (2) Water quality variances. The commission maygrantpointsource variances from the water qualitystandards in this Division where the following requirements are met. (a) The water quality variance may apply only to thepointsource for which the variance is requestedand only to thepollutant orpollutants specified in the variance; the underlying waterquality standardotherwise remains in effect. (b) A water quality standardvariance may not be granted if: (A) Standards will be attainedby allpointsource dischargers implementing effluent limitations required undersections 30J(b) and 306 of thefederal Clean WaterAct and by nonpointsources implementing cost-effective and reasonable best management practices; or (B) The variance would likelyjeopardize the continuedexistence of any threatenedor endangeredspecies listed under section 4 of the EndangeredSpeciesActor result in the destruction oradverse modification of such species'critical habitat.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 7-l 4102107 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific CriteriaUnder what conditions may a variance be granted? Before a variance canbe granted, the applicant must demonstrate that one of the six conditions listed in OAR 349-041-0061(2)(c) applies. These six conditions are as follows: (A) Naturally occurringpollutant concentrationsprevent the attainment of the use. (B) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levelsprevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effiuent discharges to enable uses to be met without violating state water conservation requirements. (C) Human-caused conditions orsources of pollutionprevent the attainment of the use andcannot be remedied orwould cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave inplace. (D) Dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the use, andit is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to operatesuch modification in a way which would result in the attainment of the use. (E) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lackof apropersubstrate, cover,flow, depth, pools, riffles, and unrelatedto water qualitypreclude attainment of aquatic lifeprotection uses. (F) Controls morestringent than those requiredby sections 30l(b) and 306 of the federal Clean WaterAct would result in substantial andwidespread economic andsocial impact.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: final Page 7-2 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific CriteriaHow is a variance different from a nse attainability analysis?

Procedures by which a variance is granted The six conditions listed under OAR 340-041-0061(2)(c) are the same conditions under federal regulation to allow removal ofa designated use or adoption ofa sub-category ofa designated use. A removal ofa designated use or adoption ofa sub-category ofa designated use applies to the waterbody. Variances are granted for individual dischargers for a limited time with the expectation that they willbe able to comply with water quality standards by the time their variance expires (EPA 1995). Under a variance the water quality standards do not change. A variance is preferable to a removal ofa designated use since otherdischargers, who are capable ofmeeting the standards, must comply with the standards through their permits (EPA 1995).

OAR 340-41-061(2)(d) describes the procedures by which a variance maybe granted. These procedures are as follows: (d) Procedures. An applicant for a waterqualitystandards variance must submit a request for a variance to the department. The application must include all relevant information showing that the requirements for a variance have been satisfied. The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the designated use is unattainable for one of the reasons specified in subsection (c) of this section. 

### If the departmentpreliminarily determines thatgrounds exist for granting a variance, it mustprovidepublic notice of theproposed variance andan opportunity/orpublic comment. (A) The department may condition the variance on the performance of additionalstudies, monitoring, management practices, andother controls deemed necessary. These terms andconditions will be incorporated into the applicant's NPDESpermit ordepartment order. (B) A variance may not exceedthreeyears orthe term of the NPDESpermit, whichever is less. A variance may be renewed

### if the applicant reapplies anddemonstrates that the use in question is still notattainable. Renewal of the variance may be denied 

### if the applicant does not comply with the conditions of the original variance orotherwise does not meet the requirements of this section. (C) DEQapproval of a variance for apoint source is not effective under the federal Clean WaterAct until submitted to andapprovedbyEPA.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 7-3 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific CriteriaTrading

Quantifying temperature impact

Offset options 

## Trading Trading programs allow regulated parties to meet their obligations (e.g. permit limits) byimplementing environmentally equivalent or greater protection from another point ornonpoint source. Trading to offset a temperature load is discussed in detail in this chapter although otherwater quality parameters canbe "traded" as well. DEQ developed a trading policy which outlines protocols to quantify trades for several parameters. The trading document maybe viewed at: http://www.deg.state.or.us/wg/pubs/imds/wgtrading.pdf Clearly defined units oftrade are necessary for trading to occur. These may be expressed in terms ofenergy or mass perunit oftime as appropriate to the pollutantto be traded, and consistent with the time periods that are used to determine compliance withpermit conditions or otherregulatory requirements. UnderNPDES permits and401 certifications, the trading must correct the waterquality standards violations in-situ.

Point sources and dams can impact temperature. This impact canbe quantified as follows: Heat load= Q x L\Tmax x Specific Heat ofWaterX Density ofWater Where:Q = Average flow ofthe effluent 

### L\Tmax = Maximum temperature impact. This equationprovides a measure ofthe heat load that an entity may choose to offset through pollutant trading.

Temperature effects canbe offsetbyriparian restoration, which is the planting ofstreamside (riparian) areas. Riparian shade reduces the amount of solarradiation received bythe stream, thereby reducing the rate at which the stream warms up. Riparian vegetation also stabilizes stream banks and can help to restore deeper channels and pools over time. The impact ofriparian restoration can be estimated ifthe site potential vegetation for the watershed is known. Temperature effects may also be offsetby flow augmentation. There are many othermeasures that maybe taken to restore watersheds that are not listed here, primarilybecause their impact on temperature is not wellOregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**7~4** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific CriteriaQuantifying the impact of riparian restoration established. These measures include but are not limited to: road removal, reduction ofimpervious surface area and floodplain restoration. Ifthe impact ofthese measures can be quantified, they maybe suitable measures to offset the impact oftemperature loads. These offset options must result in water quality standards compliance within the affected waterbody.

The magnitude ofthe impact ofshade achieved through riparian restoration will depend on the amount ofstream surface that is shaded. This impact may be quantified as follows: Heat load offsetby shade = Area ofStream Shadedx Increase in Shade Densityx Solar Insolation Rate Each tenn is explained below:

• Area ofStream Shaded =Average Stream Width x Stream Length

• Increase in Shade Density=Projected Shade Density- Initial Shade Density. Shade density canbe measured via a solar pathfinder, densiometer or alternate method as long as adequatejustification is provided. Projected shade density is the shade level associated with site potential vegetation. In areas where restoration projects have already occurred, shade density values should be informedby experiences to date.

• The solarinsolation rate is the amount ofsolarradiation that hits a stream surface (after blockage bycloud cover, vegetation, etc). TheDepartment ofEnergypublishes solar insolation rates for different parts ofthe country. The solar insolation rate used to evaluate the impact ofshade should correspond to the critical period, usually mid to late summer. The above methodology does not take into account the ancillarybenefits associated with riparian shadingprojects, such as improvedhabitat and reduced erosion. These ancillary benefits will accrue on a year-round basis, though the warming impact that the riparian restoration is intended to offset may only occur during part ofthe year.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page**7~5** 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific CriteriaQuantifying the impact offlow augmentation

Addressing uncertainty Modeling maybe used to develop empirical equations that relate instream flow to temperature. These equations canthen be used to determine how much thermal credit canbe given for a particularrate offlow augmentation. The credit will be in effect for as long as the source chooses to practice flow augmentation.

Offset options canbe expectedto have uncertainty associated with them, and this uncertainty needs to be addressed in the temperature management plan. Three different approaches for dealing with uncertainty are discussed below along with appropriate applications ofeach. The third approach was written for BMPs for nutrient control, howeverit could apply to othertypes ofBMPs as well.

• Margins ofSafety. Margins ofsafety are an appropriate means for dealing with negative circumstances that have a reasonable likelihood ofoccurring within a permit cycle. As an example, though NPDES permits are written for a five year period, a margin ofsafety that would take into account natural disturbances that might occur only once in ten years, such as a ten year drought, wouldbe appropriate.
• Monitoring ofsurrogates. Whenthe water quality parameter that is beingtraded is variable, DEQ may elect to monitor a surrogate. For example, stream temperature varies with weather as well as with the amount offlow in the stream, and these impacts to stream temperature can negate, at least temporarily, the impact ofriparian planting/shading. Therefore, in a temperature trade that involves shade creation via riparian planting, DEQ may elect to require the permit holder to monitorplant survival and later on, shade density in lieu ofstream temperature.
• Trading ratios. The use oftrading ratios is appropriate in conjunction with BMPs, the impact ofwhich is inherently variable. For example, the amount ofpollutantreduction that will occur as the result ofinstalling a vegetativebuffer will depend on the amount ofpollutant delivered to the buffer, the nature ofthe soils present, the amount ofrainfall, and the density/type/age/health ofthe vegetation itself. For such BMPs, DEQ will elect to use trading ratios to account for the uncertainty associated with them. Appendix C ofDEQ's trading policy lists tradingratios for BMPs to reduce nutrient loading to streams.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Final Page 7-6 4/02/07 Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific CriteriaPublic DEQ views public participation as critical to the success oftrading. Public participation participation maybe achieved through stakeholder involvement as well as during the public comment period for the NPDES pennit.
Implementation Trading partners must be prepared to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed action(s) will be implemented. For point source credits, NPDES permit provisions will provide such assurances. Fornonpoint source credits, examples ofreasonable assurance include but are not limited to: performance bonds, memoranda ofagreement, and third party contracts. For temperature, compliance with the approved trade will be established by the schedule in the NPDES permit. Ifriparian planting is used to offset a temperature load, compliance will initiallybe determined by compliance with an approved schedule for planting. As plantings become established, compliance will be determined byplant survival rates and shade density measurements.

Oregon Depa1iment ofEnvironmental Quality: Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Clitcda Final Page 7-7 4/02/07

# REFERENCES Department ofLand Conservation and Development and Department ofEnvironmental Quality. 2000. Water QualityModel Code and Guidebook. DEQ. 2003. Watershed Assessment Section Mode ofOperations Manual (MOMs). Chapter 3: Field Collection Methods. Version 3.1, DEQ Laboratory Division, Portland, Oregon. Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board. 1999. Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. Hughes, R. M., S. Howlin, and P.R. Kaufmann. 2004. A Biointegrityindex for Coldwater Streams ofWestern Oregon and Washington. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 133:1497-1515. Hughes, R. M., and J.R. Gammon. 1987. Longitudinal Changes in Fish Assemblages and Water Qualityin the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 116:196-209. Kaufmann, P.R, P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. QuantifYing PhysicalHabitat in Wadeable Streams. EPA/620/R-99/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Mebane, C.A., T.R. Maret, and R.M. Hughes. 2003. An Index ofBiological Integrity (IBI) for Pacific Northwest Rivers. Transactions ofAmerican Fisheries Society. 132:239-261. OregonPlan for Salmon and Watersheds. 1999. Oregon Aquatic Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Guide. OWEB. July 1999. Water Quality MonitoringTechnical Guide Book. Oregon's Watershed Enhancement Board. 775 Summer ST. NE., Suite 360, Salem, OR, 97301-1290. Peck, D.V., D.K. Averill, D.L. Klemm, and J.M. Lazorchak (editors). 2001 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program- Surface Waters: Western Pilot StudyField OperationsManual for Non-Wadeable Streams and Rivers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Level III: Assessment ofStream Condition and Departure from Its Potential, Chapter 6, pp. 14-47. USEPA. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition, EPA-823-B-94-005. USEPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards. (PDF, 581KB) 121 pages. Link available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/econworkbook/

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Final Page -1 4/02/07USEPA. 2001. Issue Paper 5. Summary ofTechnical Literature Examining the Physiological Effects ofTemperature on Salmonids. Region 10 Office ofWater. EPA -910-D-01-005. May2001. USEPA. 2003. EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. Region 10 Office ofWater. EPA 910-B-03-002. April2003. WaterEnvironmentResearch Foundation. 1997. A Comprehensive UAA Technical Reference and Users Guide. See http://www.werf.org.

Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality: Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Final Page**~2** 4/02/07

## Appendix A

Checklist of Aquatic Life Indicators

The following checklist summarizes the categories ofindicators discussed in Chapter 3, and shouldbe usedbythe applicant during the planning phases ofa UAA or studies to support adoption ofsite specific criteria. This list does not include all possible types ofinformation that might be needed to support removal ofa designated use or adoption ofsite specific criteria Aquatic Habitat Checklist General WatershedInformation Ecoregion (Level III or IV) Gradient Elevation Area andrelief Stream order Cham1el type Valley bottom and containment Hydrologic layers Identification offish barriers PhysicalInformation Land use/land cover, including impervious surfaces. Includes type and stage ofvegetative cover (e.g., non- forest, mixed, conifer, sera! stage) and type of land use (e.g., forested, urban, agriculture, open) across the landscape. Hard surfaces such as roads, rooftops, and parking lots which affect the pattern and extent offactors such as surface run-off(hydrograph), sedimentation, and stream temperature.) Geomorphology/geommphic index (including floodplain lateral com1ectivity) (Characterizes stream channel structure in floodplain areas and connectivity to floodplain.) Road density Landslides Wetlands Riparian cover and condition -banks and other riparian characteristics (Riparian areas are complex ecological systems that are important for maintaining the vitality ofstreams. They strongly affect streams by influencing hydrological patterns, recruiting oflarge woody debris, stabilizing banks, sequestering nutrients, controlling light regime, and controlling seasonal nutrient contribution to organisms.) Large wood

- (Large wood influences channel hydraulics, energy dissipation and sediment effects on channel complexity. The location, number, area, and volume of pools and substrate/gravel are affected bylarge wood.)

4/02/07 Page A-1Pools and other channel morphology structures

- (Important habitat features where channel deepens and flow slows.) Stream substrate- streambed composition (Result ofgeomorphology and interacting habitat-forming processes. Substrate composition (e.g. gravel, embeddedness) can be highly variable across small spacial scales). Rosgen LevelIIIStream Assessment Bankfull width Mean depth Cross section area at bankfull Width/depth ratio Width flood prone area Entrenchment ratio Channel materials Water surface slope Valley type Channel sinuosity Riparian vegetation Canopy density Riparian plantcommunities Streamflow regime Stream order Depositional feature Meanderpatterns Debris and channel blockages Marinephysical parameters- some maybe applicable to freshwater and estuarine systems Shoreline modifications (fill, bulkheads, overwater structures, clearing, diking) Status and trends ofsubstrate Intertidal vegetation BiologicalParameters- Freshwater Fish and othervertebrates Aquatic macroinvertebrates (infaunal and/or epifaunal) Aquatic macrophytes Algae Quantitative fish population surveys BiologicalParameters- Marine Submerged vegetation (eelgrass, kelp, general seaweeds) Floating kelp canopy Infaunal biota Substrate
4/02/07 Page A-2Emergent vegetation (saltmarsh, spit/berm, forested wetlands 

### ChemicalParameters- Freshwater (with density stratification ofmonitoring parameters, if appropriate) Dissolved oxygen - continuous summer and winter surveys Continuous temperature stream monitoring conducted during the time period designated for the fish use in the water quality standards (i.e. during the warmest part ofthe year for non-spawning uses) pH

- continuous summer and winter surveys Turbidity Total phosphorus Total nitrogen Chlorophyll-a Water clarity Toxic substances in water Toxic substances in sediment Toxic substances in tissue 

### Chemical- Marine (with density stratification ofmonitoring parameters, ifappropriate) Dissolved oxygen Temperature pH Turbidity Total phosphorus Total nitrogen Chlorophyll-a Water clarity Nutrients Ammonium concentrations "DIN" (Dissolved inorganic nitrogen) Toxic substances in water Toxic substances in sediment Toxic substances in tissue

4/02/07 Page A-3

## Appendix B

Checklist for EQC Submission
Submission to the EQC ofthe rule modification to remove a designated use or adopt site specific criteriawill include the following information: EQC StaffReport for rule adoption with the following attachments: • Proposed rule revisions; • Summary ofPublic Comments and AgencyResponses; • Advisory Committee Membership and Report; • Presiding Officer's Report on Public Hearings; • Statement ofNeed and Fiscal and Economic Impact; • Land Use Evaluation Statement; • Relationship to Federal Requirements Questions. Instructions for completingthe EQC staffreport maybe found on DEQ's intranet in the Rulemaking Resource Center. Staffmay also seek assistance from the waterquality division rulemaking coordinator. Additional documents for the EQC may include an issuepaper and memos ofexplanation.



## Checklist for EPA submission When submitting a change to the water quality standards to EPA for review DEQ provides the following: • The rule as filed by the Secretary ofState; • EQC staffreport and attachments; • Any additional documents providedto the EQC such as the issue paper; • Certificationbythe State Attorney General that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to State law. Federal rules describe the requirements ofa rule submission to EPA for review and approval. These requirements include: the Certification by the State Attorney General; methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards revisions and water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses ( 40 CFR 131.6).

4/02/07 Page B-1Purpose

UAA Activity iu Alaska 

## Appendix C Regional and national context for UAAs

Thepurpose ofthis appendix is to explore how the UAA development process in Oregon fits within the regional andnational context by answering the following questions:
• What is the status ofUAA activity in EPA Region 1 0?
• In what other states around the countryhaveUAAs been conducted?
• Whatbeneficial uses have been addressed in these existing UAAs?
• Are there examples ofUAA Guidance in other states?

The State ofAlaskahas completed two Use AttainabilityAnalyses:

• Nolan Creek. Revised designated uses for Nolan Creek were submitted to EPA in September of 1984. EPA approved the revised uses in December of 1984.

• Red Dog and llmlukrok Creeks. A use attainability analysis for Ikalukrok Creek, Red Dog Creek, and several small tributaries to Red Dog Creekwere submitted to EPA for review in 1997. This resulted in the aquatic life use beingremoved from a small stream segment, minor modifications to recreational uses, and removal ofthe drinking water use from approximately 40 miles ofthe waterbody portions in question. The UAA also resulted in the removal ofsulfate limits from the final permit. Metals limits and the TDS limit, however, which were based on aquatic life use, were not affected by the UAA and were retained in the final permit. The reclassifications ofthe designated uses were approved by EPA in February of 1998.

4/02/07 Page C-1UAA Activity in Idaho

4/02/07 The State ofIdaho has completed 5 UAAs: The Westfork ofBlackbird CreekUAA, the Blackbird Creek UAA, the Bucktail CreekUAA, the Soda CreekUAA, and the Brownlee Reservoir UAA. EPA approved the Westfork Blackbird, Blackbird and Bucktail CreekUAAs. The Soda CreekUAA was subsequently withdrawnbyIDEQ and the Brownlee ReservoirUAA has not yetbeenreviewed by EPA.

• The WestforkofBlackbird CreekUAA, the Blackbird CreekUAA, and the Bucktail CreekUAA were all tied to operation ofthe Blackbird Mine in Lemhi County, Idaho. Due to the mine's status as a Superfund site, a significant amount ofdata was available to conduct analysis on these three drainages.

• Example: Bucktail Creek. 

### In the Bucktail CreekUAA, the State was able to determine that due to the steep, shallow and intermittent nature of the creek, contact recreation and aquatic life use are not existing beneficial uses. Furthermore, the State was able to use CERCLA documents to analyze copper concentrations in Bucktail Creek. Using this information, the State concluded that it is unlikely that in the foreseeable future (e.g. 10-20 years) copper concentrations will decline to the point ofmeeting aquatic life criteria. As such, itwas concluded that within the foreseeable future, human caused sources ofpollution preclude the attainment ofuse and cannotbe remedied.

• Idaho has also conducted a UAA that did not result in a use change. The Paradise CreekUAA was completed in 1994. This report determined that the currently designated uses ofcold water and secondary contact recreation were attainable. It also determined that salmonid spawning, although not an existing or designated use was probably an attainable use. 

## • The State ofIdaho in March 2002 submitted for EPA review and approval two UAA documents in support ofboth recreational and aquatic life use designation changes on 5tributaries (subdivided into 8 "waterbody units") to the lower Boise and Snake Rivers. These tributaries were existing creeks, swales, or depressions that had been modified (e.g., straightened, deepened, and otherwise modified in many portions) in the mid 1800s to early 1900s to serve as irrigation conveyances, and continue to be operated and maintained by irrigation districts for this purpose. The State ofIdaho sought to change the designated recreational use on six waterbody units from primary to secondary contactrecreation (PCR to SCR) due to safety concerns or because ofinsufficient water to support PCR. Itis important to note that the Idaho bacteria criteria used for compliance purposes for PCR and SCR are the same. The State also sought to change the designated aquatic life uses in eight waterbody units, citing 40 CFR 131.1O(g)(2), (4), and (5) in support ofthese changes. EPA reviewed and in November 2004 approved the sixrecreational use designation changes, but disapproved the eight aquatic life use designation changes. Issues that led to EPA's disapprovals included segmentation ofthe waters that blurred hydrologic boundaries, inconclusive infonnation regarding existing use and current conditions, and lack ofattainability analyses. Consultation in this case was not required becaus<;..EPA:S,a-9tion on aquatic life use designation changes did not resu!tli<ha'ni;lls to the State's standards.UAA Activity in Washington

UAA Activity in Oregon In the state ofWashington, one UAAhas been submitted and withdrawn, and oneUAA is under development:

• In 2002, the town ofQuincy, Washington submitted a UAA in support ofremoving aquatic life use in an agricultural irrigation ditch that was receiving wastewater discharge. Upon review, Washington DOE found the data and analysis insufficient to supportremoving the full suite of uses recommended in the report The state responded to Quincy with a letter that summarized the modifications thatthe report would support To date, the town ofQuincy has notresubmitted a revised package.

• AnotherUAA is known to be under development for the Spokane River from RM 96 to RM 33.93

. The objective ofthis UAA is to determine whether the beneficial uses designated for Lake Spokane and the Spokane River are existing and attainable, and thereby suitable as the basis for TMDL targets for the Spokane River.

UAA-related activityin the state ofOregon has, to date, been limited to a case study conducted inthe 1980s:

• In the1980s, DEQ reviewed a portion ofthe Malheur River as part ofa US EPA field test ofthe draft "Waterbody Surveys and Assessments Guidance" for conducting a use attainability analysis'. Theportion of the river examined was largely influenced by a complicated system of irrigation canals, laterals, and irrigation return flows. Given the level of human influence on the waterbody, an analysis was conducted to determine ifthe designated use (salmonid fishery) was in fact an existing or attainable use. The case study concluded thatuses designated for the segment ofthe Malheur River in question shouldbe changed to reflect achievable uses based on the existing resident fish populations and aquatic life.

3 http://www.spokaneriveruses.net/backgroundinfo.htm 4 See Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analysis, Volumes 1-3, 1983-84 (PDF, 37M). Link available at: htto:llwww.epa.gov/waterscicnce/librarylwqstandardsl 4/02/07 Page C-3Statewith completed UAAs A total of24 states have completed UAAs, though some states have been more active in this arena than others. The following table summarizes where and how frequently UAAs are being used:

Number ofUAAs Prepared State WhereUAA Conducted More than 100 KS, NY, OH, OK 11-100 AZ, CO, IN, PA, WY 1-10 AK, AL, CA, FL, GA, ID, KY, ME, MA, MN, NJ, NM, OR, TX, VA

Beneficial Uses considered in UAAs The following table summarizes which categories ofdesignated uses have been subject to Use Attainability Analysis, and in what states those analyses were conducted.

UAA guidance in other states

4/02/07 o ated Use Category No. of States States AL, AZ, CA, CO, GA, ID, IN, KS, Aquatic/WildlifeUse 18 MA, ME, 

### MN, NM,

### NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, VA, 

### WY Recreational Use 

### 15 AZ, CA, CO, ID, IN, KS, MA, ME, 

### MN, NM,

### NY, OH, OK, VA, WY Agricultural Use 9 AL, 

### AZ, CA, IN, KS, MA, NM,OH, 

### WY Industrial Use 

### 5 AL, CA, MA, ME, 

### WY Public Water SupplyUse 

### 5 CA, ME, NM, OH, 

### WY NavigationUse 

### 2 CA,ME Outstanding Water SupplyUse 

### 2 OK,PA

A number ofstates have developed guidance for Use Attainability Analysis, though it should be noted that these documents are often specific to a particular category of use. The following table summarizes available guidance by state. Directly below the table are specific references for many ofthese documents, and websites if available.

Designated Use Category No. of States States Aquatic/Wildlife Use 

### 5 KS, OK, PA, WA, WI Recreational Use 4 CO, KS, MO, OK, W A Industrial Use (CSO) 

### 1 IN Public Water SupplyUse I KS

Page C-4Kansas Kansas Department ofHealth and Environment. (2001). GuidanceDocument for Use AttainabilityAnalysis (UAAs). 69 pages. Available at: http://www.kdhe.state.ks.uslbefs/uaas/UAAGuidance.pdf Oklahoma Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 200 I. UnifiedProtocols for Beneficial Use Assignment for Oklahoma Wadable Streams (UseAttainabilityAnalysis). OWRB Technical Report TRWQ200 1-1. Washington Washington Department ofEcology. 2004. Draft UseAttainabilityAnalysis Guidance for Washington State. 85 pages. Colorado Colorado Department ofPublic Health and the Environment. 2003. Recreational Use Classification Guidance. 18 pages. Link available at: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wg/Assessment/assessment practices and methods.htm Missouri Missouri Department ofNatural Resources. 2004. Whole Body Contact Recreational Use Attainability Analysis Guidance. 20 pages. Indiana IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management. 2001. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Long-Term ControlPlan UseAttainabilityAnalysis Guidance. 54 Pages. Available at: http://www.in.gov /idem/rules/policies/water/ csoplamrrd.pdf

4/02/07 Page C-5