United States Office of Water (4203) EPA-xxx-x-xx-xxxx

Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 March 2001

Agency

Development, Selection, and Pilot Demonstration

of Preliminary Environmental Indicators for the

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Program 

Volume II: Technical Appendices
Development, Selection, and Pilot

Demonstration of Preliminary Environmental

Indicators for the

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Program

Volume II: Technical Appendices

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20460

March 2001
Table of Contents

Volume I

Executive Summary ........................................................ i

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................... 1-1

Background .............................................................. 1-1

The Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF) Program ..................... 1-2

Funding Summary ......................................................... 1-2

CWSRF Indicator Development and Implementation ............................... 1-6

Chapter 2. Identification of Environmental Indicators for Pilot Testing ............ 2-1

Chapter 3. State Pilot Projects to Test the CWSRF Environmental Indicators ..... 3-1

Selection of States ......................................................... 3-1

Analysis Type ............................................................ 3-1

State Pilot Project Summaries ................................................ 3-2

Other States ............................................................. 3-5

Chapter 4. Evolution of Environmental Indicators ............................. 4-1

Chapter 5. Observations and Recommendations ............................. 4-1

Observations Related to Data ................................................ 4-1

Observations Related to Programmatic Issues .................................... 4-2

Recommendations Related to Data ............................................ 4-3

Recommendations Related to Programmatic Issues ................................ 4-4

List of Tables
4

Table 2-1. Evolution of CWSRF Indicators from Draft 1998 Report to Pilot Testing ..... 2-1

Table 3-1. Partial Summary of State Pilot Projects ................................ 3-1

Table 3-2. Partial Summary of California Analysis ................................. 3-2

Table 3-3. Partial Summary of Ohio Analysis .................................... 3-3

Table 3-4. Partial Summary of Texas Analysis ................................... 3-3

Table 3-5. Partial Summary of New Jersey Analysis ............................... 3-4

Table 3-6. Partial Summary of Utah Analysis .................................... 3-5

Table 3-7. Partial Summary of Maryland Analysis ................................ 3-6

Table 4-1. Evolution of CWSRF Indicators from Draft 1998 Report Through Pilot Testing 

Process and Final Proposed Indicators ................................. 4-1

List of Figures

Figure 1. Percent of $26.1 Billion Total CWSRF Assistance (1988-1999) by Category. .... 1-4

Figure 2. Percent of Yearly Total CWSRF Funding for Eight Categories of Wastewater 

Treatment. ....................................................... 1-5

Figure 3. Percent of Yearly Total CWSRF Assistance Funding for Collection and Treatment 

Projects ......................................................... 1-5

Volume II

Introduction

Appendix A. Task Force Membership

Appendix B. Generic Scope of Work for Pilot Project

Appendix C. Pilot Project Data Entry Questionnaire

Appendix D. Pilot Project Data Summary

Appendix E. State Reports on Pilot Project Experience 

Appendix F. Ohio Pilot Project Specific Examples

Appendix G. Ohio EPA Biological Indicators

Appendix H. Ohio EPA Sampling Fact Sheet 
Introduction

Environmental indicators have been under development at the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) for more than a decade. EPA conducted a feasibility analysis, developed a

methodology, and identified available resources for developing environmental indicators and

applying them to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program in 1998. EPA’s

Office of Wastewater Management established a Task Force to propose and oversee the pilot

feasibility testing of a series of environmental indicators specific to the CWSRF program. The

Task Force included 15 to 20 participants (listed in Appendix A) who have worked on this

assignment one or two days per month since January 1999. Members were drawn from states,

EPA regions, and EPA headquarters. 

States received a generic scope of work (Appendix B), which was intended to help establish

consistency among the pilot projects and allow the results to be compared more consistently. The

scope of work should be viewed in a historical context as the starting point from which the states

began the pilot indicator project.

After states identified the type and scope of projects to evaluate, they focused on data collection. 

One tool used for managing collected project data was a questionnaire, which was available to

states online and in hard copy (Appendix C). The web-based questionnaire was presented in three

successive pages entitled Project Information, Indicator Information, and Data Information.

Each state prepared and submitted a written report on its findings. Recommendations about how

to best incorporate data requirements and identification of any barriers to using or accessing data

were included in the narrative. Appendix D provides a detailed summary of states’ projects and

the full state reports are presented in Appendix E and F.

The Task Force acknowledged that various types of physical habitat measures, such as the

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) and Zig-Zag Pebble Count, might be useful with

Indicator 4 -- Physical changes to the terrestrial, riparian, or aquatic habitat and hydrology as a

result of CWSRF-funded projects. States are encouraged to further investigate the techniques

(field surveys, Zig-Zag Pebble Count Method), tools (QHEI, geographic information systems),

and units (acres, river miles, degree of embeddedness) used to measure progress under this

indicator (See Appendix G and H). 

The environmental indicators identified in this report represent the start of an evolutionary

process. As the states gain experience in trying to measure environmental progress by using those

indicators, additional or revised indicators are likely to surface, and use of geographic information

systems to detect progress is expected to be expanded. Because of the diversity among the states,

the environmental indicators are presented as a “suite” of indicators to be used at each state’s

discretion according to its individual needs.
Appendix A. Environmental Indicator 

Task Force Membership
A-1

November 2, 1999

Environmental Indicator Task Force Membership

The Task Force should total from 15 to 20 participants working from 1-2 days per month over about a

two-year period. Members will be drawn from states, EPA regions and headquarters. The objective is to

develop, select, pilot test, and implement a set of environmental indicators for the CWSRF program. 

Addresses for EPA Headquarter members is: USEPA Waterside Mall,

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460 unless noted by *

CWSRF:

Rich Deringer 260-2874, e-mail: deringer.richard@epa.gov, Mail Code 4204

Kong Chiu 260-1722, e-mail: chiu.kong@epa.gov, Mail Code 4204

EPA Headquarters:

Needs Survey:

Lisa Christ 260-7382, e-mail: christ.lisa@epa.gov, Mail Code 4204

Office of Planning, Analysis, and Accountability:

Anita Street 260-3626, e-mail:street.anita@epa.gov, Mail Code 2722

Arden Calvert (alternate) 260-7813, e-mail:calvert.arden@epa.gov, Mail Code 2723

Index of Watershed Indicators:

Karen Klima 260-7087, e-mail: klima.karen@epa.gov, Mail Code 4503F*

Susan Holdsworth (alternate) 260-4743, e-mail:holdsworth.susan@epa.gov.Mail Code 4503F*

Margarete Heber (alternate) 260-7144, e-mail: heber.margarete@epa.gov Mail Code 4503*

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds:

Chuck Spooner 260-1314, e-mail: spooner.charles@epa.gov, Mail Code 4503F*

Otto Gutenson 260-4909, e-mail: gutenson.otto@epa.gov. Mail Code 4503F*

AA/Water, Policy and Resource Management Office

Anne Treash (info) 260-5034, e-mail: treash.ann@epa.gov. Mail Code 4102

Office of Science and Technology

Mahesh Podar (info) 260-5378, e-mail: podar.mahesh@epa.gov. Mail Code 4301

fax: 9-401-0009

Office of Sustainable Ecosystems, Policy Coordination Division

Michael Mason (info) 260-5362, e-mail: mason.michael@epa.gov Mail Code 2182

Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division

Kelley Volak 260-0307, e-mail: volak.kelley@epa.gov. Mail Code 4203

EPA Regions:

Region VIII:

Brian Friel (303)-312-6277, e-mail:friel.brian@epa.gov, U.S. EPA, Region 8

999 18 TH Street, Suite 500, Mail Code: 8P-W-MS, Denver, CO 80202-2466
A-2

Region IX:

Juanita Licata (415)-744-1948, e-mail:licata.juanita@epa.gov, U.S.EPA, Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 

Region V:

Lula Spruill (312)-886-2281, e-mail:spruill.lula@epa.gov, U.S. EPA, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507

Region IV:

Betty Barton (404)-562-9381, fax:: 404-562-8692 , e-mail:barton.betty@epa.gov. U.S. EPA, Region 4,

USEPA, 15 Floor, Atlanta Federal Center, Water Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta,

GA, 30303

States:

Ohio:

Greg Smith (614)-644-3640

Bob Monsarrat (614)-644-3655

California:

Bryan Brock (916)-227-4574

Texas:

Mark Hall (512)-463-8489 (CWSRF)

George Green (512)-463-8489, (Mark Hall on assignment for 60-90 days)

Clyde Bohmfalk (512)- 239-1315 (Program/Regulatory)

New Jersey:

Theresa Fenton (609)-292-3859

Karen Schaffer (609)-633-1127

Scott Shymon (609)-633-1127

Michigan:

Chip Heckathorn (517)-373-4725

Utah:

Walter Baker (801)-538-6088

Bryan Atwood (801)-538-6174

*EPA address is: USEPA Fairchild Building, 499 South Capitol Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20003
Appendix B. Generic Scope of Work for Pilot Project
B-1

CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND

 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR PILOT PROJECTS

Generic Scope of Work

The purpose of this generic scope of work is to present the major tasks applicable to each state

environmental indicator pilot demonstration project. California, Ohio, and Texas have been

selected to conduct environmental indicator pilot projects. Each state will review a subset of their

projects funded through the use of Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan funds and

apply environmental indicators to measure environmental improvement as a result of the

implementation of these projects. The environmental indicators to be pilot tested for the CWSRF

program are as follows:

1. Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through CWSRF-funded

projects. (Point source oriented)

2. Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment through CWSRFfunded projects.

3. Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by changing land use

practices, and resource harvesting and extraction practices through CWSRF-funded projects.

4. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square miles, and

wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a result of CWSRFfunded projects.

5. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square miles, and

wetland acres, protected, or improved as a result of CWSRF-funded projects.

6. Benefits of reduced health risks and/or increased recreational use attributable to CWSRFfunded projects.

The objective of this pilot phase is to examine more closely the feasibility of measuring

environmental outcomes and making linkages back to the CWSRF program activity with the

proposed environmental indicators. These pilots will investigate and report on the availability of

data and the mechanisms (systems) to provide that data. Each pilot can be conducted to perform

a program-wide analysis, a project-specific analysis, or a watershed- or subwatershed-level

analysis. Following this generic scope of work will ensure consistency between each pilot project

and will help obtain a level of comparability between pilots and their results. Due to variations

between pilots on the type, available data, and number of projects to be evaluated, it is expected

that alterations and refinements will be required by each pilot project when developing and

conducting their projects.

The following five major tasks are required to conduct an environmental indicator pilot project.

Task 1: Identify Type and Scope of Projects to Evaluate

Under this task, states will determine the type and number of CWSRF projects that will be

evaluated. This identification of projects can be selected for program-wide, project-specific, or

watershed or subwatershed level analysis. For example, California is proposing to evaluate a
B-2

randomly selected number of projects (approximately 20-30) that were completed during the

period 1992-1993. Ohio is proposing to identify all projects funded through the CWSRF and then

select for evaluation those projects that have collected water quality and other project specific

data that can be applied to the six environmental indicators. Texas will employ a subwatershed or

stream segment approach and evaluate all projects completed within each subwatershed.

Task 2: Data Collection

Under this task, states will search electronic and manual databases and project files to collect

baseline data on each CSWRF project. The purpose of this task is not only to collect the

necessary data which will be used to apply each indicator, but also to document the ease or

difficultly in collecting the data. Data collected of each selected project will encompass project

specific information as well as the environmental data related to the project. Water quality

conditions prior to and post project implementation are critical environmental data sets.

The data collected will be documented using data source criteria including: 

• Availability/accessibility of data (ease of acquiring information; were data out there?)

• Temporal coverage (period of time, e.g., one year; more or less?)

• Spatial coverage (latitude/longitude; watershed; stream length)

• Technical credibility (quantity, diversity, robustness, etc.; how comfortable are you with the

data?)

Task 3: Data Synthesis and Analysis

Under this task, all data collected will be synthesized in tabular or other format for display and

analysis. Types of CWSRF-funded projects will be tallied along with water quality and

environmental condition data. The analysis of the results will be presented in a brief written

description with discussions on validity/accuracy, data comparability, and scope/applicability. 

Task 4: Indicator Evaluation

Under this task, an evaluation of each environmental indicator applied in that state will be

conducted. A brief narrative discussion will be prepared about the application of each

environmental indicator against the following evaluation criteria:

• Data sources

• Data quality/quantity

• Data availability (how available; how long did it take to evaluate and compile?)

• Data accessibility

• Representativeness

• Comparability

• Cost-effectiveness

• Ease of implementation
B-3

Recommendations about how to best incorporate data requirements and identification of any

barriers to using or accessing data should be included in the narrative. Identify specific ideas

about the use, implementation, and/or needed changes to the indicators.

Task 5: Report Findings

Under this task, a written report on the pilot project approach and findings from tasks 1-4 above

will be prepared. It is anticipated that this report will consist of 10-20 pages of text and tables. 

Each report will include a one-page executive summary that could be used at a briefing level.
Appendix C. Pilot Project Data Entry Questionnaire
C-1

CWSRF Indicators - Questionnaire for Project Managers

Characterizing Environmental Benefits to Support Indicator Development

Project Information

# Project name and unique identifier (e.g., parent number) __________________________

________________________________________________________________________

# Project type and comments (listed by Clean Water Needs Survey category)

9 CAT I Secondary Treatment __________________________________________

9 CAT II Advanced Treatment __________________________________________

9 CAT IIIA Infiltration/Inflow Correction____________________________________

9 CAT IIIB Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation _______________________________

9 CAT IVA New Collector Sewers _________________________________________

9 CAT IVB New Interceptor Sewers ________________________________________

9 CAT V Combined Sewer Overflows ____________________________________

9 CAT VI Storm Water _________________________________________________

9 CAT VIIA Nonpoint Source - Agriculture (crop, pasture, and rangelands) _________

9 CAT VIIB Nonpoint Source - Agriculture (animals) ___________________________

9 CAT VIIC Nonpoint Source - Silviculture __________________________________

9 CAT VIID Nonpoint Source - Urban _______________________________________

9 CAT VIIE Nonpoint Source - Ground Water ________________________________

9 CAT VIIF Nonpoint Source - Estuaries ____________________________________

9 CAT VIIG Nonpoint Source - Wetlands ____________________________________

# Project description (detailed engineering and construction aspects) __________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

# Locational information (lat./long.); include waterbody affected (8 digit CU; plus reach and

river mile) __________________________

# Project stated objective/goal ________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

# Project funding information - Total project cost and CWSRF share

$____________________

# Time frame of project and subsequent monitoring or assessment ____________________

Indicator Information

# Identify indicators used in this project _________________________________________

Indicator Information (continued)

# Any existing documentation to characterize expected environmental benefit
C-2

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

# Any specifically stated water quality objective to reduce or prevent loading

Load reduction point source

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

Load prevented point source

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

Load reduction NPS

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

Load prevention NPS

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

# Any specifically stated water quality objective to improve resource conditions

Existing impairment

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

Expected impairment (threatened)

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

# Any specifically stated water quality objective to address public health concerns

Existing fish advisories

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

Existing recreational impairments

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

Other existing health concerns (bacterial contamination, drinking water threats)

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

Expected public health concerns (threatened)

Yes 9 No 9 Describe________________________________________

Data Source Information (summed for each indicator)

# Which indicator? ____

# Describe the data source (fill out once and then reference)

system name ______________

system type ______________

where located ______________

owner ______________

what program was the system originally designed to support? ________________

# How current are the data? __________________________________________________

Data Source Information (continued)

# Are there historical trend data available? ______________________________________

# What affects the data availability? ___________________________________________
C-3

# What affects the data source accessibility? _____________________________________

# Describe accessibility barriers to using data source (provide narrative, if necessary)

Administrative (e.g., interagency accessibility) __________

Jurisdictional (e.g., data owner issues) __________

Resources (e.g., budget of personnel constraints) __________

Programmatic (e.g., regulatory authority) __________

# Describe technical barriers to using data source

Lack of QA/QC __________________________________

Reliability __________________________________

Accuracy __________________________________

Completeness __________________________________

Space below is provided for additional comments:
Appendix D. Pilot Project Data Summary
D-1

Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

California

1

Pittsburg Conveyance System

Improvements

Construction of gravity interceptor sewers to

bypass pump stations and increase the pumping

capacity at Pittsburg Pump Station.

IVB None

Overflows caused by under-capacity gravity sewers and

unreliable sewage pump stations occurred in February

1993 and have not occurred since.

no No info N qualitative/news-paper articles 2-year project $10 million total/$4.4 

CWSRF share

2

Nevada County Sanitation Dist. No. 1,

Cascade Shores Treatment Plant

Construction/installation of package tertiary plant

(20,000 gpd) and replacement/upgrade of

collection system. Project replaces zero

discharge pond system that was subject to

seasonal overflow of partially treated

undisinfected wastewater.

II, IIIA 5 no No info

Y (other concerns: 

bacterial contamination,

drinking water threats)

Discharge self-monitoring and

NPDES reports (pH, total coliform

violations)

blank/reports Dec 1997-

Nov 1998

$2.1 million/ $170,00

CWSRF

3 McKinleyville WWTP Upgrade Treatment plant upgrade I 1

Plant performance has improved, with higher BOD and SS

removal efficiencies in recent years, as data from 1990-

1998 show. The monthly BOD effluent range for June

1997-May 1998 was 22-35 mg/L, while the range of

monthly BOD effluent weighted averages from 1990 to

1996 was 26-43 mg/L.

no Mad River Discharge N

Project performance report (June

1998); annual reports (from

1996,1997,1998)

Began Aug 1995, active May

1997

$810,628 + 436,673 

1,247,301
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-2

4

City of Blythe Wastewater Treatment Plant

Expansion and Denitrification

Expansion of secondary treatment capacity of

existing plant from 1.5 MGD to 2.4 MGD, including

facilities for effluent dentirification. Discharge is

to ground water via percolation ponds.

I 2

BOD discharged from the plant in 1992 was 233.7 lb/d,

compared to 80.9 lb/d in 1998. For TSS, 201.3 lb/d were

discharged in 1992, with 175.8 lb/d in 1998.

no Discharge to ground water

via percolation ponds N

Post project monitoring report

(1998), appendices C&D (1990-92

reports)

13 months construction

(START DATE? 1994?),

performance certificate one

year after construction 

$7,128,384/

CWSRF $6,444,447

Texas

Texas approached the indicators according to (1) stream segments impaired in 1983-1987 305(b) and currently not impaired; (2) stream segments not impair

1 City of Nacogdoches, # 3253-01

The project will upgrade and expand the treatment

facility. 10.08 MGD capacity will be increased to

12.88 MGD. These improvements will enable the

system to produce an upgraded effluent quality of

10 mg/l BOD, 15 mg/l TSS and 3 mg/l NH3-N

with dechlorination.

II 1

WWTP effluent contributing to problems, dissolved oxygen

violation, stream segment impaired in 1983-1987 305(b)

and currently not impaired.

no

Segment 0611, Angelina

River above Sam Rayburn

Reservoir

N

1983-1987 305(b) reports, 1999

303(d) reports 

Funding granted July 14,

1992 $5,670,000 CWSRF

2 City of Carthage, #2244-01 Construction of wastewater treatment plant and

collection system improvements. II,IIIA,IIIB1

WWTP effluent contributing to problems, depressed DO,

nutrients; stream segment impaired in 1983-1987 305(b)

and currently not impaired

no

Segment 0505, Sabine

River above Toledo Bend

Reservoir

N

1983-1987 305(b) reports, 1999

303(d) reports 

Final inspection Jan 30,

1996 $3,715,000 CWSRF
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-3

3 City of Hallsville, #2644

WWTP improvements to increase plant design

capacity from 0.32 MGD to 0.8 MGD and meet

more restrictive effluent limits.

I 1

WWTP effluent contributing to problems, depressed DO,

nutrients; stream segment impaired in 1983-1987 305(b)

and currently not impaired.

no

Segment 0505, Sabine

River above Toledo Bend

Reservoir

N

1983-1987 305(b) reports, 1999

303(d) reports 

Final inspection November

22, 1999

$2,473,326, loan

$2,250,000

4 City of Longview, #3089

Collection system improvements, construction of

sewer interceptors, improvement of wastewater

treatment.

II,IVB 1,2

WWTP effluent contributing to problems, depressed DO,

nutrients; stream segment impaired in 1983-1987 305(b)

and currently not impaired.

no

Segment 0505, Sabine

River above Toledo Bend

Reservoir

N

1983-1987 305(b) reports, 1999

303(d) reports 

Final inspection May 30,

1996 $11,030,000 CWSRF
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-4

New Jersey

1 Town of Hammonton STP The project included modifications to the

Hammonton STP to improve treatment capabilities. I 1

Decreasing trend in 5-day BOD concentration (mg/L) from

Jan 1990 to April 1997 (STORET)

Parameter % Viol Trend

FC 67% Increase

Un-ionized 0% NONE

Ammonia

NO3 78% 6%/yr

TP 100% -3%/yr

DO 55% No trend

TSS 0 Not tested

%Viol= Violations 1990-1994 Trend = 1975-1994 trend

yes Hammonton Creek, Mullica

River in the Pinelands

Y, nontrout fishing and

primary contact recreation STORET Date of initiation: June 15,1994 $5,344,772 CWSRF

2 Delran STP

The project involved the upgrade and expansion of

the STP from 1.5 MGD to 2.5 MGD and included

the construction of an influent pump station with

screen chamber, and a new contact stabilization

unit with a capacity of 1.0 MGD.

I 1 No NJDEP sampling stations below discharge point. yes

Rancocas Creek/

Delaware River; USGS HUC

02040202

Y, nontrout fishing,

recreational fishing; and

discharge affects

Philadelphia Torresdale 

potable water intake

STORET Date of initiation: Nov 17,

1994

$10,331,785

CWSRF

3 Middlesex County UA STP

The project involved the construction of 4 new

final settling tanks and related appurtenances. 

These facilities will improve the efficiency of the

plant and thus the quality of discharge.

I 1 No chemical data available near coastal outfall. yes Raritan River/Raritan Bay;

USGS HUC: 02030105

Y, discharge affects

shellfish and recreational

use

STORET Date of initiation: Sep 23,

1994

$8,236,808

CWSRF
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-5

4 City of Millville STP

The project involves the upgrade of the existing

secondary level STP to improve biochemical

oxygen demand and suspended solids removal. 

The proposed facilities will include improved

biological treatment and the addition of tertiary

filters.

I 1 No monitoring station below discharge point. yes Maurice River STORET Date of initiation: June 6,

1994

:$6,380,458

CWSRF

5 Woodstown STP

The project includes the installation of two

counter current aeration basins, two clarifiers, a

solids contact tank with phosphorous removal, a

chemical fed/filtration/control building,

disinfection facilities and aerobic sludge digestion

facilities. 

I 1

Parameter % Viol Trend

FC 67% +8%/yr

Un-ionized 11% NONE

Ammonia

NO3 0 +3%/yr

TP 83% +2%/yr

DO 0 -0.1mg/L/yr

TSS 8% Not tested

%Viol= Violations 1990-1994 Trend = 1975-1994 trendyes Salem Creek STORET

Date of initiation: Sep 23,

1994

$5,238,167

CWSRF

6 Town of Clinton STP The project involves the construction of

modifications to the existing Town of Clinton STP

to provide for upgraded phosphorus, ammonia,

and TKN removals.

II 1 Parameter % Viol Trend

FC 17% NONE

Unionized ? NONE

Ammonia

NO3 0 +1mg/L/yr

TP 27% NONE

yes South Branch Raritan

River

Y, trout fishing is adversely

affected

STORET Date of initiation: Jan 3,

1994

$4,345,144

CWSRF
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-6

DO 0 -0.05mg/L/yr

TSS 0 Not tested

%Viol= Violations 1990-1994 Trend = 1975-1994 trend

7

Borough of Hawthorne, Sewer

Rehabilitation

The Borough built a pumping station to transport

the entire flow by force main to the PVSC

interceptor. A new venturi flow meter will be

installed.

3B Closest monitoring point is 4 miles downstream, with

several discharges and urban land use in between. Ground water in Borough None available Date of initiation: May 19,1997

$2,978,508

CWSRF

8 Berkeley Township SA Collection System

The project involved building a collection system

in the Riviera Beach area consisting of approx.

8200 linear feet of 8-inch gravity sewer.

4A 2 No ambient data collected nearby. Barnegat BayY, primary contact

recreation uses impacted None available Date of initiation: Aug 10,1994

$2,590,318

CWSRF

9 Town of Phillipsburg

An emergency generator was installed to service

the Riverside Way Pumping Station. The Market

and Mercer Street pump stations were also

rehabilitated or replaced. 

No change in effluent quality expected. Not applicable None available Date of initiation: Sep 5,

1995

$441,634

CWSRF

Michigan

Michigan did not report on specific projects. Michigan’s project priority ranking system was provided, however. Every facility seeking CWSRF assistance 

dissolved oxygen, 2. nutrients(P), 3. toxic substances (un-ionized NH4, Cl), 4. microorganisms (fecal coliform), and 5. ground water (well contamination).
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-7

Data for indicators 1 and 2 are available from Michigan's Project Priority List (PPL) system (also data from DMR inventory?). Extrapolation from load redu
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-8

Utah

1

St. George City (Utah) Wastewater Project

ID#138

Expansion of existing extended aeration treatment

plant to add two clarifiers, two oxidation ditches,

influent pump station modifications, UV

disinfection, sludge dewatering and handling,

RAS/WAS pump station, and odor control.

II 2

Over the life of the project (year 2012), the facility will

now have the ability to remove from the environment

19,495 lb/d of TSS; 15,950 lb/d of BOD; and 1,630 lb/d of

ammonia.

yes

HUC 15010008. The

receiving water is the

Virgin River, which serves

as the habitat of a

threatened species, the

woundfin minnow. A strict

ammonia standard has

been established to help

protect that habitat. 

Y--Existing fish advisories,

existing recreational

impairments, other existing

health concerns (bacterial

contamination, drinking

water threats), expected

public health concerns

(threatened)

DMR data

Loan closing: Jul 17, 1997;

Notice to Proceed: Dec

1997; Final Inspection: 

scheduled for Sep 1999

Total project: $27,55

CWSRF funding $12

2

Santaquin City (Utah) Sewer Project

ID#109

Construction of a gravity sewage collection

system, two lift stations, a 3-cell aerated lagoon

system which totals 12.3 acres, a 150-acre-foot

winter storage reservoir, and 100 acres of land

for land application of the treated effluent.

II 1,3

The immediate load reduction of nitrates and BOD entering

the ground water in 1995 was, respectively, 43 lb/d and

482 lb/d. The nitrate loading and BOD loading subsequently

prevented from entering the ground water from on-site

systems is, respectively, 55 lb/d and 619 lb/d.

yes

HUC 16020202. 

Santaquin City rests on

alluvial material and is in

the ground water recharge

zone. Unabated

proliferation of on-site

disposal systems would

ultimately result in fouling

of aquifer.

Y--Existing fish advisories,

existing recreational

impairments, other existing

health concerns (bacterial

contamination, drinking

water threats), expected

public health concerns

(threatened)

Estimation of nitrate and BOD

loadings which otherwise would

have potentially entered the ground

water had on-site disposal system

use continued unabated.

Loan closing: Feb 28, 1994;

Notice to Proceed: Mar

1994; Final inspection: Sep

1995

Total project: $6,008

CWSRF funding: $1,

3

Orem City (Utah), Wastewater Project

ID# 128

Construction of gravity thickener and belt press

for better handling of biosolids. Replacement of

some old sewer collection lines and some

interceptor sewers.

II 1 yes HUC 16020203

Loan closing: Apr 18, 1994;

Notice to Proceed: May

1994; Final inspection: Sep

1995 

Total project: $4,000

CWSRF funding: $3,
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-9

4

Aurora City (Utah) Wastewater Project

ID#119

Wastewater will be collected and conveyed to a

lagoon treatment system, with no discharge, for

treatment and disposal.

Complete sewage collection system for

community.

Interceptor sewers from collection system to

treatment system.

I, IVA, IVB2

Over life of project (year 2012) the facility will have the

ability to remove from the environment 199 lb/d BOD; 243

lb/d TSS and 20 lb/d ammonia.

yes HUC 16030003

Loan closing: Apr 20, 1993;

Notice to Proceed: Dec 2,

1993; Final inspection: Aug

20, 1994 

Total project: $2,694

CWSRF funding: $84

5

Cedar City (Utah), Wastewater Project

ID#117

Construction of a 4.4-MGD single-stage trickling

filter treatment facility and interceptor line.

Replaced old city plant and replaced community

septic systems of neighboring town of Enoch.

I, IVB 2

Over life of project (year 2014), the facility will now have

the ability to remove from the environment 4,016 lb/d BOD;

4,908 lb/d TSS; and 411 lb/d ammonia. Yes CU: 16030006 PCS database of dischargemonitoring reports (DMRs)

Loan closing: Aug 18, 1994;

Notice to Proceed: Oct 3,

1994; Final Inspection: Jun

18, 1997 

Total project: $12,41

CWSRF funding: $12

6

Grantsville City (Utah), Wastewater

Project #124

Upgrade of existing lagoon treatment system

consisting of conversion of facility to a 4-cell,

12.4-acre, partial-mix

aerated lagoon with headworks, disinfection,

standby power, flow measurement, and

administration building. Upgrades of 2 existing lift

stations, reconfiguration of 15-inch interceptor

line, and extension of 8-inch sewer lines totaling

approximately 7000 ft.

I 2

Over life of project (year 2015) the facility will now have

the ability to remove from the environment 263 lb/d BOD;

321 lb/d TSS and 27 lb/d ammonia. Yes CU: 16020304 STORET (#496024) and DMRs

Loan closing: Aug 16, 1995;

Notice to

Proceed: Aug 23. 1995;

Final Inspection: Jul 16,

1996 

Total project: $3,378

CWSRF funding $3,2

7

Jordanelle Special Service District, I.D.

#130

21,800 ft of 8-in, 10-in, 12-in, 15-in, 18-in

gravity sewers and 5,400 ft of 8-in and 12-in

force main. The project services largely

undeveloped areas around the Jordanelle

Reservoir, a major drinking water source for the

Wasatch Front (Salt Lake City and surrounds).

2

Nutrient loading to the Jordanelle Reservoir from on-site

disposal systems; at build-out, 1,754 lb/d of nitrate

and 2,102 lb/d of BOD; 

no CU: 16020203 1994 Facility Plan

Loan closing: Jun 26, 1995;

Notice to

Proceed: Jan 14, 1994;

Expected completion date:

Fall 1999 

Total project: $6,490

CWSRF $2,736,000 
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-10

8 Mapleton City Sewer Project; ID#116

Construction of a centralized collection system

with two pump stations and interceptor lines,

which conveys the

wastewater to a treatment facility in the

neighboring city of Spanish Fork, UT. Removal of

approximately 167 lb/d of BOD and 33 lb/d of

nitrates.

IVA,IVB1,2

Elimination of approximately 1,000 on-site disposal

systems. At existing flows of 0.429 MGD, 716 lb/d of BOD

and 89 lb/d of nitrates will be removed.

At build-out in 2013 (flows of 0.649 MGD), an additional

367 lb/d of BOD and 46 lb/d of nitrates will be removed.

yes CU: 16020202

Potential ground water

contamination in a recharge

area due to high ground

water and hundreds of

on-site disposal systems in

a relatively small area.

This was the largest

unsewered community in

the state.

Data extrapolated from 1993 Facility

Plan

Loan closing: Jun 30, 1995;

Notice to

Proceed: Jul 17, 1995;

Final inspection: Dec 1997 

Total project: $10,32

CWSRF: $9,400,000 
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-11

Maryland

1 Ballenger Creek

The project was an

expansion of the existing

wastewater treatment plant

from 2.0-MGD secondary

treatment facility to a 6-

MGD advanced treatment

facility with biological

nutrient removal (BNR)

and an upgrade to the

sludge processing system. 

A major portion of the

existing plant was

incorporated into this

expansion, with major

additions of tankage,

hydraulic structures, new

treatment unit processes,

and replacement of the old

sludge stabilization

system.

II 1, 2

Decreasing trend in Total N

concentration from Jan 21, 1991

to Nov 21, 1995 (STORET)

yes

Monocacy

River (HUC

02070009)

N STORET

Construction

initiation: Apr

19, 1993

Construction

completion:

Aug 30, 1995

WQFA-SRF

funds:

$10,141,237

(47%) 

State BNR

Grant: 

$1,000,000 

(4.7%) 

Local funds: 

$10,358,733 

(48.3%

Total:

$21,499,970

2 Birch Branch VII A, VII B

5,

possibly

3

no

Shingles

Landing

watershed,

flows to St.

Martin River

N (blank)

Final project

inspection

conducted Mar

17, 1995

Unknown, but

estimated costs

are included in

scope of work
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-12

3

Edesville Sewer

Project

The sewage collection

system consists of smalldiameter gravity sewers

with clarifier tanks (similar

to septic tanks) installed at

each household to provide

primary treatment. 

Clarified sewage effluent is

collected by 9800 LF of 3-

and 4-in., small-diameter

gravity sewers and

conveyed by 380 LF of 2-

in. force main to a

lagoon/land treatment

system for final treatment

and disposal. After natural

aeration by the 2-cell, 3-

acre sewage lagoon, the

aerated effluent is

discharged, via a piped

header and valve system,

to a 13.5-acre ridge and

furrow land treatment area,

where the effluent is 

treated through continued

natural aeration,

absorption, transpiration,

and evaporation. Grassed

furrows and treed ridges

assist in the transpiration

and treatment of the

effluent.

I, IV A 6 no (blank) Y, sewage

disposal

Safe Drinking

Water Information

Database

Construction

initiation: 

July 1991

Construction

completion:

Nov 12, 1992

Total: 

$1,739,663

CWSRF share: 

$997,663
Project Project Description

Clean

Water

Needs

Survey

Category

Ind # Indicator Data Lat/

Lon?

Waterbody

Affected

Public

Health

Concern?

Data Source for

Evaluation

Status/Time

Frame

Total Project

Cost

(CWSRF

Share)

D-13

4 Little Patuxent

The proposed project

consists of the upgrade

and expansion of the

existing Little Patuxent

WWTP. The WWTP

upgrade involves the

construction of a Biological

Nutrient Removal (BNR)

facility to achieve nitrogen

removal to a level of 8mg/L,

while the expansion is to

increase the existing

WWTP capacity from 15

MGD to 18 MGD to

accommodate planned

growth in Howard County. 

The treated wastewater

from the Little Patuxent

WWTP will be discharged

to the Little Patuxent River,

a tributary of the Patuxent

River/Chesapeake Bay. 

II 1, 2

No trend identified for BOD,

Suspended sediment, or

NH3+NH4+N dissolved

concentrations, from 1990 to

1993. (STORET data do not

extend past 1993 for these

stations.)

yes

Little Patuxant

River,

Chesapeake

Bay

N STORET

Design

completion:

Dec 1991

Construction

initiation:

Jun 1992

Construction

completion:

Nov 30, 1994

Total: 

$25,000,000

CWSRF share: 

$15,000,000

(60%)

Note: gpd, gallons per day; MGD, million gallons per day; mg/L, milligrams per liter; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; TSS, total suspended solids; DO, di

plant; STP, sewage treatment plant; FC, fecal coliform bacteria; TP, total phosphorus; NO3, Nitrate-nitrogen; TKN, total Kjeldahl nitrogen; NH4, Amm
D-14
Appendix E. State Reports on Pilot Project Experience
E-1

Pilot Projects

This section contains reports written by the pilot states and represents their findings and

recommendations in relation to this pilot indicator effort.

California’s Pilot Project Experience

California participated in the indicator study as a pilot state and provided data on four previously

funded CWSRF projects. The projects were randomly selected from a database of projects

constructed in 1995. CWSRF project managers who had experience with the projects were

trained by the Indicator study representative on the indicator topics and examples of the types of

data that exist. The project managers were directed to investigate the different data sources that

pertain to the indicators identified. The project managers and the indicator study representative

determined the following from this exercise:

Data Availability

• There are data for Indicators 1 and 2 as long as end-of-pipe data are adequate.

• No data were found for Indicator 3.

• Only qualitative data were found for Indicators 4, 5, and 6, but there is no correlation to

CWSRF projects.

• There is no single point of contact for the data; many different entities house information,

which is not easily located.

Data Quality

None of the data were specifically developed for the indicators. Data were mainly developed as

monitoring data intended to satisfy requirements for discharge permits; therefore, the data are not

necessarily a good fit for the indicators.
E-2

Ohio’s Pilot Project Experience

SUMMARY

This pilot study was undertaken as part of an EPA/state work group effort over the last year to

develop and test environmental indicators that could be used to measure environmental

improvements resulting from the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF)

program. Ohio chose to assess all the potential indicators developed by the group in order to

gauge their individual and combined effectiveness in evaluating funded actions. The following are

the six indicators that were evaluated in Ohio’s pilot study.

Indicator 1. Number of pounds of pollutants removed by point sources from the environment

through CWSRF-funded projects.

Indicator 2. Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment through

CWSRF-funded projects. 

Indicator 3. Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by changing

land use practices and resource harvesting and extraction practices through

CWSRF-funded projects.

Indicator 4. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square

miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a

result of CWSRF-funded projects.

Indicator 5. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square

miles, and wetland acres, protected, improved, or restored as a result of CWSRFfunded projects. 

Indicator 6. Benefits of reduced health risks and/or increased recreational use attributable to

CWSRF-funded projects.

After interpreting and evaluating each indicator for applicability to Ohio’s program, the indicators

were tested by using them to evaluate 15 of Ohio’s State Revolving Loan Fund (Ohio CWSRF)

projects. Recommendations regarding use of the indicators, as well as recommended changes to

the indicators are based on the results of the pilot testing. The following is a summary of the

recommendations.

Indicator 1. Ohio EPA recommends using this indicator in conjunction with biologically based

indicators to see whether CWSRF-financed projects have resulted in reductions of

pollutants, and whether these reductions are related to improvements in water

quality as measured by improved attainment of aquatic life use stream standards. 

If used alone as a measure of CWSRF project accomplishments, this indicator will

not show whether any improvement occurred in the receiving water’s aquatic biota

or any reduction in public health risks.
E-3

Indicator 2. Because of the difficulty of reliably estimating prevention of pollution, further

investigation of this indicator is recommended. 

Indicator 3. Ohio recommends exploring use of this indicator when the effect of the project is

to change land use practices, such as converting farming practices from

conventional to conservation tillage, or the restoration of land areas to natural

vegetation. This indicator would be especially useful for these types of projects

when there is no associated water quality monitoring of the benefitted water

resources.

Indicator 4. This is an easily used indicator which measures the desired endpoint of the

CWSRF activity, that is, progress toward meeting the Clean Water Act goals. 

Ohio EPA believes, however, that this indicator is covered by Indicator 5, and

hence, should be dropped as a separate indicator. 

Indicator 5. This indicator should be used because it measures the desired endpoint of the

CWSRF activity, which is progress toward the Clean Water Act goals. To

effectively use this indicator, it will be important to ensure that Agency water

quality monitoring planning includes monitoring of both projects already funded

through the CWSRF program, and projects anticipated to be funded in the future. 

Indicator 6. Water quality data as it relates to human health issues needs to be aggregated by

the respective agencies and laboratories so that a complete picture of the human

health impacts can be viewed quickly and easily. The indicator is important

because it monitors a Clean Water Act objective.

Ohio also suggested the inclusion of the two additional indicators below:

Indicator A. Actions funded by CWSRF programs. (Response by the regulated

community) Ohio recommends using this indicator as an initial indicator of the

contribution state CWSRF programs make to achieving Clean Water Act

objectives. This indicator would be useful in situations where there is an absence

of any other information regarding CWSRF-financed projects. 

Indicator B. Changes in habitat of a waterbody as a result of an CWSRF-funded project.

(Changes in ambient habitat )

This would allow measurement of CWSRF project accomplishments in terms of

habitat improvement. This would be particularly useful for those projects (mainly

nonpoint source) whose main benefit is to provide habitat restoration. In the

absence of biological data, this would be the sole indicator available for these types

of projects. We recommend exploring the use of both Qualitative Habitat

Evaluation Index (QHEI) and Zig-Zag Pebble Count data for use with this

indicator.

The modifications to the indicators recommended above would serve several purposes. First, they

would allow all states to measure the accomplishments of their CWSRF programs. This is
1Demonstrating the Linkages between Ambient Indicators of Surface Water Quality and Indicators of

Water Program Performance in Two Ohio Watersheds, Central Scioto River and Ottawa River Basins,

Environmental Indicators Pilot Projects: Volume I: Summary and Conclusions, Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin

DSW/1977-9-1, September 26, 1997. 347pp.

E-4

because the indicators range from purely administrative indicators (types of projects financed) to

indicators which rely upon collection of biological data. Second, the proposed modifications

would make the CWSRF indicators consistent with other water quality indicators previously

developed by U.S. EPA, particularly the 1990 integrated framework (described later in this

report), in that the CWSRF indicators would cover all six levels of indicators in the framework.

Taken together, the proposed CWSRF indicators cover the following SRF-related parameters:

C Loadings reductions to the environment

C Loadings prevented from entering the environment

C Project affect on land use

C Project affect on the aquatic life

C Project affect on human health risk

C CWSRF projects funded

C Project effect on habitat

The most effective way of using the indicators to measure progress toward accomplishment of

Clean Water Act objectives is by using them in combination. Combining the indicators enables

positive links to be made between CWSRF activities and changes to water resources, particularly

if biological indicators (see Appendix E) are included as part of the combination. However, in the

absence of sufficient data to use the indicators in combination, the individual indicators will still

give a view of how states’ CWSRF programs are contributing to improving water quality.

THE OHIO EPA WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

For 20 years, Ohio EPA has assessed the quality of Ohio’s surface waters using chemical,

physical, and biological data. The resulting database is one of the most extensive examples in the

country for the use of an integrated approach to environmental monitoring and assessment. Some

of our recommendations and methods for using the indicators may not be directly applicable to

states that do not have the same quantity or quality of water quality data. However, all states

should be able to use portions of Ohio’s analysis and recommendations to develop their own ways

to use the indicators.

A study completed by the Ohio EPA monitoring group in 19971 recommended making better use

of environmental indicators to establish priorities for enforcement and for awarding grant and loan

funds. CWSRF programs should take this a step further and evaluate what types of funded

activities, under what conditions, have provided the greatest water quality improvements and

human and environmental health benefits. This approach will provide CWSRF programs with the

information needed to enable states to focus their loan programs on activities that provide the

greatest benefit per dollar spent.
2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Feasibility Report on Environmental Indicators for

Surface Water Programs. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Policy, Planning, and

Evaluation, Washington, D.C.

3U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. 

EMAP - surface waters monitoring and research strategy - fiscal year 1991, EPA/600/3-91/022. Office of Research

and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 184pp.

E-5

DEVELOPMENT OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS BY USEPA

It is important to relate the Clean Water SRF Indicators to other water quality indicators that

have been developed previously by U.S. EPA, namely: (1) the U.S. EPA (1990)2 integrated

framework, which provides a hierarchy of six levels of environmental indicators; and (2) the U.S.

EPA (1991)3 concept of stressor, exposure, and response indicators, which was also utilized in the

1997 recommendations made by the Ohio EPA monitoring group referenced above.

The U.S. EPA 1990 integrated framework uses the following six levels of indicators:

Level 1 - actions taken by regulatory agencies (e.g., permitting, enforcement, grants);

Level 2 - responses by the regulated community (e.g., construction of treatment works,

pollution prevention);

Level 3 - changes in discharged quantities (e.g., pollutant loadings);

Level 4 - changes in ambient conditions (e.g., water quality, habitat);

Level 5 - changes in uptake and /or assimilation (e.g., tissue contamination, biomarkers,

 assimilative capacity);

Level 6 - changes in health, ecology, or other effects (e.g., ecological condition,

pathogenicity)

The U.S. EPA 1991 concept of stressor, exposure, and response indicators relates to four of the

six indicators listed above. Stressor indicators include activities that have the potential to degrade

the aquatic environment, such as pollutant discharges, land use effects, and habitat modifications

(Level 3 indicators from the integrated framework). Exposure indicators are those that measure

the apparent effects of stressors and can include chemical water quality criteria, whole effluent

toxicity tests, tissue residues, and biomarkers, each of which provides evidence of biological

exposure to a stressor or bioaccumulative agent (Level 4 and 5 indicators from the integrated

framework). Response indicators are generally composite measures of the cumulative effects of

stress and exposure and include the more direct measures of biological community and population

response that are quantified by the biological indices used by Ohio EPA (Level 6). Other

response indicators include target assemblages ( e.g., rare, threatened, endangered, special status,

and declining species), or bacterial levels which serve as surrogates for recreational use

designations. All of these indicators provide essential technical elements for watershed-based

management approaches.

All of the CWSRF-funded projects can be classified using the Level 1 or 2 indicators because they

represent both actions taken by regulatory agencies and the subsequent responses by the regulated

community (financing of projects and implementation of projects). These initial actions result in
E-6

changes in pollutant loadings and ambient water quality (represented by Level 3, 4, and 5

indicators). The changes in pollutant loadings and ambient water quality may also provide

measurable environmental “results” which would be within the Level 6 indicator. The Level 6

Indicator is the one indicator that provides feedback on whether the Clean Water Act objective of

“restoring the chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of state waters is being met.

Since CWSRF projects usually do not address all sources of impairment in a stream, project

success needs to be measured in terms of contribution to meeting the goal of improved water

quality. This measurement of progress can then be used to guide future funding decisions and

priorities. The purpose of this pilot study was to see if this can be done and under what

circumstances. 

CLEAN WATER SRF INDICATORS

The six indicators developed by the EPA/state work group, plus the two additional indicators

proposed by Ohio EPA are evaluated below regarding ease of use and level of confidence. 

Recommendations are made, based in part on the use of the indicators to evaluate pilot projects,

regarding their use by state CWSRF programs. Reference is also made as to which of the U.S.

EPA 1990 indicators each indicator falls within.
E-7

Indicator A. Actions funded by the CWSRF program.

U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

This is a Level 1 and/or 2 Indicator: actions taken by regulatory agencies (Level 1) and responses

by the regulated community (Level 2).

Ease of Use/Difficulties

This indicator identifies the types of projects that receive CWSRF financing. It also indicates why

the financing was requested (e.g. enforcement action, treatment works expansion,

maintenance/repair, etc.) This information should be easily obtained from project records.

Confidence in the Indicator

This indicator will provide information about the types of projects that receive CWSRF funding. 

Information about these projects can be obtained from priority list ranking documentation, facility

planning documents, enforcement documents, environmental assessments, detailed plans and

specifications and financial records. This information is accurate, complete and readily available

to the state CWSRF programs.

Recommendation

Ohio recommends using this indicator as an initial indicator of the contribution state CWSRF

programs make to achieving Clean Water Act objectives.

Indicator 1. Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through

CWSRF-funded projects.

U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

This is a Level 3 Indicator - Changes in Discharge Quantities - and a Stressor Indicator.

Ease of Use/Difficulties

Ohio determined the number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through

CWSRF-funded projects using data from Ohio EPA’s LEAPS (Liquid Effluent Analysis Process

System), SWIMS (Surface Water Information Management System), and PCS (Permit

Compliance System) databases. STORET and community-generated data were also used along

with the other databases to establish influent, effluent, and ambient upstream and downstream

conditions for a one year period prior to loan award, and a one-year period commencing in the

second year after project completion. With each source of data Ohio encountered different

problems.

We presumed that SWIMS, a recently constructed, personal computer-driven database, could

provide all the data we would need to evaluate the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) projects.

We soon learned, however, that SWIMS is limited to post-1994 data. This finding led us to
E-8

greater reliance on the pre-SWIMS programs known as LEAPS and PCS for data on pre-1995

projects.

To obtain pre-1995 sampling information, the LEAPS and PCS databases were combined

electronically in DBASE/FOXPRO data files to include specific chemical parameter and station

data from the Monthly Operating Reports (MORs) of the 12 wastewater treatment plants

evaluated in this pilot study. A major constraint of the LEAPS and PCS databases are that this

material can only be accessed through a trained operator and must be transferred into a DBASE/

FOXPRO data file format.

The data were sorted using codes for individual monitoring stations and chemical parameters. In

addition, we frequently had to convert the database format files into more easily manipulated

(spreadsheet) format files. This conversion then provided the flexibility needed to calculate daily

averages for specific parameters on a month-by-month basis. Getting this data in an easily read

and organized format required a considerable amount of time and effort.

The SWIMS database was more usable than LEAPS primarily because an electronic link could be

established directly to the central computer housing this material. However, a main drawback

with the use of this data source is that the calculated averages in SWIMS do not transfer with the

raw data, hence requiring the use of another program to recalculate and permanently store the

averages in a data file. Further complications involved the non-numerical values used in SWIMS

such as “AA” which denotes “below detectable limits.” Upon the recommendation of Ohio

EPA’s Division of Surface Water staff, the “AA” scores were converted to a score of zero, while

all other non-numerical values were excluded from calculations of averages because they

represented data gaps or other errors in record keeping that could not be resolved for this study.

In conducting our evaluation of MOR data from the 12 selected WWTP projects, data was

recorded and analyzed for seven standard parameters: dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids,

ammonia-nitrogen, fecal coliform, flow, total residual chlorine, and five-day carbonaceous oxygen

demand. We also used all or a number of these parameters to ascertain changes over time in both

the in-stream, influent, and effluent conditions and to assure consistency with what we were

observing in pollutant removal rates.

One of the more important uses of the total suspended solids, flows, and five-day carbonaceous

oxygen demand (CBOD5) data was to determine the pounds of pollutants removed from the waste

stream by each WWTP prior to discharge. To calculate these removal rates, the influent and

effluent values were entered into spreadsheets and the flow data were used to transform the

chemical concentrations for these two parameters into pounds of pollutants using the following

equation:

Pounds of Pollutant = Concentration in milligrams per liter (mg/L) * 8.34 pounds per mg/L

* Flow in million gallons per day

Simple addition and subtraction were used to calculate net removals. In a few cases, such as

Akron and Columbus, the presence of monitored overflows at the WWTPs required greater

consideration of the effects of the overflows on the receiving streams. In these two examples, the
4Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological

integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5. 28

pp.

E-9

pounds of pollutants released into the environment during storm events were calculated and added

to the other pollutant loadings released following complete treatment. These combined effluent

totals for both total suspended solids and 5-day carbonaceous oxygen demand were then

compared to the influent values and a percentage removal figure was determined. A similar, but

simplified, approach was used when bypasses and overflows are absent from a wastewater

treatment system. These summary values are included in this text.

In addition to the LEAPS and SWIMS databases, STORET data and analyses from technical and

permit support documents provided background information on water quality conditions. In

some cases, the STORET data were not available for the time periods and locations to document

the success or failure of CWSRF-funded projects from a chemical pollutant standpoint.

Confidence in the Indicator

This indicator can provide valuable information about the WWTP function before and after

CWSRF project completion. In many cases, large increases in one or more of the pollutant(s)

removed can be demonstrated. This information, taken along with the WWTP pollutant removal

efficiencies, can demonstrate a direct and measurable benefit of a CWSRF-funded project to the

receiving water. 

It is important, however, to link this information back to the pollutant(s) that impacted the

biology of the receiving stream. We do not recommend focusing on any one or two of the

chemical parameters as indicators of the others, as the causes of impairments to receiving waters

are highly variable and a decrease in one chemical parameter does not always translate to a

reduction in the other parameters. As an example, a decrease in ammonia-nitrogen levels does

not necessarily translate to a reduction in chlorine or copper levels. If an impairment to the

biology of a stream segment was due to toxic exposure to copper, then reductions of other

chemical parameters would have no effect on the recovery of this stream segment. 

In general, we must not presume that the number of pounds of one or more pollutants removed

from the environment can give a direct measure of how a stream is achieving Clean Water Act

objectives. Focusing on the reduction of one or several pollutants in a waterbody without

consideration of the other potential causes or sources of impairment and pollutant interactions

provides only a small amount of information on what is going on in a stream. There are multiple

factors in addition to chemical water quality that are responsible for the condition of a surface

water resource. Hence, this indicator will provide only one piece of the information needed to

evaluate the effectiveness of a CWSRF project. Because the biological integrity of a waterbody is

influenced and determined by multiple chemical, physical, and biological factors, a singular

strategy emphasizing the control of chemicals alone does not assure the restoration of biological

integrity.4
E-10

The main benefit of this indicator is that it shows whether SRF-financed projects resulted in

pollutant reductions.

Recommendation

This indicator provides valuable information when comparing the before and after project

pollutant removal amounts, or in looking at the percentage of influent pollution removed by

treatment. This indicator is important when a stream segment has the same cause of impairment

coming from multiple sources. An example of this would be a stream segment impaired by organic

enrichment/low dissolved oxygen. The source could be a WWTP, a CSO, failing on-lot systems,

or some combination of these sources. If it can be shown that a wastewater treatment plant has

reduced its loadings of oxygen-demanding pollutants to a stream in such a situation, then it can be

concluded that this plant has become less of a source of the problem.

The issue of multiple sources of stream impairment is likely to be prominent in highly impaired

watersheds. As the agency begins to address these watersheds through the Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) process, this type of information will be valuable in identifying the various sources

of impairment to a waterbody so links can be made between impairment and pollution sources

that need to be remediated to achieve restoration.

Ohio EPA recommends using this indicator in conjunction with biologically based indicators to

see whether SRF-financed projects have resulted in reductions of pollutants, and whether these

reductions are related to improvements in water quality as measured by improved attainment of

aquatic life use stream standards. If used alone as a measure of CWSRF project

accomplishments, this indicator will not necessarily show whether any improvement occurred in

the receiving water’s aquatic biota or any reduction of public health risks occurred.

Indicator 2. Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment

through CWSRF-funded projects. 

U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

This is a Level 3 Indicator - Changes in Discharge Quantities - and a Stressor Indicator

Ease of Use/Difficulties

This indicator can be interpreted quite broadly and from a number of perspectives. Ohio EPA

excluded most projects serving developing areas because intended environmental benefits

(pollutants prevented) may not have resulted in improved surface water quality. For example,

funding sewers in a developing area could be considered as preventing pollutants from entering

the environment. Alternatively, the project could be viewed as enabling development of the

watershed, resulting in a “hardening” of the watershed with a consequent decline in water quality. 
5Hidden Creek at the Darby is a housing development in central Ohio that used CWSRF funding to

finance storm water management and run-off control measures, as well as vegetation of a wetland. The

development was comprehensively planned and designed to prevent any impacts to Little Darby Creek, which runs

through the development, and is a designated State and National Scenic River. The project won a National

Wetlands award in 1998 from the Environmental Law Institute.

E-11

In other cases, the CWSRF involvement made a difference in the way an area was being

developed by preserving riparian areas, wetlands, woodlands, etc., or by installing

environmentally friendly storm water controls, or even going so far as to fund an “environmentally

friendly development” (e.g., Hidden Creek project5). In those cases, the funded activities could be

considered as preventing pollutants from entering the waterbodies. The problem becomes

calculating the amount of prevention in a way that will be comparable. We suggest looking at the

other indicators to demonstrate that the funded action did protect water quality, aquatic life and

associated habitat.

For CWSRF-funded wastewater treatment plant improvement projects, we recommend using this

indicator only for those projects that involve maintenance or repair activities necessary for the

plant to stay in compliance, and only for WWTP projects not under enforcement action. In these

cases, pollution is being prevented from entering the environment through forethought and

preventative action. The question remains as to how to quantify the resulting pollution reduction. 

One method is to record the number and magnitude of 30-day violations during one year before

and one year after a project is completed. The difference would provide an estimate of pollution

reduction to a waterbody. The information on the Akron WWTP presented later in this report is

an example of how this indicator might work (even though Akron was under enforcement action

at the time). This indicator was not examined for any other project in the study.

Another method is to compare before and after Annual Maintenance Performance Evaluation

Report (AMPER) scores (described below). Since these scores reflect the effectiveness,

condition and operation of each WWTP component and procedure, they should be good stressor

indicators. This method will only work with communities that participate in the Municipal

Compliance Maintenance Program (MCMP).

The MCMP is a voluntary program that assists in the protection, maintenance, renewal, expansion

or enhancement of the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure in order to meet effluent

limitations. This program is designed to assist municipalities in planning for the future.

Participants in the MCMP conduct: 

• Annual facility performance evaluations that will indicate when planning for new

construction must be undertaken to continue to meet effluent limitations and water quality

standards; 

• Proper maintenance and management of existing facilities that will assist communities in

meeting their discharge limitations while deferring capital investments. 

The performance evaluation looks at the following factors and generates an AMPER score on a

scale of 0 to 300:
E-12

• WWTP Hydraulics (design average flow, current average flow, design peak flow, peak

flow exceedances).

• WWTP Influent Loadings (design, actual).

• Biosolids/Sludge Handling (disposal method, level and type of treatment, design capacity,

actual volume generated).

• WWTP Effluent Performance (design, actual, violations).

• WWTP Maintenance (equipment failures, availability of back up equipment, failures that

affected compliance).

• WWTP Laboratory (QA/QC program in place, process control used).

• Collection System (equipment failures, dry weather overflows, wet weather overflows).

• Administration (budget, staffing, pretreatment, growth and planning).

The MCMP performance evaluation may be a useful indicator, as long as the following criteria are

met:

• There is complete performance evaluation data for both before and after the project

improvements.

• The project involves some work that changes one or more of the factors evaluated in the

performance evaluation.

• There is complete knowledge of other, non-project-related changes in the WWTP and

collection system so that any influence from these factors on the performance evaluation

score can be separated from the influence of the CWSRF-funded project on the

performance evaluation score (this is the indicator value).

• The project was initiated as a result of existing stress factors on the WWTP and not done

in response to an anticipated (future) stressor such as a new development.

Columbus Southerly WWTP was the only project in Ohio’s pilot study that was not under

enforcement action and was also a participant in the MCMP program. However, we did not look

at the AMPER scores for this project because it did not satisfy the above criteria.

Confidence in the Indicator

Preventing increases in pollution or other impacts to water resources is an important use of the

CWSRF program. As such, it needs to be recognized as a program accomplishment and

appropriate measures of environmental accomplishment need to be developed. Using AMPER

scores from the MCMP program may provide a means to do this for municipal wastewater

treatment systems. A method appropriate for nonpoint sources of pollution needs to be

developed.
6

The Nature Conservancy received CWSRF loans totaling $266,000 to purchase conservation easements

and property located immediately adjacent to Ohio Brush Creek, near a Wilderness Preserve. Purchase of this

easement will permanently protect this property from future development and will likewise maintain a permanent

high-quality riparian corridor along the creek. Thus, the water quality benefits realized from this easement will

remain in perpetuity.

E-13

Recommendation

Because of the difficulty of reliably estimating prevention of pollution, further investigation of this

indicator is recommended as outlined above.

Indicator 3. Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by

changing land use practices and resource harvesting and extraction practices through

CWSRF-funded projects.

U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

This is a Level 2 indicator - Response by the regulated community - and a Stressor Indicator.

Ease of Use/Difficulties

We assume this indicator measures changes in land use (such as a change in agricultural tillage

practices or restoration of riparian stream corridor) or other attributes of the physical environment

that could affect the aquatic community. This benefit has not been tracked in Ohio, although

Ohio has funded such projects.6 It is conceivable that such documentation could be provided.

Confidence in the Indicator

The 305(b) report and monitoring data include physical causes and sources of impairments such

as dredging, hydromodification, habitat alterations, siltation, removal of riparian vegetation, etc.

Therefore, the results of changing land use practices are generally covered under Indicators 4 and

5, but not quantified in terms of number of river miles impaired or acres altered. This latter

information would be useful to link changes in Indicators 4 and 5 back to the actions measured by

this indicator. The current set of pilot projects is not appropriate for testing this indicator, and so

no direct testing was possible to establish confidence in the indicator.

Recommendation

We recommend exploring use of this indicator when the effect of the project is to change land use

practices, such as converting farming practices from conventional to conservation tillage, or the

restoration of land areas to natural vegetation. This indicator would be especially useful for these

types of projects when there is no associated water quality monitoring of the benefitted water

resources.
7

The Integrated Priority System was developed in 1998 by the Ohio EPA to rank projects, activities, or

actions addressing both point and nonpoint sources of impacts on water resources. Development of the Integrated

Priority System was partially funded through a Funding Framework grant from U.S. EPA., and the system is

currently used to prioritize all CWSRF projects.

E-14

Indicator 4. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square

miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a result of

CWSRF-funded projects.

U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

This is a Level 6 Indicator, if the designated water resource uses are based on aquatic biota. If

the designations are not based upon aquatic biota, then this is a Level 4 Indicator - Changes in

Health and Ecology and other Effects. It is also a Response Indicator.

Ease of Use/Difficulties

This indicator was easy to use because this information is reported in Ohio’s 305(b) database and

in electronic database (Foxpro) format. It took some time to locate the “Waterbody Identification

Numbers” (WBID) for the impacted stream segments because, prior to 1998, this was not

routinely done for CWSRF projects. WBIDs are a necessary reference number for our Integrated

Priority System7 ranking procedure and are routinely assigned now. Therefore, this problem will

be moot for analyses of projects funded after 1997.

Difficulties were encountered in locating and linking appropriate 305(b) databases. The Ohio

EPA has not devoted personnel or resources to making this information easily accessible to

external users. The database was not designed for extensive use outside of this group and recent

staff reductions have made communications and technical assistance from the group difficult

because the remaining staff members have multiple commitments and tasks. 

Ambient chemical data taken in conjunction with the biological monitoring are not in a database,

but housed with the individuals writing the Technical Support Documents or contained within the

completed documents. We had originally thought that we could obtain this information from

STORET retrievals. However, with the information spread out among the monitoring staff, in

hard copy or electronic copies of reports, it was time-consuming and difficult to obtain and

manipulate the data.

Confidence in the Indicator

Water quality improvement in a stream segment is sometimes very hard to attribute solely to an

SRF- funded project. However, overall trends, along with identification of the funded activities,

the 305(b) monitoring comments, and information from Indicator 1 (for point source projects) do

give enough information to draw conclusions as to the effect a CWSRF project has had on its

receiving stream segment.

Recommendation
E-15

This is an easily used indicator which measures the desired endpoint of the CWSRF activity, that

is, progress toward meeting the Clean Water Act goals. Ohio EPA believes, however, that this

indicator is covered by Indicator 5, and hence, it should be dropped as a separate indicator. 

Indicator 5. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square

miles, and wetland acres, protected, improved, or restored as a result of CWSRF-funded

projects.

This is a Level 6 Indicator - Changes in Health and Ecology and other Effects - provided it refers

to protecting, improving or restoring a designated use that was based upon the biology of the

stream. Otherwise, this is a Level 4 Indicator - changes in ambient conditions. It is also a

Response Indicator.

Ease of Use/Difficulties

Improvements in a waterbody segment are easy to determine by looking at the 305(b) data before

and after an CWSRF-funded project.

Confidence in the Indicator

To evaluate this indicator, we relied upon the 305(b) cause/source data for the appropriate,

impacted waterbody that was reported before project funding and one year following the

construction completion date for the project. For this pilot study, we included only CWSRF

projects that affected waterbodies with both before and after data. Because there were not many

projects with data that met this criterion, we ended up choosing some projects that had very old

pre-project data and a few projects where the post-project monitoring data was collected not

quite a full year after the end of construction. 

Data prior to 1988 were not reported in the same format and manner as the more recent 305(b)

data. These old data sets were converted into the new format by the 305(b) coordinator some

years ago. The data can be easily compared, but the older data were not collected with this type

of reporting in mind and therefore are unlikely to carry the same degree of precision and

resolution as the newer data sets. However, the data quality was good enough to permit use of

the data in this study.

As was discussed above under Indicator 1, it can sometimes be difficult to see the effect of an

CWSRF-funded project on stream segments impaired by multiple sources. Sources other than

those addressed by CWSRF financing can contribute to the same cause of degradation, making

the SRF-financed improvements appear somewhat insignificant in restoring a stream segment. 

Over time, however, the SRF-financed improvements can be important as a part of continued

improvements in degraded stream segments, eventually leading to recovery of those segments. 

Recommendation
E-16

This indicator should be used because it measures the desired endpoint of the CWSRF activity,

which is progress toward the Clean Water Act goals.

To effectively use this indicator, it will be important to ensure that Agency water quality

monitoring planning includes monitoring of both projects already funded through the CWSRF

program, and projects anticipated to be funded in the future. Ohio’s CWSRF program staff is

working with Ohio EPA monitoring staff to ensure that this will now occur annually, as a part of

the Agency’s 5-year basin monitoring strategy.

Indicator 6. Benefits of reduced health risks and/or increased recreational use attributable

to CWSRF-funded projects. 

U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

This is a Level 6 Indicator - Changes in Health and Ecology and other Effects. It is also a

Response Indicator.

Ease of Use/Difficulties

Human health information is not readily accessible in a single database, but is in many different

forms and locations. The available information appears to not be consistently or systematically

gathered or reported. 

Confidence in the Indicator

For some projects, these data are insufficient for drawing conclusions. The data that have been

collected were subjected to quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) criteria, and should be

accurate and reliable. Adequate sampling to draw conclusions for the various projects is often

lacking because samples need to be taken during various seasonal flows and at strategic locations. 

Although sampling upstream and downstream of a WWTP effluent can provide information

regarding the plant operation, it may be more appropriate for some CWSRF projects to have a

record of bacteriological violations in pools, ditches, water wells, etc. to document effects of

failing on-lot systems. Such locations may not be considered an official waterway/body, but

would nonetheless pose a threat to human health and warrant attention. These data are not in any

known database or report, but are often gathered on an individual project basis from local health

departments.
E-17

Recommendation

The human health data needs to be aggregated by the respective agencies and laboratories so that

a complete picture of the human health impacts can be viewed quickly and easily. The indicator is

an important one because it monitors a Clean Water Act objective.

Indicator B. Changes in the habitat of a waterbody as a result of a CWSRF project.

U.S. EPA 1991 Indicator Type

This is a Level 4 Indicator - changes in ambient conditions (e.g., water quality, habitat). It is also

a Response Indicator.

Ease of Use/Difficulties

The 1998 305(b) Report states that habitat destruction is now the leading cause of aquatic life

impairment in Ohio streams and rivers, overtaking organic enrichment and dissolved oxygen

impacts. Hydromodification has overtaken point sources as the chief source of impairment to

streams and rivers. As SRFs fund a wide variety of nonpoint source, restoration and preservation

projects, this indicator will provide an appropriate measure when coupled with the biological

information in Indicators 4 and 5. Another method of assessing impacts of land use (nonpoint

sources) on the physical stream habitat may be to look at trends in the Qualitative Habitat

Evaluation Index (QHEI) of a location over time. Ohio EPA uses the QHEI to evaluate the

characteristics of a stream segment based on the overall importance of a number of metrics related

to the maintenance of viable, diverse, and functional aquatic faunas. The types and quality of

substrates; amount and quality of in-stream cover; channel morphology; extent and quality of

riparian vegetation; pool, run, and riffle development and quality; and gradient are some of the

metrics used to determine the QHEI score; which generally ranges from 20 to 100. Since the

QHEI factors in a large amount of diverse information, the monitoring group has recommended

looking at the trends of just one component of the QHEI, bottom substrate characterization. The

composition of stream bottom substrates can be used to measure nonpoint source stressors like

fine sediment. 

The median particle size in an unimpacted stream in Ohio is typically coarse (gravel, cobble,

sometimes boulders). These sizes of bottom sediment are typically associated with high-quality

biota and stream habitats. As erosion increases in a watershed, either from surface runoff and/or

bank erosion, the percent of fine materials in the stream bottom can increase, fill pools, and embed

the larger-diameter substrates. Our data show that increased substrate embeddedness is

associated with lower Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores (lower ecological condition of the

stream). 

An easy procedure that can be used to evaluate substrate condition of rivers and streams is called

the Zig-Zag Pebble Count Method, explained in Ohio EPA draft Fact Sheet 3: Field-1-MAS-99

(see Appendix F). The procedure involves starting at the downstream end of the sampling zone

and picking a point up and across the stream (e.g., tree) at an acute angle. The data collector then
E-18

starts walking and on every third pace or so, bends down and without looking picks up the first

particle that he/she touches. The items are recorded and the procedure is repeated so that a little

more than 100 pieces are collected within the zone. The results are classified into 16 possible

categories ranging from silt < 2mm to artificial (concrete or riprap) >1024mm. Such tools could

be used to establish targets and measure incremental progress after the establishment of best

management practices or to detect deviation from reference conditions of streams in rapidly

developing areas. 

One project (West Milton WWTP improvement project) in this report will demonstrate the use of

the QHEI (in absence of the pebble count data) for this indicator. Funded projects that focus on

nonpoint source issues lacked sufficient data to make a valid before-versus-after project

comparison.

Confidence in the Indicator

Changes in land use practices, or channel modifications will be reflected in some degree in

Indicators 4 and 5. Tracking Zig-Zag Pebble Counts for stream segments where either nonpoint

source projects or WWTP projects to eliminate solids discharges are implemented should provide

insight into the effectiveness of various types of activities/best management practices.

Recommendation

We recommend using this factor to capture those projects providing ambient habitat restoration. 

Also, further investigation should be done regarding the use of both QHEI and Zig-Zag Pebble

Count data from appropriate project locations.

Overall Recommendations and Conclusions

The following are our recommendations regarding development and use of CWSRF indicators,

based on our analysis of the six draft indicators, and our experience using the indicators to

evaluate a select group of CWSRF-financed projects.

We recommend that Indicator 4 be eliminated, because it is covered by Indicator 5, and that the

two new indicators be added to the list of CWSRF indicators. This will provide a robust set of

indicators that will provide states with a wide range of choices for measuring the results obtained

from their CWSRF programs. However, to provide the best picture of the effect of CWSRFfinanced projects on water quality, Indicators 1-3 and the two new recommended indicators

should be combined with Indicators 5 and/or 6. This will allow causal connections to be made

between CWSRF-financed projects and changes seen in the environment.

The indicator study performed by Ohio EPA’s biological monitoring group shows that linking

management actions to real environmental results is most successful when direct measures (as

opposed to surrogates) are used. In evaluating the individual indicators for the CWSRF program,

it is important to keep in mind the nature and type of information that each environmental

indicator provides, and to be careful not to use stressor and exposure indicators as substitutes for

response indicators. States lacking well-developed biological indicators still must report on the
E-19

status of their waters to U.S. EPA. Unfortunately, the most readily available information usually

consists of stressor or exposure indicators, which necessarily leads to their use as surrogates for

biological indicators. Response (biological) indicators are inherently better at evaluating

attainment of designated uses, which are the basis of state water quality standards. More

accurately portraying the condition of the nation’s aquatic resources depends on the wider

development and use of response indicators. These are important concepts to keep in mind in

evaluating the nature of the information that each CWSRF indicator requires, and the resulting

conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness of CWSRF projects in meeting Clean Water

Act objectives. 

Preparation of this report has pointed out the importance of having monitoring data accessible and

in an easy, usable format. Ohio has information on the various permits, projects, chemical data,

biological data, bacteriological data, etc. stored in different databases or paper files, making the

information time-consuming and difficult to access. We recommend that agencies in Ohio that are

doing water quality monitoring and assessment consolidate the body of information on state water

resources into one, or a very few, user-friendly, electronically accessible databases to allow for a

more complete picture of our water resources and a wider use of the data.

This study has also pointed out the need to include CWSRF programs in state monitoring

strategies so that data collected can be used to give CWSRF programs needed information to

evaluate the impacts of funded projects on the influenced waterbodies. Some such benefitted

waterbodies may not be monitored otherwise. This is especially the case for nonpoint source

projects, wastewater treatment plant elimination projects, or riparian protection projects where a

permit (or likely enforcement action) is not involved. To get an idea of the effectiveness of these

various types of projects, monitoring data on such projects needs to be collected and evaluated.

Finally, CWSRF programs should get involved in the Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL)

efforts. In order to be most effective in this process, the CWSRF program will need to be able to

predict what types of projects, under what conditions, will provide the greatest benefit to aquatic

life and human health in a watershed. The CWSRF program may play a prominent role in TMDL

implementation as watershed groups look for financing to support water quality improvement

activities.
E-20

Texas’s Pilot Project Experience

EPA proposed the following indicators as a means to measure the benefit derived from CWSRF

funding on the environment. Texas was selected as a pilot state to help evaluate these proposed

indicators.

 

The following comments represent initial feedback to EPA regarding the efficacy of the proposed

indicators.

 

Indicator 1 - Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through

CWSRF-funded projects. (Point source oriented)

Indicator 2 – Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment

through CWSRF funded projects. (Nonpoint source and no discharge)

Indicator 3 – Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by

changing land use practices, and resource harvesting and extraction practices through

CWSRF-funded projects.

 

Indicator 4 – Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary

square miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a

result of CWSRF-funded projects.

 

Indicator 5 – Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary

square miles, and wetland acres, protected, improved, or restored as a result of CWSRFfunded projects.

 

Indicator 6 – Benefits of reduced health risks or increased recreational use attributable to

CWSRF-funded projects. 

Of the six proposed indicators, the first two indicators appear to be the most developed and,

therefore, most useful for measuring the performance of specific Clean Water State Revolving

Fund (CWSRF) projects. Texas continues to have a large funding demand for Section 212

projects (i.e., wastewater). Indicators 1 and 2 seem best suited to measuring 212 projects. 

Regarding Indicator 3, Texas has no experience in funding projects through the CWSRF for

protective zoning, watershed management planning, stream restoration, changes in agricultural

practices, riparian buffers, and other BMPs that could have biophysical benefits. Since Indicator 3

is intended to measure this type of activity, Texas cannot comment on the adequacy of Indicator 3

at this time. Indicators 4 and 5 appear to be measures of stream conditions against set ambient

standards. Indicator 4 would be a comparison to the 303(d) list while Indicator 5 would be a

“more comprehensive” measure of ambient water quality against a standard which, heretofore, has

not been established. It appears that Indicator 5 is particularly undeveloped. Because of this,

Texas has no comments regarding Indicator 5 at this time. Indicator 4, however, appears to be in

keeping with the approach that Texas has chosen to pursue. That is, for the purposes of the pilot

study, Texas has attempted to select specific CWSRF projects which best correlate to the stream

conditions as monitored through 305(b) reports and listed in the 303(d) list. Finally, Indicator 6

appears to be very undeveloped as well. 
E-21

Evaluation of Indicators 1, 2, and 4

 

As indicated above, Indicators 3, 5, and 6 were not evaluated. These indicators need to be

developed further in order to provide a framework for an evaluation. Indicators 1, 2, and 4 were

considered to be the most viable of the six. Indicators 1 and 2 lend themselves to a loading

analysis and Indicator 4 relates well to the approach that Texas has elected to take to correlate

CWSRF projects with existing 305(b) and 303(d) reports.

 

Texas first identified six stream segments that represent the following before and after stream

conditions: 

 

Two IMPAIRED segments in 1983-1987 that are now NOT IMPAIRED. 

Two NOT IMPAIRED segments in 1983-1987 that are now NOT IMPAIRED.

Two IMPAIRED segments in 1983-1987 that are now IMPAIRED.

Stream impairment for the before and after conditions were determined by evaluating 305(b)

reports prepared between 1983 and 1987 and the current 303(d) list of impaired streams. Once

the six stream segments were identified, then specific CWSRF projects in these stream segments

were identified for analysis. The intent was to get as close as possible to a cause and effect

relationship between individual CWSRF projects and their specific impact on the stream. The

following projects were selected for evaluation:

Table A-1. CWSRF Projects/stream segments selected for evaluation. 

SEGMENT CWSRF PROJECT 1983-1987 305(b)

REPORT

CURRENT 303(d)

LIST

0505 Sabine River above

Toledo Bend Reservoir

Carthage 

Hallsville 

Longview 

Marshall 

Depressed DO, nutrients,

WWTP effluent contribution

problems

IMPAIRED

Selenium, Pb

No mention of municipal

waste related problems

NOT IMPAIRED

0611 Angelina River above

Sam Rayburn Reservoir

Canada St. 

(Jacksonville)

Double Creek 

(Jacksonville)

Nacagdoches 

Whitehouse 

DO violation

Problems have been due to

the assimilation of

wastewater effluent.

1985 waste load evaluation

recommended

Nacagdoches #2a and Tyler

Southside

WWTPs attain advanced

Treatment levels in order to

achieve DO standards

 

IMPAIRED

Not Listed 

 

 

NOT IMPAIRED

1202 Brazos River below

Navasota

Sugarland Regional 

 (BRA)

Richmond North Second 

Street 

Richmond Regional 

No significant water quality

problems

Effluent Limited

NOT IMPAIRED

Not Listed

NOT IMPAIRED

1217 Lampasas River

Copperas Cove South 

Lampasas Henderson 

No significant water quality

problems

Not Listed
SEGMENT CWSRF PROJECT 1983-1987 305(b)

REPORT

CURRENT 303(d)

LIST

E-22

above Stillhouse Hollow

Lake

Effluent Limited

NOT IMPAIRED NOT IMPAIRED

0810 West Fork Trinity

River below Bridgeport

Reservoir

Alvord 

Bowie 

Bridgeport 

Sunset 

Coliform exceeds contact

recreation standards

Water Quality Limited

IMPAIRED

Lower 25 miles, bacteria

levels exceed contact

recreation standards

IMPAIRED

2202 Arroyo Colorado

above tidal

Donna 

McAllen 

Mission 

Pharr 

Weslaco 

Low DO levels below 4

mg/L downstream major

municipal discharges

Bacteria levels exceed

contact recreation levels in

portions of the segment

IMPAIRED

Chlordane, Toxaphene,

DDE

Bacteria levels exceed

contact recreation levels

in lower 40 miles

IMPAIRED

The projects listed involved plant expansions, plant upgrades, major sewer rehabilitation, point

repairs, removal and replacement of lines, and the construction of new interceptors and collectors. 

The project categories used by Texas are as follows:

A. Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion - The capacity of a Waste Water Treatment Plant

(WWTP) is being expanded or additional facilities are needed for more stringent effluent limits. 

B. Bio-solids Treatment Capacity Expansion - The project is primarily to expand the solids

treatment and handling portion of a treatment facility.

C. Facilities Rehab - The project is primarily to rehabilitate (not expand) equipment at an

existing wastewater treatment facility, both wet and dry processes, or rehab/replace (not expand)

an existing lift station.

D. Collection System Rehab/Overflow Control - The project is primarily to manage excessive

I/I flows or exfiltration and includes any of the following: collection system rehabilitation, relief

lines, expansion of lift stations or construction of new lift stations, and expansion of the hydraulic

capacity at a WWTP.

E. Unserved Areas - Projects that involve extending service to populated areas of an existing

developed community that are not served by a centralized collection system. Project is primarily

collector sewers as opposed to trunk sewers.

(1) For an isolated community that has no centralized system, the principal project may

include the cost of the collection system, transmission lines, and construction of a

wastewater treatment plant.

(2) For an area adjacent to an existing community with centralized wastewater

collection and treatment service the principal project may include the cost of construction

of the collection system and the transmission lines required to convey flow to treatment.
E-23

F. Trunk Sewer, Diversion - Projects where all or a portion of flow is diverted from an existing

facility to an existing or new WWTP. The project could include diversion sewers, lift stations and

expansions or construction of new WWTP. In these cases the project will be scored on the basis

of the WWTP that is being removed or relieved of flow.

G. Trunk Sewer, Developing Area - Project primarily involves extension of trunk lines and lift

stations to areas of a community that are developing.

H. Reuse - Projects to construct facilities to reuse wastewater for irrigation or other purposes.

I. Nonpoint Source Pollution Project - A project for managing nonpoint source pollution that is

in accordance with the State of Texas 319 plan or the State of Texas 320 plan (Estuary

Management Plan). Items 3-8 on the SRF-6 form need not be completed for a nonpoint project. 

These projects are not rated.

Indicator 1- Pounds of pollutants removed

Indicator 1 was conceptualized to apply to point discharge projects. As such, it appears that this

indicator can easily be applied to plant expansion projects. Plant expansion projects include the

construction of new treatment plants, expansion of existing plants to accommodate additional

flows, and plant improvements to enable more stringent discharge limits. All of these scenarios

involve the development of facilities for the “removal” of pollutants. Pollutants removed can be

estimated by comparing plant loadings to discharge parameters. For example, if the influent

strength is 200 mg/L BOD at 5 MGD and the discharge limits are 10 mg/L BOD at 5 MGD, then

the pounds removed would be the difference at 7,923 lb BOD/day. This calculation can easily be

made by using theoretical numbers or actual measured numbers at the influent and the effluent

once the plant is in operation. Discharge information is reported to the state for each wastewater

treatment permit. This information is maintained by the state and is easily accessed. However, it

is currently not mandatory for plants to measure influent loadings at each plant. This would need

to be made mandatory in order to get the accurate before and after information needed if

calculations are to be made on real, not estimated, data. This could present a barrier to applying

the Indicator. But, we consider a measure of discharge information against design influent

(estimated) information an easy, consistent, and credible method of determining pounds of

pollutants removed from the stream for plant expansion projects. 

Plant upgrades include improvements that are not directly related to the treatment train and

hydraulic discharge. Items of this type would include such things as plant buildings, plant site

improvements, electrical improvements, equipment repair and replacement, and treatment facilities

that don’t contribute to liquid treatment such as sludge facilities and methane recovery facilities.

The CWSRF might fund these types of improvements without yielding a change in pounds loading

to the stream. As a result, Indicator 1 would not be able to measure these types of improvements. 

Indicator 1, therefore, cannot measure all projects funded for treatment plant work. Another

indicator should probably be developed to measure plant upgrades. 

Improvements to the collection system made through major sewer rehabilitation, point repairs,

removal and replacement of lines, and lift station rehabilitation and construction are designed to
E-24

reduce infiltration/inflow (I/I), to eliminate overflows and bypasses, and to increase collection

system capacity. A direct measure of pounds removed in Indicator 1 does not seem feasible for

these types of improvements. Likewise, the construction of new collectors and interceptors do

not appear to be measurable through Indicator 1. 

Indicator 2 – Pounds of pollutants prevented

Indicator 2 was conceptualized to apply to nonpoint source projects. Although they are not

necessarily directly related to nonpoint source pollution, improvements to the collection system

appear to be better measured through Indicator 2. It is possible to estimate pounds “prevented”

in cases where I/I is being reduced, and where overflows and bypasses are being eliminated.

Estimates developed in documents such as I/I analyses or Sewer System Evaluation Surveys

(SSES) could be used as “measures” of pounds prevented. However, the vast majority of

collection system improvement projects funded in Texas are for major sewer rehabilitation and

replacement. Formal I/I analyses or SSES are not required. In addition to the fact that this

method is not a direct measure of pounds prevented, another drawback is that it would represent

an extra requirement that we would need to impose upon our applicants. 

The proper collection/transportation of sewer flows does represent a significant means of

“preventing” pollution. Collectors, interceptors, and lift stations are used to transport and transfer

flows in a sewer system to prevent pollution. As such, the construction of these types of

improvements appears to be best measured under Indicator 2. Design calculations identifying line

capacity and lift station capacity can be used as estimates of the pounds prevented for these

systems. This information is easily obtained and is part of the information that we currently gather

routinely from our applicants. Again, this method does not provide a direct measure. We

consider this method of estimating pounds prevented to be consistent and credible for these types

of improvements. As a final note, the extension of collectors and interceptors into unsewered

areas often involves taking septic systems out of service. This can be viewed as a nonpoint source

project. The pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment for this type of

project would, likewise, be estimated by the applicant through design calculations.

Indicator 4 – Waterbodies previously impaired, now meeting designated uses

Indicator 4 is intended to enable a comparison of waterbodies to a set standard. The standard

which seems to be the most logical and convenient to use would be the 303(d) list since the list

and the procedures for its development are already in place. In our evaluation, we attempted to

determine a cause and effect relationship between CWSRF improvements and the stream

conditions listed in the 305(b) report and the 303(d) list. The 305(b) and 303(d) information was

easily obtained through printed reports provided to us by our sister agency, the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). We were able to make conclusions about the

before and after conditions of select stream segments. For example, (Table A-1) for the Sabine

River above Toledo Bend Reservoir (Segment 0505), the 305(b) report stated that there was

depressed dissolved oxygen (DO) and nutrients in the stream. It specifically stated that

wastewater effluent contributed to problems. The 303(d) list made no mention of municipal

waste problems. By virtue of this omission and for wastewater purposes, we concluded that the

segment was previously impaired and now is not impaired. 
E-25

We then identified four communities in Segment 0505 that received funding from the CWSRF. It

appeared that we could infer that the wastewater improvements in these four communities

remedied the stream deficiencies listed in the 305(b) report. However, it became immediately

obvious that we could not determine a clear cause and effect relationship. First, we identified

only the projects that we funded. We, by no means, fund all of the wastewater improvements

statewide. This means that we are not aware of all of the improvements that were made in

facilities that might impact any one segment. Hence, we could never conclude that it was the

CWSRF improvements that remedied the problem. 

When comparing to a set standard as is proposed by Indicator 4, a means of collecting

comprehensive information regarding what was built and when, including any nonpoint source

projects, would be necessary to enable us to give credit where credit is due. Second, once the

stream achieves the set ambient standards, a method of measuring the beneficial impact of

subsequent wastewater projects would need to be developed. The method that we attempted was

limited because once a segment is removed from the 303(d) list, there would be no way to

determine the impact of subsequent improvements on the stream since the stream was already

meeting standards. 

Texas currently has a basic statewide ambient water quality monitoring system. The question,

however, is whether it is fined tuned enough to determine whether a single CWSRF project can

make a difference in the stream. The system as it is designed now measures stream segment

conditions and is not targeted toward monitoring the impact of specific CWSRF projects. To

obtain information on the impact of specific plants, the monitoring system would need to be

modified to include monitoring stations around specific wastewater treatment plant discharge

points. Care would need to be taken to avoid the placement of these new stations in mixing zones

to avoid false readings of the stream itself. Maintenance monitoring of this type would be

necessary for every wastewater project that is funded by the CWSRF in order to draw a direct

relationship between the funding and the stream conditions. In addition, the monitoring system

would need to be modified to correlate the stream conditions to specific nonpoint source projects. 

The placement of additional monitoring stations would, of course, demand a corresponding

increase in resources.

Data Availability

For Indicators 1 and 2, data appears to be readily available from project information collected

from applicants as we process applications. This information would be maintained in our

fileroom. However, in the case of Indicator 2, a drawback is found in that we would need to

impose an extra requirement on applicants to get the necessary information. This would be

considered burdensome and undesirable.

Databases containing relevant information are maintained by our agency (the Texas Water

Development Board) and the TNRCC. Sharing of this information would be necessary and easy

to do. The TNRCC TRACS database maintains 305(b) and 303(d) information. We maintain the

FNMIS for facility needs and project information purposes.
E-26

Michigan's Pilot Project Experience

Michigan's participation in EPA's Environmental Indicator Task Force has been an interesting

experience, but has reaffirmed that the state has very limited hard data to support an indicator

effort. Coupled with a need to aggregate data nationally from states with differing philosophies,

resources and funding priorities, the Task Force has been left with a very difficult charge. Before

discussing the various indicators and Michigan's experience attempting to implement them, it

would be appropriate to briefly describe a number of issues that directly bear on the state's efforts:

(1) Historically, Michigan maintained an extensive ambient monitoring network on its

lakes and streams. Over the last 15 years, however, nearly all of these ambient monitoring

efforts have been abandoned as budgets have been cut. Although there has been a flurry of

discussion regarding the planned expenditure of the newly approved Clean Michigan

Initiative funds for water quality monitoring, efforts have not yet gotten off the ground.

(2) Michigan does maintain the PCS system, collecting and storing discharge data filed by

dischargers on monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). These reports are filed by

NPDES permit holders and cover primarily treatment facilities with continuous or seasonal

discharges.

(3) Nearly one-half of Michigan's CWSRF funds to date have been utilized for the control

or elimination of combined sewer overflows. Although the overflows in most cases are

permitted discharges, due to the difficulty of sampling intermittent events and the absence

of firm monitoring requirements in CSO discharge permits, there is little or no reliable

discharge quantity/quality information available.

(4) Michigan has not provided any CWSRF assistance to date to nonpoint source

projects.

(5) Michigan does maintain a project priority ranking process that attempts to "estimate"

the amount of in-stream water quality improvement that would result from a CWSRF

project. Using a modified Streeter-Phelps equation and mass balance computations, the

system awards points in five categories: dissolved oxygen, nutrients (phosphorus), toxic

substances (un-ionized ammonia and residual chlorine), microorganisms, and groundwater

improvement (contaminated wells). The process relies only partially on hard data from the

DMRs while using a series of default values and estimates to complete assessments of the

in-stream improvements that could be expected from a CWSRF investment.

These realities made it nearly impossible for Michigan to complete indicator questionnaires on any

meaningful cross section of CWSRF projects in the state. In most cases reliable pre and post

project data simply does not exist. As Michigan evaluated each indicator against the 165 projects

funded to date in the CWSRF we found the following:
E-27

1. Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through SRF-funded

projects. (Point source oriented)

• For existing treatment facilities DMR data could provide accurate pre-project load data,

while post-project load data could be derived from basis of design information.

Unfortunately, a significant number of our CWSRF funded treatment plants were primarily

for expansion rather than upgrade, rendering the post-project load larger than the preproject load. 

• For CSO projects, since actual discharge data is not available, pre-project loads would

have to be estimated from default data used in our priority ranking system. Post-project

loads would have to come from basis of design data for treatment facilities and postproject assumptions for residual storm water in separation projects.

• Collection sewer projects would have to be assessed using estimated data on loading to

the groundwater in most cases.

2. Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment through

SRF-funded projects. (NPS or non discharge oriented)

• This indicator was difficult to use in Michigan because it seems to "assume" that when a

facility is expanded the additional load it is capable of removing would have gone to the

environment without the expansion. Here Michigan would have to use some assigned "per

capita" load and credit the project for loading prevention based on the new population to

be served.

• Since we have not funded any nonpoint projects to date we were unable to fully test this

indicator.

3. Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by changing land

use practices, and resource harvesting and extraction practices through SRF-funded

projects.

• Michigan found it was unable to properly assess this indicator without having nonpoint

source projects funded.

4. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square miles, and

wetland acres, previously impaired, now meeting designated uses, as a result of

SRF-funded projects.

• This indicator proved very difficult to utilize even though Michigan maintains an extensive

involvement in the 303(d) process and is well on its way to completing TMDLs. The fact

that the vast majority of our impaired waters result from numerous influences will make it

difficult to assign the improvement, or a specific share of the improvement, to any
E-28

CWSRF project. Work outside the CWSRF program, contaminated sediment removal,

storm water control and nonpoint source reductions in many areas "overlap" the zone of

influence of CWSRF work.

• Any assessment of designated uses would necessitate having in-stream water quality data

available, which would be problematic in Michigan.

5. Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square miles, and

wetland acres, protected, improved or restored as a result of SRF-funded projects.

• Conceptually this indicator seems to get at the kind of "cross program" improvements that

might be realized by the CWSRF and the other federal programs striving to the same

"fishable and swimmable" goal. This broadness, however, also reveals the weakness that

will inherently exist with data availability and consistency. When evaluating this indicator

Michigan ran into much of the same problem encountered in No. 4 above.

6. Benefits of reduced health risks or increased recreational use attributable to

SRF-funded projects.

• Clearly much of Michigan's CWSRF investment (particularly in CSO elimination) is being

driven by the public health concerns of untreated overflows. With that said, however, it is

nearly impossible to directly link CWSRF projects to the elimination of any disease

outbreaks. Many county health departments in Michigan are diligently issuing health

advisories following rain-induced overflows from CSOs, and this could be used as an

approximate reflection of reduced risks assuming advisories become less frequent after

project completion.

• The only recreational use attainment indicator available would be the designated use for

partial/full body contact recreation (fecal coliform concentrations), but this again would

necessitate the availability of in-stream data, which is not consistently available in

Michigan.

In summary, Michigan found that with the exception of modifying our project priority ranking

process to accommodate Indicator No. 1, we would be hard pressed to provide accurate,

reproducible data for the other suggested indicators, primarily due to a lack of the necessary in

stream water quality information.
E-29

New Jersey’s Pilot Project Experience

Results Summary: The information obtained from these indicators could be beneficial to Clean

Water Act program management. However, New Jersey currently collects data that directly

supports only one of the six pilot indicators. In addition, indicator development guidelines are

needed to facilitate consistent state reporting for national indicators and state or regional

comparisons. Additional effort would also be needed to integrate the pilot indicators into New

Jersey’s goal and indicators system.

Due to the integrated nature of water programs, NJDEP has attributed improvements in water

quality to the combined efforts of permitting, enforcement and finance programs which have acted

in concert to address point sources and now are being used to address nonpoint sources. Clearly

attributing improvements in water quality specifically to the CWSRF, as suggested by the pilot

indicators, may overemphasize one aspect of an integrated approach.

As states analyze the environmental effect of the treatment upgrades, project-specific information

may not be readily comparable. Project sponsors come in for financing in order to do upgrades

for a variety of reasons. The facility may provide only primary treatment (note that none are left

in NJ), marginally secondary treatment, secondary with compliance issues, or upgrade to

advanced levels. New Jersey’s compliance indicator shows a downward trend in permit

violations, and there are significant penalties for permit violations under New Jersey’s Clean

Water Enforcement Act. Thus, actual or potential compliance issues are an important impetus for

upgrades.

In general, the cost of upgrading increases as higher treatment levels are required. Required

treatment levels are also influenced by the size and variability of the receiving waterbody. Thus,

the unit cost per pound of pollutant removed may vary significantly. Based upon this, we do not

believe that it is appropriate to establish national priorities for the use of CWSRF funds (i.e.,

projects that reduce BOD are a higher priority than projects that reduce SS, for example), or to

make generalizations regarding the most cost-effective use of CWSRF dollars. Project priority

decisions, as is the current precedent of the CWA, are intended to be made by the states. While

the intent of the environmental indicator effort to attempt to quantify environmental benefits

achieved through the expenditure of CWSRF funds is appropriate, the use of such information to

set federal priorities for the use of these funds is not. 

Background: New Jersey is the seventh smallest state in the United States (7,600 square miles)

and one of the most densely populated (7.9 million people in 1990). Population, industrial and

shipping centers occur in the northeast and southwest portions of the state and most other areas

are becoming suburbanized. The Pinelands in the southeast and Highlands in the northwest are

relatively less developed. Surface waters in New Jersey are intensely used for potable and industrial

supplies, recreation and wastewater disposal. The 300 publicly owned treatment works treat

domestic waste and 90% of the state’s industrial waste. There are also 1200 industrial treatment

plants and 300 CSOs. Stream headwaters are typically forested; larger watersheds typically receive

stormwater and runoff from residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural land and direct

discharges of domestic and industrial effluents.
E-30

Indicator 1: Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through

CWSRF-funded projects.

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) data include specific pollutants that are routinely monitored

nationally (i.e., BOD, Suspended Solids) could be used for CWSRF POTW projects to calculate

the pounds of each pollutant removed at the POTW. This approach appears to be workable;

however, testing identified questions about the validity of the numbers generated, as explained

below.

In New Jersey, no new POTWs have been funded from CWSRF dollars. All of the POTW

projects in NJ have involved upgrades, expansions, improvements to maintain current operational

reliability or combinations of these items. Therefore, since the existing facilities were already

removing a certain number of pounds of pollutants, and upgrades are usually done in combination

with expansions together with tying in new flows, it is difficult to identify the additional pounds of

pollutants removed due to CWSRF funding. 

For example, improvements to one POTW were funded to construct four new final clarifiers to

improve operational reliability. Several approaches could be taken to calculate the indicator which

yield very different results. One approach would be to calculate the removal capabilities of the

new units financed with CWSRF funds by comparing DMR loadings data before and after addition

of the new clarifiers. However, gains in treatment may be offset by additional influent flows. 

Another approach would be to use current influent and effluent data to calculate the total pounds

of pollutants removed by the POTW. This approach gives the CWSRF credit for all pollutant

removal at the POTW. 

DMR data to calculate this indicator are readily available through the PCS system. This indicator

could provide useful data regarding pollutant load reductions from regulated facilities. New Jersey

has reported statewide BOD loadings between 1985 and 1998, which show a statewide decreasing

trend despite increases in population served by sewers. As discussed above, this trend was

attributed to the combined efforts of permitting, enforcement and finance. This pilot indicator is

currently limited by a need for clear guidelines for indicator calculations that address the variety of

POTW projects financed by states so that information is comparable between states.
E-31

Indicator 2: Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment

through CWSRF funded projects.

This indicator is designed to address NPS and no-discharge oriented projects. In New Jersey, the

number of these projects is quite substantial and includes sewer rehabilitation, inflow/infiltration

correction, drinking water sludge management, wastewater sludge management, treatment plant

expansions, lakes management projects and others. Typically, there are no “before” or “after” 

data. Thus, to develop this pilot indicator, substantial modeling for each individual project type

that the states have financed with CWSRF funds would need to be developed; a very costly,

controversial and time consuming endeavor. Alternatively, nationally accepted estimates may

suffice, but this needs to be further evaluated.

Indicator 3: Increase in biophysical benefits or reduction in biophysical stressors by

changing land use practices, resource harvesting and extraction practices through CWSRF

funded projects.

The specific types of projects associated with this indicator are unclear. For example, would land

acquisition and conservation be included under this indicator. While “riparian buffers” buffers are

listed, what is meant? Thus we cannot ascertain whether this indicator is likely to be associated

with a substantial number of projects in New Jersey. The national applicability of this indicator

should be reconfirmed. The units to measure biophysical benefits and stress reduction for this

indicator are also unclear. 

Indicator 4: Waterbodies previously impaired and now meeting designated uses as a result

of CWSRF projects.

In order to evaluate this indicator, ambient stream monitoring stations downstream of CWSRF

projects were evaluated for water quality improvements subsequent to CWSRF project

implementation. Stream monitoring network stations are typically selected for a variety of reasons

and are often not in close proximity to a specific discharge. As discussed above in the background

section, a variety of land uses and point sources often contributed pollutant load between the

upgraded facility and the monitoring point. Although improvements in water quality were

observed (i.e., increasing DO, decreasing total phosphorus), it was not possible to attribute these

improvements to one or more specific CWSRF projects. 

Data are not readily available in New Jersey for this indicator at this time. However, through

several efforts, data to support this indicator may become available in the future. Development of

watershed-based TMDLs is expected to lead to issuance of permits for all facilities in a watershed. 

CWSRF assistance to implement these watershed-based permits could be measured in terms of

pollutant load reductions to watersheds (Indicator 1) and improvements to designated use

attainment (Indicator 4). Again, concerns regarding specifically attributing CWSRF with

improvements associated with permitting, enforcement, and finance should be noted. 
E-32

Additional data collection to support TMDL development and implementation as well as the

recently redesigned Ambient Stream Monitoring Network could provide data needed to support

this indicator. In addition, NJDEP’s CWSRF program and Water Assessment Team are working

to exchange data regarding CWSRF projects and ambient water quality. This data exchange is the

first step to evaluating CWSRF contributions to improved designated use attainment.

Indicator 5: Waterbodies protected or improved as a result of CWSRF funded projects.

In NJ, land acquisition projects would be reflected in this indicator. New Jersey is extending

eligibility to land acquisition projects in FY 2001. In addition, New Jersey’s land acquisition

programs utilize several funding sources confounding specific identification of protection or

improvements related to CWSRF. The data concerns identified above for Indicator 4 also apply to

this indicator. 

As noted above, TMDL development, improvements in data collection and exchange may provide

information to support this indicator in the future. In addition, watershed management efforts

focused on land acquisition and pollution prevention may provide data in the future.

Indicator 6: Benefits of reduced health risks and/ or increased recreational use attributable

to CWSRF funded projects.

Links between CWSRF funding and specific reduced health risk, as measured by disease outbreaks

prevented, would be difficult, if not impossible, to confirm. CWSRF projects were conceptually

reviewed and clear links to projects for which reductions in disease outbreaks could not be made. 

Recent disease outbreaks in bathing areas were associated with wildlife. Recent studies of

cryptosporidium and giardia in water supplies indicate that NJ supplies are not significantly

affected by these pathogens, given limitations of the study design and test methods.

A review of enforcement data showed that facilities rarely exceed permit limits for fecal coliform. 

Pathogen contamination, as indicated by fecal coliform pollution, has been attributed primarily to

CSOs, storm water and runoff in New Jersey. Pollution from storm water and municipal runoff

contributes to beach closings and shellfish harvest restrictions. However, given the intensity of

development, it is difficult to identify specific pipes. For example, over 7000 municipal storm

water pipes discharge to Barnegat Bay. Through watershed management, CWSRF needs

associated with management of these sources are expected to be identified and addressed in the

future. 

In New Jersey, CSO discharges occur primarily in urban areas away from shellfish beds and

bathing beaches. (Note that significant sums were provided under the construction grants program

to accomplish this.) Management of pathogens from CSO sources will be very difficult to

accomplish and designated use improvements may be confounded by other pollution sources,

including storm water and runoff. Additional issues associated with the use of the fecal coliform

indicator need to be addressed on a national level. As above, a survey of the other states should be

made to see if information on more than just a handful of situations can be confirmed.

New Jersey’s Goal and Indicator System
E-33

Milestone: By 2005, 50% of assessed river miles will support healthy sustainable

biological communities.

Indicator: Infrastructure investment to improve water quality

Type of Indicator: Response

New Jersey was one of six states to pilot the National Environmental Performance Partnership

System (NEPPS) in 1995. Under NEPPS, water program representatives and external advisory

groups developed the Goal and Indicator System. New Jersey’s water goal reflects the Clean

Water Act goal. Milestones (measurable targets) that reflect designated uses were developed if

sufficient data were available (e.g., By 2005, 50 percent of assessed, nontidal river miles will

support healthy aquatic life.). If sufficient data were not available, objectives were developed (e.g.,

Maintain and enhance aquatic life in assessed tidal waters).

Environmental indicators are being used to measure progress toward each milestone and objective

using three types of indicators in a feedback model. Cause indicators show pollutant loads from

point and nonpoint sources and other environmental stressors (e.g., BOD loads). Condition

indicators show ambient environmental conditions (e.g., stream water quality). Response

indicators show management measures implemented by NJDEP, regulated entities and watershed

partners (e.g., CWSRF investment, permit compliance, BMP implementation). 

New Jersey reported “Infrastructure Investment By County” (state and CWSRF funds) as one of

several response indicators measuring progress toward the aquatic life milestone (see following

section from “Environmental Indicators Technical Report,” NJDEP, June 1998). To reflect the

integrated nature of water programs, permit compliance and industrial storm water pollution

prevention plan implementation were also reported.

From 1987 (the first year of the loan program) through 1995, approximately $1.2 billion has

been awarded in the state for various types of wastewater projects. 

What does this indicator tell us?

This indicator conveys the total amount of funding awarded through the Wastewater Treatment

Financing Program in the state. “Loan awards” has been selected as an indirect indicator of

potential water quality improvement. Water quality improvements specifically related to

infrastructure investment are difficult to identify, particularly on a project-specific basis, because

water quality is subject to significant other point and nonpoint source impacts at the same time. 

Notwithstanding, surface water quality improvements in specific areas of the state have been noted

and are coincident with areas in which substantial loan funding has been provided.

From 1987 (the first year of the loan program) through 1995, approximately $1.2 billion has been

awarded in the state for various types of wastewater projects. This includes upgrade of sewage

treatment facilities, abatement of combined sewer overflows, repair or replacement of overflowing
E-34

and overloaded sewer systems, construction of sludge management facilities, and provision of

collection systems in areas experiencing on-site system failures.

Data Characteristics

Information on loan awards in the state is maintained by NJDEP within EPA’s Grants Information

and Control System (GICS). In addition, detailed annual reports on loan awards in accordance

with the New Jersey Wastewater Treatment Trust’s authorizing legislation are prepared by the

NJDEP and the Trust, which are jointly submitted to the Legislature. NJDEP and the Trust also

prepare and submit to EPA annual reports which summarize the use of State Revolving Fund

(CWSRF) monies in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. These

reports are available to the public upon request. Requests may be made by calling the Municipal

Finance and Construction Element in the Division of Water Quality, NJDEP, at (609) 292-8961.

Data Strengths and Limitations

Loans are awarded through the Wastewater Treatment Financing Program on an annual basis. 

Project priorities are established based upon a combination of project type, water quality/water

use, State Development and Redevelopment Plan aspects and population served by the project. In

addition, a new provision of the ranking methodology provides additional points for projects

within an area in which watershed management planning has been completed, intended to serve as

an incentive to complete needed planning activities and construction of priority projects within the

watershed. 

The loan amounts are fixed at the time of loan execution in November of the fiscal year. NJDEP’s

zero-interest loan represents approximately half the principal amount needed, based on engineering

estimates, to construct the project, as well as an allowance to cover costs for planning and design;

the Trust’s loan covers the remaining allowable costs for the project and may be somewhat higher,

based upon the interest rate of the bonds sold by the Trust to finance the project as well as the

financing terms desired by the project sponsor. Subsequent loan adjustments, including the award

of supplemental loans, are made if actual construction costs are higher (or lower) than as included

in the initial loan awards. 

As indicated above, “loan awards” represent an indirect indicator of potential water quality

improvement. The award of loans does not quantify the specific water quality benefits realized. 

Each of the different types of projects have widely variable water quality benefits that would be

associated, which are further influenced by the specific project conditions involved. Treatment

plant upgrades and combined sewer overflow projects will impact receiving water quality. 

Collection system upgrades and/or elimination of failing septic systems will affect ground water

quality and quantity, and surface water effects may also be involved. Sludge management systems

are important to assure environmentally acceptable treatment and disposal practices, thus avoiding

impacts as a result of inadequate systems or disposal practices. 

Significant water quality improvements are not typically apparent as a result of construction of a

single project. Improvements are more likely to be apparent through the cumulative improvements

as a result of construction of a number of point and nonpoint source management projects. 
E-35

The loan awards information presented below represents a portion of the total wastewater

infrastructure investments made in the state. Not included in this summary are construction grant

awards made in the state (the financing program administered by the state prior to implementation

of the Wastewater Treatment Financing (loan) Program); municipal projects financed at the local

level; and water quality improvement projects undertaken by the industrial sector (which are not

eligible under the financing program). 

Discussion

Historically, municipalities have been hesitant to construct needed wastewater treatment facilities

because of the significant costs involved. The 1996 National Needs Survey indicates that $4.75

billion is needed in order to address the wastewater needs that currently exist in the State. 

Notwithstanding, external forces, such as permitting and enforcement activities, or concerns with

the structural integrity of sewers (i.e., fear of pipe collapse and related water quality concerns), are

frequently involved in providing the impetus for a municipality to pursue a project. By providing

low interest financing through the program, the state administers a program to provide

municipalities with the financial means to address their water quality infrastructure needs. 

The breakdown of loan awards provided through the Wastewater Treatment Financing Program,

jointly administered by the Municipal Wastewater Assistance program in the NJDEP and by the

New Jersey Wastewater Treatment Trust, to finance types of wastewater treatment facilities

throughout the state included the following: 
E-36

Loan Awards by Type (1987-1995)

Type of Improvement Investment

Amount

Sewage treatment plant upgrades 

Sewage treatment plant tie-ins (to abandon inadequate treatment facilities)

Sludge management facilities

Collection system construction and rehabilitation

Combined sewer overflow abatement

$659.1 million

$111.6 million

$199.0 million 

$180.6 million

$ 49.7 million

Total $ 1.2 billion

The map below summarizes cumulative loan awards made by the Wastewater Treatment Financing

Program on a county basis. (Note that the cumulative loan awards represent the location of the

project sponsor, although in some cases, the service area may involve municipalities beyond the

county boundaries.) This map demonstrates that a number of areas in the state have received

significant amounts through the Financing Program. This includes, in particular, the counties of

Morris, Camden and Burlington. 

The Water Quality chapter of the Self-Assessment cites a number of areas in the state in which

water quality improvements have been noted, including the Whippany Watershed in Morris County

and in the Big Timber Creek Watershed in Camden County. The significant wastewater treatment

system upgrades financed by the state are, in large part, responsible for these noted water quality

improvements. As cited in Water Quality section of the Self-Assessment document, these

improvements represent the combined efforts of planning, permitting and enforcement programs, in

addition to that of the financing program. Significant financing has also been awarded in

Burlington County, both for wastewater treatment system upgrades at a number of treatment

plants and for a regional sludge composting facility to accommodate the sludge generated within

the county. 

It should be noted that the recent inclusion of eligibility for storm water/nonpoint source projects

under the Financing Program, as well as regional watershed management planning efforts (for

which projects will receive additional project ranking points as previously discussed), will be a

major tool for implementation of water quality improvements, to address both point and nonpoint

source priorities in the state, on a watershed basis.
E-37
E-38

Utah’s Pilot Project Experience

A brief narrative on the nature of the wastewater treatment facilities in Utah will help explain the

difficulty we had in applying many of the environmental indicators. There are 93 publicly-owned

treatment facilities in Utah of which only 26 are mechanical plants. Most of the mechanical plants

lie along the more densely populated Wasatch Front range. The remaining treatment facilities are

lagoon systems, either facultative or aerobic. Generally, the lagoon systems serve smaller, more

rural communities where sufficient and lower cost land is available for wastewater treatment and

disposal. Most of the lagoon systems are either total containment facilities or employ land

application of the effluent. In either of these cases the facilities are not issued an NPDES permit. 

Additionally, approximately 15% of the state’s residents, generally those residing in

unincorporated areas, are served by individual on-site disposal systems.

For our study we selected eight CWSRF projects based largely on their varied nature. Utah has

funded only traditional Section 212 projects. The projects we selected are as follows:

Project Description Total Cost CWSRF

Aurora Town New collection system and total containment

lagoon

$2.694 M $0.841 M

Orem City Interceptor sewer, Gravity thickener and belt

filter press

$4.0 M $3.5 M

Mapleton City New collection system and interceptor sewer $10.3 M $9.4 M

Jordanelle SSD New interceptor sewer, lift stations, force main $6.49 M $2.74 M

St. George City 7.5 mgd WWTP expansion $27.5 M $12.0 M

Cedar City New WWTP with land application of effluent $12.4 M $12.0 M

Grantsville City Upgrade and expand existing lagoon facility, new

interceptor, lift stations

$3.4 M $3.3 M

Santaquin City New collection system, aerated lagoon with land

application of effluent, lift stations 

$5.98 M $1.307 M

All eight projects studied were for the initiation or expansion of treatment service. None were

simply for upgrading existing services. Of the eight projects we studied, only four of the projects

(Orem, St. George City, Cedar City, and Grantsville) were at facilities where NPDES permits are

required. However, the Cedar City WWTP land applies its effluent without discharging to a

receiving stream. Of the other three NPDES-permitted facilities, only the St. George and

Grantsville projects involved construction of treatment train processes. Orem’s project was for

solids dewatering/handling. The remaining four projects evaluated were either at a facility with no

effluent discharge (Aurora); or a facility that land applies effluent (Santaquin); or with communities

which contract for treatment services at a regionalized treatment facility (Jordanelle and
E-39

Mapleton).

Our experience applying the environmental indicators to these eight projects follows.

Indicator 1 - Actions funded by CWSRF programs.

We feel this is a viable indicator which states are tracking already. The premise is that all CWSRF

projects provide to varying degrees a needed environmental benefit and serve a worthwhile public

purpose. This indicator, which does not rely on empirical data for its support, is one which is

readily available and can easily be applied. This indicator will particularly be important for those

states which have limited water quality data to substantiate environmental improvements but wish

to nevertheless claim “credit” for what has been accomplished through the CWSRF. This indicator

also has general application to all CWSRF projects, whereas the environmental benefits of some

CWSRF-funded projects, e.g., pump stations, bio-solids thickening, and replacement projects, may

not be quantifiable.

Data availability: High. Utah has a current data base which allows ready access to the data,

including the number of projects funded, the amount of CWSRF loans,

funds leveraged, etc.

Data accessibility: High 

Data applicability: Questionable. Application of this indicator assumes that all CWSRF

projects are created equal and that none provides any more of an

environmental benefit than another except that those projects receiving

higher amounts of funds presumably provide a greater environmental

improvement.

Recommendation: Let this indicator stand as is.

Indicator 2 - Number of pounds of pollutants removed from the environment through SRFfunded projects.

We considered this indicator to apply to generally point source discharges where, as a result of a

CWSRF project, the pollutant load to the receiving stream was removed or reduced. For most

point source projects the application of this indicator is probably limited, unless the project is

simply for the upgrade of the treatment facility to enhance the level of treatment. For projects

which increase the capacity of a treatment facility this indicator would likely not apply because the

loading to the receiving stream would also be expected to increase. Although none of the projects

we evaluated were strictly “upgrades”, to which Indicator 2 would not necessarily apply, we

nevertheless evaluated this indicator.]
E-40

Data availability: High for point source projects. DMR data is available from all NPDESpermitted facilities. For improvements associated with NPS CWSRF

projects, data may be limited or nonextant. To demonstrate improvements

associated with NPS CWSRF projects, before-project and after-project

sampling would be needed. Absent project-specific sampling data there

would need to be reliance on ambient water quality monitoring data both

upstream and downstream of the project in order to demonstrate

improvement. 

Data accessibility: High for point source projects. The PCS data base allows ready access to

the data. For NPS projects, if data were generated or already available, it

could be accessed in our surface water database. 

Data applicability: For point source projects the data would most certainly apply. For NPS

projects the applicability is questionable. For NPS projects it may be

difficult to confidently ascribe improvements in the receiving stream

completely or even partially to the CWSRF project. There may be too many

variables affecting the receiving stream to show improvements directly

attributable to a project.

Indicator 3 - Number of pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment

through CWSRF-funded projects.

We considered this indicator to apply to the following types of projects: 1) point source projects

where either the hydraulic or organic capacity of a facility to treat wastewater is increased; 2) point

source projects where on-site disposal systems (septic tank systems) are abandoned and

wastewater is instead diverted to a centralized wastewater treatment facility; and 3) NPS projects

where pollutants are prevented from entering into a receiving stream.

We reasoned that there is an environmental benefit derived from removing more pollutants from

the waste stream at a treatment facility even though effluent loadings to the receiving stream may

actually increase due to higher flows resulting from growth. Pollutant removal can be easily

calculated utilizing effluent information (i.e., flow, BOD, TSS, ammonia, phosphorous) gathered

from DMRs and either actual influent information on the same parameters or estimates which can

be made based on text book values.

Since 1992 Utah has operated a voluntary program called the Municipal Wastewater Planning

Program (MWPP). The purpose of this program is to provide a mechanism for communities to

perform a self-assessment of their wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure to determine

the “health” of these facilities. Areas evaluated include: influent/effluent flows and quality; facility

capacity; operator certification; bypasses; maintenance; facility age; solids handling; anticipated

capital improvements; user charge system; debt coverage; viability of the enterprise fund; and a

subjective evaluation. On average approximately 65% of Utah communities participate in the
E-41

annual evaluations. All past recipients of CWSRF loans are required to participate as a condition

of receiving funding. Over the last five years 92% of all POTWs in the state have participated in

the MWPP at least once. 

 Data availability: High. DMR data is available for all facilities which have an NPDES permit. 

Monthly operating reports (MORs) are available from all non-NPDES

facilities in the state. MWPP reports generally provide influent and effluent

flow and water quality information for both discharging and non-discharging

facilities.

Since Utah has not funded any NPS projects, we didn’t extensively pursue

an assessment of data which may be available for them. We feel it will be

much more difficult estimating correctly the pollution prevented from

entering the environment as a result of a NPS project. Either monitoring of

the completed NPS project would need to occur or a method of estimating

the pollutants devised. 

Data accessibility: High. While no data base exists for MORs, the five most recent year’s

worth of data is kept in hard copy form and is readily accessible. MWPP

reports are also available in hard copy. DMR data is readily accessible from

PCS.

Data applicability: For point source projects which expand the capacity of a POTW or for NPS

projects which prevent pollution from occurring, this indicator is applicable. 

For CWSRF projects which are for the abandonment of on-site disposal

systems, the indicator would still seem applicable, but more questionable. It

may not be correct to receive “credit” for a CWSRF project which results in

loadings formerly being treated in on-site disposal systems but now being

diverted to a POTW. To do so would presume that there is no remaining

ability of the on-site disposal systems to continue to adequately treat

wastewater. This may not be the case unless the on-site systems were at the

point of failure or the density of additional systems would have exceeded

the ability of the soils to assimilate more pollutants. 

 

Recommendation: Let this indicator stand with the understanding that the estimation of

pollutants removed may be based on modeling or engineering estimates

rather than empirical data. Also, clarification should be made as to what

kinds of projects this indicator applies to and how the application is different

than that of Indicator 2.
E-42

Indicator 4 - Physical changes to the terrestrial, riparian, or aquatic habitat and hydrology

resulting from CWSRF-funded projects.

We feel this indicator generally has application to only NPS projects. We have not yet utilized the

CWSRF to fund NPS projects although we recently received legislative authority to do so. 

Therefore, this indicator was not tested. Had this indicator been tested we feel some tools are

available to help measure improvement to water quality and habitat. On a limited basis, Utah does

perform an inventory of macroinvertebrates in certain streams. Using a Winget-Modified Surber

Net, samples are collected, counted, weighed, and the species diversity recorded. Together with

an evaluation of the physical habitat and water quality the presence and diversity of

macroinvertebrates help identify the ecosystem integrity and health. Following the assay, the

Biotic Condition Index (BCI), developed by the USDA Forest Service, is used to evaluate the

conditions in the aquatic ecosystem.

The BCI system:

 • measures a stream against its own potential, not that of another stream;

 • is sensitive to most forms of environmental stress;

 • is applicable to various types and sizes of streams;

 • provides a basis for assessment of unstressed to stressed conditions;

 • is independent of sample size, if the samples are representative;

 • is based on easily acquired data;

 • meshes with and supports stream habitat and water quality data;

 • provides an easily understood “score”;

 • is particularly useful for monitoring trends;

 • is based mainly upon tolerance levels of the invertebrates

 Several other indices are also used to assess diversity and richness.

For a few streams where Section 319 watershed restoration projects have been implemented, a

multi-agency work group has complimented Utah DEQ’s chemical water quality data by

monitoring for channel morphology, riparian vegetation recovery, fish population/productivity, and

habit quality. Tools have included: pebble counts; assessments of riparian shade and temperature;

riparian vegetation surveys; fish population surveys; channel geomorphology surveys; and a habitat

quality index.

When CWSRF non-point source projects are undertaken in Utah, an effort will be made to

incorporate selected quantitative assessment measures into the project budget so that water quality

and habitat improvements can be identified.

We feel Indicator 4 will be a useful tool and should remain as is. It is unclear to us how these

“physical changes” will be meaningfully report.
E-43

Indicator 5 - Waterbodies, expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square

miles, and wetland acres, previously impaired, now improved or meeting designated uses, as a

result of CWSRF-funded projects. 

Only a mild attempt was made to apply this indicator to the projects which we studied. Four of the

eight projects evaluated are facilities which have NPDES permits but only one of these (St. George

City) discharges to an impaired stream which appears on the FY2000 303(d) list. In this case the

impaired receiving stream (the Virgin River) is so designated due to a total dissolved solids (TDS)

loading which is not a standard which is traditionally governed by an NPDES permit. The same

receiving stream appeared on the FY1986 303(d) list (pre-SRF) for TDS and total phosphorus.

POTWs in Utah have no TDS standard in their NPDES permits and currently only one POTW has

a phosphorus standard. This standard was imposed because the facility caused a phosphorus

loading to a receiving stream which was impaired largely due to that loading. Until TMDL work is

completed on all discharging POTWs, no discharge standards beyond the conventional ones (TSS,

BOD, pH, coliform bacteria and DO) and the toxic ones (ammonia and chlorine) will be imposed

in NPDES permits. Without the TMDLs it would be difficult to quantify the impaired streams or

waterbodies which have been improved as a result of CWSRF-funded projects. Even when the

TMDLs are completed, it may still be difficult for stream segments to be “de-listed” or show

measurable water quality improvement as a result of an CWSRF-funded project because of the

impacts of other contributing sources of pollutants.

We feel this indicator should remain as is, but we recognize there likely will be difficulty in

applying it to CWSRF projects. 

Indicator 6 - Waterbodies expressed as river and riparian miles, lake acres, estuary square

miles, and wetland acres, protected as a result of CWSRF-funded projects. 

This indicator focuses on the protection of unimpaired resources. We firmly believe that the

Construction Grants and CWSRF programs have “protected” many of our water resources from

being listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. We were unable to apply this indicator to our

CWSRF projects to validate that theory because of the level of modeling and TMDL work which

would be necessary. We feel Indicator 6 can be a useful indicator which can be tested using the

monitoring data which is used to compile the 305(b) report. The difficulty will be for an CWSRFfunded project to assume full credit for “protecting” a water resource when there may be several

other contributors to the stream or lake not being listed on the 303(d) list.

We feel this indicator should remain as is, but we recognize there likely will be difficulty in

applying it to CWSRF projects.
E-44

Indicator 7 - Benefits of reduced health risks and/or increased recreational use attributable

to CWSRF-funded projects.

This indicator did not apply to the CWSRF-funded projects we studied. We feel it can be a useful

indicator but one which may be the most difficult of all to apply to projects. Utah’s Project

Priority List accords the highest priority to projects which will eliminate a substantial health hazard

including those caused by the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater to an area of

immediate public occupancy or those which remedy the failure of subsurface disposal systems

which result in surfacing sewage. Water samples which identify the presence of pathogenic

organisms or “indicators” such as coliform organisms are used to help validate the health hazard

designation. This designation has never been applied to treatment facilities but only to areas which

demonstrate extensive failures of on-site disposal systems. The designation is rarely accorded

because of the strict documentation which is necessary. Without obtaining significant water

samples and performing the necessary lab work it is nearly impossible to substantiate health risks

caused by inadequately treated or non-treated sewage on the basis of influenza-like symptoms. 

How the measurement of this indicator would be quantified is also a question we have.

We feel this indicator should remain as is, but we recognize there likely will be difficulty in

applying it to CWSRF projects.
Appendix F. Ohio Pilot Project Specific Examples
F-1

OHIO’S PILOT STUDY–SPECIFIC EXAMPLES

The following section summarizes our pilot study results and details the basis for our recommendations

and conclusions. In general, the projects reflect a reduction of one or more chemical or bacteriological

pollutants to the receiving streams and a corresponding response in the biological communities. In some

cases, however, the magnitude of the response did not always result in full attainment of the Aquatic Life

Use designation. In other cases, the CWSRF project did not go far enough to see an adequate reduction

of pollutants to the receiving stream, and consequently, there was no positive change in the biological

community.

The information compiled below has been taken from Ohio’s Water Quality Inventories, technical and

permit support documents, Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (Ohio’s CWSRF) environmental

assessments and project records, Water Quality Standards and field notes from the monitoring staff. The

rigorous methods and formulas behind the results listed below are not described in this document, but can

be provided. 

Each project is described, along with information about the waterbody that is influenced by the CWSRFfunded entity. The aquatic life use attainment status in river miles are given for periods both before and

after construction of SRF-financed improvements.

Use attainment is a term which describes the degree to which environmental indicators are either above

or below criteria specified by the Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS, Ohio Administrative Code 3745-

1). Assessing use attainment status for aquatic life use involves a primary reliance on the Ohio EPA

biological criteria (OAC 3745-1-07; Table 7-17). These are confined to ambient assessments and apply to

rivers and streams outside of mixing zones. Numerical biological criteria are based on multi-metric

biological indices which include the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and modified Index of Well-Being

(MIwb), which indicate the response of the fish community, and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI),

which indicates the response of the macroinvertebrate community. Numerical endpoints are stratified by

ecoregion, use designation, and stream or river size. 

Four attainment status results are possible in each monitored stream segment - full, threatened, partial, or

non-attainment. Full attainment means that all of the applicable indices meet the biocriteria. Threatened

attainment means that the indices are meeting the biocriteria, but are close to falling below the line of

acceptance. Partial attainment means that one or more of the applicable indices fail to meet the

biocriteria. Non-attainment means that none of the applicable indices meet the biocriteria or one of the

organism groups reflects poor or very poor performance. It is also possible that some river miles in a

segment were not assessed and therefore are not categorized.

Information and descriptions of the causes and sources associated with observed impairments rely on

interpretation of multiple lines of evidence including the water chemistry data, sediment data, habitat data,

effluent data, biomonitoring results, land use data, and biological response signatures within the biological

data itself. Thus, the assignment of principal causes and sources of impairment represents the

association of impairments (defined by response indicators) with stressor and exposure indicators. This

information was taken from Ohio’s Water Quality Inventory (305(b)) database or reports.

1. FAIRBORN WWTP (Completion Date June 18, 1994)

Location: Greene County, latitude 39`50' 45" N, longitude 84`03' 15" W

The Fairborn Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) outfall is located on the Mad River at river mile 9.62. 

The Mad River is in the Great Miami River Basin and is identified by USEPA River Reach number

05080001-001.

The facility was constructed in 1958 with improvements made in 1974, 1986 and again in 1992-1993 (with

CWSRF funds). It is an advanced treatment plant with an average design flow of 5.5 million gallons per

day (MGD). Wet stream processes include screening, grit removal, oxidation ditches, secondary settling,
F-2

and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Solids stream processes include sludge stabilization using aerobic

digestion, sludge thickening, dewatering by filter press, and sludge disposal by land application. The

collection system is 100% separated and nearly all of the service area is sewered. 

Indicator A

Fairborn WWTP had been unable to comply with its NPDES permit limitations during peak flow events for

three years prior to this project. The result was the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater to the

Mad River. 

The solution was to do the following improvements: a) install two new clarifiers; b) install ultra-violet

disinfection; c) construct a new sampling building; d) relocate and redesign grit removal equipment; and

e) excavate and dispose of buried sludge. Cost for Phase I was $2,519,600 and funded entirely through

CWSRF funds.

Indicator 1

Pounds of pollutants removed increased by 2,321 pounds for TSS and by 1897 pounds for CBOD5 while

the WWTP percent removal efficiency increased by 1% for TSS and remained static for CBOD5 .

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT FAIRBORN WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(beginning 4/91)

3915 97 5,445 95

POST-PROJECT 

(beginning 7/95)

5812 97 7,766 96

CHANGE 1,897 0 2,321 1

According to Ohio EPA’s 1996 water quality permit support document, the Fairborn WWTP contributed

approximately 16% of the total wastewater volume annually discharged by the four major Mad River

mainstem WWTPs in 1994. Based on an annual mean flow of 3.8 MGD in 1994, the plant operated at

approximately 69 percent of the 5.5 MGD design capacity. Annual mean flows from 1976 through 1994

ranged from 2.7 MGD in 1988 to 4.7 MGD in 1990. Annual 50th and 95th percentile flows ranged from

lows in 1988 of 2.8 MGD and 3.4 MGD, respectively, to highs of 4.4 MGD and 7.6 MGD in 1990. Third

quarter 50th percentile values ranged from 2.8 MGD in 1976 to 5.2 MGD in 1980 while 95th percentile

values ranged from 3.6 MGD in 1977 to 7.6 MGD in 1990. 

Ammonia-N loadings have been significantly reduced in recent years, particularly so after 1991. Annual

and third quarter 50th and 95th percentile values recorded since 1991 have generally remained well below

10 kg/day. In comparison, 50th and 95th percentile loadings prior to 1988 were rarely below 150 and 200

kg/day, respectively. Median loadings declined markedly after 1988, but 95th percentile values exceeded

75 kg/day through 1991. Nitrate-N loadings increased significantly in 1991 (due to increased nitrification)

with median levels reaching 88 kg/day, a nearly 400% increase above 1990. Nitrate-N loadings increased

to even higher levels in 1992 to over 200 kg/day and remained at these levels through 1994.

Ambient water quality sampling in 1994, after completion of the SRF-financed improvements,

downstream from the Fairborn WWTP revealed no indications of problems with parameters commonly

associated with WWTPs. D.O. concentrations were well above levels considered compatible with

Warmwater Habitat ( WWH) aquatic communities. Mean total phosphorus values were similar upstream

and downstream from the discharge, well below the water quality guideline of 1.0 mg/L. Ammonia-N

levels were at or below the minimum detection limit of 0.05 mg/L, both upstream and downstream of the
F-3

discharge. One organochlorine pesticide (dieldrin) in exceedence of the 30-day average human health

criterion was detected downstream from the discharge and was likely a residual of past usage in the

basin. We would expect the reductions of pollutant concentrations to be reflected by an improvement in

the biological condition of the receiving water.

Indicators 4& 5

FAIRBORN WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 9.62

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

MAD RIVER OH58 1 WARMWATER

HABTAT

HIGH EASTERN CORN

BELT PLAIN

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1984 0.40 0.00 9.00 0.67 0.00

1992 5.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.07

1994 7.55 0.00 2.52 0.00 0.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1984 1992 1994 Cause 1984 1992 1994

Municipal Point Sources H H - Organic enrichment/DO H S -

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(NPS) S S - Unionized Ammonia M S -

Channelization M H - Other habitat alterations M H -

Source Unknown - - H Cause Unknown - - H

Monitoring comments identified the Fairborn WWTP as being a major source of impairment in 1984 and

in 1992. After CWSRF project completion, “Municipal Point Sources” are no longer listed as a source of

impairment. Comments also indicate that the channelization was beginning to return to a more natural

form in 1992. The improvement in habitat and the improved WWTP effluent resulted in more river miles

fully attaining the aquatic life use and a reduction of the causes and sources of impairment in this

segment. We can conclude that the CWSRF project had a positive effect on the aquatic biota.

Indicator 6

Mad River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content is not

to exceed 1,000 per 100 milliliters(ML) on no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period, or 2,000 per 100 ML

in more than 10% of samples per month.
F-4

MAD RIVER 

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT

 (beginning 4/91)

291 113 225

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 7/95)

701 203 739

Monthly data was looked at over the pre- and post-project periods and there does not seem to be a

problem with fecal coliform that relates to this project. The WWTP is in compliance.

2. BEALLSVILLE WWTP (completion date 8/3/95)

location: Monroe County, latitude 39`50' 40" N, longitude 81`02' 20" W

The Beallsville WWTP is situated on Mulat Run which empties into the East Fork, Piney Fork at river mile

4.72. These streams are located in the Sunfish Creek Basin and this section is identified by USEPA River

Reach number 05030201-096. 

Indicator A

Prior to the CWSRF project, the Beallsville WWTP was hydraulically overloaded during periods of

rainfall; large quantities of wastewater received inadequate treatment before being discharged to Mulat

Run. The existing WWTP was aging and the collection system had infiltration and inflow problems. The

Village was under a consent decree for failing to meet its NPDES permit limitations. 

The Village constructed a new WWTP with an equalization basin at the head of the treatment process. 

The plant included two aeration tanks, two clarifiers, two sludge holding chambers, chlorination, and

synthetic media filter bed system. Total cost of the project was approximately $594,000. Funding in the

amount of $338,450 was obtained from the Ohio CWSRF with the remainder coming from the Ohio Public

Works Commission.

Indicator 1

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT BEALLSVILLE WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED 

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(1993)

35 94 36 89

POST-PROJECT 

(beginning 9/96)

50 95 39 84

CHANGE 15 1 3 -5%

Although the pounds of TSS removed increased by 3 pounds per day following the improvement project,

the plant efficiency dropped by 5% for TSS removal. The CBOD5 removal increased 15 pounds per day

and the plant efficiency increased by 1% for CBOD5 removal per day on average. Changes in the

biological community cannot be predicted on the basis of these parameters alone.
F-5

Dissolved oxygen and ammonia-N concentrations in the effluent went from average monthly 

concentrations of 5.7mg/L and 1.31 mg/L, pre-project to 8.8 mg/L and 0.2 mg/L, post-project, respectively. 

These parameters show considerable improvement which we would expect to be reflected in the

biological community.

There are no technical or permit support documents for this location.

Indicators 4& 5

BEALLSVILLE WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 4.72

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

EAST FORK PINEY

FORK, OH 7 7

WARMWATER

HABITAT

HIGH-VERY HIGH WESTERN

ALLEGHENY

PLATEAU

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1983 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 0.40

1996 4.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1983 1996 Cause 1983 1996

Municipal Point Sources H T Organic enrichment/DO H T

Natural M - Other habitat alterations M - 

Monitoring comments from 1983 indicate that Beallsville WWTP discharges to this segment and

municipal point sources are listed as a high source of impairment. Monitoring after completion of the new 

Beallsville WWTP indicated that the new plant operates very well. The municipal point source of pollution

dropped from being a high cause of impairment to being a threat to full attainment. We can conclude that

the CWSRF project made a positive difference. Steam restorability is high-very high.

Indicator 6

East Fork Piney Fork has a Secondary Contact Recreational use designation. The standard for fecal

coliform content is not to exceed 5,000 per 100ML in no more than 10% of the samples taken in a 30 day

period.

EAST FORK PINEY FORK

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT (1993) no data no data 930

POST-PROJECT 3314.3 256 869
F-6

The recreational use standard is being met in this stream and the WWTP effluent seems to be diluting the

background fecal coliform concentrations. The plant appears to be performing well in this regard.

3. AKRON WWTP IMPROVEMENTS (completion date 5/22/96)

location: Summit County, latitude 41`09' 00" N, longitude 81`33' 45" W

The Akron WWTP discharges to the Cuyahoga River mainstem (Cuyahoga River Basin)at RM 37.45 via

outfall 001. This section is identified by USEPA River Reach number 04110002-001.

Indicator A

The City of Akron was the subject of a federal enforcement action requiring a series of wastewater

treatment improvements at the city's existing WWTP plant. This project dealt with one component of the

required improvements called the Distributive Control System which involved the installation of

automated controls at the WWTP. The project included the installation of all necessary conduits (optical

cables), the design, manufacture, and installation of the computer system, related control panels, and

minor rehabilitation of some building interiors to house the computer system. In addition, the city also

constructed a new generator building and new flow metering chamber. 

With the installation of the Distributive Control System, data from monitoring instruments can be

transferred directly to computers where they are stored and made instantly available to the operators. 

The system can be programmed to control major processes, responding immediately to changes in the

flow and equipment problems as they develop. The system improved plant operations and monitoring

capabilities by replacing manual data gathering and entering. The installation of these automated controls

at the plant should have resulted in more reliable plant operations and allowed the city to more effectively

use its plant staff.

This project was completed on 5/22/95 and was fully operational a year later. The total project cost was

$15,328,600. Ohio’s CWSRF was the sole lender.

Indicator 1

Comparisons between the 1994-96 historical loadings are difficult due to past differences in permit

reporting requirements for the various outfalls and bypasses. A study done by the Ohio EPA Monitoring

Group in 1991 showed that drastic reductions in raw bypasses and secondary bypasses (not chlorinated)

occurred through the 1980s. However, chlorinated secondary bypasses were not specifically monitored

until after the 1994 permit modifications. For this reason, the most recent data are probably closest in

estimating the BOD and TSS load discharged to the Cuyahoga River mainstem. 

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT AKRON WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(1994)

51,683 92 75,509 89

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 6/97) 

52,419 95 89,948 93

CHANGE 10,736 3 13,439 4

When available, the figures above reflect the occurrences of bypasses at Akron’s WWTP. In 1994, only

four months of data are available which fully document the effect of the by-passes effluent quality. By
F-7

contrast, the June 1997 to June 1998 data includes material on bypasses from a full twelve months. 

Thus, the latter data set appears to more fully represent the situation at this facility. Keeping this in mind,

the removal of TSS increased by 13,439 pounds, a 4 % increase in WWTP efficiency, and 10,736 pounds

of CBOD5, a 3% increase in WWTP efficiency. 

According to Ohio EPA’s Cuyahoga River Technical Support Document (MAS/1997-12-4, 1999), one

hundred and eighteen bypass events were recorded during 1996, an average of nearly one every three

days. Despite much lower mean annual flows, the bypass contributed a higher loading of BOD and TSS

than the outfall during each reporting year. 

The yearly average of daily values for dissolved oxygen and ammonia-nitrogen downstream from the

effluent are 8.5 and 0.34, pre-project, and 8.8 and 0.15, post-project. Both of these parameters improved.

The 1996 monitoring survey also indicated that nutrient enrichment in the form of phosphorus and nitrate

nitrogen may be a significant cause of non-attainment of the fish community between the Akron and

NEORSD Southerly WWTPs. Predicting the response in the biological condition of the stream due to

improvements at the WWTP is complicated by the bypass events and other pollution sources, and is not

reliably based on chemical information alone. 

Indicator 2 

The method used to determine the effectiveness of the Distributive Control System project with assisting

the Akron WWTP in preventing pollutants from entering the aquatic environment was simply a

comparison of the pre- and post-project monthly operating report effluent data for violations of NPDES

permit limits. The results indicate that there were 55 violations of NPDES discharge limits in 1995 (the

pre-project time period), 4 violations in 1997, and 2 violations in 1998 (the latter two years corresponding,

in part, to the post-project time period). Overall, the frequency of permit violations declined by 96.3%

from 1995 to 1998. Most significantly, daily dissolved oxygen violations decreased from 31 in 1995 to 0

in 1997-1998. Daily chlorine residual violations also declined significantly from 21 in 1995 to 3 in

1997-1998. Monthly fecal coliform violations continued to occur with 3 in 1995, 1 in 1997, and 2 in 1998. 

On this basis, the data suggests that there were significant and positive effects resulting from the

construction of the WPCLF funded improvements at Akron’s WWTP.

From these comparisons, it appears that installation of these automated controls at the plant contributed

to more reliable plant operations and reducing the number of violations. Without knowledge of other

operational factors that may have also change at the WWTP over the study period, it is impossible to

definitively attribute the reduction in violations solely to the Distributive Control System project. However,

without the additional flexibility that the new automated controls provided to the WWTP operators, it is

likely that frequent violations would have continued and worsened, especially if no changes were

implemented at the WWTP.

Indicators 4& 5

AKRON WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 37.45

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

CUYAHOGA RIVER

OH89 27

WARMWATER

HABITAT

MODERATE-HIGH ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE

PLAIN
F-8

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1988 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 0.00

1992 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 0.00

1996 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 0.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1988 1992 1996 Cause 1988 1992 1996

Municipal Point Sources - H H Organic enrichment/DO H H H

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(NPS) M S M Unknown Toxicity M S H

Combined Sewer Overflow H H H Priority Organics - S S

Non-industrial Permitted M - H Zinc - - M 

Spills - S M

Other M

The Akron WWTP has been named as a high source of impairment in this segment for years. No real

significant change in the aquatic life use attainment has been noted as a result of this project. The

Cuyahoga River has shown considerable improvement in recent decades, but stresses from multiple

pollution sources (beginning well upstream of the Akron area) continue to impact fish communities

downstream to Cleveland. The chronic impairment of the fish community and elevated high background

nutrient levels suggest chronic toxic influences and an exceedence of the assimilative capacity of the

stream. Surveys in the 1990s detected incremental improvements in biological community health and a

lessening of the severely toxic conditions encountered during the 1980s. However, there has been little

change, positive or negative, downstream from Akron since 1991. The magnitude of impairment to this

stream segment due to municipal point sources is still high, indicating that the WWTP problems have not

been completely addressed by this project. Additional WWTP improvements/bypass elimination may be

necessary for attainment of the aquatic life use designation, along with elimination of the CSOs, and

minimization of pollutants from other permitted non-industrial and nonpoint sources.

Area of Degradation Values (ADVs) are available for this stream segment for three sampling periods and

are shown in the table below. Descriptions of the various indices can be found in Appendix A.

Area of Degradation Values (ADV) statistics for the lower Cuyahoga River. Values were calculated

using Erie Ontario Lake Plain WWH biocriteria as the baseline for community performance. 

Stream (Year) Biological

Index Values

ADV Statistics Attainment Status

Reach Positive Negative miles

Index Upper

RM

Lower

RM

MinimumMaximumADV ADV/

Mile

ADV ADV/

Mile

Full Partial Non

Lower Cuyahoga River (1996)
F-9

IBI

42.9 7.0

13 38 11 0.3 5931 165.2

MIwb 3.9 7.4 0 0.0 4796 133.5 0.2 3.3 32.4

ICI 24 46 2581 71.9 262 7.3

Lower Cuyahoga River (1991)

IBI

42.9 7.0

17 33 0 0.0 4682 130.4

MIwb 5.8 8.1 2 0.0 2350 65.4 0.0 2.9 33.0

ICI 26 42 2114 58.9 78 2.1

Lower Cuyahoga River (1984)

IBI

42.9 7.0

12 27 0 0.0 7707 214.7

MIwb 0.1 7.4 0 0.0 8985 250.2 0.0 0.8 35.1

ICI 10 32 10 0.2 4863 135.4

Although the segment is still in a state of non-attainment, a major improvement can be seen from the

1984 values in each of the indices that Ohio EPA utilized to assess the condition of the aquatic biota.

Indicator 6

The Cuyahoga River has a Primary Contact Recreation Designation. The standard for fecal coliform

content is not to exceed 1,000 colonies per 100ML in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period, or 2,000

colonies per 100ML in more than 10% of samples per month.

CUYAHOGA RIVER

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT (1994 ) 4,691.67 No data 3,692.75

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 6/97) 

4,621 2,352 3,556

Fecal coliform concentrations in this stream segment do not appear to have changed significantly in preversus post-project periods. Colony numbers continue to exceed the 1000/100 ML Primary Contact

Recreation criterion. The most significant sources of fecal coliform are likely from the bypass at the

WWTP, urban runoff/storm sewers and CSOs.

4. PIQUA WWTP (completion date 12/23/93)

location: Miami County, latitude 40`07'49" N, longitude 84`14' 06" W

The Piqua WWTP discharges to the Great Miami River. This segment is identified by USEPA River

Reach number 05080001-027. The Piqua WWTP is a secondary treatment facility consisting of primary

settling, activated sludge, secondary settling, chlorination, and post aeration. The collection system

consists of separate sewers, with 100% of the service area sewered. Significant industrial contributors

are Hartzell Fan, Metal Cleaning , and Harzel Prop-Cyanide bath.
F-10

Indicator A

The Piqua WWTP had continually exceeded its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit limits for ammonia, and consequently, was issued Findings and Orders by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1985. In addition to changes required to meet the NPDES

permit requirements, the Piqua WWTP improvement project also included other upgrades to plant

processes and equipment to ensure proper treatment

Because the Piqua WWTP pre-dated ammonia-N permit limits, it had no provisions for reduction of

ammonia nitrogen because there were no permit requirements for it at that time. When the revised

NPDES permit was implemented, the Piqua WWTP could not meet the specified ammonia limits,

resulting in constant violations of the NPDES permit. 

Before completion of the Piqua WWTP improvement project, operational problems existed in at least five

locations throughout the plant. Operational problems at the secondary settling tanks, due to the original

orientation of the influent piping and sludge draw-off, resulted in excessive mixing, poor sludge

concentration, and loss of solids over the effluent weir.

The Piqua WWTP improvement project began in the late 1980s and was completed in December 1992.

An anoxic MASS system was installed for ammonia nitrogen removal at the Piqua WWTP. Modification

of the existing aeration tanks and construction of four new aeration tanks was required to implement the

anoxic MASS system. All other work completed during the Piqua WWTP improvement project involved

those items identified necessary to optimize use of original equipment at the Piqua WWTP. 

Replacement of some original units has increased plant efficiency, reduced energy use and associated

operating costs, and provided for a higher level of treatment. Back up electrical support, better sludge

handling and flood controls were also installed.

Indicator 1

Median effluent flows fluctuated between 2.4 MGD and 44.3 MGD with 95th percentile values exceeding

the 4.5 MGD design flow several times during the period 1976-1994. No obvious trends are evident for

this time period. The Piqua WWTP contributed approximately 13% (2.62 MGD) of the total wastewater

volume discharged by five major WWTPs to the Upper Great Miami River mainstem in 1994.

A dramatic decline occurred for the median and 95th percentile ammonia-nitrogen loadings in 1989. 

Median values which consistently exceeded 150-200 kg/day prior to 1989 declined to less that 5-10

kg/day afterwards. Ninety-fifth percentile values showed a similar decline to less than 20-30 kg/day

during 1992-94. The Piqua WWTP contributed 11% (9.73 kg/day) of the ammonia-nitrogen loading

discharged by five major WWTPs to the Upper Great Miami River mainstem in 1994.

The BOD data available through the period of record is comprised of two parameters, BOD5(1976 through

1985) and CBOD5 (1986 through 1994). Median and 95 percentile loadings of BOD during the 1976-1994

period showed some fluctuations, but demonstrated an overall decline through the period . Annual TSS

loads displayed a similar trend as that of BOD.

Eighty-nine violations were reported during 1989-94. Heavy metals dominated the NPDES violations

from 1989-93. After the CWSRF-funded WWTP upgrade in 1994, the reported number of permit

violations were significantly reduced, and appeared more typical of the constituents of treated domestic

wastewater (e.g. TSS, residual chlorine, and fecal coliform).

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT PIQUA WWTP 

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED
F-11

PRE-PROJECT

(1988)

3,695 93 2,543 91

POST-PROJECT

(1995) 

2,985 96 2,574 95

CHANGE 710 3 31 4

Pounds of pollutants removed increased by 710 pounds for CBOD5 and 31 pounds for TSS. The WWTP

efficiency increased by 3% for CBOD5 and by 4% for TSS.

Indicators 4& 5

PIQUA WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 114.05 & 114.13

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

GREAT MIAMI RIVER

OH56 12

WARMWATER

HABITAT (before 1997)

EXCEPTIONAL

WARMWATER

HABITAT(after 1997)

HIGH-VERY HIGH EASTERN CORN

BELT PLAIN

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1982 6.30 0.00 3.21 1.10 0.00

1994 9.90 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.01

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1982 1994 Cause 1982 1994

Municipal Point Sources H - Organic enrichment/DO HDam construction S - Other habitat alterations S - 

Industrial Point Sources H - Unionized ammonia H -

Other Urban Runoff M - Metals H -

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(nps) M

Flow regulation/modification - H

Upstream Impoundment - H 

Monitoring comments from 1982 indicate that there was a large fish kill in 1986 from the Piqua WWTP. 

Monitoring comments from 1994 attribute impairments to sources other than the Piqua WWTP. Partial

attainment of a portion of this stream segment is due to habitat alteration from a dam. 

Municipal Point Sources went from a high source of impairment in 1992 to not being a source of

impairment in 1994. The cause data reflect the disappearence of metals and unionized ammonia as
F-12

impairments. We can conclude that the CWSRF project made a significant positive contribution to water

quality and aquatic life improvement in this stream segment. This portion of the Great Miami River

recovered to such an extent that the aquatic life use designation was upgraded from Warmwater Habitat

to Exceptional Warmwater Habitat.

Indicator 6

Great Miami River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content

in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100ML or 2,000 per 100 ML in

more than 10% of samples per month.

GREAT MIAMI RIVER 

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT (1988) no data 20 346

POST-PROJECT (1995) 503 385 618

It does not appear that fecal coliform was a major problem even in the pre-project phase.

5. URBANA WWTP (completion date 12/23/93)

location: Champaign County, latitude 40`05'46" N, longitude 83`47'50" W

The Urbana WWTP discharges to the Mad River, just south of Dugan Run. This segment is identified by

USEPA River Reach number 05080001-009. The Ohio EPA has identified the Mad River, from its

headwaters to Buck Creek (located at Springfield, Ohio), as a State Resource Water and has given it a

Cold Water Aquatic Life Habitat use designation. According to the Ohio Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Natural Areas and Preserves, populations of the Tonguetied Minnow (Exoglossum

laurae), a state endangered species, have been identified within the Mad River upstream and downstream

of Dugan Run. The Mad River is used extensively for recreation(e.g., trout fishing). Much of Champaign

County, including land in proximity to the Urbana WWTP, is underlain by the Great Miami/Little Miami

Buried Valley Aquifer System. The Great Miami/Little Miami Buried Valley Aquifer System was

designated a "Sole Source Aquifer" by U.S. EPA in April 1988. The Mad River is significantly fed by

groundwater, leading to the Cold Water Habitat designation.

Indicator A

The Urbana WWTP began to experience operational problems in the late-1980's, resulting in violations of

the plant's NPDES permit. Consequently, a series of upgrades were made to the plant in order to

maintain compliance. Construction activities for the first WWTP upgrades began in the Spring of 1991

and were completed by the Spring of 1992.

Major elements of the 1991-92 WWTP upgrade included replacement of aging and worn components,

installation of a belt filter press to dewater sludge, construction of a maintenance garage, and WWTP

laboratory improvements. Upon project completion, the Urbana WWTP continued to have difficulty

meeting NPDES discharge permit limits. In 1993, the city of Urbana undertook a Comprehensive

Performance Evaluation (CPE) of the WWTP as the first step in a Composite Correction Program (CCP)

designed at bringing the plant into compliance. This led to phase 2 improvements in 1995. 

The 1995 upgrade included installation of chlorination, dechlorination, and post aeration tanks and

equipment to ensure compliance with final effluent chlorine residual and dissolved oxygen limits;

installation of a trickling filter bypass pump station; replacement of trickling filter media and distributors,

providing forced air ventilation in trickling filters; replacement of withdrawal draft tubes and other

secondary clarifier improvements; and conversion of anaerobic digesters to aerobic digesters for the
F-13

stabilization of primary sludge.

The loan amount for phase 1 was $2,600,000. In 1995, phase 2 also received partial CWSRF funding,

but these improvements were not captured by the available data. 

Indicator 1

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT URBANA WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(1990)

5,739 97 4,745 96

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 8/93) 

*based upon 11 months of

flow data

5,025* 96 4,515* 94

CHANGE -714 -1 -230 -2

The loadings of these two parameters and WWTP removal efficiencies did not improve with the first

phase of improvements.

Indicators 4& 5

URBANA WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 39.15

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

MAD RIVER OH58 43 COLDWATER

HABITAT

VERY HIGH EASTERN CORN

BELT PLAIN

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1986 0.00 6.64 0.00 0.00 0.00

1994 0.00 0.00 6.64 0.00 0.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1986 1994 Cause 1986 1994

Removal of riparian vegetation T - Other habitat alterations T H 

Channelization T H Nutrients - M

Agriculture - M Noxious aquatic plants - M
F-14

Monitoring comments indicate that in 1986, the Mad River was attaining Cold Water Habitat, but the fish

indices were low due to channel modification. The 1986 comments also indicate a potential destruction

or alteration of riparian buffer or channel due to agricultural practices. 

The Mad River showed only partial attainment in 1994 due to channelization and agriculture, and one out

of three fish tissue samples with elevated mercury levels. The Urbana WWTP is not listed as a source of

impairment either before or after the CWSRF WWTP improvements. As Indicator 1 has demonstrated,

WWTP effluent quality did not improve after the Phase 1 improvements. 

If phase 2 was successful in bringing the WWTP into compliance, then that project prevented potential

degradation of the Mad River due to organic enrichment.

Indicator 6

The Mad River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content in

no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100 ML or 2,000 per 100ML in more

than 10% of samples per month.

MAD RIVER

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT (1990) 159 106 140

POST-PROJECT (beginning

8/93)

233.53 no data 328.52

Fecal coliform counts are not an issue with this project as the counts are well within the water quality

standards for the stream.

6. STONELICK WWTP (completion date 10/29/93)

location: Clermont County, latitude 39`13' 13" N, longitude 84`03' 58" W

Indicator A

This regionalization project funded an interceptor to collect wastewater from the Stonelick area and send

it to the Middle East Fork WWTP for treatment. Consequently the Stonelick WWTP and its discharge to

Stonelick Creek were eliminated. The Middle East Fork WWTP was expanded and upgraded to

accommodate a number of regional projects. This example focuses on the former receiving stream of the

Stonelick WWTP (identified by USEPA River Reach number 0509202-010). CWSRF funding for this

project totaled $2,422,200.

Indicator 1

We do not have information for this project. We can assume that all previous inputs from the WWTP

have been eliminated.

Indicators 4& 5

STONELICK WWTP IMPROVEMENTS

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION
F-15

STONELICK CREEK

OH53 8

WARMWATER

HABITAT

VERY HIGH INTERIOR PLATEAU

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1987 3.60 0.00 0.00 3.10 16.20

1993 3.10 0.00 3.30 0.00 16.50

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1987 1993 Cause 1987 1993

Municipal Point Sources H - Other habitat alterations - H 

Other S - Cause unknown - H

Agriculture - M Organic enrichment/DO M -

Nonirrigated crop production - H Flow alteration S -

Source unknown - H

Dam construction - H

Early monitoring comments indicate that Stonelick WWTP had a major impact on the watershed along

with potential impacts from agriculture and on-site systems. The upper sections of this creek are

intermittent so the effluent had little dilution. 

As expected, post-project monitoring did not indicate any degree of degradation due to municipal sources. 

Although the total number of fully attaining river miles has dropped slightly, there is a large increase in

river miles that previously did not support the use designation, but now show partial attainment. 

Comments do indicate that the upper watershed is impacted by nonpoint sources and habitat alterations

(Stonelick Lake). We can conclude from this information that elimination of the wastewater treatment

plant had a positive impact on the receiving stream.

Indicator 6

We do not have information for this project. 

7. WELLSTON WWTP (completion date 9/15/94)

location: Jackson County, latitude 39`06' 46" N, longitude 82`31' 31" W

The Wellston WWTP effluent is located on Meadow Run at river mile 1.17. Meadow Run is in the Little

Raccoon Creek Basin and is identified by USEPA River Reach number 05090101-079.

Indicator A

In 1991, Findings and Orders (F&Os) were issued to the Wellston WWTP for not providing the treatment

necessary to meet the final effluent limitations of the NPDES permit, and for not having adequate

capacity to treat the wet-weather flows to the WWTP. The plant was also experiencing problems with

sludge management. To satisfy the F&Os, the improvements to the WWTP were required to be

completed prior to separating the combined sewer system.

This plant, formerly known as the North Plant, discharged to Meadow Run at river mile (RM) 1.20. When
F-16

improvements were made to the Wellston WWTP in 1992, the discharge location was moved to RM 1.17. 

 The Pillsbury (formerly Jenos) discharge was located at RM 1.19 during the 1995 survey. The 1992

WWTP upgrade involved the following improvements to the wastewater treatment process: 1)

improvements in pre-screening at the headworks; 2) new pumps to handle the flow variations and the

elimination of the bypass from the headworks; 3) grit removal facilities; 4) a new biological treatment unit;

5) new secondary settling tanks; 6) ultraviolet disinfection; and 7) improved sludge handling and treatment

facilities, including a belt filter press and aerated sludge holding facilities. Sanitary sewer service was

extended to the south Wellston area which has a concentration of failing septic systems. This action

significantly reduced the discharge of inadequately treated sewage to a segment of Meadow Run. 

The total cost of the WWTP improvements, a portion of which was paid for with grant assistance from the

Ohio Public Works Commission, was $3,517,000. The city received a 2.2% interest refinancing loan from

Ohio’s CWSRF to pay off a short-term note in the amount of $900,000, the city's portion of debt on the

WWTP improvement project. Operating reports show that the WWTP has been functioning as designed,

and is now able to consistently meet NPDES permit limits.

The city had a combined sewer system in which stormwater and wastewater flows are contained in the

same pipe. During heavy rainfall events, the city's system was, at times, overloaded with up to 100 times

the dry weather flow. This resulted in discharges and overflows of raw sewage and storm flow from sewer

manholes which posed a potential human health threat in addition to aesthetic problems and further water

quality degradation. Beginning in early 1996, the city initiated phased separation of the combined sewer

system with additional CWSRF funds to eliminate the discharge and overflow of raw sewage during these

heavy rainfall events. The monitoring data below do not capture these subsequent improvements to

water quality.

Indicator 1

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT WELLSTON WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(1991)

569 83 439 77

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 10/94) 

905 97 807 97

CHANGE 336 14 368 20

After the CWSRF-funded improvements, pounds of TSS and CBOD5 removed by the Wellston WWTP

increased as did the efficiency of the WWTP in removing these two parameters. Other information

gathered from the permit support document (summarized below) indicate that the plant still has problems

with pollutants other than TSS and CBOD5. This is a good example of how these two parameters alone

are not sufficient to give a complete picture of what is going on in the WWTP. 

Monthly operating report data since the 1992 plant upgrade (1993-1995) indicate NPDES permit violations

(numbers) for ammonia-nitrogen (20), cadmium (9), copper (5), dissolved oxygen (6), fecal coliform (1),

lead (6), mercury (10), and oil and grease (1). While many violations continue to occur, the data show a

decline in pollutant loadings through 1993, followed by slight increases in 1994 and 1995. Sampling of

the Wellston WWTP 001 outfall during the 1995 survey showed high ammonia-N concentrations (5.50

mg/L, average). Wellston has reduced ammonia-N levels to <0.5 mg/L by adjusting the amount of air in

the oxidation ditch.
F-17

Ambient water chemistry data from 1995 showed higher levels of ammonia-N, BOD5, COD, chlorine,

conductivity, nitrate+nitrite-N, oil and grease, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, total Kjedahl nitrogen,

and total suspended solids in Meadow Run downstream (RM 0.72) from the Pillsbury and Wellston

WWTP outfalls compared to upstream (RM 1.42). Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) was lower at the downstream

site. The increases in average ammonia-N (0.09 to 6.2 mg/L) and BOD5 (2.1 to 12 mg/L) concentrations

and decrease in the average D.O. (6.1 to 2.9 mg/L) concentration from upstream to downstream during

the 1995 survey was very similar to the chemical results from the 1984 survey. Direct comparisons of the

1990 survey data was compounded because the sampling locations were not the same as in 1995 and the

Pillsbury 001 outfall was located further upstream at RM 3.00 in 1990. (Details taken from Permit Support

Document, April 1997, Division of Surface Water, OEPA.) 

Indicators 4& 5

WELLSTON WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 1.17

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

MEADOW RUN 

OH30 16

LIMITED RESOURCE

WATER (PRIOR ‘95)

WARMWATER

HABITAT (AFTER’95)

MODERATE-HIGH WESTERN ALLEGHENY

PLATEAU

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1990 0.00 1.10 0.00 2.10 1.90

1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10 0.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1990 1995 Cause 1990 1995

Industrial Point Sources H,M,T H Metals H,T H 

Mining T,M H Unionized Ammonia M,M -

Municipal Point Sources H H Priority organics - H

Subsurface mining M,T - pH M,T -

Acid Mine Drainage - H Organic enrichment/DO H H

The upper portions of this segment are impacted by acid mine drainage. The 1995 biological sampling

results in Meadow Run upstream from Wellston suggested that the aquatic life use designation at the

time, Limited Resource Waters (LRW), should be upgraded to Warmwater Habitat (WWH). Significant

improvements in biological community performance indicated a lessening of the mine drainage problems

that resulted in the original LRW designation based on the 1984 survey results. Note that attainment of

the aquatic life use in 1990 reflected the Limited Resource Water use designation while the aquatic life

use was upgraded to Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use designation in 1995. The WWH use

designation is more difficult to attain.

The lower 1.2 miles (near the Wellston WWTP and the Pillsbury Co. outfalls) are heavily impacted by

organic wastes and low dissolved oxygen. The effects of the industrial and municipal point sources are
F-18

indistinguishable. While improvements have been made in terms of treatment process upgrades and

overall loadings reductions, frequent permit limit violations, significant effluent toxicity, and instream

water quality criteria exceedences indicate that more consistent compliance with permit terms and

conditions is still needed. Unfortunately, some of these problems were only recently addressed following

the 1995 survey, thus validation of their effectiveness with instream indicators was not possible. 

The facility planning information and environmental assessment indicate that the CSOs/storm sewers

adversely impacted water quality in the area. This and other high sources of impairment were not

addressed by the time this monitoring took place, so it is really no surprise that this stream segment has

become more degraded even with the CWSRF funded WWTP improvements. With so many sources of

impairment, improvement of the municipal point source may not have much of an influence on the total

water quality. It will be interesting to see future monitoring results now that the CSO problems have been

addressed with CWSRF funding.

Indicator 6

Meadow Run has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content in

no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100ML or 2,000 per 100ML in more

than 10% of samples per month.

MEADOW RUN

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT(1991) 824 264 5452

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 10/94)

744 212 426

As noted earlier, prior to the CWSRF funded project, the Wellston WWTP was experiencing fecal

coliform violations. Very high levels downstream from the WWTP plant prior to the improvement project

are evident in the above table. CSOs and violations from a food industry plant may have also contributed

to the high fecal levels. There has been a dramatic improvement and the stream is now in attainment

with the recreation standard and represents a reduced risk to human health.

8. SEBRING WWTP (completion date 10/03/91)

location: Mahoning County, latitude 40`55' 54" N, longitude 81`1' 38" W

The Sebring WWTP discharges to Sulphur Creek Ditch at river mile 0.48. Sulphur Creek Ditch flows into

Fish Creek which flows into the Mahoning River. This portion of Fish Creek has the USEPA River Reach

number of 05030103-010. 

Indicator A

The City of Sebring WWTP dated to the early 1900s with trickling filters and Imhoff tank/sludge drying

beds. Based on influent sampling, metal concentrations were high enough to be potentially toxic to the

biological treatment system. The high heavy metal concentrations made the sludge unacceptable for land

application. Due to organic and hydraulic overloading, inadequate pretreatment of industrial flows, and the

inability of the existing WWTP to comply with the advanced treatment limits contained in its NPDES

permit, the effluent was causing water quality degradation and standards violations in Sulphur Ditch and

Fish Creek. There were also five overflows in the Sebring collection system.

The CWSRF funded a new 1.5 MGD oxidation ditch WWTP and converted the existing on-site facility to

an equalization tank for temporary wet weather flow storage. Before and after monitoring data do not
F-19

exist for Sulphur Ditch and Fish Creek, so we used data from the next downstream segment of the

Mahoning River. 

Indicator 1

Ohio EPA conducted (pre-project) chemical sampling of Sulphur Ditch and Fish Creek in 1986. Ohio EPA

Technical Report MAS/1995-12-14, 1996 reported elevated levels of ammonia-nitrogen and copper in the

effluent and violations of the same parameters in Sulphur Creek at two locations downstream of the

outfall. 

The Sebring WWTP has also significantly degraded the dissolved oxygen concentrations in Fish Creek,

and high nutrient loadings have resulted in the excessive growth of aquatic plants. In addition, the WWTP

receives significant industrial wastewater and was discharging slightly elevated heavy metals; namely,

cadmium, copper, chromium, mercury, zinc, lead, and nickel.

The pollutant removal comparisons for CBOD5 and TSS are shown in the Table below.

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT SEBRING WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(beginning 8/89)

490 74 471 73

POST-PROJECT 

(beginning 11/92)

726 97 869 96

CHANGE 236 23 398 23

There is a large increase in the pounds of CBOD5 and TSS removed in the plant and the WWTP

efficiency at removing these pollutants from the influent.

Yearly average nitrogen ammonia levels in the WWTP effluent were 24.02 mg/L before the project

compared to 0.56 mg/L post project. Dissolved oxygen concentrations at a downstream sampling site

before the CWSRF project had an annual average of 4.7 mg/L compared to 8.6 mg/L post project. The

new WWTP appears to be functioning much better than the old WWTP.

More recent data indicate noncompliance of copper, zinc and fecal coliform parameters in the effluent

and the occurrence of WWTP bypass events. More recent monitoring information indicates highly

elevated levels of Cr, Pb, Zn, and PCB’s, and PAHs in the sediment downstream from the effluent, and

Sebring WWTP was listed as a possible source of this contamination. 

Indicators 4& 5

SEBRING WWTP IMPROVEMENTS 

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

MAHONING RIVER

OH 1 30

WARMWATER

HABITAT

 HIGH ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE

PLAIN
F-20

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1984 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.80

1994 17.30 0.00 0.00 9.00 1.70
F-21

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1984 1994 Cause 1984 1994

Agriculture - M Cause unknown - H

Priority organics - M Metals - H

Pasture land - M Nutrients - S

Minor Industrial Point Source - H Siltation - M

Spills - H Pathogens - S

Source Unknown - H

Minor Municipal Point Source - H

Contaminated Sediments - H

The Sebring WWTP discharges to Sulfur Ditch which flows into Fish Creek which joins the Mahoning

River in this segment. In 1984, no detrimental effects from the Sebring WWTP were noted in the

Mahoning River downstream of Fish Creek and the segment was in full attainment. The 1984 data are

very old, and the technical support document indicates that only a portion of the segment was monitored

and sampling was not part of an intensive survey. There are pre-project data from Fish Creek which

indicates that Sebring WWTP (and Beloit WWTP) do severely impact Fish Creek due to unionized

ammonia, low dissolved oxygen and organic enrichment. There is no post-project data for Fish Creek or

Sulphur Ditch. 

Post-SRF project monitoring in 1994 showed sediment contamination in the the Mahoning River

downstream from Beloit, Sebring and Alliance WWTPs. These WWTPs are listed as possible sources of

the elevated levels of Cr, Pb, Zn, PCBs and PAHs in the sediment. Sebring WWTP is indicated as the

source of high nitrate levels taken downstream of Fish Creek. No changes in the fish community were

evident.

Indicator 6

Sulphur Ditch is not listed in Ohio’s Water Quality Standards, but the following data are given for relative

value.

SULPHUR DITCH

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT 

(beginning 8/89)

3,454.9 185,126 268,395

POST-PROJECT 

(beginning 11/92)

4,668 No data 2,927

Since completion of the CWSRF project, there has been major reduction in fecal coliform counts

downstream from the Sebring WWTP. This represents a reduced risk to human health which can be

attributed to the SRF-financed improvements.

9. WEST MILTON WWTP (completion date 4/30/94)

location: Miami County, approximately latitude 39`57'34" N, longitude 84`19'26" W

The West Milton WWTP discharges to the Stillwater River in the Stillwater River Basin at rivermile 16.57. 
F-22

This stream segment is referred to as USEPA river reach number 05080001-.

Indicator A

The West Milton WWTP required expansion and upgrading to meet its NPDES permit limits. Excessive

I/I, and sewer lines of inadequate capacity, are directly responsible for sewer overflows and backups of

wastewater in several areas in the village, and for the operational difficulties at the WWTP which resulted

in NPDES permit violations. 

The sewage collection system for West Milton has separate sewers and storm sewers and no bypasses of

raw sewage. There are no other WWTPs that discharge to this stream segment. 

Improvements to the West Milton WWTP consisted of constructing a new primary clarifier/digester, two

nitrification towers, a secondary clarifier, an equalization basin, a laboratory/control building, rehabilitating

the existing trickling filter, final clarifiers, a primary clarifier/digester, and replacing the existing

comminutor.

The expanded WWTP was designed to have an average daily design flow of 1.2 million gallons per day

(MGD), and be capable of meeting effluent limits of 15 mg/L CBOD5, 30 mg/L suspended solids, and 4

mg/L ammonia-nitrogen.

Upgrading the collection system involved constructing a relief sewer to accommodate the portion of the I/I

not cost-effective to remove. The CWSRF loan was for $2,822,120. 

Indicator I

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(beginning 8/90)

no data no data 670 76

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 5/95) 

457 82 684 83

CHANGE not applicable not applicable 17 7

From August 1990 through July 1991, the West Milton WWTP removed 670 lbs (76%) of TSS per day. 

Reporting for CBOD5 started in November 1992. After the CWSRF project was completed, the WWTP

removed 684 lbs of TSS (83%) and 457 lbs of CBOD5 (82%). TSS removal efficiency increased by 17

pounds per day, or 7%. 

The 1995 technical support document for Stillwater River (DSW/MAS 1995-8-8) indicates a marked

decrease in ammonia and CBOD5 following completion of the plant upgrade. Fiftieth percentile effluent

loadings of ammonia-nitrogen from 1982 to 1992 ranged between 11.2 and 37.1 kg/day; during 1993 and

1994, these decreased to 1.1 and 2.2 kg/day, respectively. The fiftieth percentile effluent loadings of

CBOD5 from 1986 to 1992 ranged between 15.0 and 84.2 kg/day; during 1993 and 1994, loadings were

12.6 and 6.5 kg/day, respectively. 

Indicator B

The following is an example of how the proposed Indicator B could be used. Please refer to the Clean

Water CWSRF Indicator Section in the front of the report for explanation, definitions and purpose. 

Mean QHEI values greater than 60 from rivers or large river segments, generally indicate a level of
F-23

macrohabitat quality sufficient to support an assemblage of aquatic organisms fully consistent with the

WWH aquatic life use designations. Average reach values greater than 75 are generally considered

adequate to support fully exceptional (EWH) aquatic communities. 

QHEI values before and after project completion for several locations downstream from West Milton

WWTP are available. The results are presented below.

QHEI VALUES FOR THE STILLWATER RIVER

RIVER MILE 1982 1990 1994

16.0 71.5 85 -

15.7 - - 82

14.7 - - 80.5

14.4 80.5 - -

12.1 63 - 81.5

11.5 - 82 -

The QHEI factors in a number of parameters, and captures information such as substrate embeddedness,

which can be influenced by WWTPs and nonpoint sources. QHEI scores improved from 1982 into the

range adequate to support exceptional biological communities.

Indicators 4& 5

WEST MILTON WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 16.57

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

STILLWATER RIVER

OH57 5

EXCEPTIONAL

WARMWATER

HABITAT

 VERY HIGH EASTERN CORN

BELT PLAIN

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1982 3.60 0.00 3.00 0.20 0.00

1994 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)
F-24

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1982 1994 Cause 1982 1994

Municipal Point Sources H - Unionized Ammonia MOrganic enrichment/DO H -

Municipal Point Sources ( West Milton WWTP ) were listed as the sole high source of impairment to this

stream segment in 1982; in 1995, no municipal point sources caused impairment. The improvement in

the fish communities during 1994 appears to be associated with reduced effluent loadings of ammonia-N

and oxygen-demanding material from the West Milton WWTP. The reduced loadings (detailed under

Indicator 1) are a result of the CWSRF funded WWTP improvements completed in 1992.

Indicator 6

Stillwater River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content in

no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100ML or 2,000 per 100ML in more

than 10% of samples per month.

STILLWATER RIVER

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 YEAR) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100 ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT 

(beginning 8/90)

no data no data 145

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 5/95) 

541 1806 597 

The in-stream bacteriological levels do not violate primary contact standards. High post project effluent

fecal coliform levels may indicate a potential disinfection problem. 

10. COLUMBUS SOUTHERLY WWTP (completion date 5/3/94)

location: Franklin County, latitude 39`48' 48" N, longitude 83`00' 53" W

The Columbus Southerly WWTP is one of two treatment facilities serving the Columbus metropolitan

area. Wastewater from the eastern part of the metropolitan area, Grove City, and excess flows from the

Jackson Pike WWTP are treated at the Southerly WWTP which discharges to the middle portion of the

Scioto River, USEPA river reach number 05060001-027. The plant was constructed in 1967 and became

an advanced treatment facility in September 1987.

The treatment process is comprised of screening, aerated grit removal, pre-aeration, primary settling,

activated sludge aeration, secondary clarification, chlorination, dechlorination using sulfur dioxide, and

post-aeration. Discharge occurs directly to the Scioto River at RM 118.4. 

Indicator A.

The CWSRF funded the construction of additional clarifier capacity at the Southerly WWTP. The project

was initiated as a result of the Anheuser-Bush, Inc. interest in expanding production at its Columbus

brewery, thereby increasing wastewater flows. Further planning and value engineering determined that

two additional final clarifiers needed to be constructed at the Southerly WWTP to provide additional

solids/liquid separation for the aeration unit process at average daily flows and loads, and the current

peak flow of 150 million gallons per day (MGD), expandable to 198 MGD for future wet weather flows. 

Construction of this project began Spring 1991 and both clarifiers were in operation in Spring 1993. The

amount financed for this project and some sewer rehabilitation work was $34,752,787 ($12,788,420-

secondary treatment; $24,995,547-advanced treatment; $968,820-major rehabilitation).
F-25

Indicator 1

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT COLUMBUS SOUTHERLY WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(beginning 10/92)

125,090 99 121,577 95

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 6/95) 

116,969 93 94,635 76

CHANGE -8,121 -6 -26,942 -19

Data suggest a decreased ability of the WWTP to remove TSS and CBOD5. This information must be

carefully considered since the effect of overflows at the WWTP is not readily apparent. For example, the

data suggests that 1993 may not have had as many overflows as 1995-1996 did. In fact, there are six

months of missing overflow data for CBOD5 during 1993, but 1995-1996 has a complete record of

overflows, suggesting that even with overflow events the WWTP overall had a removal efficiency of 93%

for CBOD5. In that same regard, the complete record for TSS in 1992-93 and 1995-96 suggests more

clearly the effects of the plant overflow on removal efficiencies. Removal efficiencies varied with the

number, frequency, and duration of storm events leading to overflows at this facility.

Only three violations for ammonia and pH were noted during September 1996 and continue to remain low

while flow increased after 1988. Total suspended solids loadings have remained consistent through time. 

 A dramatic decrease in the ambient ammonia concentration occurred in 1988 downstream from both the

Jackson Pike WWTP and Columbus Southerly WWTP. According to the 1996 Middle Scioto River

Technical Support Document, this decrease was a direct result of plant improvements and upgrades to

both facilities. 

The dissolved oxygen concentration has increased over time from an annual daily average of 7.43 mg/L

in 1992-93 to 9.2 mg/L in 1995-96 downstream of the WWTP. Average concentrations have been

significantly above the exceptional warmwater criterion since 1980.

Total phosphorus concentrations have declined throughout the study area. In 1996, average phosphorus

concentrations were found to be below the Ohio EPA guideline (1 mg/L) for the prevention of nuisance

algal growths at all sample sites.

The level of nitrate has increased along the entire stream segment. This coincides with the decrease in

ammonia due to the nitrification processes installed at the Columbus WWTPs.
8Deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors

F-26

Indicators 4& 5

COLUMBUS SOUTHERLY WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 118.40 (BYPASS EFFLUENT RM 118.40)

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

SCIOTO RIVER 

OH37 1

WARMWATER

HABITAT

 HIGH -VERY HIGH EASTERN CORN

BELT PLAIN

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1991 5.65 0.00 1.50 0.10 0.00

1996 1.85 4.50 0.90 0.00 0.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1991 1996 Cause 1991 1996

Municipal Point Sources H M,T Unionized Ammonia H T

Combined Sewer Overflow H H Organic enrichment/DO H H,T

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (NPS) - T

The 1991 monitoring comments indicated that Columbus Southerly WWTP is the most significant point

source of impairment in the area. Non- and Partial attainment that year were due to lingering impacts

from Columbus CSOs and WWTPs, although extensive improvements downstream from Columbus

Southerly have been documented over the past 10 years. The 1996 monitoring indicated significant

improvement in this segment due to reduced pollutant loads from the two WWTPs in Columbus and

combined sewer overflows. Biological communities indicated full attainment of WWH criteria but DELT8

anomalies in fish were markedly elevated within this reach indicating likely toxic and/or bacteriological

stressors.

Indicator 6

This stretch of the Scioto River has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal

coliform content in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100 ML or 2,000

per 100 ML in more than 10% of samples per month.
F-27

SCIOTO RIVER

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

 PRE-PROJECT

(beginning 10/92)

2186 no data 1770

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 6/95) 

5905 222.3 4693.6

Monitoring indicates a gradual decrease in the number of fecal coliform bacteria per sample occurring

throughout most of the study area both upstream and downstream from Columbus WWTPs. The WWTP

effluent seems to have a diluting effect on the fecal coliform concentrations in the stream. Mean

concentrations are still above Ohio water quality standards criteria and are most likely due to CSOs, 

WWTP bypasses and other diffuse inputs. This information points out further work that the city needs to

do in order to minimize the potential for human health problems. It also points out an area for potential

CWSRF assistance.

11. OAK HILL WWTP (completion date 10/01/95)

location: Jackson County, latitude 38`52'55" N, longitude 82`34'36" W

The Oak Hill WWTP discharges to Huntingcamp Creek in the Symmes Creek Basin. This stream

segment can be referenced by USEPA river reach number 05090101-. 

Indicator A

Oak Hill WWTP was hydraulically overloaded and in need of expansion and upgrading to meet its

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits. Excessive I/I in the collection

system was identified as contributing to the WWTP problems. 

The WWTP improvements consisted of a grit chamber, a comminutor, two aeration tanks, two final

clarifiers, a new chlorine contact tank along with dechlorination, conversion of the existing final clarifiers

to aerobic digesters and replacement of the existing sand drying beds with plastic filter media for sludge

drying, and an earthen dike to provide flood protection to the 100-year flood elevation. 

Sewer system improvements eliminated the excessive amount of I/I from the collection system.

These upgrades were funded through a grant from Farmers’ Home Administration, a grant from the Ohio

Public Works’ Commission-Issue 2 Program and a low interest loan (at a hardship rate) from Ohio’s

CWSRF program in the amount of $937,651.

Indicator 1

From May 1992 through April 1993, the Oak Hill WWTP removed an average of 117 pounds of TSS per

day (65%) and an average of 224 pounds of CBOD5 per day (76%). After completion of the CWSRF

project in October 1997, the WWTP removed an average of 305 pounds of TSS (96%) per day and an

average of 378 pounds of CBOD5 (97%) per day. 
F-28

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT OAK HILL WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(beginning 5/92)

 224 76 117 65

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 10/97) 

378 97 305 96

CHANGE 183 21 204 31

Pounds removed increased by 204 for TSS and 183 for CBOD5 as did the WWTP removal efficiencies for

both parameters. The efficiencies increased by 31% for TSS and by 21% for CBOD5. 

Indicators 4& 5

OAK HILL WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 1.7

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

HUNTINGCAMP CREEK

OH32 40

WARMWATER

HABITAT

MODERATE WESTERN ALLEGHENY

PLATEAU

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1987 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.40 0.00

1995 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.40 0.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1987 1995 Cause 1987 1995

Municipal Point Sources H H Other Habitat alterations M -

Channelization M - Nutrients - H

Sludge - H Oil and Grease - M

Onsite wastewater systems 

(septic tanks) H Organic enrichment/DO H H

Urban runoff/storm sewers (nps) - H

The early monitoring indicated that upstream of Oak Hill WWTP the stream is ditch-like with degraded 

habitat. Oak Hill WWTP is specifically noted as a source of impact. Later monitoring named Oak Hill

WWTP as a source of degradation with sludge deposits present in significant amounts in the stream

channel. Oil and grease from a junk yard upstream and other nonpoint sources of impairment add to the

water quality impairments in 1995. Indicator 1 demonstrates that the CWSRF project resulted in a big
F-29

improvement in pollutant removals at the WWTP, but this is not demonstrated by the aquatic community. 

Huntingcamp Creek is only moderately restorable and more time may be required before any

improvement can be seen in the segment due to the WWTP improvements. If the nonpoint sources of

impairment are severe enough, the aquatic community may not recover even if the WWTP problems are

eliminated.

Indicator 6

Huntingcamp Creek has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform

content in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100ML or 2,000 per

100ML in more than 10% of samples per month.

HUNTINGCAMP CREEK

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 year) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT 

(beginning 5/92)

3,300 no data 60,000

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 10/97)

5,192 140 3,758

Violations of fecal coliform concentrations are clearly a source of impairment to this stream segment as

well as a potential human health threat. Prior to the CWSRF-funded project, the WWTP added

significantly to the problem, but following the WWTP improvements, the downstream fecal coliform

concentrations are lower than the upstream concentrations. The WWTP effluent seems to be diluting the

already high fecal coliform concentrations. Many of the sources of impairment noted above could be

contributing to this problem. 

12. RAVENNA WWTP (completion date 10/9/93)

location: Portage County, latitude 41`08' 58" N, longitude 81`15' 42" W

Two municipal wastewater treatment plants discharge to Breakneck Creek, the Franklin Hills WWTP on

Breakneck Creek, and the Ravenna WWTP which discharges to Hommon Ditch, a tributary of Wahoo

Ditch which flows into Breakneck Creek which is located in the Cuyahoga River Basin. This segment is

identified by USEPA River Reach number number 04110002-005.

The Ravenna WWTP is equipped with primary and secondary settling tanks, aeration tanks,

microscreens, a chlorine contact tank, sludge concentrator, aerobic and anaerobic digesters, and sludge

drying beds. 

Indicator A

The CWSRF was used to fund two project phases. Phase 1 included: a siphon control chamber, screen

building, flow equalization basins, roughing filter, effluent pump station and post aeration, and a pump

station and various other minor improvements. Phase 2 improvements included: aerobic digester piping

modifications, expansion of the sludge concentrator building and removal of the existing sludge

concentrator, a sieve drum concentrator, a belt filter press, renovation of sludge drying beds, sewer

system rehabilitation, and clean-up of a temporary sludge landfill. 

The Ravenna WWTP was unable to meet its NPDES permit limits and was under enforcement action to

expand and upgrade its plant in order to comply with its permitted effluent limits. 
F-30

Indicator 1

Prior to the WWTP improvements, the Ravenna WWTP could not meet its final ammonia-nitrogen limit

and although TSS and BOD limits were being met consistently, it was becoming more difficult to do so as

the WWTP approached its design capacity. 

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT RAVENNA WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(beginning 11/89)

2,198 98 2,564 94

POST-PROJECT 

(beginning 11/94)

2,569 98 3,279 95

CHANGE 371 0 715 1

Pounds of pollutants removed increased by 715 pounds for TSS and by 371pounds for CBOD5 while the

WWTP percent removal efficiency increased by 1% for TSS and remained static for CBOD5 .

The Cuyahoga River Technical Support Document (MAS/1997-12-4, 1999) indicated that under normal

operation, ammonia nitrogen and total Kjeldahl nitrogen loads have decreased, especially since 1988. 

However, 95th percentile loadings have increased, demonstrating wider and wider separation between

normal and extreme treatment performance. Ravenna has a history of wet weather bypasses from the

WWTP. The loadings trends show that the plant operates well during dry weather, but is increasingly

unable to handle peak flows. Further expansion and upgrade of their treatment system, if approved,

should result in improved plant performance and eliminate treatment bypasses.

All Breakneck Creek samples from RM 14.6 to the mouth were in compliance with chemical WQS criteria. 

While the standards were not exceeded, the Ravenna and Franklin Hills WWTPs had discernable impacts

on Breakneck Creek. Median nitrate-nitrite nitrogen concentrations increased an order of magnitude

downstream from the Ravenna WWTP via Wahoo Ditch (from 0.2 mg/L to 2.0 mg/L), and peaked

downstream from the Franklin Hills WWTP. Phosphorus and ammonia-nitrogen concentrations were high

in Wahoo Ditch with peak concentrations of 0.65 mg/L and 2.5 mg/L, respectively. However, only

ammonia-nitrogen concentrations were detectably higher in Breakneck Creek downstream from Wahoo

Ditch, suggesting that the phosphorus was readily assimilated, but the nitrogen was not. The highammonia nitrogen concentrations found in Wahoo Ditch correspond to the high 95th percentile.

Indicators 4& 5

RAVENNA WWTP IMPROVEMENTS, RM 0.85

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

BREAKNECK CREEK

OH88 8

WARMWATER

HABITAT

HIGH ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE

PLAIN
F-31

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1987 2.00 0.00 15.80 0.70 0.00

1996 9.50 0.00 2.00 3.80 3.20

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1987 1996 Cause 1987 1996

Municipal Point Sources M - Flow Alteration MH

Major - H Organic enrichment/DO H H

Minor - H Unknown toxicity - H

Natural H H

Landfills S -

The old monitoring comments do not specifically discuss the Ravenna WWTP, but generally list municipal

point sources as being a moderate source of impairment. The 1996 comments indicate that the fish

communities showed impacts from the Ravenna WWTP with further declines noted downstream from the

Franklin Hills WWTP. This was further evidenced by the presence of an increased percentage of tolerant

fishes at RM 3.1 relative to RM 5.2 and a low Modified Index of Well Being scrore. This index score

continues to decline downstream from Franklin Hills before recovering at the mouth. The results suggest

intermittently toxic conditions downstream from Ravenna which are increased as a result of the discharge

from the Franklin Hills WWTP. 

The CWSRF funded project appears to have improved the functioning of the Ravenna WWTP. 

Breakneck Creek is in better shape than it was in 1987 as far as total miles fully attaining the aquatic life

use designation, but it is clear that further improvement could occur. Municipal point sources are now

listed as high sources of impairment as compared to moderate sources in 1987. This may reflect

improvement in Ohio EPA’s ability to discern causes and sources as monitoring procedures and reporting

improved since 1987. 

Indicator 6

Breakneck Creek has a Primary Contact Recreation designation. The standard for fecal coliform content

in no less than 5 samples in a 30 day period is not to exceed 1,000 per 100ML or 2,000 per 100ML in

more than 10% of samples per month.

BREAKNECK CREEK

ANNUAL AVERAGE FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS

SAMPLING PERIOD (1 year) UPSTREAM

(#/100ML)

EFFLUENT

(#/100ML)

DOWNSTREAM

(#/100ML)

PRE-PROJECT 

(beginning 11/89)

no data 100 481

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 11/94)

2,364 104 439
F-32

The fecal coliform data indicates high background levels that drop to a more acceptable level downstream

of the WWTP effluent. Effluent levels have very low fecal counts. The high background conditions do

not appear to be related to the WWTP operations. 

13. VILLAGE OF CONNEAUT (improvements implemented 1987 through 1992 refinanced through

WPCLF in 1993), location: Ashtabula County, latitude 41`58' 08“ N, longitude 80`32‘ 57" W

Conneaut Creek is designated Cold Water Habitat, and Seasonal Salmonid Habitat. This creek harbors a

number of sensitive species with declining populations in the state. The Conneaut WWTP discharges to

the mouth of Conneaut Creek as it empties into Lake Erie. The USEPA River Reach number for this

location is 04120101-012.

Indicator A

Conneaut's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was under Findings and Orders issued Oct 4, 1985. This

enforcement action resulted from the failure of the WWTP to meet the NPDES permit limits, resulting in

degradation of Conneaut Creek. After evaluating a variety of alternatives, the city upgraded the WWTP.

eliminated a combined sewer overflow (CSO), and rehabilitated existing sanitary sewers. Improvements

to the WWTP and portions of the collection system were made between 1987 and 1992. The loan amount

was $2,580,000, combined with a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of $93,000.

The Conneaut WWTP was constructed in 1954 with a design capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day

(MGD). It was expanded in 1973 and upgraded in 1987-88 to meet NPDES permit requirements. The

WWTP improvements required to comply with the permit limitations were a new 300,000 gallon

equalization basin; a new 20,000 cubic foot sludge holding tank; two (2) primary settling tank

mechanisms; one (1) communicator; one (1) grit tank mechanism; and modifications to the headworks

digester control building, and the service building. The current plant is an activated sludge treatment

facility with an average daily flow (ADF) capacity of 5.0 MGD. The WWTP discharges to the mouth of

Conneaut Creek at RM 0.30. However, the WWTP is considered to be a Lake Erie discharge.

Gravity sewers and force mains were installed in the previously unsewered areas of East Conneaut,

Gateway Avenue, and West Main Road over the past ten years. Runoff from this area flows into

Conneaut Creek. The final phase of East Conneaut sewer installation is slated to begin in early 2000. 

Indicator 1

A 1988 permit document indicates that CBOD5 and ammonia-nitrogen in the WWTP effluent were found

at low concentrations. Monthly averages for BOD5, CBOD5, and TSS were always found to be lower than

10 mg/L; ammonia levels were below 4.0 mg/L and heavy metals were found in varying concentrations. 

The 95th percentile confidence interval values for cadmium, total chromium, lead, nickel, and mercury

were all above the levels mandated by their permit. 

Comparative pollutant removal levels for TSS and CBOD5 are shown below.
F-33

POLLUTANTS REMOVED AT CONNEAUT WWTP

SAMPLING

PERIOD

(1 YEAR)

POUNDS OF

CBOD5

REMOVED 

(daily average)

% CBOD5

REMOVED

POUNDS OF

TSS REMOVED 

(daily average)

% TSS

REMOVED

PRE-PROJECT

(beginning 1/86)

no data no data 1,421 96

POST-PROJECT

(beginning 11/94) 

1,266 97 1,362 97

CHANGE can’t determine can’t determine -59 1

TSS and CBOD5 concentrations were not the causes of NPDES permit violations that triggered the

WWTP upgrade. The table above reflects that these parameters were being removed at an acceptable

level. 

The 1997 Grand and Ashtabula River Basin Technical Support Document indicates that the water quality

of Conneaut Creek (RM 23.1) is good with no exceedance of any of Ohio’s Water Quality Criteria with the

exception of one dissolved oxygen reading (possibly attributable to low follow conditions observed during

the sampling period). Nutrient concentrations in Conneaut Creek at this location were very low. This

sampling location provides information concerning the unsewered portion of the city, but is too far away

from the WWTP effluent to provide information regarding the plant.

Indicators 4& 5

VILLAGE OF CONNEAUT

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

CONNEAUT CREEK

OH93 3

CWH HIGH-VERY HIGH ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE

PLAIN

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1987 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.40 17.43

1989 22.33 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00

1995 22.53 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
F-34

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1987 1989 1995 Cause 1987 1989 1995

Municipal Point Sources H - - Organic enrichment/DO S - -

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(NPS) S - - Metals H - -

Landfills S - - Other habitat alterations - H,T H 

Contaminated Sediments S - H pH - S,T - 

Spills - S,T -

Dredging - - H

Streambank modification/

 destabilization - H H 

The monitoring comments are sparse for this segment and do not elaborate on the sources of impairment.

The chemical data above indicates that high metals concentrations (also reflected in the cause column

above) is the component of WWTP effluent causing impairment. There is a correlation between the

completion of the CWSRF-funded Conneaut WWTP improvements and the disappearance of the

“Municipal Point Source” of impairment. A corresponding improvement in water quality is evident as can

be seen in the use attainment table above. 

Conneaut continues to receive CWSRF funding for collection system upgrades and repairs, and for

construction of sewers in the eastern part of the city where failing on-lot systems create a potential health

hazard. It is interesting to note the disappearance of the urban runoff/storm sewers (nonpoint) source of

impairment and organic enrichment/low DO cause of impairment as these projects progressed. 

Indicator 6

There is insufficient information to look at this indicator. The only ambient stream values available are for

1975-77 where the fecal coliform count was 1,217 per 100ML. The site downstream from the WWTP was

not comparable due to the influence of Lake Erie.

According to the Environmental Assessments for the east Conneaut area, the local health department has

records of failing on-lot systems and corresponding localized high fecal coliform levels in puddles and

ditches in the area. 

14. CITY OF PARMA HEIGHTS (completion date 8/1/96)

location: Cuyahoga County, latitude 41`23' 04" N, longitude 81`45' 36" W

Indicator A

This project involved connecting 28 homes with failing on-lot systems to a centralized collection system. 

The health department in the area determined these systems to be inadequate and undersized. Water

quality sampling conducted by the health department indicated water quality violations from area catch

basins and storm sewers. The surrounding area is served by a centralized collection system.

The loan amount from the CWSRF was $218,870 with the remainder of the project costs coming from

assessments.
F-35

Indicators 4& 5

PARMA HEIGHTS COLLECTION SYSTEM

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

 BIG CREEK OH89 5 WWH MODERATE - HIGH ERIE-ONTARIO LAKE

PLAIN

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1984 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.40 3.6

1991 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 11.00

1996 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 4.00

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1984 1991 1996 Cause 1984 1991 1996

Industrial Point Sources M - - Organic enrichment/DO H H H

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers(NPS) H,S - M Metals M - -

Combined Sewer Overflows H - H Oil and grease S S M 

Spills - - S Flow alteration - - M

Other - - M Cause Unknown - S S

The monitoring comments indicate that in 1984 there was one fish kill (129 fish) caused by sewage. 

Extensive sludge deposits were also noted. Subsequent monitoring noted improving conditions in the

water quality, but urban runoff and spills continue to be a major problem in the basin. Sanitary sewer

overflows had been recorded but many of these were due to breaks or blockages. Oil contamination from

a research oil company was also suspected to impact water quality.

The evidence suggests that the CWSRF-funded project helped improve water quality, but such a small

project in a stream segment with many sources of impairment did not make a large enough improvement

to bring this segment into attainment.

Indicator 6.

There is no information available to evaluate this indicator.

15. HARDIN COUNTY LANDFILL (completion date 11/15/95)

location: Hardin County, latitude 40`39' 00" N, longitude 83`38' 30" W

The Hardin County Sanitary Landfill is a 17 acre landfill on a 200 acre tract owned by Hardin County and

located about two miles west of Kenton. The Scioto River forms the southern boundary of the site and is

identified by USEPA river reach number 05060001-035. The southern limits of solid waste placement are

about 200 feet from the Scioto River's current channel. The western boundary of the site is wooded with

an intermittent stream tributary to the Scioto River. 
F-36

Indicator A

This project involved planning, engineering, and construction for final closure of the Hardin County

Sanitary Landfill. Documented groundwater contamination has been noted in the uppermost aquifer since

1989. The landfill is also thought to be a source of stream litter and other nonpoint sources of pollution to

the Scioto River. 

Under Findings and Orders issued by the Director of the Ohio EPA, Hardin County developed the Hardin

County Sanitary Landfill Closure Plan. Among other things, the approved closure/post-closure plan

provided for:

 - construction of a cap over the landfill to prevent storm water infiltration;

 - construction of a leachate collection system to remove leachate from the landfill;

 - implementation of storm water and erosion control measures to maintain the integrity of

the cap system and prevent site run-off from adversely impacting the surrounding

environment. 

The Scioto River downstream from the landfill, between Panther Creek and the Little Scioto River, was

identified in the 1990 Nonpoint Source Assessment as being impaired by nonpoint sources of pollution.

The CWSRF loan amount for this project was $971,500.

Indicator 1

Ambient water quality showed no violations of Ohio Water Quality Standards from Hardin County Landfill

in 1984 or 1995. Water quality parameter concentrations were similar to or less than concentrations

noted upsteam indicating no impact from the county landfill with the exception of abundant stream litter.

Indicators 4& 5

HARDIN COUNTY LANDFILL, RM 213.90

AFFECTED

WATERBODY(S)

AQUATIC LIFE USE

DESIGNATION

RESTORABILITY ECOREGION

SCIOTO RIVER 

OH34 24

WARMWATER

HABITAT

LOW EASTERN CORN

BELT PLAIN

AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT IN RIVER MILES

SAMPLING

 YEAR

FULLY

ATTAINED

THREATENED PARTIALLY

ATTAINED

NOT 

SUPPORTING

NOT

ASSESSED

1984 0.00 0.00 3.60 8.40 12.93

1995 8.63 0.00 16.30 0.00 0.00
9

Leachate is liquid that has either come in contact with or been released from solid waste. Leachate

formation commonly results from the infiltration and percolation of precipitation through the solid waste

mass. Once formed, leachate may emerge at the surface as seeps or springs or continue to percolate

downward, posing a threat to groundwater.

F-37

SOURCES AND CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

(magnitudes are indicated as High, Moderate, Slight, or Threats)

 Magnitude Magnitude

Source 1984 1995 Cause 1984 1995

Municipal Point Sources H - Organic enrichment/DO H -

Channelization M H Other habitat alterations M H

Pasture land S - Siltation -M

Nonirrigated crop production S M

The monitoring comments do not name Hardin County Landfill as a source of impairment to this segment

either in 1984 or in 1995. The 1984 comments mention channelization, row crops, pastures and the

McGuffy WWTP as being sources of impairment while the 1995 causes named channelization and

nonirrigated crop production. The more recent monitoring describes the surface water quality as good,

noting that channelization is a problem for the fish community. Capping this landfill had no immediately

apparent water quality improvement based on surface water monitoring results. Nonpoint source pollution

from the site may be characterized as siltation which is listed as a moderate cause of impairment. In any

case, the project description does describe erosion and runoff prevention activities that almost certainly

resulted in some reduced nonpoint source pollution to the surface waters from the landfill site.

Indicator 6.

The goal of this project was to mitigate a known source of groundwater contamination and probable

source of surface water pollution. Before the CWSRF-funded project, water ponded on the landfill and

percolated through the waste and entered ground water and drainage ditches to the Scioto River. The

contamination posed a possible threat to a drinking water and human health. Quarterly groundwater

monitoring results at the site have documented groundwater contamination in the uppermost aquifer since

at least 1989. The source of the contamination, which appears to be confined to the uppermost aquifer, is

believed to be landfill leachate.9 The limited extent of the groundwater contamination may be due, in

part, to the presence of a bottom confining layer and the low density of the observed contaminants (i.e.,

the contaminants tend to float on the surface of the water table). Capping the landfill decreased the

human health risks by reducing the potential for direct exposure to the fill and leachate. It also reduced

the amount of potential leachate entering the groundwater. Recent information indicates that more may

need to be done at this site to protect groundwater.
Appendix G. Ohio EPA Biological Indicators
G-1

Biological Indicators Biological indicators are features of the aquatic

ecosystem that demonstrate the health and vitality

of the ecosystem. There are three indices that Ohio EPA uses to assess the health of the

biological community and determine aquatic life use designations. These are the index of

biological integrity (IBI), the modified index of well being, (MIwb) and the invertebrate community

index (ICI). These may be referenced in other sections of the 305(b) or in various monitoring or

technical support documents.

* Index of Biological Integrity

* Invertebrate Community Index

* Modified Index of Well Being 

* Making Sense of the Indices

Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)

The index of biological integrity is a measure of fish species diversity and species populations.

The criteria used to establish the index for each of the five ecoregions reflects the biological

performance exhibited by natural or least impacted habitats of each region based on specific

reference sites. The index is a number that reflects total native species composition, indicator

species composition, pollutant intolerant and tolerant species composition, and fish condition.

Combined, the higher the calculation, the healthier the aquatic ecosystem; conversely, the lower

the index, the poorer the health of the aquatic ecosystem. The highest score is 60.

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)

The invertebrate community index is based on measurements of the macroinvertebrate

communities living in a stream or river. It is particularly useful in evaluating stream health

because: (1) there are a wide variety of macroinvertebrate taxa, which are known to be pollutant

intolerant; and (2) there are a number of macroinvertebrate taxa, which are known to be pollutant

tolerant. Like the IBI, the ICI scale is 0 to 60 with higher scores representing healthier

macroinvertebrate communities and therefore more biologically diverse communities.

Modified Index of Well Being (Miwb)

The modified index of well being is based upon the index of well being, which is a calculation of

fish mass and density. The modified index of well being factors out 13 pollutant tolerant species

of fish from certain calculations. This prevents false high readings on polluted streams which

have large populations of pollutant tolerant fish.
G-2

Making Sense of the Indices

The Ecological Assessment Unit at Ohio EPA uses these indices, in concert with other chemical

and physical water quality data to evaluate the use attainment of particular stream segments.

When these three biological indices are evaluated together or in pairs, we can learn things about

the water quality picture which may not be evident from examining one index alone. For example,

if a high IBI is coupled with a low MIwb, it might indicate that while there is a variety of species

and a good number of individuals of each species (high IBI) individual members of these species

are smaller than what is expected. This might indicate that while fish are numerous, they are not

maturing fully. In turn, this information could be useful in determining which pollution source is

impacting the biological community more than others. For example, thermal increases caused by

effluent from wastewater treatment plants could contribute to poor maturation of fish fry. This is

just one of many explanations that might be true, depending on other environmental factors.
Appendix H. Ohio EPA Sampling Fact Sheet