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, 2007 
Acknowledgments 

List of Acronyms 

Executive Summary 

TABLE of CONTENTS 

Chapter 1: Water Quality Standards Overview 

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

Chapter 3: Technical Basis 

Analysis of Use 

Waterbody Survey 

Waterbody Survey Design Review 

Biological Indicators 

Water Quality Indicators 

Habitat Indicators 

Review ofWaterbody Survey Results 

Attainable Use 

Point Source and Nonpoint Source Controls 

Benefits to the Resource 

Chapter 4: Determining the Cost of Use Attaimnent 

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

Chapter 6: Integration ofUAAs and Site Specific Criteria with other Water Quality Programs 

Chapter 7: What alternative methods are available? 

Variances 

Trading 

REFERENCES 

Appendix A 

Checklist of Aquatic Life Indicators 

Appendix B 

Checklist for EQC Submission 

Checklist for EPA submission 

Appendix C 

Regional and national context for UAAs 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 

Page i 

4/02/07 
Acknowledgments 

This Oregon Department of Enviromnental 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 of this document does not imply agreement with or 

endorsement of the directive by any of the participants. 

The U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency provided funding and management of contract 

support for facilitation of the advisory workgroup to Systems Research and Applications 

Corporation through EPA Contract EP-W -04-015. Technical support for the development of the 

directive was provided by Tetra Tech through EPA Contract EP-C-04-030. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Oiteria Internal Management Directive 

Page ii 

4102107 
BA 

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 ofF ederal Regulations 

Combined Sewer Overflow 

Clean Water Act 

Designated Management Agencies 

Executive Management Team 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Quality Commission 

Endangered Species Act 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Index of Biotic Integrity 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Oregon Administrative Rules 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 

Physical Habitat Simulation Model 

Technical Advisory Group 

Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Use Attainability Analysis 

US Department of Agriculture 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Water Quality Management Plan 

Oregon Department of Environmental 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 If a state decides to remove a designated use from the water quality standards 

definition of a 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 structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of 

the use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and economic 

factors as described in Sec. 13J.IO(g)." 

This document is intended to describe a process for determining if a use 

attainability analysis or adoption of site specific criteria is appropriate and if 

so, what information should be 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 of the 

public or regulated entities. 

This internal management directive may be reviewed and implemented by: 

• Staff responsible for reviewing and revising water quality standards; 

• Staff issuing new or renewal NPDES permits, in which water quality 

standards attaiument is an issue; 

• Staff issuing 401 water quality certifications in which water quality 

standards attainment is an issue; 

• Staff developing TMDLs. 

This directive addresses procedural and data requirements for a use 

attainability analysis (UAA) or site specific criteria to be considered for 

review by DEQ. 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 of Environmental Quality: Final Pageiv 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
DEQ's 

expectations 

and limitations 

Contact for 

Questions 

species. The reader is referred to appropriate citations. 

DEQ expects that existing water quality will be maintained and improved. 

At the time of adopting 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 of site specific criteria. 

DEQ currently does not have a fee structure for this work. DEQ would 

consider receipts authority only after requesting the Legislature or, in the 

interim, the Emergency Board provide general funds for the work. If the 

Legislature does not provide general funds, DEQ would consider receipts 

authority only as part of a transparent public process and public comment 

opportunity on the question of whether the work should be done under 

receipts authority. Following the public comment on use of receipts authority 

DEQ may decide to proceed using 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 whether to pursue a change to the designated use or adopt site 

specific criteria DEQ may consider if the process will lead to an overall 

environmental improvement. Economic benefit will be part of the analysis but 

will not be the main consideration in changing a water quality standard. Any 

proposed changes to designated uses or adoption of site specific criteria will 

be subject to an open public process and likely undertaken as part of the water 

quality standards triennial review. 

For questions about this directive contact the water quality standards staff in 

the Water Quality Division. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: final Page v 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02107 
Purpose 

Goals of the 

Clean Water 

Act 

Review of 

federal 

regulations 

What are 

designated 

uses? 

Chapter 1: Water Quality Standards Overview 

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the federal and state 

regulations that govem the development of water quality standards. 

Specifically the chapter discusses federal regulations regarding removal of 

designated uses or adoption of sub-categories of designated uses and 

development of site specific criteria. 

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (Section 

lOl(a)). In order to achieve this objective the Act sets an interim goal of water 

quality to provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water. 

Federal regulations require states1 to develop water quality standards. Water 

quality standards are "provisions of State or Federal law which consist of a 

designated use or uses for the waters of the 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. 

Such uses may include "public water supplies, protection and propagation of 

fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agricultural, 

industrial, and other purposes 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 or may not be currently attained. Oregon defines 

a designated beneficial use as "the purpose or benefit to be derived from a 

waterbody" (OAR 340-041-0002(17)). The tenn "designated beneficial use" 

is the same as the term "designated use" in federal regulations. 

1 States include: The 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the 

Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines to be eligible 

for purposes of water quality standards program. (40 CFR 131.3(j)) 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria lntemal Management Directive 

Page 1-l 

4102107 
What are 

existing nses? 

Oregon's 

designated nses 

Federal regulations require states to protect existing uses which are defined as 

" ... those uses actually attained in the waterbody on or after November 28, 

1975, whether or not they are included in the water quality standards" [40 

CFR Section 131.3(e)]. 

If the existing use is not included in the water quality standards, the water 

quality suitable to support the existing use must be protected. As stated in 40 

CFR Section 131.12(a)(l ): 

"Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality 

necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and 

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 major river basins in the state. Numeric criteria to 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 contact recreation" 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 of a general designated use table for the Willamette Basin is 

shown in Table 1. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page l-2 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intcmal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Willamette River Tributaries Mainstem 

Willamette River 

oil "' a; ... - ... "' -a; c 0 E 0 ... c - 1.1.. "' Beneficial Uses > ... E E en'" !!J. "' "' ii: ... ... .. cuc.c iii iii -

"' ... "' .2: "' I!! :=:oo rn .. "' ~ l:r: ~ - 1.1.. ,g 0 "' > ~.~ S::o.c "' 0 .. ii: "' _,. E E ie' ·;;; 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 for this basin. 

o Not to conflict with commercial activities in Portland Harbor. .. Table 1: Des1gnated Benef1c1al Uses 

Willamette Basin 

(340-041-0340) 

Oregon's fish 

use designation 

maps 

Maps are available that note the spatial extent of particular 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 and juvenile rearing 

• Core cold water habitat 

Oregon Department of Environmental 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 of designated fish use maps for the same basin are shown in 

Figures 1 and 2, respectively. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Crite1ia Internal Management Directive 

Page 1-4 

4102107 
Figure 1: Fish Use Designations Willamette Basin 

Rgure 340A Rth Use Cel'ignations* Wllamette Basin, O"eg;n 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 

Page I M5 

4/02/07 
Figure 2: Salmon and Steelhead Spawning 

Rgure 3408 Salmon and Elee/head Ep8'M1ing ll;e 09Sgnations* Wllarnette Basin, O"egJn 

D3sigrlat€d &timon and Steelhead Spav.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 of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 

Page 1¥6 

4/02/07 
How are 

designated uses 

changed? 

Six conditions 

allowing 

removal of a 

designated use 

Federal 

definition of a 

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 or more must 

be met for a sub-category of a designated use to be adopted. 

A State may remove a designated use or establish a sub-category of a use, if 

the State can demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible 

because [ 40 CFR Section 131.1 O(g)]: 

(1) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment 

of the use; or 

(2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water 

levels prevent the 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 or sources of pollution prevent the 

attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more 

environmental damage to correct than to leave in place; or 

( 4) Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude 

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 a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, 

riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of 

aquatic life protection uses; or 

(6) Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301 (b) and 

306 of the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic 

and social impact. 

The process for considering the removal of a designated use or adoption of a 

sub-category of a designated use is called a use attainability analysis (UAA). 

According to federal regulations (40 CFR Section 131.3(g)) a UAA is: 

"a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the 

attainment of the use which may include physical, chemical, 

biological, and economic factors as described in Sec. 

13l.JO(g)." 

The use attainability analysis is only the analysis to support the decision as to 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 1-7 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
When 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 of a designated use is appropriate. If the analysis 

supports removal of the designated use (or adoption of a sub-category of a 

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 or has designated uses that do not include the uses 

specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act ("water quality 

which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shel!fish, and 

wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water'') [ 40 CFR 

Section 131.10(j)(1)]; or 

• The State wishes to remove a designated use specified in section 

101(a)(2) of the Act or adopt subcategories of the uses specified in 

section 101 (a)(2) of the Act that require less stringent criteria [40 CFR 

Section 131.10(j)(1)]. 

As stated in 40 CFR 131.3(b ): "Criteria are elements of State water quality 

standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative 

statements, representing a quality of water that supports a particular use. 

When criteria are met, water quality will generally protect 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 criteria that protect the designated use. Such criteria must be 

based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or 

constituents to protect the designated use." 

When States submit site specific criteria to 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 of the standards to the Regional Administrator of EPA for review 

and approval, within 30 days of the final State action to adopt and certify the 

revised standard, .. " (40 CFR 131.20(c)). 

Under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA publishes water quality 

criteria based on scientific information regarding concentrations of specific 

chemicals or levels of parameters in water that protect aquatic life and human 

Oregon Department ofEnviromnental Quality: Final Page 1 ~8 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
What are the 

differences 

between a UAA 

and adopting 

site specific 

criteria? 

health (USEPA 1994). EPA's section 304(a) guidance on water quality 

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 

justified because: 

• Species at the site may be more sensitive or less sensitive than 

those used by EPA to develop Section 304(a) criteria (USEPA 

1994); 

• Physical and/or chemical characteristics of the site alter the 

biological availability and/or toxicity of the chemical (e.g., 

alkalinity, hardness, pH, suspended solids and salinity influence 

the concentration(s) of the toxic form(s) of some heavy metals, 

ammonia and other chemicals) (USEP A 1994); 

• EPA may not have criteria recommendation for a pollutant 

adversely affecting the designated use at a particular location. 

Under a UAA: 

• Designated uses may be removed only if one of six conditions are met 

as discussed on page 1-7; 

• The designated use must be determined to not be feasible to attain 

before it can be removed; 

• Feasibility may include a consideration of costs; 

• Factors affecting attainment of the designated use must be described; 

• The attainable use must be described; 

• Appropriate criteria must be applied or site specific criteria developed; 

• The most sensitive designated use must be protected by the criteria. 

Site specific criteria: 

• Federal regulations do not describe any unique conditions to allow 

adoption of site specific criteria (i.e. there is no comparable language 

to that in 40 CPR Section 131.1 O(g)); 

• Site specific criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale; 

• The designated use is not changed; 

• Are preferable when the designated use is an existing use; 

• Feasibility of attaining the criteria is not considered; 

• The most sensitive designated use must be protected by the criteria. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 1-9 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Chapter 2: Process for Site Specific Criteria or Use 

Attainability Analysis 

Purpose 

How is the 

process 

initiated? 

Decision on 

scoping 

discussion 

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the process that will likely occur in 

the development and completion of a use attainability analysis or 

development of site specific criteria. This chapter outlines steps that will be 

taken by DEQ staff as well as those likely to be taken by the entity requesting 

the change to the water quality standards. Details on some of the steps are 

provided in later chapters which are cited when appropriate. 

The applicant for the use attainability analysis or development of site specific 

criteria should send a letter of request to the regional water quality 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 of a 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 of the decision the managers 

will consider whether DEQ has the funding to undertake the scoping work. 

The decision whether to conduct a scoping discussion will be documented in 

a memo to the water quality standards files and to the applicant for the change 

in the water quality standards. If the managers decide to proceed to a scoping 

discussion, the applicant and DEQ water quality standards staff and 

appropriate regional staff will discuss the following issues: 

• Funding- whether DEQ has funding to undertake the rulemaking that 

would be required for a change to designated uses or adoption of site 

specific criteria; 

• Water quality standards interpretation and application, including 

identification of the 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 of the applicant to achieve water quality standards through 

allocations in a TMDL; 

• Status of development of the temperature management plan, water 

quality management plan or other implementation plans. Specifically 

DEQ will determine whether an implementation plan has been 

submitted and if the plan is adequate. The contents of an 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 2-1 

Usc Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
implementation plan are described in OAR 340-042-0080(3)(a); 

• Status of implementation of technology based controls for point 

sources; 

• Status of draft 401 certification application, if a 401 hydropower 

certification is required by the applicant; 

• Information availability. Such information may include water quality 

data and data on the status of the 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 or trading. 

Staff recomm- After the scoping discussion the DEQ headquarters water quality standards 

en dation memo staff and regional staff will make a recommendation as to whether DEQ 

should proceed with the use attainability analysis or review of site specific 

criteria. The staff recommendation memo will: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Identify the proponents of the change to the water quality standards; 

Identify funding and resource limitations, if any, and proposed sources 

of funding; 

Describe any possible potential benefit to the environment; 

Determine if the effluent limits required under sections 30l(b) and 

306 of the Clean Water Act have been implemented. The effluent 

limits are those developed under EPA's effluent guidelines program. 

These effluent limits must be implemented before a rule change 

proceeds; 

Evaluate whether the waterbody is water quality limited. The TMDL 

allocations should be evaluated to determine if the water quality 

standard could be attained by re-allocation of the pollutant load; 

Determine if the implementation plans have been written. The 

rulemaking should not proceed until the implementation plans have 

been reviewed to determine if the standard can be attained; 

Determine if the cost-effective and reasonable best management 

practices have been implemented. If the practices have been 

implemented, adaptive management is preferred to a rule change; 

Identify the environmental problem to be addressed; 

Describe the magnitude, extent, duration and timing of the problem; 

Discuss the evaluation of alternatives; 

Estimate staff resources needed to undertake the work (including work 

with advisory committees); 

Identify existing information; 

Identify information gaps; 

Determine whether the change to the water quality standards will 

remove a designated use or set site specific criteria. 

Oregon Depa1iment of Environmental Quality: Final Page 2-2 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Decision memo The manager of the water quality standards program and the regional water 

quality manager will review the recommendation of the staff and issue a 

recommendation memorandum to the water quality division administrator 

confirming or rejecting the staff recommendation. Water quality standards 

staff, the applicant and the regional water quality staff and manager will be 

copied on the memorandum. 

What is the 

triennial 

review? 

If the 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 

of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, 

modifying and adopting standards. This review must take place at least once 

every three years. As part of the triennial review DEQ will select potential 

rule changes and accept public comment on the proposal at an initial public 

hearing. Waterbodies approved for use attainable analysis or site specific 

criteria by the water quality division administrator will be part of this triennial 

review hearing. Following the review, the water quality division 

administrator, in consultation with the water quality standards manager will 

determine which proposed 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 Figure 4 in Chapter 5. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 2-3 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intema1 Management Directive 4102107 
Figure 3: UAA/SSC Review Process 

Public 

comment 

Yes 

No 

No 

review 

hearing 

materials 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Usc Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 

Yes 

Scoping 

discussion 

Proceed 

memo 

Page 2·4 

4/02/07 
What if the 

timeline for a 

rule change 

does not 

coincide with a 

triennial 

review? 

How will the 

work be paid 

for? 

If the 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 staff may use the 

following process: 

• DEQ may hold a public meeting on the request for a water quality 

standards review. 

• DEQ may provide the request letter and decision memo to the public 

as part of the public review and comment. 

• Following the review, the water quality 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 staff available to change the water quality standards via a 

use attainability analysis or adoption of site specific criteria without the 

commitment of additional resources. DEQ will only conduct such work if 

funds are made available. DEQ prefers not to accept receipts authority from a 

private party to change water quality standards. DEQ will consider receipts 

authority only after requesting the Legislature or, in the interim, the 

Emergency Board to provide general funds for the work. If the Legislature 

does not provide general funds, DEQ would consider receipts authority only 

as part of a transparent public process and public comment opportunity on the 

question of whether the work should be done under receipts authority. 

Following the public comment on use of receipts authority DEQ may decide 

to proceed using receipts authority. DEQ cannot commit to a rnlemaking and 

as a result may decline to proceed at any time in the process. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 2~5 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Government to 

Government 

Relations 

Executive 

Management 

Team Review 

Petition to the 

Environmental 

Quality 

Commission 

DEQ water quality standards staff must consider tribal 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)). Staff should determine which tribes 

have (1) indicated an interest in UAAs or SSC and (2) have fishing rights or 

other rights (such as ceremonial rights) in the waterbody of interest. DEQ has 

a designated tribal liaison who should be contacted for this information. DEQ 

water quality standards staff should then contact the affected tribes prior to 

proceeding with the water quality standard review process outlined in this 

chapter. If the tribes raise issues or concerns about the standards review, DEQ 

staff should be prepared to meet with the tribal contacts one-on-one as part of 

the government-to-government obligations. Issues raised by the 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. 

Once the water quality division administrator has determined that a rule 

change is appropriate to propose, the project lead (the designated water 

quality standards staff) will scope the rulemaking. The rulemaking proposal 

must be presented to the executive management team (EMT). The EMT 

includes the agency director, the deputy director, and the administrators of the 

divisions as well as the administrators of the regional offices and the 

laboratory. DEQ water quality standards staff will draft a "start rulemaking 

proposal." 

In the "start ru!emaking proposal" staff need to provide enough information 

on the proposal so that the EMT can consider alternative approaches to 

rulemaking, cross program coordination, priority policy issues, key 

stakeholders, resource constraints and issues requiring special management 

attention. 

The EMT will determine if the rulemaking is a priority for DEQ. If the 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. If the 

EQC grants the petition DEQ must initiate a rulemaking. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; Final Page 2-6 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Technical Peer 

Review 

Who should be 

part of the 

technical 

review? 

If the EMT determines that a change to the beneficial uses or adopting a site 

specific criterion is a rnlemaking priority or if the EQC decides to grant a 

petition for rnlemaking, DEQ will provide for technical peer review. The 

review may be conducted by a technical advisory group (TAG), by an 

existing committee, such as the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team 

(IMST) or by selected technical experts. The purpose of the technical review 

is to identify and review the information the applicant for the standards 

change should provide to DEQ for DEQ to make a decision regarding 

changing the water quality standard. 

The technical review may involve staff from: 

• DEQ; 

• USEPA; 

• Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife (ODFW); 

• Other affected state agencies; 

• NOAA Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service if the 

waterbody under review has threatened and endangered species; 

Tribal technical staff if a tribe(s) is a co-manager of the fishery 

resource; 

• 

• 

• 

Other technical experts (e.g. university faculty); and 

The applicant for the water quality standards change . 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 2*7 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Role of the 

technical 

review group 

Policy review 

and stakeholder 

input 

After review of the available information, the reviewers may determine any of 

the following: 

• Future additional studies must be conducted and evaluated; 

• The designated use should be removed; a sub-category of the 

designated use should be adopted; or site-specific criteria should be 

developed; 

• There is insufficient basis or support for proceeding with the UAA or 

sse proposal; 

• An alternative to meet the water quality standard exists. 

As part of the technical review, DEQ will determine if it is appropriate to 

retain the designated use as a goal for the waterbody. If so, and if the review 

determines that an alternative to meet the water quality standard exists, the 

DEQ staff may issue a memo to the water quality division administrator and 

the water quality standards manager recommending that the rule change not 

proceed. 

If the technical review demonstrates that additional studies should be 

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 survey results; 

• Review alternatives; 

• Develop technical basis for the change to the water quality standard; 

and 

• Recommend criteria. 

DEQ will also provide for review of the policy issues raised by the proposal 

for a water quality standards change. The review may include formation of a 

policy advisory committee to consider the social, economic and political 

implications of policy decisions. Generally, the technical review 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 or public hearings for review of the policy issues. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 
Who should be 

part of a policy 

advisory 

committee? 

Nominating 

committee for 

Use 

Attainability 

Analyses 

Fiscal Impact 

Considerations 

Antidegradation review 

• Stakeholders from the regulated community affected by the proposed 

rulemaking; 

• Stakeholders from the conservation community with an interest in the 

proposed rulemaking; 

• Representatives of tribal 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 committee per ORS 

468B.062. DEQ will convene the committee to recommend for which waters 

it believes a UAA is most warranted. DEQ may use 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 of a rule DEQ shall seek the committee's recommendations on 

whether the rule will have a fiscal impact, what the extent of that impact will 

be and whether the rule will have a significant adverse impact on small 

businesses. IfDEQ does not appoint an advisory committee, DEQ may be 

required to convene a fiscal impact advisory committee, if at least I 0 persons 

likely to be affected by the rule object to DEQ's statement of fiscal impact. 

Proposed changes to the water quality standards are required to undergo the 

State's antidegradation review. DEQ water quality standards staff will 

conduct the anti degradation 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. For more information on antidegradation consult the water quality 

standards staff. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 2~9 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Oitelia Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Final 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 staff should review the following questions: 

Public 

Comment 

Environmental 

Quality 

Commission 

Role 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Will adoption of the new water quality standard result in better 

protection of the resource? 

Is the designated use an existing use? The existing use must be 

protected. If the water quality criterion can't be attained, site specific 

criteria should be proposed. 

Have all technologically feasible options to attain the designated use 

been evaluated? If not, additional options should be reviewed before a 

rule change is adopted. 

If a 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 by removal of the designated use or 

adoption of a sub-category of the designated use? 

Has it been demonstrated that downstream designated and existing 

uses will not be impacted by adoption of site specific criteria? 

Will any new activity that will degrade existing water quality be 

proposed based on removal of the designated use or adoption of a subcategory of the designated use or adoption of site specific criteria? If 

so, an in depth anti degradation review will be required before the new 

activity can occur. 

Has the UAA or SSC received comprehensive internal review, 

including review by regional staff, water quality model staff and lab 

staff? 

DEQ is required to receive public comment on the proposed rule change. The 

rulemaking coordinator in the water quality program can provide more 

information about the public comment process. 

The changes to water quality standards require adoption by the 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 of the documentation for the rule change, staff 

drafts a report outlining the proposed changes and implications. An issue 

paper is often included as an appendix to this staff report, which provides a 

more detailed description of the proposed changes. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page2-10 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Environmental 

Protection 

Agency Review 

DEQ Triennial 

Review 

The changes adopted by the EQC must be approved by EPA. EPA reviews 

the changes to determine compliance with the Clean Water Act (CW A) and 

applicable federal regulations. If threatened and endangered species are 

present, EPA reviews the request to meet the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries 

Service) as appropriate. Additional information on EPA review and 

consultation is provided in Chapter 5. 

IfDEQ removes any designated use that is specified in section 101(a)(2) of 

the Clean Water Act, DEQ must determine if any new information has 

become available as part of the 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 of Environmental Quality: Final Page 2-11 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Purpose 

Who will 

provide the 

iuformatiou? 

Chapter 3: Technical Basis 

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the information that will provide the 

technical basis for the issue paper provided to the Environmental Quality 

Commission as an addendum to the Director's staff report. 

DEQ expects that individuals or groups will request a change to the water 

quality standards as described in Chapter 2. If a third party requests the 

change and funding is secured, the technical basis outlined in this chapter will 

be reviewed by DEQ staff and the TAG. DEQ staff will then write a technical 

basis review memo which will describe whether the TAG and DEQ concur 

with the results and conclusions of the technical information provided by the 

applicant. The technical basis memo provides the basis for the issue paper 

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 staff will generate the technical information 

described in this chapter. 

DEQ staff roles DEQ water quality standards staff will review the technical basis for 

completeness. DEQ laboratory staff may be asked to assist in the review of 

waterbody survey data and conclusions. DEQ modeling staff may be asked to 

assist in the review of analysis of alternatives to determine the attainable use. 

If the proposed water quality standard change is for a waterbody affected by a 

hydropower facility, the regional401 certification staff will be asked to assist 

in the review of the data and analysis of alternatives. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 

Page 3~1 

4/02/07 
Elements of the 

technical basis 

fora UAA 

WiD all UAAs 

require the 

same technical 

information? 

The technical information expected to be part of a use attainability analysis 

are summarized below and described in more detail in the remainder of the 

chapter. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Identification of the designated uses. Is the designated use an existing 

use? 

Determination of whether a waterbody survey is needed, and if so, 

snmmarize the results of the survey. 

Determination of the causes of impairment of the designated use . 

Identification of control strategies or management practices to attain 

the designated use. 

Identification of the costs of control strategies or management 

practices to attain the designated use. 

Identification of the attainable use, if it is not feasible to attain the 

designated use. 

DEQ anticipates that there will be situations in which the UAA will not 

require all of the technical information described in this chapter. This may be 

the case if: 

• The designated use is not an existing use. 

• The designated use is not necessary as a goal for the waterbody. 

• The proposed 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, if site specific information has become 

available to refine the large scale data then some of the designations 

which were based on the professional judgment of the fisheries 

biologists who participated in the rulemaking or were based on default 

assumptions may need to be updated. The data may also be refined as 

the Oregon Department 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 of the status of the waterbody or an 

analysis of the attainable use. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-2 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/0UJ7 
Elements of the 

technical basis 

for a sse 

What are the 

designated 

beneficial uses? 

What are the 

existing nses? 

How can the 

existing nses be 

documented? 

The technical information expected to be part of a justification for site 

specific criteria is summarized below and described in more detail in the 

remainder of the chapter. 

• Use status- Identify the designated use. Is the designated use an 

existing use? 

• Determine if a waterbody survey is needed, and if so, summarize the 

results of the survey. 

• Determine if species specific or waterbody specific studies are needed. 

If so, summarize the results of the studies. 

• Identify the site specific criteria to protect the designated use. 

Analysis of Use 

The technical basis should include a section entitled Designated Beneficial 

Uses which identifies the designated beneficial uses as currently defined in 

Oregon Administrative Rules for all waters that are within the scope of the 

review. The corresponding criteria to protect the beneficial use should also be 

identified. 

The determination of whether the designated uses are existing uses is a 

critical component of a UAA since federal regulations prohibit the 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 in the waterbody on or after November 28, 1975. 

The technical basis should provide a comprehensive description of the 

methodology, sources of information, and rationale used to make the 

determination regarding existing uses. 

The technical basis should include a review and summary of existing 

information on the existing uses in the waterbody for which the change is 

being requested. Sources of such information include: 

• ODFW fish distribution database; 

• DEQ and ODFW monitoring results; 

• Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) basin plans; 

• Watershed councils; 

• Tribal contacts; 

• Watershed analyses; 

• Bureau of Land Management; 

Oregon Depm1ment of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-3 

Usc Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Purpose of a 

waterbody 

survey 

• US Forest Service; 

• USFWS; 

• NOAA Fisheries Service; 

• Oregon Parks Department (on boating, windsurfing); 

• Oregon Health Division (swimming or fishing); 

• Municipalities; counties; regional governments; 

• Universities. 

According to EPA, small marginal populations may not constitute an existing 

use, if the natural conditions are not suitable for that use. An analysis should 

be conducted to determine if the population is a stable population (USEP A 

1994). 

Assuming that the information review indicates that the designated uses have 

not been observed (e.g., evidence that swimming, salmonid spawning or other 

designated uses do not occur), the next step is to determine if physical 

conditions of the 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 may be used to indicate 

some likelihood that salmonids are not present. Since anadromous fish may 

not be present in waterbodies that do not provide suitable habitat DEQ staff 

should review the technical basis for descriptions oflimiting factors regarding 

habitat in the relevant waterbodies that affect support of the designated use. 

Some limiting factors include: gradient; watershed size/flow; natural barriers; 

channel confinement (floodplain, restricted by rock); and manmade barriers 

(dams without provisions for fish passage that existed prior to November 28, 

1975). 

IfDEQ determines the designated use is an existing use after review of this 

information, the designated use may not be removed. Development of site 

specific criteria should be considered by DEQ 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 staff and the TAG should review the 

waterbody survey to ensure the inclusion of an assessment of the physical, 

chemical and biological factors that affect attainment of the designated use. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-4 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Jntemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
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. Staff should 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 of the State. DEQ staff should be involved in at least 

two phases of the waterbody survey: the initial review of the design and the 

review of the results. 

Prior to conducting the survey DEQ staff should 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 should identify (1) the 

survey objectives (2) what new data should be collected and analyzed (3) 

approved methodologies/tools (4) a quality assurance project plan. As stated 

in Chapter 2, the TAG may help to review the waterbody survey design. DEQ 

staff will issue a review memo on the design of the waterbody survey. 

Waterbody Survey Design Review 

The survey should provide enough information to: 

• determine which aquatic life uses are currently being achieved in 

the waterbody. 

The determination of the aquatic life uses attained in the waterbody 

will require the evaluation of the biological data and the existing uses 

previously defined for the waterbody. For example, it may have been 

determined that the beneficial use "fish and aquatic life" is an existing 

use in the waterbody, but the specific species present have not been 

identified. The biological 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 of any impairment of the aquatic uses. 

It may not be possible to identify the causes of impairment, but the 

data collected in the survey will be necessary to make a thorough 

evaluation as to whether or not that is the case. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-5 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02107 
Waterbody 

survey 

parameters 

Reference Sites 

Fish and 

Vertebrate 

Sampling 

Invertebrate 

Sampling 

The types of information that might be needed to characterize the waterbody 

are discussed below, and are summarized in a checklist in Appendix A. Not 

all of the data described will need to be collected in all cases. Some 

information can be found in existing databases or publications. Some 

information may be derived from maps. However, in many cases, not all of 

the information needed to assess use status will be available, and further 

monitoring of relevant 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 should be described in the applicant's monitoring plan and 

survey design. DEQ staff and the TAG should use the following indicators to 

review both the waterbody survey design and the results of the waterbody 

survey. 

Biological Indicators 

Ideally, reference sites should represent minimally disturbed locations that 

have similar physical and hydrological characteristics to the sites being 

evaluated. For example, a comparison of benthic invertebrate or fish 

communities found in the fast flowing headwater regions of a stream with 

populations found further downstream in slower-moving pool habitats would 

not be appropriate. Reference sites are often used to provide a measure of 

what is optimal for aquatic life. Suitable reference sites may not be found 

within a given watershed and it may be necessary to make comparisons with 

other similar watersheds, or to develop hypothetical biological indices that 

characterize the "potential aquatic community." 

Fish or vertebrate samples should be collected following the Enviromnental 

Monitoring and Assessment Protocols (EMAP) (Peck eta!. 2001) developed 

by EPA. 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 of the site can be directly compared to 

the reference conditions using a predictive model such as PREDATOR 

(PREDictive Assessment Tool for ORegon) (Shannon Hubler, personal 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-6 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02107 
When should 

monitoring 

occur? 

Assessing 

impairment 

What water 

quality data 

should be 

collected? 

When and how 

should data be 

collected? 

communication 1 0/19/2006). 

Biological data generally should be collected during the time of greatest 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 sediment that has 

accumulated during the higher flow periods and is associated with poor bank 

stability/land use sources at all times of the year can still be detected during 

the summer low flow period (Doug Drake, DEQ, personal communication, 

3/2/2005). The summer low flow period should be chosen because it 

represents the period of greatest stability and thus lowest error in sampling 

and assessments. Spawning and rearing uses, however, should be assessed at 

appropriate seasons for the species of interest. 

Indices of biotic integrity or predictive models can measure changes in 

biological communities, be compared to reference sites and be used to infer 

potential impacts on biological communities. It may not be possible to 

identify the causes of impairment, but the biological data will be necessary to 

make a thorough evaluation as to whether or not that is the case. The 

identification of stressors (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 most highly 

developed to identify stressors to macroinvertebrates but could also be 

expanded to include aquatic vertebrates (fish and amphibians). 

Water Quality Indicators 

The examination of water quality parameters may allow identification of 

factors that may be impairing the propagation and protection of aquatic life. 

Chemical and physical properties of the waterbody (see checklist in Appendix 

A) should be collected to determine if water 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 OAR Division 41 

Tables 20, 33A and 33B. The data will also indicate whether water quality is 

within a range that can support the aquatic life species encompassed in the 

designated use. 

Data should be collected to evaluate the status of the designated use during 

applicable time periods stated in the water quality standards or when the 

designated use is expected to occur or during the time periods proposed for a 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-7 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria lntemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
What 

indicators 

should be 

evaluated? 

seasonal water quality standard. Temperature data should be collected as 

continuous samples to allow for comparison with the seven day moving 

average maximum temperature as defined in the water quality standards. The 

presence of cold water refugia (as defined in OAR 340-041-0002(1 0)) should 

be documented. If only certain parameters are chosen for analysis, an 

explanation should be given. 

Chemical samples should be analyzed in accordance with methods cited in 

the most recent edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water 

and Waste Water, or using EPA approved methods listed in the most recent 

update of 40 CFR Section 136 or peer reviewed methodologies used for the 

determination of contaminant levels in the water column. 

Habitat Indicators 

The examination of physical parameters may allow identification of factors 

that may be constraining the propagation and protection of aquatic life. The 

physical parameters that describe the habitat of a waterbody are useful to 

assess the nature of the aquatic ecosystem and the types and number of 

species that can reside in a particular body of water. Parameters in this 

category include descriptions of watershed 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 

of bank erosion), channel morphology and structure (e.g., water channel 

dimensions, channel gradient, percentage of the stream comprised of pools, 

riffles and runs, presence of large in-stream structures, channel alterations and 

natural barriers to fish passage), and streambed composition (percent 

composition of streambed material, percent embeddedness, and the 

percentage of small and particulate organic material). 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3~8 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4102107 
What protocols 

should be used? 

When should 

data be 

collected? 

The EMAP protocol (Peck et al. 2001) describes many physical habitat 

indicators. Although use of the EMAP protocol is not required, DEQ has 

developed a dataset of approximately 200 reference sites for first, second and 

third order wadeable streams. These sites represent stream segments with the 

least amount of human disturbance for a given region. Some of the reference 

data have been collated by ecoregion, basin or in some cases, by geology. The 

availability of the reference dataset allows for assessment of current 

conditions in a waterbody versus those expected in an undisturbed system. 

Additional data regarding riparian characteristics, stream channel and bed 

features can be collected following protocols developed for Rosgen Level III 

analysis (Rosgen 1996). These data can be used to assess the stability of the 

stream channel. Some of these data will be similar to those collected under 

the EMAP protocols. 

Although physical habitat can be evaluated during any season, it would be 

most effective if habitat evaluations were concurrent with biological 

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 of the physical habitat indicators are 

flow dependent, such as width, depth, %pools, and %riffles. Because these 

parameters are flow dependent it may be necessary to collect these data other 

than during the low flow season. The season( s) chosen should reflect the time 

period when the designated use being evaluated is expected to occur or when 

the designated use applies according to the water quality standards. Other 

indicators are not flow dependent, such as canopy, shade and substrate, so 

collection of data during the low flow season is appropriate. 

If seasonal site specific criteria are proposed the data should be collected 

during the proposed period of application of the criteria. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-9 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02107 
Additional 

indicators 

Interpretation 

of waterbody 

survey results 

Anthropogenic alterations and disturbances should be described. An 

assessment of the frequency and extent of in-channel human activities and 

disturbances should be conducted. In-channel disturbances include channel 

revetment, pipes, straightening, bridges, culverts, trash (e.g., car bodies, 

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 other natural resource agencies should be consulted 

regarding their available data for the waterbody, their management objectives 

for the waterbody, and their perspective on the aquatic resource potential of 

the waterbody. 

Review of Waterbody Survey Results 

The technical basis should include a summary and interpretation of the results 

of the waterbody survey. DEQ staff and the TAG will review the results and 

analysis of the waterbody survey for the accuracy of its conclusions. DEQ 

staff will include an evaluation of the 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), preferably by latitude and longitude in decimal 

degrees; 

• A description of why the sampling locations are considered 

representative of the waterbody; 

• A reference to the date and time the samples were collected; 

• A map of the waterbody with sampling locations noted; 

• Any physical or hydrologic barriers; 

• The presence and abundance of the 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 macro invertebrate data used to determine if the site is 

impaired for aquatic life uses by comparison with the biological 

community in reference sites; 

• The biological indicators used to infer the relative impact of 

sources or anthropogenic activity on the biological communities; 

• The water quality data used to compare to the applicable criteria. 

The data analysis should present the magnitude, duration, and 

frequency of exceedance of the applicable criteria; 

• A reference to the water quality status of the waterbody (e.g. is the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3~10 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Determining 

the attainable 

use 

Must 

alternatives 

always be 

evaluated? 

waterbody on the 303(d) list for any parameters); 

• The extent of impact of any identified impairment; 

• Any causes of designated use impairment that have been 

identified; and 

• Any conclusions that may be drawn from the habitat survey. The 

waterbody survey results should serve as the basis for evaluation 

of control strategies or restoration options discussed in the 

following sections. 

Attainable Use 

In addition to design, implementation and interpretation of a waterbody 

survey, the determination of attainable uses within a waterbody may require 

that DEQ staff: 

• Consider best management practices and pollution control 

strategies to determine the water quality that can be achieved; 

• Use water quality data, habitat data and biological data to 

determine the highest level of use attainable; 

• Evaluate alternatives to support the attainable use. 

DEQ staff will review the information provided by the applicant for the UAA 

in the technical basis. DEQ staff will then, in consultation with the TAG, 

determine whether the review of management practices and control strategies 

is complete. Finally, DEQ staff will summarize the results of the review in the 

technical basis review memo. 

Not all of the data described below will be necessary for every UAA. For 

example, if a designated use is not identified as an existing use, the 

determination of the attainable use may not require an analysis of control 

strategies. As an example, salmonid spawning may have been identified in the 

water quality standards as a designated use above a waterfall. The natural 

barrier prevents the attainment of the designated use. The UAA should 

identify the natural barrier as the cause of non-attaimnent of the designated 

use. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-11 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4102107 
Management 

practices and 

control 

strategies 

What 

alternatives 

should be 

considered for 

dams? 

As stated in 40 CFR Section 131.1 O(g) in order to remove a designated use or 

establish a sub-category of a use, a State must demonstrate that attaining the 

designated use is not feasible. To determine feasibility, the applicant should 

evaluate control strategies to address the source of impairment identified in 

the waterbody survey. This evaluation should be part of the technical basis 

reviewed by DEQ staff and the TAG. 

The technical basis should include an evaluation of management and control 

strategies to determine whether the designated use is attainable and if not, the 

highest level of use attainment feasible. The strategies will vary with the 

source of the impairment and the extent (temporal and spatial) of the 

impairment. 

DEQ staff must determine if the following federal requirements have been 

met: "At a minimum, uses are deemed attainable if they can be achieved by 

the imposition of effluent limits required under sections 30l(b) and 306 of the 

Act and cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint 

source control" (40 CFR Section 131.10 (d)). DEQ staff and the TAG should 

review the alternatives analyzed and determine if the analysis is complete. 

DEQ staff should 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 many project-specific details (e.g. mode of operation, 

civil structure constraints, size of the reservoir, etc.) and the parameter 

affected. The following options, while not a comprehensive list, are examples 

of alternatives that may be evaluated in the technical basis. For any water 

quality parameter the analysis should include a review of alternatives to 

current operation and maintenance of the dam that could improve water 

quality, including coordination of operations 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 of operating turbines to encourage better 

mixing where there is a horizontally- or vertically-stratified 

forebay; 

• Modifications to flood control curves to allow additional flows in 

the summer months without impacting refill; 

• Modifications to upper reservoir refill probabilities to allow 

additional flows in the summer months; 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3~12 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
• Flow augmentation; 

• Reductions in the cross section areas of the water column behind 

the dams; 

• Temperature control structures; 

• Bubble upwelling; 

• Installation of pumps to bring cooler water into fishways; 

• Shading of fishways; 

• Evaluation of structural versus operational alternatives; and 

• Evaluation of short 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 of spillgates and bays yielding reduced elevation 

of total dissolved gas; 

• Schedule routine turbine maintenance and repair during lowpower load and river flow periods; 

• Provide preventive maintenance of turbines to prevent 

breakdown; 

• System management of water release from upstream storage 

reservoirs to minimize involuntary spills at dams; 

• Improve management of storage and water release at the given 

dam to minimize spill events; 

• Raise stilling basins; 

• Raise tailraces; 

• Optimize power purchasing to allow maximum use of 

powerhouse capacity and minimization of involuntary spill. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Critelia Intemal Management Directive 

Page 3~13 

4/02/07 
Controls for 

nonpoint 

sources 

Who are the 

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 identified by EPA regulations. IfDEQ determines that 

nonpoint sources are impairing the designated use, DEQ will first require that 

adaptive management be implemented to meet the standards instead of 

changing the water quality standards. This decision may be made after the 

scoping discussions outlined in Chapter 2 or may be made after evaluation of 

the waterbody survey results. Under adaptive management, an iterative 

approach is used to determine which management practices are protective of 

water quality, the water quality to be monitored and the management practice 

adjustment needed to improve water quality. DEQ will work with the 

designated management agencies to identify and implement the management 

practices prior to any consideration of a change to the water quality standards. 

On federal lands, the management agency, principally the USDA Forest 

Service or US Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land 

Management is responsible for meeting water quality standards on lands they 

administer. Agency land management plans and federal rules are the 

principal mechanisms for compliance. 

For privately owned lands and lands administered by state and local 

government, state statutes assign designated management agency 

responsibility to the state Department of Agriculture (ODA) for agricultural 

and developed rural lands and to the Board of Forestry 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 Forest Practices Act were being complied 

with and, for agriculture, all BMPs were implemented or all prohibited 

conditions were ended as required by ORS 568.900- 933. DEQ would have 

to exhaust procedures in statute which describe interaction between DEQ and 

the Board of Forestry or the Department of Agriculture before a UAA or SSC 

on waters impacted by nonpoint sources could be considered. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3w!4 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specif!c Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Who is 

responsible for 

agricultural 

controls? 

How doesDEQ 

coordinate with 

ODA? 

Who is 

responsible for 

forestry 

controls? 

The water quality program at Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) is 

responsible for addressing water quality problems associated with agricultural 

lands and activities. ORS 568.900-933 authorizes ODA to develop 

Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plans 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 opportunity to 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 staff participates in the review of agricultural water quality 

management area plans. IfDEQ receives a request to change the water quality 

standard (either through removal of a designated use or adoption of site 

specific criteria) for a waterbody impacted by agricultural sources, DEQ 

water quality standards staff will consult with the DEQ nonpoint source staff 

and DEQ regional water quality basin coordinators to determine the status of 

implementation of the BMPs. 

The State Forest Practices Act (ORS 527.610 to 527.770, 527.990 (1) and 

527.992) provides the legislative framework for regulation of forest 

operations on private and non-federal public ownership. The Act assigns" . 

the State Board of Forestry 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 establish best 

management practices and other rules applying to forest practices as 

necessary to insure that to the maximum extent practicable nonpoint source 

discharges of pollutants resulting from forest operations on forestlands do not 

impair the achievement and maintenance of water quality standards 

established by the Environmental Quality commission for waters of the state" 

((ORS 527.765 (1)). The management practices are established in OAR 629-

600- OAR 629-665. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3~15 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Crite1ia Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
HowdoesDEQ 

coordinate with 

Oregon 

Department of 

Forestry? 

Point source 

controls 

Effluent 

guidelines 

DEQ nonpoint source staff provide both technical and policy 

recormnendations to Oregon Department of Forestry during revisions to the 

Forest Practices Act. 

IfDEQ receives a request to change the water quality standard (either through 

removal of a designated use or adoption of site specific criteria) for a 

waterbody impacted by forestry activities, DEQ water quality standards staff 

will consult with the DEQ nonpoint source staff and DEQ regional water 

quality basin coordinators to determine the status of implementation of the 

best management practices. 

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program 

requires anyone adding a pollutant from a point source into water of the 

United States to obtain an NPDES permit. 

Descriptions of Oregon's NPDES permit process and specific infonnation on 

different categories of point source dischargers can be found at the following 

location: 

http://www.deg.state.or.us/wq/wqpermit/pem1its.htm 

Sections 301(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act describe the effluent 

limitations to be achieved by application of various levels of pollutant control 

technology depending on the type of pollution 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. If an 

industry is not subject to these effluent limit guidelines, the permit authority 

is to develop such requirements based on a best professional judgment basis. 

A designated use can not be removed from a waterbody if implementation of 

the technology-based controls would result in attainment of the designated 

use. DEQ water quality permit staff typically detennines if the technology 

based controls are in place as part of the permit review. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3Ml6 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Urban runoff 

Concentrated 

animal feeding 

operations 

Selection and 

evaluation of 

management 

practices and 

control 

strategies 

Some recommended BMPs for urban runoff can be found in Water Quality 

Model Code and Guidebook (Department of Land Conservation and 

Development and DEQ, 2000). 

Section 4.2 of the above reference provides a matrix ofBMPs for controlling 

different parameters of concern (increased erosion and sedimentation; 

increased runoff volume; nitrogen, phosphorus, metals and other pollutants; 

temperature). 

Concentrated animal feeding operations are defined as point sources under 

OAR 340-045-0010(16). These facilities are regulated byNPDES permits. 

The Oregon Department of Agriculture and DEQ currently work jointly to 

regulate federally-defined concentrated animal feeding operations under an 

interagency Memorandum of Understanding. The Memorandum specifies 

NPDES program roles and responsibilities for each agency until the 

Department of Agriculture is delegated NPDES authority from the 

Environmental Protection Agency. (The 2001 Oregon Legislature directed 

transfer of the NPDES permit program from DEQ to the Department of 

Agriculture.) Until EPA approves of the transfer, NPDES permits are issued 

jointly by the Department of Agriculture and DEQ, but Department of 

Agriculture is the lead agency for day-to-day program operations (e.g., permit 

registration, inspections, plan review, enforcement, etc). 

Practices and strategies should be evaluated to determine which alternatives, 

if any, will address the causes of impairment that prevent the attainment of 

the designated use. If the designated use can not be attained, the evaluation of 

the practices and strategies should demonstrate this. DEQ staff and the TAG 

will evaluate the results of the evaluation for completeness and DEQ staff will 

document the results in the technical basis review memo. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3~17 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria lntemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Water quality 

models 

Field studies 

Qualitative 

assessmeut 

The influence of implementation of some of the practices on water quality 

may be evaluated quantitatively with a water quality model. A comprehensive 

assessment of available water quality models is available from the water 

quality modeling staff at DEQ headquarters. Additional information may be 

found at: 

http :I lwww. epa. gov /w aterscience/models/ 

A description of the process to select a water quality model should be 

included in the technical basis. The selection process may consider factors 

such as: 

• Availability of data sets to calibrate and verify model; 

• Cost to develop/run model; 

• Expertise of staff; 

• Time available for analysis; 

• Complexity of the model; and 

• Complexity of the system being modeled. 

DEQ will review the calibration/verification information for the model and 

identify any additional data needs. DEQ staff will then summarize the 

conclusions of the modeling in the technical basis review memo. 

The effects of control strategies may also be evaluated by field/pilot studies. 

With either approach, the effect of the strategy on the water quality parameter 

of interest should be summarized in the technical basis. DEQ will summarize 

the results of the field/pilot studies in the technical basis review memo. 

The effects of some management practices may be evaluated qualitatively 

when the effectiveness of these practices can not be quantitatively evaluated. 

In this case, the evaluation should discuss, in general terms, the expected 

effect on water quality. DEQ will summarize the results of the assessment in 

the technical basis review memo. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-18 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Review 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 

• If all the best alternatives have been considered; 

• What level of water quality can be attained with each 

alternative; 

• Which alternative leads to the maximum protection of the 

designated use; 

• Which alternative leads to the highest level of water quality; 

• Which alternative would cause the least environmental 

damage; and 

• If downstream designated uses will be protected. 

The technical basis review memo should describe if water quality trading was 

evaluated. DEQ is encouraging water quality trading as an innovative way to 

attain water quality standards and improve habitat. More information on 

water quality trading may be found at: 

http://www.deg.state.or.us/wq/pubs/imds/wqtrading.pdf 

Water quality trading is also discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. 

Ifthe designated use is not attainable, the highest attainable use must be 

described in the technical basis. There may be several options to attain the 

use. If there are competing options, the cost of each should be 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 Chapter 4, DEQ may seek funding for the 

services of the state economist or an economic analysis consultant. If funding 

is secured, the economist will review the conclusions of the economic 

analysis. 

As stated previously, if the designated use is an existing use, DEQ prefers that 

a site specific criterion be adopted to protect the designated and existing uses. 

The applicant should determine if site specific criteria support the designated 

use. The criteria may be based on the species present, the waterbody' s 

characteristics or the health of the population affected by the criteria. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-19 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Species specific 

conditions 

Waterbody 

specific 

conditions 

If the applicant requesting adoption of site specific criteria believes that the 

most sensitive use present in the waterbody can be supported with less 

restrictive criteria, analysis of data should demonstrate that the species 

present in the waterbody of interest are different than the species used to 

develop the criteria. This approach may be used for toxic pollutants as well as 

conventional parameters. 

The recalculation procedure is an example of a 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 of organisms that 

occur at the site. The recalculation procedure was developed for toxic metal 

pollutants (USEP A 1994). Under the recalculation procedure, new criteria 

may be justified by demonstrated toxicological differences between the 

aquatic species that occur at the site and those that were used in the derivation 

of the national criterion (US EPA 1994). 

Temperature criteria for salmonid designated uses were developed to cover all 

native salmonids present in Oregon. The criteria are based on the needs of the 

salmonids most sensitive to water quality and do not account for variability 

among the species. The species present in the waterbody of interest must be 

identified. The specific water quality needs of the species present may be 

gleaned from literature values and field studies. Information on the 

temperature requirements of salmonids may be found in the Issue Papers 

prepared as part of the Region 10 temperature criteria guidance development 

project (USEPA 2001). 

DEQ staff will 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 of a 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 of organisms and 

differences between laboratory water and site water (USEP A 1994). 

Waterbody specific conditions may justify adoption of site specific criteria for 

other water quality parameters, including dissolved oxygen and temperature. 

Under this approach, DEQ and the TAG will review data to determine if 

conditions at a particular location justify an alternative numeric criterion to 

support the designated salmonid use. The conditions evaluated may include 

habitat condition and/or lack of specific stressors. DEQ staff and the TAG 

will review any conclusions drawn and DEQ staff will document the findings 

in the technical basis review memo. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-20 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Intemal Management Directive 4/02/07 
The 

temperature 

criteria 

Justifying less 

restrictive 

criteria 

The data needed to support adoption of a site specific criterion under the 

temperature standard are as follows (OAR 340-041-0028(13)(b)): 

The Department may use, but is not limited by the 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) Other relevant technical data. 

These characteristics (A-E) may be used to understand the observed 

temperature. This information may be 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 of cold water refugia 

may allow for a warmer water temperature that is still protective of the 

beneficial use. The waterbody survey results 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, criteria may be set at the most conservative values assuming that 

there are stressors on the species in all waterbodies. If it can be demonstrated 

that the stressors do not exist in the waterbody of interest, a less conservative 

criterion may be justified. 

For example, according to EPA "Optimal temperature conditions depend, in 

part, on the food supply. Optimal growth temperatures under limited food 

supply are lower than those under unlimited/satiated food supply. Generally, 

EPA believes that laboratory studies under limited food availability are most 

reflective of environmental conditions fish typically experience. However, 

there are likely situations where food is abundant, with the result that optimal 

growth temperatures would be higher" (USEP A 2003 pg. 20). If food 

abundance is measured and determined to be at a level to allow satiation, the 

temperature criterion may be increased. "Factors influencing stream 

productivity include nutrient availability, input of organic matter from 

external sources, the channel's capacity to store and process organic matter, 

and light" (Cederholm eta!. 2000 as cited by USEPA 2001). Additional 

stressors include disease, competition and toxics. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-21 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4102107 
Other 

approaches to 

site specific 

criteria 

Habitat 

restoration 

The technical basis for site specific criteria may include the results of studies 

on the species present in the waterbody of concern to justify a less restrictive 

criterion. The studies must represent the local population. For example, 

spawning may be broadly applied in the basin but the specific timing of peak 

spawning in the waterbody may be reviewed. The current status of the "run" 

may be compared to the historic status of the run. The studies must identify 

which water quality or habitat features the local population has acclimated to. 

The waterbody survey should be designed to address these issues. 

Any aquatic life site specific criteria must prevent both lethal and sub-lethal 

effects that lead to impaired survival of the population. Sub-lethal effects 

include both behavioral and physiological effects that can be directly linked 

to impaired survival of the population. In salmonids physiological effects 

include reduced juvenile growth, increased incidence of disease, reduced 

viability of gametes in adults prior to spawning, increased susceptibility to 

predation and competition, increased susceptibility to disease and suppressed 

or reversed smoltification (USEP A 2003). Behavioral effects that may be 

linked to impaired population and survival include aggressive behavior, 

avoidance behavior, and changes to feeding, spawning or migration behavior. 

DEQ staff and 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 of the resource when reviewing a request to change a 

water quality standard. Better protection for the resource could be 

demonstrated by habitat restoration achieved through mitigation or trading. 

DEQ encourages the exploration of restoration of habitat to improve the level 

of use support. For example, opportunities for flow augmentation, riparian 

restoration, stream channel restoration, building cold water refugia and flood 

plain restoration may be considered in the technical basis to improve the level 

of use 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 of a 

given solar load on the stream's temperature. DEQ staff and the TAG will 

review any proposed habitat improvements and document the findings in the 

technical basis review memo. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3~22 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Riparian 

restoration 

Channel 

restoration 

Riparian restoration refers to the planting of streamside (riparian) areas. 

Riparian shade reduces the amount of solar radiation received by the 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 in broad 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 of riparian area 

is increased. In combination with riparian restoration, this can result in 

narrower channels with increased shade levels. Reconnecting streams with 

floodplains can reduce water temperature by increasing groundwater and 

hyporheic exchanges (USEP A 2003). 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-23 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Jntema! Management Directive 4/02107 
Sources of 

restoration 

information 

How can 

restoration 

alternatives be 

chosen? 

The following are some sources of information for assessing physical factors 

for selecting restoration options. Use of these sources should be documented 

in the technical basis. DEQ staff and the TAG will review the technical basis 

and document concurrence or non-concurrence with the findings. 

• Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual- This document 

provides an overview of watershed processes and how these 

processes can be altered by human activities, instruction on 

how to compile and evaluate watershed data, and guidance on 

how to evaluate the condition of watersheds. 

http://oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/ws assess manual.shtml 

• Oregon Aquatic Habitat Restoration and Enhancement 

Guide - Developed by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement 

Board (OWEB), this document categorizes restoration options 

as ups lope, riparian/wetlands, and in-channel watershed 

function categories. For example, upslope watershed function 

activities include: correcting road/stream crossing problems; 

road re-construction/obliteration activities and erosion control. 

http://oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/habguide99-complete.pdf 

• Physical Habitat Simulation Model (PHABSIMM)- A set of 

publicly-available programs designed to predict the microhabitat (depth, velocities, and channel indices) conditions in 

rivers as a function of stream flow, and the relative suitability 

of those conditions to aquatic life. 

http://www .mesc. usgs. gov /products/ software/phabsim/phabsi 

m.asp 

The justification for the selection of restoration altematives may include: 

• Available funding to implement the altemative; 

• Development of restoration plans by local govemments; and 

• Interested partners. 

As discussed for management options and control strategies, the results of the 

evaluation should be summarized in the technical basis. The benefit to the 

resource may need to be evaluated qualitatively. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 3-24 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Outcome of 

aualysis 

The technical basis review may result in one of the 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 of the designated use established if the designated use is not 

attainable. 

• The designated use and appropriate criteria are made more stringent 

based on existing or potential uses. 

• The designated use is an existing use. Site specific criteria may be 

adopted to support the designated use. 

The relevant outcome will be documented by DEQ staff in the technical basis 

rev1ew memo. 

2 Adapted from "A Comprehensive UAA Technical Reference," Project 91-NPS-1, Water Environment Research 

Foundation, 1997. 

Oregon Department of Environmental 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 of this chapter is to describe the economic and financial analysis 

that may accompany the biological, chemical and physical information 

submitted as part of a U AA. The chapter addresses the "ability to pay" of an 

applicant as well as the evaluation of cost of alternatives to attain water 

quality standards. Currently DEQ 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 consultant to review financial data provided by the applicant 

for a designated use change. 

As discussed in Chapter 1.0, a designated use may be removed, or 

subcategories of a use adopted, only if one or more of the six 

conditions specified under 40 CFR Section 131.1 O(g) are met. 

Condition (g)(6) specifically refers 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 of the Clean Water 

Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social 

impact." The terms substantial and widespread are defined via 

analysis of the financial information of the 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 of the Clean Water Act. 

The information included in this chapter is primarily derived from this 

guidance: Economic Interim Guidance for Water Quality Standards -

Workbook (USEP A 1995). This EPA document is not an exhaustive 

description of all appropriate economic analysis; additional information and 

tests may be necessary and/or desirable in certain circumstances (USEP A 

1995). Parties requesting a change to the designated use are referred to the 

EPA guidance. It is reasonable to expect that for EPA to approve the 

proposed removal of a designated use, the UAA needs to be consistent with 

the EPA guidance. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 4~1 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Feasibility 

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 of the applicant's ability to 

pay for water quality or habitat improvements to support the designated use or 

both as well as the effect on the surrounding community if the applicant does 

so. 

The EPA guidance does not address all entities who may request a designated 

use change under 40 CFR 131.1 O(g). Specifically, federal dams and dams 

that have other types of ownership 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 of two parts: 

determination of substantial adverse impacts and widespread adverse impacts. 

• Substantial adverse impacts - for a public-sector or private-sector 

entity, that the entity would face substantial adverse financial impacts 

due to the costs of implementing the necessary pollution controls. 

• Widespread adverse impacts -the affected community/communities 

will incur widespread adverse economic and social impacts if the 

entity is required to meet existing or proposed water quality standards. 

Public vs. The choice of methods used to evaluate the economic impacts of meeting 

private entities water quality standards depend, in part, on whether pollution control is the 

responsibility of a private-sector or public-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 of funding mechanisms available. 

What is a A public sector entity refers to any governmental unit that must comply with 

public entity? pollution control requirements in order to meet water quality standards. For a 

public sector entity, the analysis focuses on that entity and the community or 

communities it serves. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 

Page 4-2 

4/02/07 
Determining 

substantial 

adverse impact 

on a public 

entity 

Additional 

information 

The determination of a substantial adverse impact on a public sector entity 

involves the following five steps. The EPA guidance provides a series of 

worksheets to complete the five steps as follows (USEP A 1995): 

1) Verify the pollution control project costs and calculate the total 

annualized capital and operating and maintenance cost of the 

pollution control project; 

2) Calculate the total annualized pollution control costs per household 

served by the public entity; 

3) Calculate a "screener" score which identifies only those communities 

that clearly will not face any substantial impacts; 

4) Apply the secondary test- This test indicates the community's ability 

to obtain financing and describes the socioeconomic health of the 

community; and 

5) Assess where the community falls in The Substantial Impacts Matrix 

provided in the EPA guidance- This matrix evaluates whether or not 

communities are expected to incur substantial economic impacts due 

to the implementation of the pollution control costs. 

EPA's Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards- Workbook 

includes a series of worksheets to assist in completion of each step of the 

analysis. In addition to reviewing the worksheets, the following information 

may be requested of the applicant: 

• A copy of last year's budget, this year's budget, and next year's 

proposed budget; 

• A copy of last year's financial statements (preferably audited), and this 

year's financial statement (year to date). Financial statements to 

include (but not limited to): balance sheet, income statement, and cash 

flow; 

• For any major planned project(s) not described in the budget or 

financial statement or the application worksheets, a description of that 

project, its planned implementation date and its annualized capital and 

operation and maintenance costs; and 

• Information on assets the entity has available which are not needed for 

the on-going operation of the entity. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 4-3 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Conclusion of 

substantial 

adverse impact 

analysis 

Demonstrating 

widespread 

impact 

If the previous analysis does not demonstrate substantial adverse impacts, the 

applicant will be required to meet existing water quality standards. If impacts 

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 of compliance. There are no 

explicit criteria identified by EPA by which to evaluate widespread impacts. 

It is recommended that at a minimum, changes in the socioeconomic 

indicators listed below be considered. For each indicator listed, the economist 

should estimate the potential change from pre-compliance conditions if the 

community were to adopt pollution controls: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Median household income; 

Community unemployment rate; 

Overall net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable property; 

Percent of households below poverty line; 

Impact on community development potential; and 

Impact on property values . 

In addition to changes in income, unemployment, and debt, affected 

communities may be faced with impaired development opportunities if 

pretreatment requirements or significantly higher user fees are imposed. The 

analysis should therefore assess the potential for the loss of future jobs and 

personal income to the community if businesses chose not to locate in the 

affected community. The potential for impaired development opportunities 

can be judged, in part, by comparing post-compliance costs to related costs in 

neighboring communities. The cost of pollution control may also have an 

adverse effect on property values. Where property taxes are used to finance 

the project, property values may fall in response to higher taxes. Similarly, if 

the project will be financed through user fees, demand for property in the 

community may fall, thus decreasing the value of property in the community. 

The extent to which estimated changes can be interpreted as significant will 

depend on the health of the community before compliance. It is therefore not 

possible to identify acceptable or unacceptable estimated changes for each 

indicator. In addition, there may be secondary impacts to the community (e.g., 

depressed economic activity in a community resulting from loss of purchasing 

power by persons losing their jobs due to increased user fees). 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 4A 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Determining 

substantial 

adverse impact 

on a private 

entity 

Additional 

information 

For facilities owned by the private sector, measuring substantial impacts 

requires estimating the financial impact on the entity that will pay for the 

pollution controls. If the analysis shows that the entity will not incur any 

substantial adverse impacts due to the cost of pollution control, then the 

analysis is complete and there is no need to perform the widespread analysis. 

However, if the analysis shows that there will be substantial adverse impacts 

on the entity, then impacts on the surrounding community must be 

considered. The analysis of substantial impacts for a private sector entity 

includes two steps (EPA 1995): 

1) Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Aunual Cost of the 

Pollution Control Project. 

2) Analyze Financial Impact- In this analysis financial tests 

are applied to measure the impact on the applicant. The 

primary measure is profitability. The secondary measures 

include indicators ofliquidity, solvency, and leverage. 

Additional information may also be considered if it 

provides for better understanding of how the proposed 

project impacts the entity's financial health. 

EPA's Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards- Workbook 

includes a series of worksheets to assist in review of each step of the analysis. 

In addition to the worksheets, the following information may be reviewed by 

the economist: 

• A copy of previous financial statements (preferably audited) and 

current financial statements (year to date). Financial statements are to 

include (but not limited to): balance sheet, income statement, and cash 

flow. 

• A description of any planned major project(s) not described in the 

financial statements or on the application worksheets. The description 

of that project should include its planned implementation date and its 

annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs. 

• Information on assets the entity has available which are not needed for 

the on-going operation of the entity. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: final Page 4~5 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Demonstrating 

widespread 

impact for a 

private entity 

Opportunity 

costs 

Evaluation of 

options 

Economic 

benefits of 

clean water 

If the financial tests suggest that a private entity or group of entities 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 of widespread impacts. 

The economic analysis should include a qualitative analysis of the 

opportunity costs if the water quality standards are not met (e.g. the 

designated use is removed or a sub-category of the designated use is adopted). 

Such an analysis should identify the costs to: the resource (loss of fish, other 

aquatic life); business (loss of customers, loss of fish/water/amenities, and 

loss of tourism); communities (drinking water, wastewater) and changes in 

property values in the affected and downstream areas. As a starting point, the 

beneficial uses for the waterbody should be identified and the effect of nonsupport of the beneficial uses should be discussed. The discussion of 

opportunity costs will be part of the information package submitted to the 

EQC for review. 

As stated in chapter 3, DEQ staff, in consultation with the 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 

staff should determine what designated use can be attained. 

In many cases, there may be economic benefits that accrue to the affected 

community from cleaner water. For example, in a rural community where the 

primary source of employment is agriculture, the reduction of fertilizer and 

pesticide runoff from farms would reduce the cost of treating 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 on both the 

characteristics of the polluting entity and characteristics of the affected 

community, and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 4-6 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Purpose 

DEQ 

rulemaking 

process 

Chapter 5: Standards Review, Consultation 

and Approval/Disapproval Process 

The purpose of this chapter is to further describe the steps that will occur if 

the EMT agrees that removing a designated use or developing site specific 

criteria is 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 of proposed rules to the EQC, submission of rules to the agency 

rules coordinator for filing with the Secretary Of State and Legislative 

Counsel, and submission of rules to EPA for review and 

approval/disapproval. The rulemaking process is outlined in Figure 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 Management Team 

(EMT) updates of the proposed rulemaking topics planned for the next two 

years. Programs must consider the need for, and alternatives to, changing 

rules and evaluate priorities. Each October, the EMT will review rule 

modifications proposed for all programs and determine which to include on 

the DEQ Rulemaking Agenda. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 5-l 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria lnternal Management Directive 4/02/07 
Figure 4: Rulemaking Process 

Plan Rulemaking 

(2-6 Months) 

Rulemaking Process 

Propose Rulemaking 

(3-18 months) 

Oregon Department of Environmental 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 part of 

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 

of the Clean Water Act. If the water quality standard change involves a 

waterbody with Endangered Species Act-listed species, EPA must consult 

with NOAA Fisheries Services or US Fish and Wildlife Service or both to 

determine whether the proposed changes to designated uses or water quality 

criteria could jeopardize ESA-listed species or adversely modify their critical 

habitat. 

The two federal fisheries services are responsible for the protection of 

different species. The NOAA 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 a biological assessment (BA). The BA must 

consider: 

• Effects on survival of any life stage, including the potential for 

delayed mortality; 

• Effects on behavior, physiology, growth, competitive ability; 

• Effects on habitat components and processes; 

• Effects on prey base; and 

• Effects on predators. 

What do the The BA is submitted to the federal fisheries services for review. The 

federal services information presented in the BA will be used by the Services to decide 

do? whether or not to concur with EPA's determination of the effect of the water 

quality standard change on the listed species. If one of the Services 

determines that the action is likely to adversely affect a listed species, it will 

prepare a biological opinion. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria IntelT!al Management Directive 

Page 5-3 

4/02/07 
What is DEQ's 

role in the 

consnltation 

process? 

In order to expedite review of the proposed water quality standard, DEQ staff 

should include staff from EPA and the federal fisheries services on the 

Technical Advisory Group. Such participation may allow DEQ to be 

forewarned of the concerns of EPA and the fisheries services. Participation on 

the TAG should help EPA and the fisheries services understand DEQ's 

ISSUes. 

DEQ staff should be prepared to explain to EPA why DEQ believes the water 

quality standards are protective of the 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 staff should be prepared to answer questions from EPA and the fisheries 

services about any of the following issues: 

• Implementation of the proposed water quality standard; 

• Criteria for protection of healthy populations or populations at risk; 

• Uncertainties associated with the new criteria; and 

• Alternatives to changing the designated use/criteria. 

Ideally, DEQ staff should work with EPA and the fisheries services 

throughout the water quality standard development process to address issues 

and concerns in a pre-emptive manner. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 
EPA to Tribal 

Government 

Consultation 

Oregon State 

policy on State 

to Tribal 

Government 

Relations 

When EPA reviews 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 with respect to tribal governments and tribal members. 

These trust responsibility arise out of constitutional 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 input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." 

Since a change to a designated use or adoption of site specific criteria is a 

change to water quality standards, EPA will follow Agency tribal consultation 

policies and guidance for EPA's mandatory duty under Section 303( c )(2)(A) 

of the CW A. EPA must review the state's proposed water quality standard 

revision for consistency with requirements of the CW A and to approve or 

disapprove the standard change. EPA can offer tribal 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. These policies must promote 

"government-to-government" relationships and address both the development 

and implementation of programs 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 of Environmental Quality: Final Page 5-5 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4/02107 
DEQ statement 

of intent 

DEQ 

snbmission of 

water qnality 

standards 

revisions 

EPA Action 

and timelines 

What are the 

components of 

the packages to 

be snbmitted to 

EPA? 

In response to the statute, DEQ adopted a statement of intent on January 14, 

2002. Under this policy, staff is directed, among other things, to: 

• Establish a list of key tribal contacts and provide these contacts with 

notice of department policy and plam1ing efforts; 

• Request at least bieooially that the tribes update or identify DEQ 

programs that affect or are of interest to the tribe; 

• Support the exchange of data collected by DEQ staff and 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 on DEQ advisory committees that are of 

interest to the tribes and to provide tribes with annual updates of 

advisory committee activities that are of interest to the tribes. 

When DEQ submits the water quality standards revisions to EPA DEQ must 

submit any supporting information for the use attainability analysis, the 

methodologies used for site-specific criteria development, and any general 

policies applicable to water quality standards. The revisions to the water 

quality standards must be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator for 

review and approval within 30 days of the 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 that the revisions 

are disapproved. If EPA disapproves the revisions, EPA shall explain why 

the revisions do not comply with the requirements of the CW A 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 of Environmental Quality: Final Page 5"6 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria Internal Management Directive 4102107 
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 of this chapter is to describe those water quality programs in 

which standards attainment must be determined and describes when initiation 

of the standards review process may be appropriate in relationship to these 

water quality programs. 

When a waterbody is determined to be water quality limited, a TMDL must 

be developed. A TMDL must be calculated for each pollutant 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 consider undertaking 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 of the information would be developed in a TMDL 

analysis. The analysis would include: a review of current water quality data; 

determination of the magnitude, frequency and duration of the criteria 

exceedances; evaluation of the management alternatives; and evaluation of 

restoration alternatives. 

In addition to the TMDL, DEQ writes a water quality management plan 

(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 DMA will 

use to achieve the load allocations. If during evaluation of the management 

strategies the DMA determines that the allocations are unattainable, the DMA 

should initiate discussions with DEQ. DEQ will determine whether: the 

allocation strategy should be revised, whether other alternatives should be 

reviewed, or if the applicable water quality standards should be reviewed. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 6-1 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 4/02/07 
401 

Certifications 

Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a water quality certification must 

be issued for any activity that requires a federal permit or license if that 

activity may result in a discharge to waters of the State. The 401 certification 

will have conditions to ensure that water quality standards will be met. DEQ 

can deny a 401 certification if the 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 or waives its right to issue the 

401 certification. 401 certifications can be 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 or wetlands 

• Constructing Docks/marinas 

• Restoring Wetlands 

• Restoring Streams 

• Replacing Culverts 

In the case of non-federal hydroelectric projects, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) administers the licensing program, and DEQ 

certifies the project's application for licensing or re-licensing. Hydropower 

40 I 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 or non-hydropower, if a water 

quality standard change is desired the change must be completed (including 

EPA approval) before a 401 certification determination can be 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 would be expected to 

demonstrate that the attaining the applicable water quality standards is not 

feasible. If removal of a designated use is proposed the feasibility analysis 

includes an analysis of the control strategies and their costs. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 6~2 

. Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 4/02/07 
NPDES Permits National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are 

written to meet current water quality standards and approved waste load 

allocations. If a permittee believes that a designated use for the receiving 

waterbody is not an existing use and is not an attainable use, or that 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 if the issue may be addressed during the triennial review of the 

water quality standards. 

If the designated use is an existing use, adoption of site specific criteria may 

be considered before 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 permit review and renewal 

will not be held up for a review ofthe water quality standards. If the permittee 

needs additional time to comply with permit limits, a variance from the water 

quality standards may be requested. The EQC determines whether to grant the 

variance. The variance must be 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 of the NPDES permit, although the variance may be 

renewed. The variance is not effective until approved by EPA (OAR 340-41-

0061(2)(d)(C)). Variances are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. 

Oregon Department of Environmental 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 of this chapter is to explore alternatives to changing water 

quality standards. 

Variances 

When a point source cannot meet water quality standards, a variance may be 

granted under certain circumstances. The variance applies only to the point 

source requesting the variance and only the pollutant or pollutants 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 their discretion, include in their State 

standards, policies generally affecting their application and 

implementation, such as mixing zones, low flows and 

variances. Such policies are subject to EPA review and 

approval. 

The Oregon Administrative Rules describe how such variances may be 

applied. Specifically, OAR 340-041-0061 states: 

(2) Water quality variances. The commission may grant point source 

variances from the water quality standards in this Division where the 

following requirements are met. 

(a) The water quality variance may apply only to the point source for which 

the variance is requested and only to the pollutant or pollutants specified in 

the variance; the underlying water quality standard otherwise remains in 

effect. 

(b) A water quality standard variance may not be granted if: 

(A) Standards will be attained by all point source dischargers 

implementing effluent limitations required under sections 30J(b) and 

306 of the federal Clean Water Act and by nonpoint sources 

implementing cost-effective and reasonable best management 

practices; or 

(B) The variance would likely jeopardize the continued existence of 

any threatened or endangered species listed under section 4 of the 

Endangered Species Act or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of such species' critical habitat. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 7-l 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 4102107 
Under what 

conditions may 

a variance be 

granted? 

Before a variance can be 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 occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the 

attainment of the use. 

(B) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or 

water levels prevent 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 or sources of pollution prevent the 

attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more 

environmental damage to correct than to leave in place. 

(D) Dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications 

preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore 

the water body to its original condition or to operate such 

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 lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, 

depth, pools, riffles, and unrelated to water quality preclude 

attainment of aquatic life protection uses. 

(F) Controls more stringent than those required by sections 30l(b) 

and 306 of the federal Clean Water Act would result in substantial 

and widespread economic and social impact. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: final Page 7-2 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 4/02/07 
How 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 of a designated use or 

adoption of a sub-category of a designated use. A removal of a designated use 

or adoption of a sub-category of a designated use applies to the waterbody. 

Variances are granted for individual dischargers for a limited time with the 

expectation that they will be 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 of a 

designated use since other dischargers, who are capable of meeting 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 may be 

granted. These procedures are as follows: 

(d) Procedures. An applicant for a water quality standards 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 department preliminarily determines that grounds exist for 

granting a variance, it must provide public notice of the proposed 

variance and an opportunity/or public comment. 

(A) The department may condition the variance on the 

performance of additional studies, monitoring, management 

practices, and other controls deemed necessary. These terms 

and conditions will be incorporated into the applicant's 

NPDES permit or department order. 

(B) A variance may not exceed three years or the term of the 

NPDES permit, whichever is less. A variance may be 

renewed if the applicant reapplies and demonstrates that the 

use in question is still not attainable. Renewal of the 

variance may be denied if the applicant does not comply 

with the conditions of the original variance or otherwise 

does not meet the requirements of this section. 

(C) DEQ approval of a variance for a point source is not 

effective under the federal Clean Water Act until submitted 

to and approved by EPA. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 7-3 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 4/02/07 
Trading 

Quantifying 

temperature 

impact 

Offset options 

Trading 

Trading programs allow regulated parties to meet their obligations (e.g. 

permit limits) by implementing environmentally equivalent or greater 

protection from another point or nonpoint source. Trading to offset a 

temperature load is discussed in detail in this chapter although other water 

quality parameters can be "traded" as well. DEQ developed a trading policy 

which outlines protocols to quantify trades for several parameters. The 

trading document may be viewed at: 

http://www.deg.state.or.us/wg/pubs/imds/wgtrading.pdf 

Clearly defined units of trade are necessary for trading to occur. These may 

be expressed in terms of energy or mass per unit of time as appropriate to the 

pollutant to be traded, and consistent with the time periods that are used to 

determine compliance with permit conditions or other regulatory 

requirements. Under NPDES permits and 401 certifications, the trading must 

correct the water quality standards violations in-situ. 

Point sources and dams can impact temperature. This impact can be 

quantified as follows: 

Heat load= Q x L\Tmax x Specific Heat of Water X Density of Water 

Where: 

Q = Average flow of the effluent 

L\ T max = Maximum temperature impact. 

This equation provides a measure of the heat load that an entity may choose 

to offset through pollutant trading. 

Temperature effects can be offset by riparian restoration, which is the 

planting of streamside (riparian) areas. Riparian shade reduces the amount of 

solar radiation received by the 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 of riparian 

restoration can be estimated if the site potential vegetation for the watershed 

is known. Temperature effects may also be offset by flow augmentation. 

There are many other measures that may be taken to restore watersheds that 

are not listed here, primarily because their impact on temperature is not wellOregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 7~4 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 4/02/07 
Quantifying the 

impact of 

riparian 

restoration 

established. These measures include but are not limited to: road removal, 

reduction of impervious surface area and floodplain restoration. If the impact 

of these measures can be quantified, they may be suitable measures to offset 

the impact of temperature loads. These offset options must result in water 

quality standards compliance within the affected waterbody. 

The magnitude of the impact of shade achieved through riparian restoration 

will depend on the amount of stream surface that is shaded. This impact may 

be quantified as follows: 

Heat load offset by shade = 

Area of Stream Shaded x Increase in Shade Density x Solar 

Insolation Rate 

Each tenn is explained below: 

• Area of Stream Shaded =Average Stream Width x Stream 

Length 

• Increase in Shade Density= Projected Shade Density- Initial 

Shade Density. Shade density can be measured via a solar 

pathfinder, densiometer or alternate method as long as 

adequate justification 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 informed by experiences to date. 

• The solar insolation rate is the amount of solar radiation that 

hits a stream surface (after blockage by cloud cover, 

vegetation, etc). The Department of Energy publishes solar 

insolation rates for different parts of the country. The solar 

insolation rate used to evaluate the impact of shade should 

correspond to the critical period, usually mid to late summer. 

The above methodology does not take into account the ancillary benefits 

associated with riparian shading projects, such as improved habitat 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 of the year. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 7~5 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 4/02/07 
Quantifying the 

impact of flow 

augmentation 

Addressing 

uncertainty 

Modeling may be used to develop empirical equations that relate instream 

flow to temperature. These equations can then be used to determine how 

much thermal credit can be given for a particular rate of flow augmentation. 

The credit will be in effect for as long as the source chooses to practice flow 

augmentation. 

Offset options can be expected to 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 of each. The third approach was written 

for BMPs for nutrient control, however it could apply to other types of BMPs 

as well. 

• Margins of Safety. Margins of safety are an appropriate 

means for dealing with negative circumstances that have a 

reasonable likelihood of occurring within a permit cycle. As 

an example, though NPDES permits are written for a five year 

period, a margin of safety that would take into account natural 

disturbances that might occur only once in ten years, such as a 

ten year drought, would be appropriate. 

• Monitoring of surrogates. When the water quality parameter 

that is being traded is variable, DEQ may elect to monitor a 

surrogate. For example, stream temperature varies with 

weather as well as with the amount of flow in the stream, and 

these impacts to stream temperature can negate, at least 

temporarily, the impact of riparian planting/shading. 

Therefore, in a temperature trade that involves shade creation 

via riparian planting, DEQ may elect to require the permit 

holder to monitor plant survival and later on, shade density in 

lieu of stream temperature. 

• Trading ratios. The use of trading ratios is appropriate in 

conjunction with BMPs, the impact of which is inherently 

variable. For example, the amount of pollutant reduction that 

will occur as the result of installing a vegetative buffer will 

depend on the amount of pollutant delivered to the buffer, the 

nature of the soils present, the amount of rainfall, and the 

density/type/age/health of the 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 trading ratios for BMPs to reduce nutrient 

loading to streams. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Final Page 7-6 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 4/02/07 
Public DEQ views public participation as critical to the success of trading. Public 

participation participation may be 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. For nonpoint source credits, 

examples of reasonable assurance include but are not limited to: performance 

bonds, memoranda of agreement, and third party contracts. 

For temperature, compliance with the approved trade will be established by 

the schedule in the NPDES permit. If riparian planting is used to offset a 

temperature load, compliance will initially be determined by compliance with 

an approved schedule for planting. As plantings become established, 

compliance will be determined by plant survival rates and shade density 

measurements. 

Oregon Depa1iment of Environmental Quality: 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Clitcda 

Final Page 7-7 

4/02/07 
REFERENCES 

Department of Land Conservation and Development and Department of Environmental Quality. 

2000. Water Quality Model Code and Guidebook. 

DEQ. 2003. Watershed Assessment Section Mode of Operations 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. How lin, and P.R. Kaufmann. 2004. A Biointegrity index for Coldwater 

Streams of Western Oregon and Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 133:1497-1515. 

Hughes, R. M., and J.R. Gammon. 1987. Longitudinal Changes in Fish Assemblages and Water 

Quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

116:196-209. 

Kaufmann, P.R, P. Levine, E.G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D.V. Peck. 1999. QuantifYing 

Physical Habitat 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 of Biological Integrity (IBI) for 

Pacific Northwest Rivers. Transactions of American Fisheries Society. 132:239-261. 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. 1999. Oregon Aquatic Habitat Restoration and 

Enhancement Guide. 

OWEB. July 1999. Water Quality Monitoring Technical 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 Study Field 

Operations Manual for Non-Wadeable Streams and Rivers. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. 

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Level III: Assessment of Stream 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 of Environmental Quality: 

Use Attainability Analysis and Site Specific Criteria 

Final Page -1 

4/02/07 
USEPA. 2001. Issue Paper 5. Summary of Technical Literature Examining the Physiological 

Effects of Temperature on Salmonids. Region 10 Office of Water. 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 of Water. EPA 910-B-03-002. April2003. 

Water Environment Research Foundation. 1997. A Comprehensive UAA Technical Reference 

and Users Guide. See http://www.werf.org. 

Oregon Department of Environmental 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 of indicators discussed in Chapter 3, and 

should be used by the applicant during the planning phases of a UAA or studies to support 

adoption of site specific criteria. This list does not include all possible types of information that 

might be needed to support removal of a designated use or adoption of site specific criteria 

Aquatic Habitat Checklist 

General Watershed Information 

Ecoregion (Level III or IV) 

Gradient 

Elevation 

Area and relief 

Stream order 

Cham1el type 

Valley bottom and containment 

Hydrologic layers 

Identification of fish barriers 

Physical Information 

Land use/land cover, including impervious surfaces. Includes type and stage of vegetative 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 of factors 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 of streams. They strongly affect 

streams by influencing hydrological patterns, recruiting of large 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 by large wood.) 

4/02/07 Page A-1 
Pools and other channel morphology structures - (Important habitat features where channel deepens 

and flow slows.) 

Stream substrate- streambed composition (Result of geomorphology and interacting habitat-forming 

processes. Substrate composition (e.g. gravel, embeddedness) can be highly variable across small 

spacial scales). 

Rosgen Level III Stream 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 plant communities 

Streamflow regime 

Stream order 

Depositional feature 

Meander patterns 

Debris and channel blockages 

Marine physical parameters- some may be applicable to freshwater and estuarine systems 

Shoreline modifications (fill, bulkheads, overwater structures, clearing, diking) 

Status and trends of substrate 

Intertidal vegetation 

Biological Parameters- Freshwater 

Fish and other vertebrates 

Aquatic macroinvertebrates (infaunal and/or epifaunal) 

Aquatic macrophytes 

Algae 

Quantitative fish population surveys 

Biological Parameters- Marine 

Submerged vegetation (eelgrass, kelp, general seaweeds) 

Floating kelp canopy 

Infaunal biota 

Substrate 

4/02/07 Page A-2 
Emergent vegetation (salt marsh, spit/berm, forested wetlands 

Chemical Parameters- Freshwater (with density stratification of monitoring 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 of the 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 of monitoring parameters, if appropriate) 

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 of the rule modification to remove a designated use or adopt site specific 

criteria will include the following information: 

EQC Staff Report for rule adoption with the following attachments: 

• Proposed rule revisions; 

• Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses; 

• Advisory Committee Membership and Report; 

• Presiding Officer's Report on Public Hearings; 

• Statement of Need and Fiscal and Economic Impact; 

• Land Use Evaluation Statement; 

• Relationship to Federal Requirements Questions. 

Instructions for completing the EQC staff report may be found on DEQ's intranet in the 

Rulemaking Resource Center. Staff may also seek assistance from the water quality division 

rulemaking coordinator. 

Additional documents for the EQC may include an issue paper and memos of explanation. 

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 of State; 

• EQC staff report and attachments; 

• Any additional documents provided to the EQC such as the issue paper; 

• Certification by the State Attorney General that the water quality standards were duly 

adopted pursuant to State law. 

Federal rules describe the requirements of a 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-1 
Purpose 

UAA Activity 

iu Alaska 

Appendix C 

Regional and national context for UAAs 

The purpose of this appendix is to explore how the UAA development 

process in Oregon fits within the regional and national context by answering 

the following questions: 

• What is the status ofUAA activity in EPA Region 1 0? 

• In what other states around the country have UAAs been 

conducted? 

• What beneficial uses have been addressed in these existing UAAs? 

• Are there examples ofUAA Guidance in other states? 

The State of Alaska has completed two Use Attainability Analyses: 

• 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 Creek were submitted to EPA for review in 1997. This resulted in 

the aquatic life use being removed from a small stream segment, minor 

modifications to recreational uses, and removal of the drinking water use 

from approximately 40 miles of the waterbody portions in question. The 

UAA also resulted in the removal of sulfate 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 of the designated uses were approved by 

EPA in February of 1998. 

4/02/07 Page C-1 
UAA Activity 

in Idaho 

4/02/07 

The State of Idaho has completed 5 UAAs: The Westfork of Blackbird Creek UAA, 

the Blackbird Creek UAA, the Bucktail Creek UAA, the Soda Creek UAA, and the 

Brownlee Reservoir UAA. EPA approved the Westfork Blackbird, Blackbird and 

Bucktail Creek UAAs. The Soda Creek UAA was subsequently withdrawn by IDEQ 

and the Brownlee Reservoir UAA has not yet been reviewed by EPA. 

• The Westfork of Blackbird Creek UAA, the Blackbird Creek UAA, and 

the Bucktail Creek UAA were all tied to operation of the Blackbird Mine 

in Lemhi County, Idaho. Due to the mine's status as a Superfund site, a 

significant amount of data was available to conduct analysis on these 

three drainages. 

• Example: Bucktail Creek. In the Bucktail Creek UAA, 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 of meeting aquatic life criteria. As such, it was concluded 

that within the foreseeable future, human caused sources of pollution 

preclude the attainment of use and cannot be remedied. 

• Idaho has also conducted a UAA that did not result in a use change. The 

Paradise Creek UAA was completed in 1994. This report determined 

that the currently designated uses of cold 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 of Idaho in March 2002 submitted for EPA review and 

approval two UAA documents in support of both recreational and 

aquatic life use designation changes on 5 tributaries (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 of Idaho sought to change the 

designated recreational use on six waterbody units from primary to 

secondary contact recreation (PCR to SCR) due to safety concerns or 

because of insufficient water to support PCR. It is 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 131.1 O(g)(2), 

(4), and (5) in support of these changes. EPA reviewed and in 

November 2004 approved the six recreational use designation changes, 

but disapproved the eight aquatic life use designation changes. Issues 

that led to EPA's disapprovals included segmentation of the waters that 

blurred hydrologic boundaries, inconclusive infonnation regarding 

existing use and current conditions, and lack of attainability analyses. 

Consultation in this case was not required becaus<;..EP A: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 of Washington, one UAA has been submitted and withdrawn, and 

one UAA is under development: 

• In 2002, the town of Quincy, Washington submitted a UAA in support 

of removing aquatic life use in an agricultural irrigation ditch that was 

receiving wastewater discharge. Upon review, Washington DOE found 

the data and analysis insufficient to support removing the full suite of 

uses recommended in the report The state responded to Quincy with a 

letter that summarized the modifications that the report would support 

To date, the town of Quincy has not resubmitted a revised package. 

• Another UAA is known to be under development for the Spokane River 

from RM 96 to RM 33.93

. The objective of this 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 activity in the state of Oregon has, to date, been limited to a case 

study conducted in the 1980s: 

• In the 1980s, DEQ reviewed a portion of the Malheur River as part of a 

US EPA field test of the draft "Waterbody Surveys and Assessments 

Guidance" for conducting a use attainability analysis'. The portion 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 if the designated use (salmonid fishery) was in fact an existing 

or attainable use. The case study concluded that uses designated for the 

segment of the Malheur River in question should be 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-3 
State with 

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 Where UAA 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 of designated 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/Wildlife Use 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 Supply Use 5 CA, ME, NM, OH, WY 

Navigation Use 2 CA,ME 

Outstanding Water Supply Use 2 OK,PA 

A number of states 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 of these 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 Supply Use I KS 

Page C-4 
Kansas 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment. (2001). Guidance Document for Use 

Attainability Analysis (UAAs). 69 pages. Available at: 

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.uslbefs/uaas/UAAGuidance.pdf 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 200 I. Unified Protocols for Beneficial Use Assignment for Oklahoma 

Wadable Streams (Use Attainability Analysis). OWRB Technical Report TRWQ200 1-1. 

Washington 

Washington Department of Ecology. 2004. Draft Use Attainability Analysis Guidance for 

Washington State. 85 pages. 

Colorado 

Colorado Department of Public 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 of Natural Resources. 2004. Whole Body Contact Recreational Use Attainability 

Analysis Guidance. 20 pages. 

Indiana 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 2001. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 

Long-Term Control Plan Use Attainability Analysis Guidance. 54 Pages. Available at: 

http://www .in. gov /idem/rules/policies/water/ csoplamrrd. pdf 

4/02/07 Page C-5