# Methodology for Oregon’s 20 10 Water Quality Report And List of Water Quality Limited

Waters

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

- 041

- 0046) DEQ Water Quality Division

Last Updated: 5/ 1 2/2011 By: Karla Urbanowicz DEQThis report prepared by:

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

811 SW 6 th Avenue Portland, OR 97204

1

- 800

- 452

- 4011 www.oregon.gov/deq

Contact:

Karla Urbanowicz (503) 229

- 6099- i



## Table of Contents

Introduction

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

Oregon’s Water Quality Standards

................................ ................ 2

Information on Statewide Water Quality and Beneficial Use Support

– Probabilistic Assessments

................................ ........... 5

Data Evaluation

................................ ................................ ............... 5

Call for Data

................................ ................................ .................. 5

Available Data

................................ ................................ ............... 6

Metadata Requireme nts

................................ ............................... 6

QA/QC Requirements

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

2010 Integrated Report Assessment Categories

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

General Policy Discussion

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

De

- Lis ting Water Bodies

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

Segmentation

................................ ................................ ............. 11 Segment Identifiers

................................ ................................ .......... 11 Determining Segments and Segment Status

................................ . 12 General Segmentation Rules

................................ ........................... 12 Segments for Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen

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



### Tribal Waters

................................ ................................ .............. 14

Process

................................ ................................ .......................... 14

Oregon’s Assessment Prot ocols

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

Division 41 Water Quality Standards: Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria for Oregon

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

Policy

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

Narrative Criteria

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

Pollutants and Criteria

................................ ............................... 18

POLLUTAN T: Aquatic Weeds or Algae

................................ ........... 18
POLLUTANT: Bacteria

- E. coli (Escherichia coli)

.......................... 20
POLLUTANT: Bacteria

- Enterococci

................................ .............. 23
POLLUTANT: Bacteria

– Fecal Coliform

................................ ......... 25- ii

POLLUTANT: Biocriteria

................................ ................................ .. 28
POLLUTANT: Chlorophyll a

................................ ............................. 33
POLLUTANT: pH

................................ ................................ ............... 42
POLLUTANT: Se dimentation

................................ ........................... 45

POLLUTANT: Temperature

................................ .............................. 46
POLLUTANT: Total Dissolved Gas

................................ .................. 49
POLLUTANT: Toxic Substances

................................ ...................... 50

POLLUTANT: Turbidity

................................ ................................ ..... 63

Appendix 1 : Rules for Defining Water Body Segments and Assigning Assessment Status Category

Appendix 2 : Letter DEQ to EPA 6/22/1998 Re: Policy clarification of the Oregon water quality standards revisions

Appendix 3 : Letter DEQ to EPA , 2 /4/2004 Re: Oregon Responses to EPA Questions re the State’s water quality temperature standardsMay 1 2, 2011 Page 1



## Introduction

The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) requires S tates submit a biennial water quality inventory report in April of even numbered years. The report provides

information on the water quality of all navigable state waters ; the extent to which state waters provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; and how pollution

control measures are leading to water quality standards being met

.

The CWA Section 303(d) additionally requi res each S tate identify state waters where existing pollution controls are not stringent enough to achieve s tate water quality

standards

, and establish a priority ranking of these waters. Section 303(d) requires S tate s to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the identified wa ters

. TMDLs describe the amount of each pollutant a water body can receive and not v iolate water quality standards. States submit the list of water s needing TMDLs (303(d) list) to EPA

and EPA either approves or disapproves the list within thirty days after the submission.

EPA regulations (40 CFR 130.7 and 40 CFR 130.8) specify the process for developing the 303(d) list and the content of the biennial water quality report. EPA guidance

recommends that States submit an i ntegrated r eport to satisfy 305(b) a n d 303(d) requirements. 1 The i ntegrated r eport presents the results of assessing available data to determine where water quality standards are met or not met, and identifies the pollutants

caus ing water quality limitations or impairment s

.

EPA regulations re quire S tates to describe the methodology , data, and information used to identify and list water quality limited segments requiring TMDLs

. The assessment methodology contains the "decision rules" used to evaluate data and information

. Oregon

Administrative Rules (OAR 340

- 041

- 0046) also require the specific evaluation process

be identified.

This document, Methodology for Oregon’s 2010 Water Quality Report a nd List of Water Quality Limited Waters

, describes how DEQ develop ed Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report fo r 305(b) and 303(d)

. The m ethodolog y is consistent with key

elements of Oregon’s water quality standards including designated uses, narrative and numeric criteria, antidegradation requirements, and imple mentation procedures

associated with the standards an d is the framework DEQ use s to assess water quality

conditions

.

1 October 12, 2006, Memorandum from Diane Regas , EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed Re: Information Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions http://www.epa.gov /owow/tmdl/2008_ir_memorandum.htmlMay 1 2, 2011 Page 2

The assessment methodology is consistent with the following :

 Water Quality Standards, Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria for Oregon : Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 34 0 Division 41. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARs_300/OAR_340/340_041.html

 L etter from DEQ to EPA, Region 10

, P olicy clarifications for Oregon’s water quality standards interpretat ion

, June 22, 1998.

 L etter from DEQ to EPA Region 10 , Oregon responses to EPA questions re : the State’s water quality temperature standards

, February 4, 2004

.

 May 5, 2009, Memorandum from Suzanne Schwartz, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Re: Information Concerning 2010 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/fi nal52009.cfm

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

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

 Guidance for 200 6 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requireme nts Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) , and 314 of the Cl ean Water Act: United States Environmental Protection Agency, ( July 2 9 , 200 5 ) http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/

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

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

Control

 40 CFR Part 130.7 (Code of Federal Regulations)

 40 CFR Part 130.8 (Code of Federal Regulations)



## Oregon’s Water Quality Standards

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

, and anti degradation policies. Oregon’s water quality standards are adopted in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340 Division 41 ( http://www.deq.state.or.us/regulat ions/rules.htm )

. These rules include policies and criteria that are ap plicable throughout the state.

Beneficial uses are designated by the State of Oregon Water Resources Department and the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission. Basin

- specific benefici al uses and fish

uses are designated in OAR 340

- 041

- 010 1 through OAR 340

- 041

- 03 4 0

. Fish use designations include explicit water body segment locations and time periods for fish uses and life stages. For example, the beneficial uses protected in the Main Stem ColumbiaMay 1 2, 2011 Page 3

River are designated in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101(1) and (2) and shown in Table 101A and

Table 101B as follows:

340

- 041

- 0101

Beneficial Uses to Be Protected in the Main Stem Columbia River (1) Wa ter quality in the main stem Columbia River (see Figure 1) must be managed to protect the designated beneficial uses shown in Table 101A (November 2003). (2) Designated fish uses to be protected in the main stem Columbia River are shown in Table 101B (Nove mber 2003).

Table 101A Designated Beneficial Uses

Mainstem Columbia River

Beneficial Uses Columbia River

Mouth to RM 86 Columbia River

RM 86 to 309

Public Domestic Water Supply1 X X

Private Domestic Water Supply1 X X

Industrial Water Supply X X

Irrigation X X

Livestock Watering X X

Fish & Aquatic Life2 X X

Wildlife & Hunting X X

Fishing X X

Boating X X

Water Contact Recreation X X

Aesthetic Quality X X

Hydro Power X

Commercial Navigation & Transportation X X

1 With adequate pretreatment and natural quality that meets drinking water standards.

2 See also Table 101B for fish use designations for this river.

Table produced November, 2003 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/rules/div041/dbutables/table101a.pdfMay 1 2, 2011 Page 4 T able 101B

B eneficial U se D esignations

– F ish Uses

Mainstem Columbia River Geographic Extent of Use Salmon and

Steelhead Migration

Corridors (20°C) Salmon and

Steelhead Spawning through Fry Emergence Shad and

Sturgeon Spawning

and Rearing

Mainstem Columbia River

Beacon Rock to Upstream of Ives Island (RM 141.5 to RM 143.5) October 15

- March 31
Columbia River, mouth to WA border (RM309) X

Columbia River (RM 147 to RM 203) X

Table produced November, 2003 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/rules/div041/futables/table101b.pdf

Oregon water quality standards include statewide narrative criteria established in OAR

340

- 041

- 0007. Narrative criteria include provisions for:

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

- 041

- 0007(2),

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

- 041

- 000 7(11),

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

- 041

- 0007(12), and

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

- 041

- 0007(13).

DEQ applies statewide n arrative c riteria 340

- 041

- 0007(2) that allow for less stringent natural conditions to supersede numeric criteria using guidance provided by EPA Region 10 and DEQ agreements with EPA

. 2

, 3 Oregon water quality standards for s pecific pollutant s are established in OAR 3 40

- 041

- 0009 (Bacteria) through OAR 340

- 041

- 0036 (Turbidity)

. For this assessment, e ach pollutant is assessed independently

. T he methodology for each pollutant is discussed in later sections of this document. Oregon’s standards for Toxic Substances (OAR 340

- 041

- 0033) were revised in 2004, but have not

2 EPA Region 10, April, 2005, Principles to Consider When Reviewing and Using

Natural Condition Provisions http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.NSF/840a5de5d0a8d1418825650f00715a27/35a31c9a efba540188256fd60076c840?OpenDocument#The%20Document

3 DEQ, February 4, 2004, Clarification Letter from DEQ to EPA, http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/temperature/clarificationltr.pdfMay 1 2, 2011 Page 5

yet been approved by EPA. Numeric criteria in Table 20 for toxic substances remain the

effective criteria for CWA 305(b) and 303(d) assessment purposes. Temperature criteria (OAR 340

- 041

- 0028) for temperature

- s ensitive fish uses

, including specific salmonid life cycle stages, were adopted by Oregon in 2003 and approved by EPA and are applicable for assessment purposes at the locations and time periods when those fish uses are designated

. Dissolved oxygen criteria for specific fish use and life cycle stages are also applicable where those uses are designated

.

A statewide antidegradation policy is established in OAR 340

- 041

- 0004 to guide

decisions that affect water quality. Additional polic ies for applying water quality

standards to determine water quality limited waters, in mixing zones, at wastewater treatment works, and other implementation policies are contained in OAR 340

- 041

- 00 46

to OAR 340

- 041

- 0061.



## Information on S tatewide Water Qual ity and Beneficial
Use S upport

– Probabilistic Assessment s

DEQ has participated in the national Western States Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (W

- EMAP). Th e stud ies use a probabilistic sampling design to poll

a statistically determined num ber of sites to represent water quality , physical habitat, and ecological conditions on statewide or basin

- level scale s. This differs from targeted sampling that represents a single site or small water segment

. The probabilistic stud ies collect chemical, physical, and biological data from a set of ran domly selected sites on perenni al and wadeable streams in Oregon. The conclusions from the probabilistic studies provide generalized information about water quality and beneficial use suppor t for Oregon as a whole. I nformation about physical habitat conditions does not specifically

indicate beneficial use s are impaired or that a pollutant is present

. Probabilistic

assessment information is often presented in ter ms of disturbance or difference s between sample sites and reference conditions for undisturbed sites.

Results from probabilistic assessments are not used to evaluate individual water bodies or assessment units. However, data from individual monitoring sites are used to evaluate

individ ual water bodies or assessment units.



## Data Evaluation

To gather information on water quality throughout Oregon

, DEQ review ed water quality

data available from agency monitoring activities

, solicit ed data from outside the agency

, and reviewed other available data and information

.



### Call for Data

A public call for data for the 2010 Integrated Report evaluation was issued and data

submittals to DEQ were accepted from May 11 through June 11, 2009. The call for data

included a description of the requiremen ts for data type, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

, and data formats. I nformation for the call for data was available on

- line atMay 1 2, 2011 Page 6

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/2010Rep ort.htm

. Data collected since the last call for data (May 2003) was solicited. Data submitted to DEQ were reviewed for data quality level , then uploaded and st ored in DEQ ’s Laboratory Analytical and Storage

Retrieval (LASAR) database

.



### Available Data

For the 2010 Integrated Report data evaluation, a vailable data were retrieved from DEQ ’s Laboratory Analytical and Storage Retrieval (LASAR) database for the time period June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2009. Only h igh quality data graded as data quality level A o r B

were evaluated for the 305(b)/303(d) assessment. The data evaluation focused on grab sample results available in LASAR that were retrieved on November 20, 2009 . Data from continuous sampling data loggers, which are primarily data for stream temperature , were not retrieved for the 2010 evaluation

.



### Metadata R equirements

For monitoring data submittals, DEQ require s sampling site descriptions and geographic information for each sampling location

. This location information must include monitoring station latitude, longitude, LLID

, and river mil e, a s described below.

DEQ us es a 1:100,000 geo

- refe renced river reach system compil ed for the Pacific

Northwest. The river reach system is the hydrography component in a regional rivers and fisheries information sy stem known as StreamNet

. Information about this system is

available at http://www.streamnet.org/pnwr/PNWNAR.html

. A stream based identifier

called the LLID (Longitude/Latitude ID ) is used to uniquely identify streams and lakes

. This attribute consists of the longitude and latitude of the mouth of the stream or the

center of a lake

. All reaches that comprise a given stream are assigned this unique LLID. Longitude precedes latitude to conform to standard x, y ordering. The code is 13 characters long, with 7 for decimal degrees of longitude and 6 for decimal degrees of latitude, with implied decimal points.

The LLID consists of the Longitude/Latitude at the mouth of the stream or the centroid of

a lake/reservoir

/pond polygon. Only one LLID exists for a stream. River mile 0 is assigned at the mouth of the stream at the intersection with the next order stream. Lakes

and reservoirs can be identified by both a lake LLID , assigned a s river mile 0 at the center point, and a stream LLID with the river mile maximum at the inlet and minimum

at the outlet to the water body. Some water bodies do not have a n assigned LLID and

cannot be located on the StreamNet 1:100,000 river reach system

. In those cases, other georeferenced base layers such as the Pacific Northwest Hydrography 1: 24,000 layer or National Hydrography Data were used to reference a GIS feature. In a few cases where the feature was apparent on satellite imagery, but not identified on available GIS base layers, DEQ digitized the feature and assigned an LLID using the protocols described above. In earlier assessment cycles, water bodies that did not have a georeferenced LLID were given a placeholder LLID ( such as 1111111111111 ) s o that information could be

retained in the assessment database even though not available for GIS applications. Where possible, these stream were identified using the most current GIS information

available in 2010 and corrected in the database.May 1 2, 2011 Page 7



### QA/QC R equirements

Data must b e high quality and meet data quality level A or B requirements to be evaluated for the 305(b)/303(d) assessment. Analytical laboratory data are assessed against current Quality Control (QC) limits established by the referenced analytical

method and/or the QC limits established by the laboratory that performed the testing and supplied to DEQ. DEQ also utilizes EPA National Functional Guidelines for Data Review as guidance when assessing laboratory data. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/clp/guidance.htm

DEQ s Data Quality Matrix (March 2009) provides data validation criteria for water quality parameters measured in the field. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/docs/DEQ04

- LAB

- 0003

- QAG.pdf



## 2010 Integrated Report Assessment Categories

Assigning a water quality assessment category to Oregon’s wat ers i s a significant feature

of Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report

. EPA continues to recommend using five categories

to classify water quality status. 4 The categories represent varying levels of water quality

standards attainment and beneficial use support , r anging from Category 1, where all designated uses for a water body are supported , to Category 5, where a pollutant impairs

a water body and a TMDL is required to return the water to a condition where the water quality standards are met

. The category assign ments are based on eval uating all existing and readily available data and information consistent with Oregon’s standards and assessment methodology

. In gene ral terms, the assessment cate gories are:

Category 1: All designated uses are supported

. (Oregon does not use this

category.) Category 2: Available data and information indicate that some designated

uses are supported and the water quality standard is attained. Category 3: I nsufficient data to determine wheth er a designated use is

supported

. Oregon further sub

- classifies waters if warranted as:

3B: Insufficient data to determine use support but s ome data

indicate non

- attainment of a criterion and a potential concern

. 3C: Impairing pollutant unknown. Category 4 : Data indicate that at least one designated use is not support but a

TMDL is not needed. This includes : 4A: TMDLs that will result in attainment of water quality standards have been approved.

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

standards.

4 Guidance for 200 6 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Cl ean Water Act: United States Environmental Protection Agency, ( July 2 9 , 200 5) http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/May 1 2, 2011 Page 8 4C : Impairment is not caused by a pollutant (e.g., flow or lack

of flow are not considered pollutant s ). Category 5: Data indicate a designated use is not supported or a water quality

standard is not attained and a TMDL is needed. This category constitutes the Section 303(d) list that EPA will approve or disapprove under the Clean Water Act.

Oregon uses the policy of independent applicability to assess attainment of water quality standards, as recommended by EPA. 5 Each water quality standard is evaluated independently and a category assigned for each standard where data are available

. Since no water body has sufficient data or information on all designated uses and water quality standards, no waters are assign ed to Category 1.

The following flow chart (Figure 3) summarizes Oregon’s assessment process.

5 Guidance for 200 6 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Cl ean Water Act: United States Environmental Protection Agency, ( July 2 9 , 200 5) http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2 006IRG/May 1 2, 2011 Page 9

Figure 3 : Water Quality Report Assessment Categories

No

Yes No

No

Yes

No No No assessment status assigned.

Category 3: Insufficient Data are available to determine if criterion or use

is attained or not attained for the water body.

Do available data indicate

non

- attainment of criteria? Water body may be placed

in Category 3B: Poten tial

Concern

.

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

Category 4A: Water body is Water Quality Limited but a TMDL is not required because the TMDL has been approved

.

Category 5: Water body is Water Quality Limited and requires a TMDL

. Water body is placed on the 303(d)

List

. Category 4C: Water body is Wate r Quality Limited but

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

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No Are any data available to support an attainment

decision for at least one

criterion or use?

Do data meet minimum sample requirements for

evaluation?

Do data demonstrate attainment of applicable

criteria or uses? Do data meet the meta

- data and QA/QC requirements

for evaluation?

Does a pollutant cause non

att a inment?

Has a TMDL been completed and approved for the pollutant causing the impairment?

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

No Yes Water body may be placed in Category 3C: Impairing

Pollutant Unknown UnknownMay 1 2, 2011 Page 10

The data and sample requirements for each pollutant are discussed in the section below

titled: Oregon’s Assessment Protocols by Pollutant

. Data at individual sampling sites

are evaluated independently according to these requirements to determine if sufficient information is available and, if so, assign a status to the monitoring site. Results for th e monitoring sites are then grouped to determine the status for an assessment unit or segment of the water body. Rules for defining water body segments are discussing in the General Policy Discussion section on Segmentation.



## General Policy Discussion

De

- Listing Water Bodies

Water bodies placed on a 303(d) list in a previous assessment year remain on the 2010 Category 5: 303(d) list unless they are de

- listed. Water bodies may be de

- listed if:

1. N ew information is available that shows water quality stan da rds are being met

. A water body ma y de

- listed and assigned to C ategory 2 : Attaining if new information

shows water quality stan dards are being met

. Data for de

- listing consideration must be Data Quality Level A or B and me e t the minimum sample requirements. Generally, similar data are required to de

- list a water body as initially used to place the water body on the 303(d) list. For example, if the listing was based on two successive years of a standard not being met, DEQ would look for at least two successive years of data indicating that the standard is being met.

2. Additional d ata are submitted to correct a flaw in the original assessment. For example, a water body may have been placed on a previous 303(d) list but some data

may not have been ev aluated if QA/QC requirements were not met

. If more recently

collected data meet the QA/QC requirements and indicate compliance with the applicable criterion, the water body will be de

- listed.

3. Water quality criteria are changed or no longer apply in certa in water bodies. For example, Oregon’s water quality standards were revised and fish beneficial use designations were clarified in December 2003. Numeric c riteria for temperature were changed. The assessment applies crit eria for temperature and dissolved o xygen using the fish beneficial uses designated in 2003

. If data are available on a previously listed water body and an evaluation shows that the current applicable standards are met, the water body is de

- listed

. The previous ly listed record, with the original listing cr iterion

and beneficial use , notes Criteria change or use clarification under “Status” and the

“Action” notes Delisted

- R evised criteria or uses met. If no data are available to evaluate against current applicable criteria, the water bod y remains on the 303(d) list.
However, w hen water bodies were listed in a previous assessment for salmonid spawning, but the new fish use designat ion do es not include salmon or stee l head spawning use , the water body is de

- listed for spawning, noting Criter ia change or

use clarification under “Status” and Delisted

- Criteria change or use clarification

under “Action”. The water body is assigned to a category using available data and the current designated uses and applicable criteria. A wate r body may be de

- listed forMay 1 2, 2011 Page 11

spawning, but may be listed for exceeding year round, non

- spawning criteria for temperature or dissolved oxygen or for another salmon and steelhead spawning use

.

4. The water body and pollutant are addres sed in a TMDL approved by EPA. Water

bod y s egments with an approved TMDL will be removed from the 303( d) list, but

will retain their w ater quality l imited status (per OAR 340

- 41

- 006(30)) until the y meet water quality standards. The water body will be de

- listed and be placed in Category 4A : Water Quality Limited TMDL Approved

. If a TMDL is developed for a pollutant on a watershed scale , all water bodies withi n the watershed will be de

listed and placed in Category 4A.

5. When a pollutant does not cause the water body impairment , the water will be placed

in Category 4C: Water Quality Limited but a pollutant does not cause the impairment

. EPA defines a pollutant according to Section 502(6) of the Clean Water

Act. In Oregon’s 1998 assessment

, DEQ placed water bodies on the 303(d) l ist for

habitat modification and flow modification. Habitat modification listings were based on information indicating inadequate pool frequency and lack of large woody debris. Flow modification listings were based on inadequate flow to maintain in

- stream water rights purchased by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. However, EPA subsequently clarified that flow and habitat modification are not considered pollutants

under the Clean Water Act. In 2002, ODEQ removed these water bodies from the 303(d) list

. Another example is water bodies listed in 1998 for not meeting narrative

biocriteria. Biocriteria are not based on measures of a pollutant, but pollutants such as temperature and dissolved oxygen may cause conditions that lead to detrimental changes in th e biological community. TMDLs can be established for the pollutants

that will also im prove the biological conditions. T he water will be de

- listed for

biocriteria based on the documentation showing that th e pollutant TMDL will also address biological condit ions

. If data indicate that a pollutant is not the cause of the biological impairment, the water will be de

- listed and placed in Category 4C.

6. Other pollution control requirements are in place and water quality standards will be

achieved in a reasonable period of time. Examples include point source permits or

CWA Section 401 certification conditions for hydroelectric projects that address all pollutant sources on a water body

. The measures and conditions will results in water quality improvements

. When th ese control measures are in place , the water bodies

will be de

- listed and placed in Category 4B : Water Quality Limited Other Control

Measures in Place.



### Segmentation

Segment Identifiers

Segments for assessment and listing purposes are identified using a geo

- referenced water body identifier and the starting and ending river miles for the assessment unit.

DEQ uses the 1:100,000 geo

- referenced river reach system comp il ed for the Pacific

Northwest. The river reach system is the hydrography component in a regional rivers andMay 1 2, 2011 Page 12

fisheries information system known as Stream Net

. Information about this system is

available at http://www.streamnet.org/pnwr/PNWNAR.html

. A n identifier called the LLID ( Longi tude/Latitude ID ) is used to uniquely id entify the water body

. This attribute consists of the longitude and latitude at the mouth of a stream or center of a lake

. All

reaches that comprise a given stream are assigned this unique LLID. Longitude precedes

latitude to conform to standard x, y ordering. The code is 13 characters long, with 7 for decimal degrees of longitude and 6 for decimal degrees of latitude, with implied decimal points. Only one LLID is used for a stream. Lakes and rese rvoirs may sometimes be identified by both a stream LLID , with the river miles at the inlet and outlet of the lake or reservoir, and a lake LLID , with river miles assigned as “0”

.

Some water bodies evaluated for the 2010 Integrated Report do not have a n L LID assigned i n the StreamNet 1:100,000 river reach system

. Where water bodies do not have

a n LLID, a placeholder LLID was created so that information on this water body is

retained in the assessment database. T hese water bodies do not have rive r miles ass igned

to the segments.



### Determining Segments and Segment Status

Oregon revised water quality standards in 2003 for temperature and clarified fish use designations in water bodies throughout the state. For the 2010 Water Quality Report, assessment unit segments are defined by these fish use designations for criteria that protect these uses. Oregon has specific temperature and dissolved oxygen numeric criteria protecting various fish uses and life stages including cr iteria to protect salmon and steelhead and resident trout spawning at designated locations and time periods. For assessing temperature and dissolved oxygen, t he segment lengths are determined based

on specific fish benefic ial use designat ions

. For other po llutants, segment lengths are determined following general protocols based on the spatial distribution of monitoring sites on a water body. The available data at a monitoring station are evaluated to
determine if a standard is met at that station

. The stat us for the segment is then

determined based on the status of the monitoring stations in the segment

. The following paragraphs and a summary table in Appendix 1 provide the decision rules used for the

2010 Integrated Report to define assessment unit segment s and assign a status category to the segment.



### General Segmentation Rules

Assessment unit segments are determined by : 1. S egments already established in previous assessments ; 2. F or a water body with on ly one monitoring site, the assessment unit segment is f rom mouth to headwaters; or

3. For a water body with multiple monitoring sites, monitoring stations with sufficient information and the same status are grouped in a segment estab lished at locations upstream and downstream of the monitoring stations

.

The assessme nt status for the segment is determined based on evaluating data at each monitoring site in a segment

. When any station in a segment does not meet water quality standards, the segment is assigned Category 5 status. If one or more station s in a segmentMay 1 2, 2011 Page 13

meet water quality standards, the segment is assigned Category 2 status. Monitoring

stations without sufficient data to assign a status are not used to define segment lengths. (See Appendix 1 tables).



### Segments for Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen

The following steps are used to determine segments for assessing temperature and dissolved oxygen criteria attainment : 1. S egments are defined for sequential sections of a water body with the same designated fish use

. 2. S egments for fish spawning use are defined for sequential sections of a water body

with the same designated spawning time period

. On one water body, the segments for spawning may be different than the segments f or the non

- spawning fish uses.

3. The spawning criteria apply during the designated spawning time, and the non

spawning criteria apply at all other times. Available data are evaluated for the applicable criteria and time period in segments defined for those uses. If data at any monitoring station in the segment does not meet numeric crit eria for temperature or dissolved oxygen, the entire segment with that fish use is assigned Category 5 status. If data at any point on the segment does not meet numeric criteria for temperature or dissolved oxygen during the designated spawning period, the entire segment designated for spawning in that time period is assigned Category 5 status for spawning use.

For example, the Sandy River (LLID 1224071455697 ) is designated for salmon and trout rearing and migration from river mile 0 to 26 (Segment “A”) and for core cold water

ha bitat from river mile 26 to 55.5 (Segment “B”)

. The Sandy River also has four reaches designated for spawning use during different time periods (Segments “C” through “F”) and one with no spawning, as shown in the following table. Data from four monitoring stations at river miles 6, 19, 30, and 38 were compared to the specific numeric temperature criteria for each fish use. Data were available during the spawning time period at stations located on river miles 30 and 38 within Segmen t “D ”. Data exceeded

the non

- spawning temperature criteria in S egments “A” and “B” , and the spawning criteria during the spawning period for Segment “D”

. These segments are assigned the Category 5 303(d) list

. (Note: A TMDL was approved for the Sandy River on 4/15/2005

and the current assigned segment status is Category 4 A.)

Table 3 : Example Fish Beneficial Use Segments

– Sandy River

Segment River

Mile

Start River

Mile

End Use Spawning

Period Numeric

Criteria ( o Celsius) Status

A 0 26 Salmon and

trout rearing and migration 18.0 Category 5 303(d) list

B 26 55.5 Core cold

water habitat 16.0 Category 5 303(d) list

C 0 26 Spawning October 15

– May 15 13.0

D 26 48 Spawning August 15

– 13.0 Category 5May 1 2, 2011 Page 14 June 15 303(d) list

E 48 49.1 Spawning October 15

– June 15 13.0

F 49 54 Spawning January 1

– June 15 13.0

54 55.4 No spawning



### Tribal Waters

Only those waters that are under the State of Oregon’s jurisdiction are subject to the State’s 303(d) and 305(b) activities. Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report does not

intent ionally include tribal waters.

When a water body lies partially within Tribal Reservation boundaries, DEQ will only include the portions that are within Oregon’s jurisdiction on Oregon’s 303(d) list. DEQ

will use a map pro vided by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) to determine which waters were within Umatilla tribal lands (data origin: BIA Geographic Data Service Center, publication date: 1999, title: Diminished Re servation Boundary for CTU IR).

Oregon does not develop TMDLs for tribal waters. When a 303(d) listed water body is fully on Tribal lands, the Tribe may work directly with EPA to develop the TMDL.



## Process

The D EQ process to develop Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report include d the following steps and timelines:

1. Data Gathering and Review: DEQ solicit ed data from federal and other state agencies, tribes, local governments, watershed councils, private and public organizations and individuals. DEQ issue d a public notice seeking da ta on the condition of Oregon’s surface waters and requesting data be submitted during a specified time period using specified formats for electronic data processing

. DEQ

notif ied t he public using an interested parties mailing list and electronic notice

su bscription list

. Data submittals to DEQ were accepted from May 11 through June 11, 2009. DEQ reviewed and uploaded data in to DEQ’s LASAR data storage system. Data meeting QA/QC, metadata , and sampling requirements were retrieved from LASAR on November 20, 2009 for evaluation. DEQ prioritized the assessment of the data using a strategy and rationale outlined in the public call for data . Assessments were completed using a phased approach.

2. Public Review Process: A draf t 2010 Integrated Report and a draft 2010 list of water quality limited waters were available for public review and comment from November 15, 2010 through 5:00 PM PST December 15, 2010

. The draft list included updates based on review of data for a set of pollutants and beneficial use impairments that were complete and ready for public review

. A p ublic hearing to take comment on theMay 1 2, 2011 Page 15

draft list was held on November 30, 2010

. No comments were received at the public hearing

.

3. 2010 Integrated Report and 303(d) List: DEQ review ed public comments and, wh ere appropriate, revise d the w ater q uality r eport and Section 303(d) list of Category 5: Water quality limited waters needing a TMDL

. DEQ submit ted Oregon’s 2010 Section 303(d) list of Category 5: Water quality limited waters needing a TMDL to
US EPA Region 10 on January 31, 2011

. Along with the Section 303(d) list, DEQ

also submitted t he 2010 Integrated Report, response to comments, the Assessment Methodology for Oregon's 2010 Integrated Report on Water Quality Status, and a prioritization and TMDL sc hedule to EPA. Only water bodies in the Category 5: Water quality limited waters needing a TMDL ( Section 303(d) list) are subject to EPA’s approval

.

4. Final Supplement to Oregon’s 2010 Integrated Report and 303(d) List: DEQ completed a second and final phase of data and information review and prepared a supplement t o the 2010 Integrated Report and 303(d) List. DEQ provide d an opportunity for public review and comment on the final supplement from April 12, 2011 through 5:00 PM PDT May 3, 2011. A hearing to take public comment was held on April 18, 2011 in Portland, Oregon. After reviewing comments, DEQ finalize d the 2010 Integrated Report and made changes to the Methodology for Oregon's 2010 Integrated Report and List of Water Quality Limited Waters and the TMDL prioritization and schedule . DEQ will submit the 2010 Integrated Report and 303(d) List, along with the response to comments on the supplement, the Methodology for Oregon's 2010 Integrated Report on Water Quality Status

, and the prioritization and

TMDL schedule to EPA for review and approval

.May 1 2, 2011 Page 16



## Ore gon’s Assessment Protocols

For the 2010 Integrated Report

, DEQ will evaluate water quality data to determine if water quality standards set out in Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 340 Division 41 are being met in Oregon. I n the following sections , t he assessment protocols used to
determine the water quality status and assign an assessment category to a water body are discussed for spec ific pollutant s
, narrative and numeric criteria , and designated uses

. The narrative and numeric criteria from Oregon Administrative Rules and federal criteria

, where applicable

, are cited for each pollutant

. Each pollutant and criter ion is evaluated indepe ndently. Data are evaluated for each monitoring site, and an overall status assigned to the water body assessment unit segment based on t he available monitoring data. Data

are not available for all pollutants in each water body. Therefore, Category 1 indic ating all designated uses are supported and all criteria are met is not used for Oregon’s

assessment.



## D ivision 41 Water Quality Standards: Beneficial Uses, Policies, and Criteria for Oregon

P olicy

340

- 041

- 0004 Antidegradation ( 1) Purpose. The purpose of the Antidegradation Policy is to guide decisions that affect water quality such that unnecessary further degradation from new or increased point and nonpoint sources of pollution is prevented, and to protect, maintain, and enhance e xisting surface water quality to ensure the full protection of all existing beneficial uses. The standards and policies set forth in OAR 340

- 041

- 0007 through 340

- 041

- 0350 are intended to supplement the Antidegradation Policy.



### Narrative Criteria

340

- 041

- 0 007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (1) Notwithstanding the water quality standards contained in this Division, the highest and best practicable treatment and/or control of wastes, activities, and flows must in every case be provided so as to maintain dissolved oxygen and overall water quality at the highest possible levels and water temperatures, coliform bacteria concentrations, dissolved chemical substances, toxic materials, radioactivity, turbidities, color, odor, and other deleterious factors at th e lowest possible levels.May 1 2, 2011 Page 17 (2) Where a less stringent natural condition of a water of the State exceeds the numeric criteria set out in this Division, the natural condition supersedes the numeric criteria and becomes the standard for that water body. Howeve r, there are special restrictions, described in OAR 340

- 041

- 0004(9)(a)(D)(iii), that may apply to discharges that affect dissolved oxygen.

(4) No discharges of wastes to lakes or reservoirs may be allowed except as provided in section OAR 340

- 041

- 0004(9).

[...]

(10) The development of fungi or other growths having a deleterious effect on stream bottoms, fish or other aquatic life, or that are injurious to health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed;

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

(12) The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of

a ny organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed;

(13) Objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sheens, or floating solids, or coating of aquatic life with oil films may not be allowed;

(14) Aesthetic conditions offensive to the human senses of sight, taste, smell, or touch may not be allowed;

(15) Radioisotope concentrations may not exceed maximum permissible concentrations (MPC's) in drinking water, edible fishes or shellfishes, wildlife, irrigated crops, livestock and dairy products, or pose an external radiation hazard;

[...]May 1 2, 2011 Page 18



### Pollutant

s and Criteria

POLLUTANT : Aquatic Weeds or Algae

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

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 007(1 0 )

340

- 041

- 0007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (1 0 ) The development of fungi or other growths h aving a deleterious effect on stream bottoms, fish or other aquatic life, or that are injurious to health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed;

NUMERIC CRITERION: See Chlorophyll a under Nuisance Phytoplankton Growth (OAR 340

- 041

- 0019)

NARRATIVE ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL: This protocol will be used to implement the statewide narrative criter ion that prohibits deleterious or injurious effects on aquatic and human beneficial uses from biological growths, and will be applied specifically to aquatic weeds or algae. The growth of aquatic weeds or algae does not in itself indicate deleterious or injurious effects on beneficial

uses , or identify which pollutant should be addressed by point source or other controls through a Total Maximum Daily Load. This assessment protocol identifies the indicators that will be used to determine that beneficial uses have been negatively affected

.

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

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

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

Plants inc lude aquatic species on the Oregon Department of Agriculture Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System designated as “A”, “B”, or “T” weeds or those covered by a quarantine in OAR 603

- 052

- 1200.

 Alg a e : H ealth advisories issued by the Oregon Department of Human Services, in conjunction with other federal , state, county, city or local agenc ies warning that potentially harmful levels of toxins produced by blue

- green algae (cyanobacteria) are present in a water body. Health advisories related to recreational water contact

are posted by the Department of Human Services Public Health Division, Office

of Environmental Public Health. (See http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hab/index.shtml )May 1 2, 2011 Page 19

 Algae: Documented evidence that algae , including p eriphyton (attached algae) or phytoplankton (floating algae)

, are causing other standard s to be exceeded (e.g. pH , chlorophyll a, or dissolved oxygen) or impairing a beneficial use.

If pollutants are ide ntified as contributing to excessive or harmful growth of aquatic

weed s or algae , the water body will remain in Category 5 for aquatic weeds or algae until TMDLs for those pollutants are approved.

Category 4: Water Q uality Limited, TMDL Not Needed

 TMDLs for specific pollutants have been completed and approved to address the

excessive or harmful aquatic weed or algae growth in a water body (Category 4A);

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

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

Category 3: Insufficient Data Available data for the water body are not suffici ent to determine if the narrative criterion

is exceeded

. (See NOTE on Phosphate Phosphorus Benchmark under Toxic Substances.)

Category 2: Attaining Not applicable.

TIME PERIOD:

Annual

DATA REQUIREMENTS: Information, data, or health advisories since 1999

.May 1 2, 2011 Page 20

POLLUTANT : Bacteria

- E. c oli (Escherichia coli) (Freshwaters and Estuarine Waters Other

than Shellfish Growing Waters)

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Water Contact Recreation

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 0 41

- 0009(4 )

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 0 41

- 0 009(1)(a) and (5)

340

- 041

- 0009

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

Waters: (A) A 30

- day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters, based on a minimum of five (5) samples; (B) No single sam ple may exceed 406 E. coli organisms per 100

milliliters. (4) Bacterial pollution or other conditions deleterious to waters used for domestic purposes, livestock watering, irrigation, bathing, or shellfish propagation, or otherwise injurious to public heal th may not be allowed; (5) Effluent Limitations for Bacteria: Except as allowed in subsection (c) of this section, upon NPDES permit renewal or issuance, or upon request for a permit modification by the permittee at an earlier date, effluent discharges to freshwaters, and estuarine waters other than shellfish growing waters may not exceed a monthly log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 ml. No single sample may exceed 406 E. coli organisms per 100 ml. However, no violation will be found,

for an exceedanc e if the permittee takes at least five consecutive re

- samples at

four

- hour intervals beginning as soon as practicable (preferably within 28 hours) after the original sample was taken and the log mean of the five re

- samples is less than or equal to 126 E. c oli. The following cond itions apply:

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

A 30

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

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), o ther pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water qua lity standards (Category 4B) , or i mpairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).May 1 2, 2011 Page 21

Category 3: Insufficient Data Less than 5 samples are a vailable to evaluate for the season of interest, or 5 to 9 samples

for the season of interest with 1 sample exceed ing 406 E. coli organisms per 100

milliliters

.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

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

.

Category 2: Attaining

The 30

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

If data are insufficient to calculate a 30

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

TIME PERIOD:

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

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

Fall

- Winter

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

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

DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Data collected since 1999

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

- day log

mean

.

NOTE S : The E. coli numeric criteria are applicable to protect water contact beneficial use in

freshwater s and estuarine waters. Estuarine waters are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(22) to mean all mixed fresh and oceanic water in estuaries or bays from the po int of oceanic

water intrusion inland to a line connecting the outermost points of the h eadlands or

protec tive jetties. For the 2010 review of water quality data, the inland extent of estuarine

waters was identified where recorded specific conductivity measurements were above

200 uS/cm. The E. coli numeric criteria are applicable to effluent discharges to

fres hwaters and estuarine waters.

The E. coli numeric criteria are not applied in marine waters.May 1 2, 2011 Page 22

The bacteria standard was change d in 1996 to use E. coli as the indicator organism for water contact recreation protection, replac ing the previous standard based on fecal

coliform. Only the current E. coli standard is applied in freshwaters and estuarine waters

for data reviewed for the 2010 assessment

. Listings in previous years may have identified

freshwater water bodies as water quality limited using fecal coliform as the indicator

. If

data evaluated for the 2010 assessment show the current E. coli criteria for freshwater are met, the water body will be de

- listed for older fecal coliform listings. The listings are

retained if no data for E. coli are availab le for the 2010 evaluation , or if E. coli is also

listed.

Estuarine waters are also considered coastal recreation water subject to the federal water quality criteria based on Enterococci , and are additionally presumed to be potential shellfish growing wat er s , subject to the fecal coliform criteria to protect that beneficial

use . The assessment for these standards is discussed in the next section s

.May 1 2, 2011 Page 23

POLLUTANT : Bacteria

- Enterococci ( Coastal Recreation Waters including

Coastal Estuaries ) 6

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Water Contact Recreation

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

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

mean Single sample maximum (per 100 ml)

Moderate use coastal recreation waters

Enterococci 35/100 ml 158

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: EPA recommends using the geometric mean as the relevant criteria for 303(d) listing

purposes. 7 The single sample maximum is a statistical construct to allow decisions for

beach advisories based on small data sets. Marine waters in coastal Oregon have not been designated for a specific level of recreati onal use. The single sample maximum criteria

for moderate use coastal recreation waters is currently used by the Oregon Department of

Human Services Public Health Division, Office of Environmental Public Health’s Oregon Beach Monitoring Program to trigger a water contact advisory. (See http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/beaches/status.shtml )

Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List)

A geometric mean for samples collected over a seasonal sampling period greater than 35

Enterococci per 100 ml based on a sample set of 5 or more samples.

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

6 40 CFR Part 131 .41 (b) Definitions. (1) Coastal Recreation Waters are the Great Lakes and marine coastal waters (including coastal estuaries) that are designated under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act for use for swimming, bathing, surfing , or similar water contact activities. Coastal recreation waters do not include inland waters or waters upstream from the mouth of a river or stream having an unimpaired natural connection with the open sea.

7 US EPA Office of Water, EPA

- 823

- F

- 06

- 013, August 2006, Water Quality Standards for Coastal Recreation Waters: Using Single Sample Maximum Values in State Water Quality StandardsMay 1 2, 2011 Page 24

Category 3: Insufficient Data

L ess than 5 samples are available for evaluation for a seasonal sampling period.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern Less than 5 samples are available for a seasonal sampling period, and one or more samples exceeds the single sample maximum of 158 Enterococci per 100 ml

, or the Oregon Beach Monitoring Program has issued one or more advisories based on monitoring results for Enterococci in a seasonal sampling period.

Category 2: Attaining

The geometric mean for samples collected over a season al sampling period is equal or

less than 35 Enterococci per 100 ml

.

TIME PERIOD:

Summer: May 1 through September 30 (period of highest use for water contact recreation)

Winter: October 1 through April 30

DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Data collected since 1999

. A minimum of 5 representative data points available per site collected on separate days for each seasonal time period in a given year

. For results reported as the Minimum Reporting Level ( < MRL) , the numeric value of the MRL was used to calculate the geomet ric mean .

NOTES:

Coastal recreation waters for this assessment are identified as all marine waters and

coastal estuaries

. Coastal recreation waters do not include inland waters or waters upstream from the mouth of a river or stream having an unimpaired n atural connection with the open sea.

The Oregon Beach Monitoring Program has identified 92 coastal beaches in Oregon. Each of these beaches is assigned a beach name and beach identification number that are used in reporting to EPA. For the Water Quality Report , the identified coastal beaches were used as the assessment units and defined as segments along the Pacific Ocean or an

estuarine river location.

The Oregon Beach Monitoring Program may issue pre

- cautionary advisories based on heavy rainfall, floo ding, or sewage spills. These advisories are not included in the data

summarized in this assessment.May 1 2, 2011 Page 25

POLLUTANT : Bacteria

– Fecal Coliform (Marine Waters and Estuarine Shellfish Growing Waters)

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Shellfish Growing

Water Contact Recreation

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0007(11) and

OAR 340

- 0 41

- 0009(4 )

340

- 041

- 0007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (11) The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other conditions that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or affec t the potability of drinking water or the palatability of fish or shellfish may not be allowed;

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 0 41

- 0009(1)(b )

340

- 041

- 0009

Bacteria (1) Numeric Criteria: Organisms of the coliform group commonly associated with fecal sources (MPN or equivalent membrane filtration using a representative number of samples) may not exceed the criteria described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph: (b) Marine Waters and Estuarine Shellfish Growing Waters: A fecal coliform median concentration of 14 organisms per 100 milliliters, with not more than ten percent of the samples exceeding 43 organisms per 100

ml. (4) Bacterial pollution or other conditio ns deleterious to waters used for domestic purposes, livestock watering, irrigation, bathing, or shellfish propagation, or otherwise injurious to public health may not be allowed;

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) For a datasets of less than 30 samples, a minimum of 2 exceede nces of 43 organisms/100

ml. For datasets with greater than 30 samples, 10% of the samples must exceed 43 organisms/100mL. OR, f or datasets with a minimum of 5 samples, the median value is greater than 14 organisms/100 ml.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), o ther pollution control requirements are expected to address p ollutant and will attain water qua lity standards (Category 4B) , or i mpairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).May 1 2, 2011 Page 26

Category 3: Insufficient Data Less than 5 samples available for analysis

, or 5 to 9 samples with 1 exceedence and the

median is 14 organisms/100 ml or less.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

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

Category 2: Attaining

A minimum number of 5 samples per site, with 90% of the samples less than 43 organisms/100 ml and the median value of 14 organisms/100 ml or less

.

TIME PERIOD:

Annual

DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Data collected since 1999

. A minimum of 5 representative samples per site collected on separate days. The numeric value of results reported as the Minimum Reporting Level (MRL) was used to calculate the median concentration

. Data evaluated for marine and

estuarine waters.

NOTES: DEQ has determined that fecal coliform water quality criteria should be applied to mar ine

and estuarine waters that support recreational shellfish harvesting as well as commercial shellfish harvesting (Minutes from the Estuary Workgroup Meeting, DEQ

, Newport, Oregon, July 13, 2001).

Marine waters are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(34) as all oceanic, offshore water

outside of estuaries or bays and within the territorial limits of Oregon. Estuarine waters

are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(22) as mixed fresh and oceanic water in estuaries or bays from the point of oceanic water intrusion inland to a line connecting the outermost points of the headlands or protective jetties. For the 2010 review of water quality data,

the inland extent of estuarine waters was identified where recorded specific conductivity

measurements were above 200 uS/cm. However, c oastal lakes were not included as estuarine shellfish growing waters for this assessment.

To protect water contact recreation as a beneficial use, t he bacteria standard was changed

in 1996 to use E. coli as the indicator organism, replac ing the previous standard based on

fecal coliform. However, assessments in previous years may have identified freshwater

water bodies as water quality limited for water contact recreation using fecal coliform

data

. These listings are retained unless data for E. coli are available for evaluation for the

2010 assessment . If data show the current E. coli criteria are met, the water body will be

de

- listed for water contact recreation impairments.

Marine and e stuarine waters are subject to the federal water qualit y criteria based on

Enterococci that protects water contact recreation in coastal recreation waters. TheMay 1 2, 2011 Page 27

assessment of coastal recreation waters is discussed in the pre v ious section on

Enterococci

.May 1 2, 2011 Page 28

POLLUTANT : Biocriteria

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Aqu atic Life

NUMERIC CRITERION: None

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 0 41

- 0011

340

- 041

- 0011

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

NARRATIVE ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL: Detrimental changes in resident biological communities are a form of pollution. 8

, 9 EPA guidance recommends using biological community assessments as an indicator for aquatic life beneficial use support. 10 This protocol will be used to implement Oregon’s narrative standard for Biocriteria for the 2010 Water Quality Assessment. The protocol applies numeric benchmarks to evaluate the integrity of aquatic biological communities. Biological assessments look at conditions in the biol ogical communities, but do not by themselves indicate if changes are related to pollutants, or identify which pollutant should be addressed by point source or other controls through a Total Maximum Daily Load. EPA guidance recommends listing waters with aq uatic use impairments as Category 5 even if the pollutant is not known. 11 This protocol outlines the process and assessment category assignment that Oregon will use f or the 2010 Integrated Report t o apply the

narrative criterion.

This protocol is based on biological assemblage information for freshwater macroinvertebrates collected by DEQ at reference sites throughout Oregon. Freshwater macroinvertebrates include insects, crustaceans, snails, clams, worms, mites, etc. DEQ

identifie s sites in a given region that are least disturbed by anthropogenic activities and

uses these as reference sites. 12 Biological assessment tools use information from these reference sites to predict the variety and number of aquatic life species expected in Oregon streams and to make inferences about the biological condition of the waters. 13

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

9 Oregon Administrative Rules 340

- 041

- 0002(39)

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

11 US EPA, July 29, 205, Guidance for 200 6 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act, page 60.

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

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

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

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

- 1276May 1 2, 2011 Page 29

Assessing Macroinvertebrate Communities To assess the biological integrity of macroinvertebrate communities, DEQ uses a statistical method called a multivariate predic tive model. 14 Using data from reference sites, the model describes the number and types of macroinvertebrates that are expected to be in a water body when the water is in least disturbed conditions. Reference sites are grouped by predictor variable factors that are not affected by human activities ( e.g.
, sampling date, ecoregion, longitude, elevation, precipitation, or air temperature). DEQ has developed a model specifically for Oregon, but similar model approaches are used for

bioassessments in the United K ingdom (RIVPACS), Australia (AusRIVas), Canada (BEAST), and in broad areas in the United States (typically called RIVPACS models, though different from the U. K. models).

DEQ has developed the PRED ictive A ssessment T ool for OR egon, or PREDATOR, to

assess the macroinvertebrate communities in Oregon’s perennial, wadeable streams. PREDATOR analyzes data from reference sites grouped into three regions in Oregon and models the expected assemblage. Information from a sampling site can be compared to

the macroinv ertebrate assemblage predicted by the model and an assessment made about how different the observed assemblage is from the expected or reference assemblage. Data collected at a sampling site is used to generate a number for the observed versus expected (O/ E) macroinvertebrate taxa. This number represents the “missing” taxa at a site, and can be expressed as “% taxa loss”.

For the 2010 assessment, DEQ has selected values of % taxa loss to assign a status category to a water body. The benchmark values are in dicators of differences from reference conditions that may indicate detrimental changes to biological communities and an impairment in aquatic life use support that violates the narrative standard. A discussion of the scientific basis for the model develop ment, statistical analysis of reference site data, and selection of numeric benchmark values is given in a separate technical paper. 11

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: Benchmark values are expressed in terms of the percent of taxa not found in a site

as semblage compared to the expected assemblage predicted by the PREDATOR model. A full discussion of the statistical basis for the specific benchmark values in terms of the reference site distributions in different regions in Oregon is provided in a separate technical paper. 11

Category 3c : Impairing Pollutant U nknown Comparison to the assessment benchmark shows the biological community is impaired, but the pollutant causing the impairment is unknown, and a TMDL cannot be developed.

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

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

- LAB

- 0048

- TRMay 1 2, 2011 Page 30

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

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

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

or

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

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

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern

Some macroinvertebrate sampling data from perennial, wadeable streams evaluated using the PREDATOR model are inconclusive and are insufficient to assign a status category

until additional information is collected.

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

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

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

 25% to 49% taxa loss in the Northern Basin and Range (NBR) region.

Results showing taxa loss in these ranges could be due to sampling error or modeling error and may be over or under

- estimating taxa loss. A large gain of observed taxa over

expe cted may indicate more natural diversity, or may indicate disturbance that has enhanced diversity. 15 Additional samples are necessary to better assess biological

conditions. A minimum of 5 replicate samples should be collected to provide sufficient

data for status classification. The stream is a potential concern until more information is

evaluated.

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

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

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

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

- 356.May 1 2, 2011 Page 31

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

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

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

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

. 16 The standard method for macroinvertebrate sampling requires collecting organisms from specific habitats within a specified size reach of a stream. The data are evaluated to generate one sample result in

the PREDATOR model.

One sample result is sufficient to evaluate for the assessment using the benchmarks developed from the PREDATOR model. If samples from multiple years are available, the most recent sample result of Category 2 or Catego ry 5 will determine the site status. If the most recent sample result is Category 2 and a previous sample is Category 5, the site status will be Category 3b. Recent Category 2 sample results must outnumber earlier Category 5 sample results for the site sta tus to be considered Category 2.

When results for replicate site samples are collected to clarify inconclusive results (Category 3b), a minimum of 5 samples is required to achieve the target statistical

confidence. The site will be assigned a status categ ory if 3 out of 5 replicate samples show results in the Category 2 or Category 5 ranges. Replicate samples must be collected in the same sampling season, in the same reach, or in adjacent and comparable reaches.

DE

- LISTING: Once TMDLs are approved for pol lutants that will also improve biological conditions, water bodies may be de

- listed for biocriteria. These waters will be placed in Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed if no additional TMDLs are needed.

W ater bodies may be de

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

16 ODEQ, 200 9, Mode of Oper ations Manual, Version 3.2, DEQ03

- LAB

- 0036

- SOP, http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/techrpts/docs/DEQ03LAB0036SOP.pdfMay 1 2, 2011 Page 32

SEGMENTATION: General segmentation protocols will be followed (Appendix 1)

. The status category from one sampling site will apply to the sampling reach and upstream portions of the wadeable, perennial stream. A minimum segment length of 0.6 miles will be imposed when multiple sample sites are closely located within a small stream reach. Given the sampling design and field protocols, assessment segments less t han 0.6 miles are likely to impose artificial divisions that are not true representations of stream conditions.

BENCHMARK SUMMARY:

Table 1. Macroinvertebrate communities assessment benchmarks for perennial,

wadeable streams.

PREDATOR Model Region Impaire d Category 3c: Impairing Pollutant

Unkno wn Category 3b:

Insufficient Data
Potential Concern Category 2: Attaining

Marine Western
Coastal Forest ≥ 15% taxa loss 9 %

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

- 8% taxa loss or

0%

- 24% taxa gain

PREDATOR score ≤ 0.85 PREDATOR score

0.86 to 0.91 or > 1. 24 PREDATOR score

0.92 to 1.24

Western
Cordillera and
Columbia

Plateau ≥ 22% taxa loss 8%

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

- 7% taxa loss or

0%

- 23% taxa gain

PREDATOR score ≤ 0.78 PREDATOR score

0.79 to 0.92 or > 1. 2 3 PREDATOR score

0.93 to 1.23

Northern Basin and Range ≥ 50% taxa loss 25%

- 49% taxa loss < 25% taxa loss

PREDATOR score ≤ 0.50 PREDATOR score

0.49 to 0.75 PREDATOR score > 0.75May 1 2, 2011 Page 33

POLLUTANT : Chlorophyll a ( Nuisance Phytoplankton Growth)

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Water Contact Recreation

Aesthetics Fishing Water Supply Livestock Watering

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0019

340

- 041

- 00 19 Nuisance Phytoplankton Growth (1) (a) The following values and implementation program must be applied to lakes, reservoirs, estuaries and streams, except for ponds and reservoirs less than ten acres in surface area, marshes and saline lakes: ( b ) The following average Chlorophyll a values must be used to identify water bodies where phytoplankton may impair the recognized beneficial

uses: (A) Natural lakes that thermally stratify: 0.01 mg/1; (B) Natural lakes that do not thermally stratify, reservoirs, rivers and estuaries: 0.015 mg/1; (C) Aver age Chlorophyll a values may be based on the following methodology (or other methods approved by the Department): A minimum of three samples collected over any three consecutive months at a minimum of one representative location (e.g., above the deepest po int of a lake or reservoir or at a point mid

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

w ith the most recent edition of Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater.

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) The average Chlorophyll a value over three consecutive months exceeds the value

referenced in the rule . The average must be calculated with at least one sample in each

month

.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed

 TMDLs for specific pollutants have been completed an d approved to address nuisance phytoplankton growth and exceedence of chlorophyll a values in a water body (Category 4A);

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

- 041

- 0019(2) is being implemented to cont rol phytoplankton growth (Category 4B); orMay 1 2, 2011 Page 34

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

Category 3: Insufficient Data

L ess than 3 samples available in three consecutive m onth s to cal c u late an average, or less than one sample available in any month of the three consecutive month period

.

Category 2: Attaining The average Chlorophyll a value over three consecutive months is less than the value

referenced in the rule.

TIME PERIOD:

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

Fall

- Winter

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

DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Data collected since 1999

. A minimum of three samples collected over any three

consecutive months (at least one per month) at a minimum of one representative location (e.g., above the deepest point of a lake or reservoir or at a point mid flow of a river).

NOTES:

Information on the rmally stratified lakes was obtained from the Atlas of Oregon Lakes 17

.

Lakes are identified by an LLID assigned to a point at the center of the water body. They may also be identified with an LLID for a stream which flow s into or out of the lake, and

river miles are assigned at those points on the stream line.

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

17 Johnson, D.M., Petersen, R.R., Lycan, D.R., Sweet, J.W., Neuh aus, M.E., Schaedel, A.L., 1985, Atlas of Oregon Lakes: Corvallis, OR, Oregon State University Press, 317 p.May 1 2, 2011 Page 35

POLLUTANT : Dissolved Oxygen

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Fish and Aquatic Life

Salmon and Steelhead Spawning Resident Trout Spawning

C old

- Water Aquatic Life

Cool

- Water Aquatic Life

Warm

- Water Aquatic Life

Estuarine Water

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0016

340

- 041

- 00 16 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen (DO): No wastes may be discharged and no activities must be

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

- 041

- 0101 to

340

- 041

- 0340: Tables 101B, 121B, 180B, 201B and 260B, and Figures 130B, 151B, 160B, 170B, 220B, 230B, 271B, 286B, 300B, 310B, 320B, and 340B, (as well as any active spawning area used by resident trout species), the foll owing criteria apply during the applicable spawning through fry emergence periods set forth in the tables and figures: (a) The dissolved oxygen may not be less than 11.0 mg/l. However, if the minimum intergravel dissolved oxygen, measured as a spatial med ian, is 8.0 mg/l or greater, then the DO criterion is 9.0 mg/l; (b) Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of the 11.0 mg/l or 9.0 mg/l criteria, dissolved oxygen levels must not be less than 95 percent of s aturation; (c) The spatial median intergravel dissolved oxygen concentration must not fall below 8.0 mg/l. (2) For water bodies identified by the Department as providing cold

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 8.0 mg/l as an ab solute minimum. Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of the 8.0 mg/l, dissolved oxygen may not be less than 90 percent of

saturation. At the discretion of the Department, when the Department determines

that adeq uate information exists, the dissolved oxygen may not fall below 8.0 mg/l as a 30

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

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

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 6.5 mg/l as an absolute minimum. At the discretion of the Department, when the Department determines

that adeq uate information exists, the dissolved oxygen may not fall b elow 6.5May 1 2, 2011 Page 36 mg/l as a 30

- day mean minimum, 5.0 mg/l as a seven

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

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 5.5 mg/l as an absolute minimum. At the discretion of the Department, when the Department determines

that adeq uate information exists, the dissolved oxygen may not fall below 5.5 mg/l as a 30

- day mean minimum, and may not fall below 4.0 mg/l as an absolute minimum (Table 21); (5) For estuarine water, the dissolved oxygen concentrations may not be less than 6.5 mg/l (f

or coastal water bodies); (6) For ocean waters, no measurable reduction in dissolved oxygen concentration may be allowed.

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) Greater than 10 percent of the samp les exceed the appropriate criterion and a minimum of at least two exceedences of the criterion for the time period of interest.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approve d (Category 4A), o ther pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water qua lity standards (Category 4B) , or i mpairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data Less than 5 samples for the time period of interest, or 5 to 9 samples for the time period

of interest with 1 exceedence.

Category 2: Attaining For 10 or more samples in the time period of interest , greater than 90% of the samples meet the appr opriate criterion. F or 5 to 9 samples in the time period of interest, there are no exceedences of the appropriate criteria.

TIME PERIOD: Spawning and Non

- Spawning Time Periods

In designated salmon and steelhead spawning areas, the spawning criterion will be applied during the time periods indicated in tables and figures referenced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0016(1). During the non

- spawning part of the year in these areas , the cold or cool water criterion is applied depending on ecoregion according to a policy se t out in a June 22, 1998 letter from DEQ to EPA, Region 10 (Appendix 3 , p. 3

- 4 )

.

In areas designated in OAR 340

- 041 Table 190B for Lahontan trout use , spawning is assumed to occur throughout the range during the time periods indicated on the table. During the non

- spawning part of the year in these areas , the cool water criterion is applied based on ecoregion according to a policy set out in a June 22, 1998 letter from DEQ to EPA, Region 10 (Appendix 3 ).May 1 2, 2011 Page 37

In areas designated as bull trout (char) spawning and juvenile rearing in tables and figures

referenced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0016(1), the spawning criterion will be applied during the time periods set out in a February 2, 2004 letter from DEQ to EPA, Region 10 ( Appendix

4 ) and summarized in Table 4

. During the non

- spawning part of the year in these areas, the cold water criterion is applied

.

Table 4 : Bull Trout Spawning Time Periods

Basin Subbasin Spawning Period

South Willamette August 15

– May 30 John Day September 1

– April 30

Umatilla September 1

– April 30

Walla Walla September 1

– April 30

Grande Ronde Upper Grande Ronde September 1

– April 15

Wallowa September 1

– May 15

Wenaha August 15

– March 31

Imnaha August 15

– May 31

Hood August 15

– May 15

Deschutes August 15

– May 15

Powder August 15

– May 15

Malheur August 15

– May 30

Klamath August 15

- May 30

Detailed information on spawning locations and spawning time periods is not available

for other resident trout species such as redband, rainbow, westslope and cutthroat trout. Therefore, in areas not designated as salmon and steelhead spawning use or Lahontan

trout use

, DEQ assumes resident trout spawning occurs. The spawning criterion will be applied for resident trout during the time periods indicated in a policy set out in a February 2, 2004 letter from DEQ to EPA Region 10 (Appendix 4 ). In this letter, the spawning time periods were linked to the designated fish uses such as trout rearing, core cold water, and char (bull trout) spawning and rearing. Table 5 summarizes the assumed spawning time periods for resident trout in streams with designated fish use s

.

Table 5 : Resident Trout Spawning Time Periods

Designated Fish Use Resident Trout Spawning

Salmon and t rout rearing and migration January 1

– May 15

Redband trout January 1

– May 15

Core cold water habitat and

upstream trout rearing water January 1

– June 15

Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing January 1

– June 15

Salmon and Steelhead Migration

Corridors Assume not suitable for spawningMay 1 2, 2011 Page 38

Spawning time periods for resident trout and bull trout are combined in areas where the designated fish use is bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing. For example, in the John Day basin where bull trout spawning occurs, the reside nt trout spawning time period (Table 5 : January 1

– June 15 ) and the bull trout spawning time period ( T able 4 : September 1

– April 30 ) are combined and the spawning criterion is applied during the time period September 1 through June 15.

DATA REQUIREMENTS : Data collected since 1993. A minimum of 5 representative data points available per site collected on separate days per applicable time period. The daily mean of continuous dissolved oxygen data is calculated and represents one data point. Any combination of 5 days of continuous or grab sample data in the time period is acceptable.

NOTES:

Cold or Cool Water Criteria: During non

- spawning time periods, cold water criteria for dissolved oxygen are applied in areas designated for core cold water fish use in t ables and figures referenced in OAR

340

- 041

- 0101 through OAR 340

- 041

- 0340

.

Cold water criteria are also applied in designated bull trout spawning and rearing areas in

non

- spawning time periods.

Cool water criteria for dissolved oxygen are applied in areas designated specifically for cool water species fish use in tables and figures referenced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through OAR 340

- 041

- 0340.

Cool water criteria for dissolved oxygen are also applied in non

- spawning time periods in areas designated as salmon and trout migration corridors (no rearing) on tables and figures referenced in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through OAR 340

- 041

- 0340.

In non

- spawning time periods where the designated fish use is salmon and trout rearing and migration or redband and Lahontan cutthroat trout , the cold or cool water criteria apply based on the ecoregion where the sampling site is located. This policy is described

in a June 22, 1998 letter from DEQ to EPA, Region X ( Appendix 3 ). The ecoregions are

described in: Omernik, J. and Gallant, A., 1986, Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest,

EPA/600/3

- 86/033.

Warm Water Criteria:

The warm water criteria are applied to waters identified in OAR 340

- 041 Table 190B as supporting b orax lake chub.

Lakes: Unless designated as salmon and steelhead spawning areas, n atural lakes and reservoirs are not considered spawning habitat. The applicable cold or cool water criteria are applied year round.May 1 2, 2011 Page 39

Estuarine Criteria:

The estuarine water criterion for dissolved oxygen applies for samples taken in e stuarine

conditions. The spawning criteria is not applied for resident trout, but is applied for designated salmon and steelhead spawning periods. DEQ used specific conductivity

measurements as a n indicator for estuarine conditions. This indicator was chosen after

review ing specific conductivity measurements collected from coastal waters. As shown

in Figures 4 through 6, the measured specific conductivity is generally lower than 200

uS/cm at river locations where salt water is not present.

For dissolved oxygen data collected in the coastal waters of the North Coast, Mid Coast, South Coast, Rogue and Umpqua B asins, the specific conductivity of each sample was

also evaluated. For continuous data, th e daily mean specific conductivity was calculated.

If the recorded specific conductivity was greater than 200 uS/cm, the estuarine dissolved oxygen criterion of 6.5 mg/L was applied

. If the recorded specific conductivity was less than 200 uS/cm, the appropriate freshwater criteria were applied

. Data collected in non

coastal waters was evaluated using the appropriate freshwater criteria.

The spawning criterion during assumed resident trout spawning time periods was not applied in sections of a water body where data indicated estuarine conditions.

Figure 4 : Specific conductivity Measured in Columbia RiverMay 1 2, 2011 Page 40

Figure 5 : Specific conductivity Measured in Rogue River

Figure 6 : Specific conductivity Measured in Coquille River

Summary:May 1 2, 2011 Page 41

The following flow chart (Figure 9) illustrates the evaluation process for dissolved oxygen data collected from Oregon water bodies

.

Figure 9 : Evaluation of Dissolved Oxygen Data

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes No

No

No No

No

Yes Apply warm

water dissolved oxygen criterion (5.5 mg/L)

Apply spawning

dissolved oxygen criterion (11.0 mg/L)

Yes

No

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

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

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

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

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

water
dissolved oxygen criterion (8.0 mg/L)

Apply cool

water
dissolved oxygen criterion (6.5 mg/L)

Apply cold or cool

- water dissolved oxygen

criterion based on ecoregion (1998 letter) a nd assumed spawning period Is the water body

a coastal water? Does sample conductivity

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

dissolved oxygen criterion (6.5 mg/L) Is Borax Lake Chub a designated fish use in the water body? (OAR 340

- 041 Table 190B)

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

No

No

No Yes

Yes Yes

Is the sample taken during an assumed

resident trout spawning period (see table)?

No YesMay 1 2, 2011 Page 42

POLLUTANT : pH

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Resident Fish and Aquatic Life

Water Contact Recreation

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 00 21 ( 2 )

NUMERIC CRITERION: Statewide: OAR 340

- 041

- 0021

Basin

- Specific: O AR 340

- 041

- 0101 through

OAR 340

- 0410350

340

- 041

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

- 041

- 0101 through 340

- 041

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

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

- 041

- 0101 through 340

- 041

- 0350). (2) Waters impounded by dams existing on January 1, 1996, which have pHs that exceed the criteria are not in violation of the standard, if the Department

determines th at the exceedance would not occur without the impoundment and that all practicable measures have been taken to bring the pH in the impounded waters into compliance with the criteria.

Table 6 : Summary of pH Basin Specific Criteria (OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 through 340

- 041

- 0350

OAR Water Criteria Range

General 340

- 041

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

General 340

- 041

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

criteria Basin or Water Body OAR Water Criteria Range

Columbia River 340

- 041

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

Snake River 340

- 041

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

Deschutes Basin 340

- 041

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

340

- 041

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

feet altitude 6.0 to 8.5

Goose and Summer

Lakes Basin 340

- 041

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

340

- 041

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

Grande Ronde Basin 340

- 041

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

Hood Basin 340

- 041

- 0165(1)(a) Hood River Basin streams (except main stem Columbia River and Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5May 1 2, 2011 Page 43 340

- 041

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

feet altitude 6.0 to 8.5

John Day Basin 340

- 041

- 0175(1) All Basin streams (other than

the main stem Colombia River) 6.5 to 9.0*

Klamath Basin 340

- 041

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

lakes 6.5 to 9.0*

340

- 041

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

feet altitude 6.0 to 8.5

Malheur Lake Basin 340

- 041

- 0195(1) 7.0 to 9.0*

Malheur River Basin 340

- 041

- 0207(1) 7.0 to 9.0*

Mid Coast Basin 340

- 041

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

340

- 041

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

North Coast Basin 340

- 041

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

340

- 041

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

- 041

- 0256(1) 7.0 to 9.0*

Powder/Burnt

Basins 340

- 041

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

Rogue Basin 340

- 041

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

340

- 041

- 0275(1)(b) Estuarine and fresh waters

(except Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

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

feet altitude 6.0 to 8.5

Sandy Basin 340

- 041

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

stem Columbia River and Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

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

feet altitude 6.0 to 8.5

South Coast Basin 340

- 041

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

340

- 041

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

Umatilla Basin 340

- 041

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

Umpqua Basin 340

- 041

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

340

- 041

- 0326(1)(b) Estuarine and fresh waters

(except Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

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

feet altitude 6.0 to 8.5

Walla Walla Basin 340

- 041

- 0336 6.5 to 9.0*

Willamette Basin 340

- 041

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

stem Columbia River and Cascade lakes) 6.5 to 8.5

340

- 041

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

feet altitude 6.0 to 8.5.

*When greater than 25 percent of ambient measurements taken between June and September are greater than pH 8.7, and as resources are available according to priorities set by the Department, the Department will determine whether the values higher than 8.7 are anthropogenic or natural in origin.May 1 2, 2011 Page 44

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) Greater than 10 percent of the samples are outside the range of the appropriate criterion

and a minimum of at least two samples outside the range of the appropriate criterion for the time period of interest.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards h ave been approved (Category 4A), o ther pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water qua lity standards (Category 4B) , or i mpairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3: Insufficient Data

Less tha n 5 samples for the time period of interest, or 5 to 9 samples for the time period

of interest with 1 sample outside the range of the appropriate criterion.

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

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

Category 2: Attaining For 10 or more samples in the time period of interest , greater than 90% of the samples are

within the range of the appropriate criterion

. F or 5 to 9 samples in the time period of interest, all samples are within the range of the appropriate criterion

.

TIME PERIOD:

Summer: June 1 through September 30

Fall

- Winter

- Spring (FWS): October 1 to May 31

DATA REQU IREMENTS:

Data collected since 1999

. A minimum of 5 representative data points available per site collected on separate days for each time period of interest

.

NOTES:

Cascade Lakes where identified as natural and man

- made lakes at elevations over 3,000

or 5,000 feet , as specified in Basin criteria.May 1 2, 2011 Page 45

POLLUTANT : Sedimentation

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

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0007(1 2 )

340

- 041

- 0007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (1 2 ) The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed;

NUMERIC CRITER ION: None

WATER QUALITY LIMITED DETERMINATION (CATEGORY 5): Previous water quality assessment methodologies (Listing Criteria for Oregon’s 1998 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Water Bodies) have used s tream specific

documentation that show ed excess ive sedimentation was a significant limitatio n to fish or other aquatic life

. This included information indicating beneficial uses impairment (aquatic community status, biomonitoring reference sites, or fishery data) and

measurement data for benchmarks suc h as cobble embeddedness or percent fines.

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

ATTAINING CRITERION DETERMINATION (CATEGORY 2): DEQ is currently reviewing approaches to apply a numeric benchmark based on measurements of stream conditions to implement the narrative criteria.May 1 2, 2011 Page 46

POLLUTANT : Temperature

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: S almon and Steelhead Spawning

C ore C old W ater H abit at Salmon and Trout Rearing and M igration

S almon and Steelhead Migration C orridor

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout or Redband T rout
Bull Trout S pawning and Juvenile R earing

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0028

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0028 (4)

340

- 041

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

site

- specific criteria approved by EPA, the temperature criteria for State waters supporting sal monid fishes are as follows: (a) The seven

- day

- average maximum temperature of a stream identified as having salmon and steelhead spawning use on subbasin maps and tables

set out in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

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

- day

- average maximum temperature of a stream identified as

ha ving core cold water habitat use on subbasin maps set out in OAR 340

- 041

- 101 to 340

- 041

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

- da y

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

out at OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340: Figures 130A, 151A, 160A, 170A, 220A, 230A, 271A, 286A, 300A, 310A, 320A, and 340A, may not exceed 18.0 degrees Celsius (64.4 degrees Fahrenheit); (d) The seven

- day

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

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340: Tables 101B, and 121B, and Figu res 151A, 170A, and 340A, may not exceed 20.0 degrees Celsius (68.0 degrees Fahrenheit). In addition, these water bodies must have coldwater refugia that's sufficiently distributed so as to allow salmon and steelhead migration without significant adverse e ffects from higher water temperatures elsewhere in the water body. Finally, the seasonal thermal pattern in Columbia and Snake Rivers must reflect the natural seasonal thermal pattern;May 1 2, 2011 Page 47 (e) The seven

- day

- average maximum temperature of a stream identified a s having Lahontan cutthroat trout or redband trout use on subbasin maps

and tables set out in OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

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

- day

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

out at OAR 340

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

- 0340: Figures 130B, 151B, 160B, 170B, 180A, 201A, 260A, 310B, and 340B, m ay not exceed 12.0 degrees Celsius (53.6 degrees Fahrenheit). From August 15 through May 15, in bull trout spawning waters below Clear Creek and Mehlhorn reservoirs on Upper Clear Creek (Pine Subbasin), below Laurance Lake on the Middle Fork Hood River, an d below Carmen reservoir on the Upper McKenzie River, there may be no more than a 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 Fahrenheit) increase between the water temperature immediately upstream of the reservoir and the water temperature immediately downstream of the spil lway when the ambient seven

- day

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

the seven

- day

- average stream temperature is less than 9 degrees Celsius. [...] ( 6) Natural Lakes. Natural lakes may not be warmed by more than 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the natural condition unless a greater increase would not reasonably be expected to adversely affect fish or other

a quatic life. Absent a discharge or human modification that would reasonably be expected to increase temperature, DEQ will presume that the ambient temperature

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

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

- 041

- 0101 to 340

- 041

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

- 041

- 0185 for a basin specific criterion for the Klamath River. (10) Borax Lake Chub. State waters in the Malheur Lake Basin supporting the Borax Lake chub may not be cooled more than 0.3 degre es Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit) below the natural condition. [...]May 1 2, 2011 Page 48

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

- day

- average maximum

temperature exceeds the applicable criterion. Seven

- day average maximum temperature means a calculation of the average of the daily maximum temperatures from seven consecutive days

, made on a rolling basis.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Need ed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), o ther pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water qua lity standards (Category 4B) , or i mpairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

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

calculate the seven

- day

- average maximum temperature

.

Category 2: Attaining Where continuous temperature data are co llected, the seven

- day

- average maximum

temperature attains the applicable criterion.

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

- 041

- 00 28(4 ) (a)

. Other applicable criteria will be applied during non

- spawning time periods.

DATA REQUIREMENTS: Continuous temperature data collected since 2003 for the time period of interest. “Grab” temperature readings will not be evaluated, and “ grab ” data included in prior assessments

were not re

- evalua ted.

Current DEQ policy is to calculate the seven

- day

- average maximum t emperature for the seven days following a sampling date, and apply the criteria in effect for the first of th e seven days.May 1 2, 2011 Page 49

POLLUTANT : Total Dissolved Gas

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Resident Fish and Aquatic Life

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0031(1)

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0031(2)

340

- 041

- 0031

Total Dissolved Gas (1) Waters will be free from dissolved gases, such as carbon dioxide hydrogen sulfide, or other gases, in sufficient quantities to cause objectionable odors or to be deleterious to fish or other aquatic life, navigation, recreation, or other

reasonable use s made of such water. (2) Except when stream flow exceeds the ten

- year, seven

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

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

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT C ATEGORY: Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) More than 10 percent of the samples exceed standard and a minimum of at least two

exceedences of the standard, or a survey that identifies beneficial use impairment due to total dissolved gas such as assessment of fish conditions.

Category 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have bee n approved (Category 4A), o ther pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water qua lity standards (Category 4B) , or i mpairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

TIME PERIOD:

AnnualMay 1 2, 2011 Page 50

POLLUTANT : Toxic Su bstances

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: A quatic Life

– Fresh Water and Marine

Water

Human Health

– Water and Fish Ingestion, Fish Consumption, Drinking Water

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 003 3 (1)

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 003 3 (2)

340

- 041

- 0033

Toxic Substances (1) Toxic substances may not be introduced above natural background levels in waters of the state in amounts, concentrations, or combinations that may be harmful, may chemically change to harmful forms in the environment, or may

accumulat e in sediments or bioaccumulate in aquatic life or wildlife to levels that adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare or aquatic life, wildlife, or other designated beneficial uses. (2) Levels of toxic substances in waters of the state may not exc eed the applicable criteria listed in Tables 20, 33A, and 33B. Tables 33A and 33B, adopted on May 20, 2004, update Table 20 as described in this section. (a) Each value for criteria in Table 20 is effective until the corresponding

value in Tables 33A or 3 3B becomes effective. (A) Each value in Table 33A is effective on February 15, 2005, unless EPA has disapproved the value before that date. If a value is subsequently disapproved, any corresponding value in Table 20 becomes effective immediately. Values t hat are the same in Tables

20 and 33A remain in effect. (B) Each value in Table 33B is effective upon EPA approval. (b) The department will note the effective date for each value in Tables 20, 33A, and 33B as described in this section. (3) To establish p ermit or other regulatory limits for toxic substances for which criteria are not included in Tables 20, 33A, or 33B, the department may use the guidance values in Table 33C, public health advisories, and other published scientific literature. The departmen t may also require or conduct bio

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

Note: Oregon standards for toxic substances were revised and a dopted by the Environmental Quality Commission in 200 4 but have not yet been approved by EPA for Clean Water Act purposes. For the 2010 Water Quality Report

, Oregon applied pre

revision water quality criteria for aquatic life and human health from OAR 340

- 041 Table

20 that were previously adopted and were approved by EPA in the 1980s

. ( See http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/Table20old.pdf for Table 20. )

O regon standards are applicable to water column concentrations for each compound.

Criteria for metals on Table 20 are total recoverable concentrations. DEQ recentlyMay 1 2, 2011 Page 51

review ed the iron and mangan e se Table 20 criteria and issued a policy memo discussing

flexib ility to apply the criteria to the dissolved fraction in the water column. 18 The approach used in this assessment to evaluate iron and manganese is discussed below.

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY:

For sample results reported as less than a minimum reporting limit (<MRL), the MRL was compared to the most stringent applicable criterion. If the MRL was higher than the most stringent criterion, the sample was not considered valid . If sample data needed to

calculate toxic criteria for ammonia ( temperatur e or pH ) were not available, the sample

was not considered valid.

Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) Two ( 2 ) or more valid results not meeting the most stringent applicable criterion for

concentrations of a specific toxic substance in the water column when these samples represent 5% or more of the total valid samples ; Or, Fish consumption advisories for specific water bodies where pollutants are found in fish

tissue

. Fish consumption advisories are issued by the Oregon Department of Human

Services Public Health Division Office of Environmental Public Health. (See http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/envtox/fishadvisories.shtml )

Categ ory 4: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Not Needed TMDLs needed to attain applicable water quality standards have been approved (Category 4A), o ther pollution control requirements are expected to address pollutant and will attain water qua lity standards (Catego ry 4B) , or i mpairment is not caused by a pollutant (Category 4C).

Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern

O ne (1) valid sample result not meet ing the most stringent applicable criterion for a specific toxic substance when that result represents 5% or more of the total valid samples

, Or

Two (2) valid sample results not meeting the most stringent applicable criterion for a specific toxic substance when those results represents less than 5% of the total valid samples

. (See Not es below regarding alkalinity and atrazine criterion.)

Category 3: Insufficient Data

Less than 5 valid samples for the toxic substance of interest (unless assigned Category 5 or 3B as above)

. For sample results reported as less than a minimum reporting limit (<MRL), the MRL was compared to the most stringent applicable criterion

. If the MRL was higher than the most stringent criterion , the sample was not considered valid

. If sample data needed to calculate toxic criteria for ammonia ( temperature or pH ) w ere not
available , the sample result was not considered valid.

18 Sturdevant, D., 2008, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum Re: Iron and Manganese Criteria. Internal DEQ Memo Regarding Iron and Manganese Criteria

- November 4, 2008 PDFMay 1 2, 2011 Page 52

Category 2: Attaining

A minimum of 5 valid samples and all valid results meet the most stringent applicable

criterion for a specific toxic substance , or when 95% of the valid sample results meet the most stringent applicable criterion with only one (1) valid sample result not meeting the criterion

.

Because analytical methods for some toxic substances cannot achieve reporting limits below the most stringent criterion (Aldrin, Arsenic, DDT, Di eldrin, PCBs, etc.), site monitoring data for these substances are not sufficient to determine the Attaining

category.

TIME PERIOD:

Annual

DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Data collected since 1999

.

NOTES:

Applying Aquatic Life and Human Health Criteria

To evaluate site monitoring data, t he most stringent aquatic life or human health criterion applicable to the water type was used

. To select the most stringent of the applicable criterion, DEQ applied EPA guidance to determine when freshwater or saltwater (marine)

aqu atic life criteria for toxic substances were applicable

, and additionally considered the

human health criteria for each compound. 19 A combination of salinity, conductivity, and geographic information for each sampling site was used to determine whether the freshwater or saltwater (marine) aquatic life criteria were applicable and which aquatic

life criter ia to calculate ( e.g
., ammonia and har d ness

- dependent metal criteria). The general approach is as described below.

Marine W aters:
Marine waters are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(34) as all oceanic, offshore water outside of estuaries or bays and within the territorial limits of Oregon. EPA recommends using saltwater criteria for waters where the salinity is equal or greater t han 10 par ts per
thousand ( approximately equivalent to conductivity 20,000 uS/cm)

. 20

Monitoring sites in marine waters were identified using geographic information and

confirmed us ing salinity or conductivity data

. Ammonia criteria (Acute Criteria CM C and

19 2002, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 822

- R

- 02

- 047. Page 9.

20 Monitoring data are more commonly collected for conductivity. A general conversion is salinity 0.1 parts per thousand = 200 microSiemens/cm conductivity at 20°C. data are more commonly collected, and a general conversion is salinity . Conversion from on

- line reference table at http://www.envcoglobal.com/files/u5/Envco%20Conductivity%20to%20salinity%20conversion%20table.p

df attributed to equation of P.K. Weyl, Liminology and Oceanography, 9:75 (1964).May 1 2, 2011 Page 53

Chronic C riterion CCC) were calculated for these sites using the appropriate equations

for saltwater

.

For marine waters, the mo re stringent of the marine acute or chronic criteria or the human

health criteria for “fish

- consumption

- only” was applied. If there was n o “fish

consumption

- only” criterion , the “ water and fish ingestion ” criteri on was applied if more stringent than the marine aquatic life criteria.

Estuarine W aters : Estuarine waters are defined in OAR 340

- 041

- 0002(22) as mixed fresh and oceanic water in estuaries or bays from the point of inland oceanic water intrusion to a line connecting the outermost points of the headlands or protective jetties. EPA recommends using the more stringent of freshwater or saltwater criter ia where salinity is between 1 and 10 thousand parts per thousand.

For the 2010 review of water quality data, e stuarine waters were identified using geographic information and confirmed using salinity or conductivity data . For consistency with other poll utant evaluations such as bacteria , the inland extent of

estuarine waters was identified as the point where recorded specific conductivity measurements were above 200 uS/cm (approximately 0.1 ppth salinity)

. Ammonia criteria (Acute Criterion CMS and Chroni c Criterion CCC) for estuarine waters were calculated for these sites using the appropriate equations for freshwater

.

For estuarine waters , the mo re stringent of the freshwater or marine acute or chronic criteria for aquatic life or the human health criter ion for “ fish

- consumption

- only ” was applied. Estuarine waters are not considered likely drinking waters. However, i f there

was no “ fish

- consumption

- only ” cri teri on , the “ water and fish ingestion ” criterion was

a pplied if more stringent than the aquatic life criteria

. As part of the evaluation, hardness

dependent freshwater criteria for metals were calculated for these sites.

Freshwater:

Waters that were not identified as marine or estuarine were evaluate d as freshwater. For

freshwater

, the most stringent of the freshwater acute or chronic criteria or the human

health criterion for “ fish

- consumption

- only ”, “ water

- and

- fish

- ingestion ”, or “drinking

water MCL” was applied.

Criteria Compound or Class Chemical Identification In some cases, Table 20 toxic substance criteria compound or class names do not identify the specific chemicals included in the class . Analytical methods used in the past 10 years are able to provide detailed chemical identifications rather than results for broad compound classes or chemical product mixtures. In order to correctly apply Table 20 criteria in this assessment, effort was made to correlate Table 20 criteria with chemicals identified by their unique CAS registry number using the 1986 guidance document used to develop the criteria and available chemical and CAS registry information. 21

, 22

, 23

, 24

21 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001May 1 2, 2011 Page 54

M inimum R eporting L imit When sample r esults are reported as less than a minimum reporting limit (<MRL), the

MRL was compared to the most stringent applic able criterion

. If the MRL was below the

criterion , the result was considered a valid sample result and evaluated relative to the

criterion

. If the MRL was above the criterion , the result was not evaluated relative to the

criterion

.

TOXIC CRITERIA ISSUES:

Alkalinity Criteri on The freshwater criterion for alkalinity is “20 mg/L or more as CaCO 3 freshwater aquatic life except where natural concentrations are less.” 25 Alkalinity should not be below this value in order to protect beneficial uses.

Alkalinity is a measure of carbonate and bicarbonate ions and the buffering capacity of water to pH changes. Freshwater systems have natural variations in pH that are related to photosynthetic activity and other inorganic and organic chemical reactions. Applying the alkalinity criterion as an isolated standard to determine where water is water quality limited may lead to incorrect conclusions about overall natural water quality. For the

2010 Integrated Report evaluation, analytical data indicating alkalinity less than the criterion is flagged as a Category 3B Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern

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

- by

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

Ammonia Criteria

Ammonia criteria are established based on the concentration of un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) which is the princip al toxic form of ammonia , and are pH and temperature specific

. 26 Monitoring data results are typically reported as “ total ammonia as N ”

. For the assessment evaluation, criteria are calculated for freshwater and saltwater first for un

ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) , and then converted to criteria for total ammonia as N in order to evaluate monitoring data results. If temperature or pH data were not available, criteria

were not calculated and the sample result was not evaluated.

Ammonia Criteria

- Freshwater

Ammonia criteria for freshwater are calculated based on pH, temperature, and the

presence or absence of salmonids or other fish with ammonia

- sensitive life stages. For this assessment, salmonids were always assumed to be present. Values for freshwater

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

- ser.html

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

24 US EPA Su bstance Registry Services web site “Substance Search” at http://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/searchandretrieve/substancesearch/s earch.do

25 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001

26 1986, Quality Criteria for Water 1986, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001May 1 2, 2011 Page 55

criteria fo r un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) are calculated first, then converted to criteria for

total ammonia as N using the following formulae

. 27

, 28 EPA recommends criteria calculations not be extrapolated beyond the pH and temperature limits specified in the

formulae. 26, 27

Freshwater Acute Criterion (CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration): Salmonids present:

CMC NH3 = 0.52 / FT / FPH / 2

Where:

FT = 1 when 20  Temperature (T)  30

Or

FT = 10 0.03(20

- T) when 0  T < 20

And :
FPH = 1 when 8  pH  9

Or

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4

- pH when 6.5  pH < 8

1.25

Salmonids absent:

CMC NH3 = 0.52 / FT / FPH / 2

Where:

FT = 0.71 when 25  T  30

Or

FT = 10 0.03(20

- T) when 0  T < 25

And :
FPH = 1 when 8  pH  9

Or

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4

- pH when 6.5  pH < 8

1.25

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

CCC NH3 = 0.80 / FT / FPH / RATIO

Where :
FT = 1.4 when 15  T  30

Or

FT = 10 0.03(20

- T) when 0  T < 15

27 1985, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

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

- 85

- 001

28 1986, Quality Criteria for Water 1986, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001May 1 2, 2011 Page 56 And :
FPH = 1 when 8  pH  9

Or

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4

- pH when 6.5  pH < 8

1.25

And :
RATIO = 16 when 7.7  pH  9

Or
RATIO = 24*(10 7.7

- pH /1+ 10 7. 4

- pH ) when 6.5  pH < 7.7

Salmonids absent:

CCC NH3 = 0.80 / FT / FPH / RATIO

Where :
FT = 1 when 20  T  30

Or

FT = 10 0.03(20

- T) when 0  T < 20

And :
FPH = 1 when 8  pH  9

Or

FPH = 1 + 10 7.4

- pH when 6.5  pH < 8

1.25

And :
RATIO = 16 when 7.7  pH  9

Or

RATIO = 24*(10 7.7

- pH /1+ 10 7. 4

- pH ) when 6.5  pH < 7.7

Ammonia criteria calculated above are for the un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) fraction. 29

Criteria for total ammonia as N are calculated using the following equations: 30

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

– pH) + 1)

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

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

Ammonia Criteria

– Saltwater

Ammonia criteria for saltwater are established for un

- ionized ammonia (NH 3 ) which is

the principal toxic form of ammonia. 31 For this assessment, the saltwater criteria were

29 1985, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia

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

- 85

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

30 1999, 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA

822

- R

- 99

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

31 198 9

, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (Saltwater)

- 1989, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA

440/5

- 88

- 004; http://www.epa.gov/ost/pc/ambientwqc/ammoniasalt1989.pdfMay 1 2, 2011 Page 57

calculated criteria for marine sites. Marine sites were identif ied using geographic information and confirmed with salinity or conductivity data. A default salinity value of 10 ppth was used if site specific data were not available.

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

CMC S NH3 = 0.233 mg/L

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

CCC S NH3 = 0.035 mg/L

EPA provides a model to approximate the percent un

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

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

- T ) +0.0415* P/T

- pH)] - 1

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

And: pK
a S

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

- 1.005109*S)

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

Saltwater Acute Criterion ( CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration):

CMC S ( Total ammonia as N) = CMC S NH3 /UIA*0.822 = 0.233/UIA *0.822

Saltwater Chronic Criterion (CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration):

C C C S ( Total ammonia as N) = C C C S NH3 /UIA*0.822 = 0. 0.035 /UIA *0.822

Atrazine MCL Oregon does not have water quality criteria for atrazine . However, since the adoption and approval of Table 20 water quality criteria, National Primary Drinking Water regulations have promulgated a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 3 ug/L for drinking water.

For the 2010 Integrated Report evaluation, analytica l data exceeding this MCL is flagged

as Category 3B: Insufficient Data

– Potential Concern

.

Chlordane and Heptachlor Criteria Table 20 criteria for Chlordane were applied to sample results reported for the technical product (CAS No. 12789036) or non

- speci fic chlordane (CAS No. 57749), or to the sum

of isomers, other constituents, and metabolites of chlordane including cis

- chlordane (synonym α

- chlordane ) (CAS No. 5103719), trans

- chlordane (synonym γ

- chlordane ) (CAS No. 5103742), γ

- c hlordane (CAS No. 5566347 ), cis

- nonachlor (CAS No.May 1 2, 2011 Page 58

5103731 ), trans

- nonachlor (CAS No. 39765805 ), and o xychlordane (CAS No. 27304138).

Another known major constituent of chlordane mixtures is Heptachlor (CAS No. 76448 ).

Table 20 criteria specific for Heptachlor were applie d separately for this chemical.

Chromium Criteria

Table 20 criteria for chromium have criteria for two oxidation states

– hexavalent and

trivalent. However, analytical results for chromium do not distinguish between oxidation

states. The most stringent applicable aquatic or human health value for either oxidat ion state was applied to evaluate data results.

DDT Criteria Table 20 criteria for DDT were applied to sample results reported for 4,4 DDT or p,p DDT (CAS No. 50293). The se crit eria are not appli cable to results reported for DDD (CAS No. 72548); DDE (CAS No. 72559); 2,4 DDT (CAS No. 789026); 2,4 DDD (CAS

No. 53190 ); or 2,4 DD E (CAS No. 3424826 ) which do not have criteria on Table 20 and

were not evaluated

.

D emeton Criteria

Table 20 criteria for Demeton were applied to sample results reported as Demeton (CAS No. 8065483), and Disulfoton (CAS No. 298044 ). The two pesticides are toxicologically similar, and EPA allows use of toxicity data for both compounds. For this assessment, the Demeton criteria were applied to both pesticide products.

Dichlorobenzenes Criteria

Table 20 criteria for the class Dichlorobenzenes were applied to the sum of sample results reported for the isomers 1,2

- Dichlorobenzene (CAS No. 95501 ); 1,3

- Dichlorobenzene (CAS No. 541731 ); and 1,4

- Dichlorobenzene (CAS No. 106467 ).

Dichloroethylenes Criteria

Table 20 criteria for the class Dichloroethylenes were applied to the results reported for
1,1

- Dichloroethylene (synonyms 1,1

- Dichloroethene or 1,1

- DCE) (CAS No. 75354 ).

Dichloropropene Criteria

Table 20 criteria for the compound Dichloropropene were applied to the sum of sample results reported for the isomers cis

- 1,3

- Dichloropropene (CAS No. 10061015 ); trans

- 1,3

- Dichloropropene (CAS No. 10061026 ); mixtures of cis

- and trans

- 1,3

- Dichloropropene (CAS No. 542756); 1,1

- Dichloropropene (CAS No. 563586 ); and 1, 2

- Dichloropropene (CAS No. 563 542)

.

D ioxin (2,3,7,8

- TCDD) Criteria Table 20 criteria for Dioxin were applied to sample results reported for the sp e ci fi c congener 2,3,7,8

- Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) (CAS No. 1746016).May 1 2, 2011 Page 59

D iphenylhydrazine Criteria

Table 20 criteria for Diphenylhydrazine were applied to results for Diphenylhydrazine
1,2

- (synonym Hydrazobenzene ) (CAS No. 122667 ). No data results for this chemical

were available for the 2010 evaluation.

Endosulfan Criteria

Table 20 criteria for the group Endosulfan were applied to sample results reported for

Endosulfan (CAS No. 115297) or to the sum of sample results reported for the isomer s α

Endosulfan (CAS No. 959988), β

- Endosulfan (33213659), and the reaction product Endosulfan sulfate (CAS No. 1031078) found in technical grade E ndosulfan.

Guthion Criteria

Table 20 criteria for Guthion were applied to results for Guthion (synonym Azinphos Methyl ) (CAS No. 86500) and for the metabolic breakdown product Azinphos Methyl Oxygen Analog (CAS No. 961228)

.

Halomethanes Criteria

Table 20 criteria for the group Halomethanes were applied to the sum of sample results reported for the following compounds if available:

Bromodichloromethane (CAS No. 75274 )

Bromoform (synonym Tribromomethane) (CAS No. 75252 )

Bromomethane (CAS No. 74839 )

Chloromethane (CAS No. 74873 )

Dichlorodifluo romethane (CAS No. 75718 ) Methylene Chloride (synonym Dichloromethane) (CAS No. 75092 )

Trichlorofluoromethane (CAS No. 75694 )

H exachlorocyclohexane Criteria Table 20 criteria aquatic life criteria for Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) and human

health crite ria for Hexachlorocyclohexane Gamma were ap plied to sample results reported for chemical (CAS No. 58899). The pesticide product Lindane is generally > 99% the gamma isomer ( synonyms γ

- HCH or γ

- BHC)

.

Table 20 criteria human health criteria for the isomer H exachlorocyclohexane alpha were applied to results for that chemical (CAS No. 319846 ) (synonyms α

- HCH or α

- BHC).

Table 20 criteria human health criteria for the isomer Hexachlorocyclohexane beta were applied to results for that chemical (CAS No. 319857) (synonyms β

- HCH or β

- BHC).

Table 20 criteria human health criteria for the Hexachlorocyclohexane technical apply to the technical grade pesticide which is a mixture consisting of α, β, γ, δ, and ε isomers. No

data results for the technical mixture were av ailable for the 2010 evaluation.

Metals Criteria

- Evaluation of Total Recoverable Results

Table 20 criteria for metals are established for total metal concentrations in water. To evaluate water quality for metals, results for total recoverable analyses w ere compared toMay 1 2, 2011 Page 60

the applicable criteria. If no total analysis was available, then a dissolved analytical result

was evaluat ed against the criteria

. If the data do not identify the analysis as total or dissolved, the result was evaluated as if it were a tot al analysis.

For iron and manganese, a recent DEQ review of the criteria resulted in a policy memo discussing DEQ’s flexibility to apply the criteria for these compounds to the dissolved

fraction in the water column. 32 To evaluate iron and manganese, resul ts for dissolved analyses were compared to the applicable criteria. If no dissolved analysis was available, then data were not evaluated against the criteria.

Metals Criteria

- Hardness Dependent Criteria

The freshwater criteri a for several metal s are expressed as a function of hardness (mg/L)

in the water column. These criteria are flagged on Table 20 with a “+” notation. C riteria

for these metals are calculated using the following formulae : 33

Freshwater Acute Criterion : Criterion maximum concentratio n

CMC = 

### e (m a [ln(hardness)]+ b a )

Freshwater Chronic Criterion : Criterion chronic concentration

CCC = 

### e (m c [ln(hardness)]+ b c )

Metal Freshwater Acute Criterion

CMC Freshwater Chronic Criterion

CCC

m a b

a m c b

c Cadmium 1.128

- 3.828 0.7852

- 3.490

Chromium 0.819 3.688 0.819 1.561 Copper 0.9422

- 1.464 0.8545

- 1.465

Lead 1.273

- 1.460 1.273

- 4.705

Nickel 0.8460 3.3612 0.8460 1.1645

Silver 1.72

- 6.520

Zinc 0.8473 0.8604 0.8473 0.7614

If hardness was not measured directly as CaCo 3 , the following equation was used to

calculate the hardness value 34 : Hardness, equivalent CaCo 3 (mg/L) = 2.497 Ca (mg/L) + 4.1189 Mg ( mg/L)

For this assessment, DEQ followed EPA recommendations to use a minimum of 25 mg/L

hardness to calculate criteria. 35 Additionally, if no hardness data were available, a default hardness of 25 mg/L was use to calculate the criteria.

32 Sturdevant, D., 2008, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum Re: Iron and Manganese Criteria. Internal DEQ Memo Regarding Iron and Manganese Criteria

- November 4, 2008 PDF

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

- 86

- 0 01

34 1998, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edition , American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association , Water Environment Federation

35 40 CFR Section 131.36(c)(4)(i).May 1 2, 2011 Page 61

Nitrosamines Criteria

Table 20 contains criteria for the Nitrosamine class of compounds. However, Table 20

also has specific criteria for the individual chemicals which are applied to data results for : Nitrosodibutylamine n

- (CAS No. 924163) Nitrosodiethylamine n

- (CAS No. 55185) Nitrosodimethylamine n

- (CAS No. 62759) Nitrosodiphenylamine n

- (CAS No. 86306 ) Nitrosopyrrolidine n

- (CAS No. 93 0552 )

Parathion Criteria

Table 20 criteria for Parathion were applied to results for Parathion both Ethyl P arathion (CAS No. 56382) and Methyl Parathion (CAS No. 298000)

. Both pesticides were registered and in use when Table 20 criteria were established.

PCB Criteria

Table 20 criteria for PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) were applied to either the sum of sample results reported as Aroclors, or the sum of sample results reported as congeners.

Available data for 2010 included results for Aroclor s 1016, 1221 , 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, and 1260. Available data for 2010 included results for congeners PCB

- 1, PCB

- 5,

PCB

- 29, PCB

- 47, PCB

- 98, PCB

- 154, PCB

- 171, and PCB

- 200.

Pentachlorophenol Criteria Freshwater aquatic life criteria for Pen tachlorophenol (CAS No. 87865) are pH dependent and can be calculated by: 36

Acute Criterion (CMC = Criterion Maximum Concentration)

CMC = 

### e (1.005(pH)

- 4.830 )

Chronic Criterion (CCC = Criterion Continuous Concentration) :

CCC = 

### e (1.005(pH)

- 5. 290 )

A simplifying assumption is to use a pH of 7.8 to generate the criteria as given on Table

20. For this assessment to evaluate Pentachlorophenol (CAS No. 87865 ), pH criteria were calculated using the 1986 guidance for calculating national criteria. If no p H data were available, the Table 20 assumptions of pH 7.8 were used to generate criteria.

Phosphorus Criterion/Phosphate Phosphorus Benchmark

The Table 20 criterion of 0. 1 ug/L applies to elemental phosphorus (P) in marine or

estuarine waters. This is based on the EPA criterion to protect marine organisms. 37

Neither Oregon nor EPA has set a criterion for phosphate phosphorus. EPA has recognized the relationship between phosphates, as major nutrients, and excessive aquatic weed and algae growth, and lake and reservoir eutrophication. 38 EPA recommends that

36 1986, Ambient Water Quality Criter ia for Pentachlorophenol, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 009.

37 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001 for Phosphorus

38 1986, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001 for Phosphat e PhosphorusMay 1 2, 2011 Page 62

total phosphates as phosphorus (P) should not exceed 50 ug/L in streams to control excessive aquatic growths. For the 2010 Water Quality Report, this value is used as a benchmark to evaluate water quality data for phosphate phosphorus. Water bodies with total phosphates as phosphorus (P) greater than 50 ug/L are a Category 3B Insufficient

Data

– Potential Concern for conditions that may result in not meeting water quality

standards.

Polynuclear Aromatic H ydrocarbons Criteria

Table 20 criteria for the group Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ( P AH s ) were applied to sum of sample results reported for the following compounds if available : A cenaphthene (CAS 83 32 9)

A cenaphthylene (CAS 208968)

A nthracene (CAS 120127)

B enz[a]anthracene (CAS 56553)

B enzo[a]pyrene (CAS 50328)

B enzo[b]fluoranthene (CAS 205992)

B enzo[e]pyrene (CAS 192972)

B enzo[g,h,i]perylene (CAS 191242)

B enzo[k]fluoranthene (CAS 207089)

B enzo[j]fluoranthene (CAS 205823)

C hrysene (CAS 218019)

D ibenz[a,h]anthracene (CAS 53703)

F luorene (CAS 86737)

I ndeno[1,2,3

- c,d]pyrene (CAS 193395)

P henanthrene (CAS 85018)

P yrene (CAS 1290000)

Table 20 criteria for Fluoranthene (CAS 206440) were applied to results reported for that
one PAH compound.May 1 2, 2011 Page 63

POLLUTANT : Turbidity

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Resident Fish and Aquatic Life Water Supply

Aesthetics

NARRATIVE CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0007 (11)

340

- 041

- 0007

Statewide Narrative Criteria (11) The creation of tastes or odors or toxic o r other conditions that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or affect the potability of dri nking water or the palatability of fish or shellfish may not be allowed;

NUMERIC CRITERION: OAR 340

- 041

- 0036

340

- 041

- 0036 Turbidity Turbidity ( Nephelometric Turbidity Units, NTU): No more than a ten percent cumulative increase in natural stream turbidities may be allowed, as measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity causing activity. However, limited duration acti vities necessary to address an emergency or to accommodate essential dredging, construction or other legitimate activities and which cause the standard to be exceeded may be authorized provided all practicable turbidity control techniques have been applied and one of the following has been granted: (a) Emergency activities: Approval coordinated by the Department with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife under conditions they may prescribe to accommodate response to emergencies or to protect public

he alth and welfare; (b) Dredging, Construction or other Legitimate Activities: Permit or certification authorized under terms of section 401 or 404 (Permits and Licenses, Federal Water Pollution Control Act) or OAR 14l

- 085

- 0100 et seq. (Removal and Fill Perm its, Division of State Lands), with limitations and conditions governing the activity set forth in the permit or certificate.

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSESSMENT CATEGORY: Category 5: Water Quality Limited, TMDL Needed (303(d) List) A systematic or persistent increase (of greater than 10%) in turbidity due to an operational activity that occurs on a persistent basis (e.g. dam release or irrigation return, etc.); Or, For impairments to beneficial use as drinking water supply, Public Water System operator indicat es that high turbidity days (days with turbidity ≥5 NTU) are causing operational difficulty and source water data validate this impairment. The data are considered to validate an impairment if more than 45 high turbidity days per year occur

for any year fo r which data are available.May 1 2, 2011 Page 64

Category 3: Insufficient Data For beneficial use as drinking water supply, available data are not sufficient to determine if the use is impaired. One or more turbidity shutdowns are documented in the Safe Drinking Water Informa tion System database, but there are not data to show whether shutdown is normal after a large storm event, or indicates a problem and impaired

beneficial use.

Category 3b: Potential Concern, Insufficient Data For beneficial use as drinking water supply, a vailable data are not sufficient to determine if the use is impaired, but indicate a potential concern. The Public Water System operator indicates that high turbidity days are causing operational difficulties, but there are not

data availa ble to validate t his impairment, or if shutdowns due to high turbidity may be the result of unusual or infrequent weather events.

Category 2: Attaining For beneficial use as drinking water supply, Public Water System operator indicates that high turbidity days are not cau sing operational difficulty and/or source water data show water quality is good. Water quality is considered good if there are 45 or less high turbidity days per year for all years for which data are available.May 1 2, 2011 1 Appendix 1 

### Appendix 1 Rules for Defining Water Body Segment s and Assigning

Assessment Status Category

Rules for 2004 for Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen

Use segments designated in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340 Division

41 as revised in 2003 for designated fish beneficial uses and designated spawning time periods. Assign status as follows:

If Then:

2004 stations 2004 Segment 2004 Status

One or more station

303d Start and end river mile for designated

fish use Cat 5: 303d list

One or more

stations 303d TMDL approved

for temperature or dissolved oxygen

for stream Start and end river

mile for designated

fish use Cat 4a: WQ

limited, TMDL approved

One or more stations 303d,

others insufficient

data Start and end river mile for designated

fish use Cat 5: 303d list

One or more stations attaining;

others insufficient

data Start and end river mile for designated

fish use Cat 2: Attaining

One or more

stations with

insufficient data Start and end river mile for designated

fish use Cat 3: Insufficient

data

No data 2002 303d status Retain previous segment start and

end 303 d based on

previous listingMay 1 2, 2011 2 Appendix 1

Other Pollutants

For pollutants other than temperature and dissolved oxygen, if segment was defined in

200 4 for pollutant and season, use pre

- existing segment river mile start and end.

For bacteria , use 200 4 segment for matching pollutant and season (example, e.coli for summer):

If match for pollutant but not season, use segment for matching pollutant for any season (exampl e, e.coli for fall/winter/spring). Assign 20 10 status based on

evaluation of 20 10 data.

If no match for pollutant , use segment for other bacteria pollutant (example, for e. coli , use pre vious fecal coliform segment). Assign 20 10 status based on

evaluation of 20 10 data.

For segments with matching pollutant and season , assign status to segment as follows:

If And Then:

20 10 stations 20 04 Segment

Status 20 10 Segment 20 10 Status

One or more stations 303d 303d Same Cat 5: 303d list

One or more stations 303d TMDL approved Same Cat 4a: WQ limited, TMDL approved

One or more stations 303d Attaining Same Cat 5: 303d list

Stations insufficient data 303d Same Cat 5: 303d list

One or more stations potential concern (toxics) 303d Same Cat 5: 303d list

One or more stations potential concern (toxics) Potential concern

or insufficient data Same Cat 3B: Insufficient

Data

– Potential

Concern

One or more stations potential concern (toxics) Attaining Same Cat 3B: Insufficient

Data

– Potential

Concern

Stations insufficient data Attaining Same Cat 2: Attaining

Stations insufficient data Potential concern Same Cat 3B: Insufficient

Data

– Potential

Concern

One or more stations attaining and one or more

stations insufficient data Attain ing Same Cat 2: Attaining

Attaining and/or

insufficient data 303d Same Cat 5: 303d list (Check for data equivalency to de

- list).

Combination insufficient data, 303d, and attaining 303d Same Cat 5: 303d list

Stations attaining Attaining Same Cat 2: Attaining

Combination insufficient data, 303d, and attaining Attaining Same Cat 5: 303d list

Attaining TMDL approved Same Cat 2: AttainingMay 1 2, 2011 3 Appendix 1

Other Pollutants (con’t)

If NO segment is defined in 200 4 for pollutant and season, define 20 10 segment up to the next monitoring station and assign 20 10 status to segment as follows:

If And No

20 04 Segment Then:

20 10 stations 20 10 segment 20 10 segment status

One station 303d Mouth to headwaters Cat 5: 303d list

One or more

stations 303d

with upstream data points. Segment from mouth up to next station that

shows other status

information Cat 5: 303d list

One station 303d

with downstream station attaining Define segments start/end at halfway point between attaining and 303d point Cat 2: Attai ning from data point to halfway ; Cat 5 303d list from halfway below data point to next upstream data point showing

different status.

One or more station 303d,

other insufficient

data Mouth to headwaters Cat 5: 303d list

One or more station attaining;

others with

insufficient data Mouth to headwaters Cat 2: Attaining

One or more

stations with

insufficient data Mouth to headwaters Cat 3: Insufficient dataAppendix 2 

## Appendix 2

June 22, 1998

Philip Millam Director, Office of Water, OW

- 134 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101

Dear Phil:

This letter is to provide policy clarification of the Oregon water quality standards revisions that were submitted for Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval on July 10,

1996. Specifically, this letter addresses how the Department of Environmental Quality ( ODEQ ) is interpreting certain language contained in the Oregon Water Quality Standards (OAR 340

- 41) and responds to questions that EPA has raised in its review of the standards.

The regulatory clarifications included herein will be incorporated into the water quality standards, to the extent possible, during the next triennial review. As there are quite a number of issues that are candidates for review in the next triennial review, we will need to carefully prioritize these issues working with EPA and the next Policy Advisory Committee.

The following comments are organized in the following manner: beneficial use issues, numeric criteria issues and implementation issues.

BENEFICIAL USE ISSUES:

Bull Trout Waters : The language in the rule (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(b)(A)) reads: “...no

measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (v) In waters determined by the Department to support or to be necessary to maintain the viability of native Oregon bull trout, when surface water temperatures exceed
50.0o F (12.8o C)”

. [Please note that the specific citation for the temperature criteria for Bull Trout may vary slightly in its numbering depending on the basin, this example and subsequent citations are from the standards for the Willamette Basin (OAR 340

- 41

- 445 )].

The Department has consulted with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to

make a determination of the current distribution of Bull Trout. Maps have been developed by ODFW as part of an effort to develop plans to protect and restore Bull Trout populations. These maps can be found in the following publication: “Status of Oregon’s Bull Trout” (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; October 1997; Buchanan, David, M. Hanson, and R. Hooton; Portland, OR) which is available from ODFW or viewed in the “StreamNet” website (www.streamnet.org). A map showing the most recent Bull Trout distribution (export file dated June 1997) has been sent separately to EPA and a digital version can be provided to EPA.Page 2 Appendix 2

The Department will use the 1997 Bull Trout distribution maps contained in the 1997 ODFW publication to clarify the phrase “waters determined by the Department to support or to be necessary to maintain the viability of native Oregon Bull Trout.” The temperature criteria of 50oF applies to the strea m reaches which indicate that “Spawning, Rearing, or Resident Adult Bull Trout” populations are present. These waters are shown by a solid green line on the maps that are referenced.

The mapping and planning effort is an on

- going effort by ODFW. Any chan ges made to the mapped distribution will represent a change in the standard which would be submitted to EPA for approval. The Bull Trout portion of the standards will be revised to incorporate a reference to the 1997 ODFW publication or identify any other means for determining waters that support or are necessary to support Bull Trout in the next triennial standards review.

Waters supporting spawning, egg incubation and fry emergence: The language in the

rule reads:

Temperature (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(b) (A)): “... no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (iv) In waters and periods of the year determined by the Department to support native salmonid spawning, egg incubation, and fry emergence from the egg and from the gravels in a basin which exceeds 55oF (12.8oC)”.

Dissolved Oxygen (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(a)(A)): “For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing salmonid spawning, during th e periods from spawning until fry emergence from the gravels, following criteria apply...”

The Beneficial Use Tables (Tables 1

- 19 in the Oregon water quality standards) indicate the recognized beneficial uses to generally be protected in the basin

. In some basins (e.g. Table 15, Malheur River Basin), the information in the Tables has been refined for particular

water bodies. In general, salmonid spawning and rearing are shown on the tables to be
found in all basins. In order to make the spawning determinatio ns, information on location and timing in a specific waterbody is further developed through consultation with ODFW as spawning does not occur at all times of the year or in all locations in the basin. In addition, timing often varies from year to year depe nding on seasonal factors such as flow. ODFW, in cooperation with other federal and tribal fishery agencies has begun to map out this information on a species by species basis (StreamNet Project) but this work is still several years from completion.

ODEQ is submitting the attached table that identifies when the spawning criteria listed under the dissolved oxygen and temperature standards will be applied to a basin. This table provides the generally accepted time frame during which spawning occurs. However, spawning periods for Spring Chinook and Winter Steelhead vary with elevation (e.g. Spring Chinook tend to spawn earlier and fry emergence occurs later in the Spring for Winter Steelhead in streams at higher elevations). Therefore, to address differences i n actual spawning periods, the Department will consult directly with the ODFW to determine if waterbody specific adjustments (which would be changes to the standards) are necessary.

Furthermore, the Department will apply the antidegradation policy in sp ecific actions, e.g. permits, 401 certification and 303(d) listing, to protect spawning that occurs outside thePage 3 Appendix 2

identified time frames or utilize the narrative temperature criteria that applies to threatened or endangered species.

Application of the warm

- water Dissolved Oxygen Criteria (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(a)(F)) : The language in the rule reads: “For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing warm

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 5.5 mg/l as an absolute minimum...”

Warm

- water criteria is applied in waters where Salmonid Fish Rearing and Salmonid Fish Spawning are not a listed beneficial use in Tables 1

- 19 with the exception of Table 19 (Klamath Basin) in which the cool water dissolved oxygen criteria will be applied (see Klamath TMDL supporting documentation, (Hammon 1998)). Specifically, the warm water criteria would be applied to:

Table 15 : Malheur River (Namorf to Mouth), Willow Creek (Brogan to Mouth), Bully Creek (Reservoir to Mouth);

Table 16: Owyhee River (RM 0

- 18);

Table 17: Malheur Lake Basin

- Natural Lakes;

Table 18: Goose and Summer Lakes Basin

- High Alkaline & Saline Lakes.

Application of the cool

- water Dissolved Oxygen Criteria (OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(a)(E)) : The language in the rule reads: “For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing

cool

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 6.5 mg/l as an absolute

minimum.. .”

Cool

- water aquatic life is a sub

- category of cold

- water aquatic life and is defined under
OAR 340

- 41

- 006 (52) as “the aquatic communities that are physiologically restricted to cool waters, composed of one or more species having dissolved oxygen requir ements believed

similar to the cold

- water communities. Including but not limited to Cottidae, Osmeridae, Acipenseridae, and sensitive Centrachidae such as the small

- mouth bass.” This criteria will be applied on an ecoregional basis 39 (see attached map) as follows:

West Side:
Cold Water : Coast Range Ecoregion

- all, Sierra Nevada Ecoregion

- all, Cascade

- all, Willamette Valley

- generally typical including Willamette River above Corvallis, Santiam (including the North and South), Clack amas, McKenzie, Mid Fork and Coast Fork

mainstems.

39 The original Ecoregions described in “Ecorgions of the Pacific Northwest” (James Omernik and A. Gallant, 1986,

EPA/600/3

- 86/033) were used. This work is currently being updated but is not complete for Oregon. The terms most typical and gener ally typical are defined as follows: “The most typical portions of ecoregions are generally those areas that share all of the characteristics that are predominant in each ecoregion. The remaining portions, generally typical of each ecoregion, share most, b ut not all, of these same characteristics. These areas are defined on maps included in the publication referenced above and have been sent separately to EPA.Page 4 Appendix 2

Cool Water : Willamette Valley Ecoregion

- most typical.

East Side (with the exception of waters listed under warm water criteria in Tables 15

- 19) : Cold Water: Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills

- most typical, Blue Mountain

- most typical.
Cool Water: Remainder of Eastern Oregon Ecoregions.

NUMERIC CRITERIA ISSUES:

Temperature criteria for waters without a specific numeric criterion: The temperature criteria of 64oF will be applied to all water bodies that support salmonid fish rearing as

identified in Tables 1

- 19. This would include all waters except those listed as warm water

above. Currently, there is no numeric criteria for those waters listed as warm water. This was an inadvertent oversight for the rivers described under 2 and 3 below which will be corrected by setting site specific criteria during the next triennial review. In the mean time, these waters will be protected as fol lows:

1. There is a criteria that covers natural lakes and would cover lakes in the Malheur Lake Basin (Table 17) and Goose and Summer Lakes Basin (Table 18). This criteria (OAR

340

- 41

- 922 (2)(b)(A)) reads: “...no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (vii) In natural lakes”

.

2. The waters shown in the Klamath Basin (Table 19) are currently listed in Oregon’s 1994/96 303(d) list for temperature based on exceedence of the criterion that is linked

to di ssolved oxygen. This criterion (OAR 340

- 41

- 965 (2)(b)(A)) reads: “...no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting form anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (vi) In Oregon waters when the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are within 0.5 mg/l or

10 percent saturation of the water column or intergravel DO criterion for a given stream

reach or subbasin.” An additional narrative criterion would apply to these waters as they contain a federally listed Threatened and Endangered species

- Lost River Sucke r and Shortnose Sucker, both of which are listed as endangered (USFWS, 7/88, 53FR27130). This criterion (OAR 340

- 41

- 965 (2)(b)(A)) states: “no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting form anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (v) In

stream segments containing federally listed Threatened and Endangered species if the increase would impair the biological integrity of the Threatened and Endangered population.” A Site Specific Criteria is currently being developed as part of a TMDL for

these wa ters and a new criteria for temperature will be established. This criterion will be adopted by the EQC and submitted to EPA for approval prior the completion of a TMDL. This work should be accomplished during our next triennial standards review (1998

- 200 0). The TMDL schedule is currently being negotiated with EPA.

3. Warm water streams in the lower Malheur and Owyhee (Table 15 and 16) would be addressed in a similar manner using temperature criterion that relates to dissolved

oxygen. These waters were not listed on the current 303(d) list as the waters were not within 0.5 mg/l or 10 percent saturation of the water column DO criterion. These waters are included in beneficial use survey work that the Department is undertaking in the Snake River Basin/High De sert Ecoregion. This work, which will include thePage 5 Appendix 2

development of numeric temperature criteria for these waters, will be accomplished during our next triennial standards review (1998

- 2000).

Willamette and Columbia River Temperature Criteria: The language in the rule (OAR

340

- 41

- 445 (2)(b)(A)) reads: “...no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is allowed: ... (ii) In the Columbia River or its associated sloughs and channels from the mouth to river mile 309 when s urface water temperatures exceed 68.0oF (20.0oC); (iii) In the Willamette River or its associated sloughs and channels from the mouth to river mile 50 when surface water temperatures exceed 68.0oF (20.0oC);”

For the Columbia River, this is not a change to the previous standard (OAR 340

- 41

- 445 (2) (b) (D). The Columbia River forms the boundary between the states of Oregon and Washington and this criterion is consistent with the current temperature standard for the State of Washington.

For the Willamette R iver, this value represents a decrease from the previous temperature
criteria of 70oF and makes it consistent with the Columbia River numeric criteria. The technical committee had recommended the 68oF criteria for these large, lower river segments recogniz ing that temperatures were expected to be higher in these segments as factors such as the naturally wide channels would minimize the ability to shade these rivers and reduce the thermal loading.

Both of these rivers are water quality limited for temperat ure and the temperature criteria can be revisited as part of the effort to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads. The Department is currently working with EPA to develop a temperature assessment for the Columbia River and is participating in a Willamette Basin Reservoir Study with the Corp of Engineers and other state agencies. The timing of specific TMDLs is currently being negotiated with EPA.

64o F Temperature Criteria: EPA has expressed concern that the 64oF criterion may not be fully protective. The Final Issue Paper on Temperature indicates that “the incidence of

disease from Chondrococcus columnaris increases above 60

- 62o F and cites various sources for this statement (page 2

- 4 and Appendix D of the Final Issue Paper on Temperature). This is bas ed both on observations from laboratory studies and field studies.

A review of this literature indicates that it is difficult to establish a temperature criteria for waters that experience diurnal temperature changes that would assure no affects due to C

. columnaris

. For example, J. Fryer and K. Pilcher (“Effects of Temperature on Diseases of Salmonid Fishes, EPA

- 660/3

- 73

- 020, 1974) conducted in the laboratory studies using constant temperatures and concluded:

“When coho and spring chinook salmon, and r ainbow trout are infected with C.

columnaris by water contact, the percentage of fatal infections is high at temperatures of 64oF and above, moderate at 59oF and approaches zero at 49oF and below. A temperature of 54oF is close to the threshold for develop ment of fatal infection of salmonids by C. columnaris.”Page 6 Appendix 2

There is literature that suggests that fish pathogens which affect Oregon’s cold

- water fishes
become more infective and virulent at temperatures ranging from the lower mid

- sixties to low seventies (Becker and Fujihara, 1978). Ordal and Pacha (1963) found that mortalities

due to C. columnaris outbreaks are lessened or cease when temperatures are reduced
below 65oF. Bell (198 6) suggested that outbreaks of high virulence strains of C. columnaris occur when average water temperatures reach 15.5oC and the low virulence strains become apparent with average water temperatures over 20oC.

A good discussion of field studies is given in the report “Columbia River Thermal Effects Study” (EPA, 1971).

“Natural outbreaks of columnaris disease in adult salmon have been linked to high water temperatures in the Fraser River, British Columbia. ...The pathological effects of

the disease became evident when water temperatures along the migration route, and in spawning areas, exceeded 60oF. Prespawning mortality reached 90 percent in some

tributaries. Columnaris is the infected sockeye spawners was controlled when temperatures fell below 57

- 58oF and mortalities were reduced. “

“Data collected on antibody levels in the Columbia River fish “...suggest peak yearly

effective infection of at least 70 percent to 80 percent of most adult river fish species” (Fujihara and Hungate, 1970). Occurrence of the disease was generally associated with temperatures above 55oF; the authors further suggest that the incidence of columnaris may be increased by extended periods of warm temperatures than by peak summer temperatures.”

“Other factors including the general c ondition of the fish, nutritional state, size, presence of toxicants, level of antibody protection, exposure to nitrogen supersaturation, level of dissolved oxygen, and perhaps other factors interrelate in the infection of fish by

diseases. However, the di seases discussed here are of less importance at temperatures below 60oF; that is, in most instances mortalities due to columaris are
minimized or eliminated below that level.”

As indicated in the section on “Standard Alternatives and Technical Evaluation” in the Temperature Issue Paper, the technical committee had recommended a temperature range (58

- 64oF) as being protective for salmonid rearing. While 64oF is at the upper end of the range, the key to this recommendation is the temperature unit (page 3

- 2 ) that is used in the

standard

- the seven

- day moving average of the daily maximum temperatures. Exceedence of the criteria is based on the average of the daily maximum temperatures that a waterbody experiences over the course of seven consecutive days exc eeding 64oF.

Streams experience a natural fluctuation of daily temperatures so streams that were just meeting the temperature standard would be experiencing temperatures over 60oF for only short periods of time during the day and have lower average temperatures. For example, the Department has summarized temperature data collected at 6 sites around the state

which are near the 7

- day average of the daily maximum of 64oF (see table below). As shown, the daily average temperatures typically range betwee n 55

- 60oF. Risks should be minimized at these average temperatures.

In conclusion, the criteria does not represent an assured no

- effect level. However, because the criteria represent a “maximum” condition, given diurnal variability, conditions will be

b etter that criteria nearly all of the time at most sites.Page 7 Appendix 2 7

- Day

Statistic Average Daily Temperatures

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Grande Ronde Basin

East Fork Grande Ronde River 64.7 57.8 58.1 57.4 57.1 57.3 58.0 58.1
Beaver Creek (upstream La Grande Res.) 65.2 55.1 56.5 58 58.2 59.7 60.1 59.9 Umpqua Basin

Jim Creek (mouth) 62.5 58.2 59.5 59.9 60.1 58.6 55.7 56.8
Pass Creek (upper) 64.4 59.0 58.7 58.1 58.5 59.1 59.3 57.7

Tillamook Basin

Myrtle Creek (mouth) 65.0 57.7 59.1 58.6 57.9 58.0 57.6 56.8

Sam Downs Creek (mouth) 63.9 55.8 55.9 55.5 55.5 55.7 55.6 56.1

Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Criteria for Cool Water and Warm Water Species:

Warm Water: The Oregon warm water criteria for dissolved oxygen is 5.5 mg/l as a 30 day mean and 4.0 mg/l as a minimum. These values meet or exceed the recommended national criteria for warm water criteria for other life stages (5.5 mg/l as a 30 day mean and 3.0 as a 1 day min imum as shown in Table 1 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 (EPA 440/5

- 86

- 001)). These values are slightly below national criteria suggested for protection of early life stages (6.0 mg/l as a 7 day mean and 5.0 as a 1 day minimum as shown in Table 1 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water, 1986)

. As shown on Table 2 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 , this would represent a slight impairment for early life stages.

This criteria would be applied to both native and non

- native warm water species. Table 2

- 3 in the Temperature Issue Paper (page 2

- 14) contains a list of non

- salmonid fish species present in Oregon. Warm water species include: Borax Chub; Cyprinids (goldfish, carp, fathead minnows); Centrarchids (Bluegill, Crappie, Large

- mouth Bass); and Catfish. The only known warm

- water species that is native to Oregon is the Borax C hub, which is found near a hot springs. The others have been introduced and now perpetuate themselves in

some basins. These species are typically Spring spawners (April

- June) during which times dissolved oxygen values are not at the seasonal lows (July

- August) and typically have not been found to be a problem. In addition, salmonid spawning criteria, which are more protective, typically apply during these time period.

It should be noted that most of the introduced warm water species now compete with t he native cold and cool water species for habitat and food. There are numerous recovery plans being developed for these native species. A level of protection that may have a slight production impairment for non

- native warm water species is not necessarily undesirable.Page 8 Appendix 2

Cool Water: A cool water classification was created to protect cool water species where

cold

- water biota may be present during part or all of the year but would not form the dominate community structure. The cool water criteria match the nat ional coldwater criteria

- other life stages criteria.

Table 2

- 3 in the Temperature Issue Paper (page 2

- 14) contains a list of non

- salmonid fish species present in Oregon. Cool water species include: Chub; Suckers; Sandroller; Sturgeon; Centrarchids (Smal l

- mouth Bass); Striped Bass; and Walleye. Small mouth bass, striped bass and walleye are introduced species. This category was set up to provide more protection than that afforded by the other life stage criteria for warm water fish and, as

discussed in th e Gold Book, we provided these cool water species with the cold water species protection suggested in the national criteria (Table 1 of the dissolved oxygen

criteria in Quality Criteria for Water , 1986). These species are typically Spring spawners (April

- June) during which times dissolved oxygen values are not at the seasonal lows (July

- August) and typically have not been found to be a problem.

Table 2

- 2 of the Dissolved Oxygen Issue Paper indicates that salmonids and other cold

water biota may be pres ent during part or all of the year but may not dominate community

structure. Any salmonid spawning would still be covered by the salmonid spawning

standard. The Oregon standards provide higher protection for salmonid spawning and cold water rearing than th at recommended under the national criteria by choosing the “no production impairment” levels suggested in Table 2 of the dissolved oxygen criteria in Quality Criteria for Water , 1986.

When a deq uate information/data exists: The dissolved oxygen standard provides multiple criteria for cold, cool and warm water aquatic life. For example, OAR 340

- 41

- 445 (2) (a) (D) reads: “For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing cold

- water aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 8.0 mg/l a s an absolute minimum. Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of the 8.0 mg/l, dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 90 percent of saturation. At the discretion of the Department, when the Department determ ines that a deq uate information exists, the dissolved oxygen shall not fall below 8.0 mg/l as a 30

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

- day minimum mean, and shall not fall below 6.0mg/l as an absolute minimum (Table 21).”

In this example, the Department would routinely compare dissolved oxygen values against 8.0 mg/l criteria (the higher dissolved oxygen criteria). Most dissolved oxygen data is collected by a grab sample during the day time and would not reflect minimum conditions, that is why we would us e a more restrictive criteria. A deq uate information to use the other criteria would involve the collection of diurnal data over long enough periods of time (e.g. multiple days or multiple weeks) during critical time periods (e.g. low flow periods, hottest water temperature periods, period of maximum waste discharge). Such data would be collected through continuous monitoring with proper quality assurance. Based on this data collection, sufficient data would be available to calculate means, minimum means an d minimum values and to compare to the appropriate criteria. Models that would provide these statistics could also be compared to the appropriate criteria.

In addition, for actions such as permitting and developing TMDLs, additional information on

the b eneficial uses of the waterbody will be considered such as: species present; listing status of those species; locations, time periods and presence of sensitive early life stages,Page 9 Appendix 2

etc. Based on presence of early life stages or T&E species, the more conserv ative criteria

would be used.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES:

Air temperature exemption to the water temperature criteria: OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(b) (B) specifies that “an exceedence of the numeric criteria identified subparagraph (A) ... of this subsection will not be deemed a temperature standard violation if it occurs when the air temperature during the warmest seven

- day period of the year exceeds the 90 th percentile of

the seven

- day average daily maximum air temperature calculated in a yearly series over

the historic record. However, during such periods, the anthropogenic sources must still continue to comply with their surface water temperature management plans developed
under OAR 3 40

- 41

- 026(3)(a)(D).”

This policy identifies criteria to be used in certain limited circumstances to determine whether a violation of the temperature water quality standard has occurred. This interpretation would be applied for the purposes of enforcement of standards and the 303(d) listing determinations. Our interpretation of how this air temperature exemption would be applied has been sent to you separately. In the 1994/96 303(d) list, no water

bodies were excluded from the list for this reason.

Excep tions to the policy that prohibits new or increased discharged load to receiving streams classified as being water quality limited:

OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (C) states “the new or increased discharged load shall not be granted if the receiving stream is classif ied as being water quality limited under OAR 340

- 41

- 006(30)(a), unless...”

OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (a) C (iii) added new language under this policy which defines a condition under which a new or increased discharged load could be allowed to a water quality limited waterbody for dissolved oxygen. The language states: “ (iii) Effective July 1, 1996, in waterbodies designated water

- quality limited for dissolved oxygen, when establishing WLAs under a TMDL for waterbodies meeting the conditions defined in this

rul e, the Department may at its discretion provide an allowance for WLAs calculated to result in no measurable reduction of dissolved oxygen. For this purpose, “no measurable reduction” is defined as no more than 0.10 mg/l for a single source and no more than 0.20 mg/l for all anthropogenic activities that influence the water quality limited segment. The allowance applies for surface water DO criteria and for Intergravel DO if a determination is

made that the conditions are natural. The allowance for WLAs would apply only to surface

water 30

- day and seven

- day means, and the IGDO action level.”

This is an implementation policy for OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (C) and clarifies that we could allow for an increase in load in a waterbody that is water quality limited for dissolved oxygen as long as it did not result in a measurable reduction of dissolved oxygen as defined above
and it was determined that the low DO values were due to a natural condition. A site specific criteria for the waterbody would need to be devel oped and submitted to EPA for review and approval.Page 10 Appendix 2

All feasible steps: OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (D) indicates that: “Sources shall continue to maintain and improve, if necessary, the surface water temperature management plan in order to maintain the cooling t rend until the numeric criterion is achieved or until the Department, in consultation with the Designated Management Agencies (DMAs), has determined that all feasible steps have been taken to meet the criterion and that the designated beneficial uses are n ot being adversely impacted. In this latter situation, the temperature achieved after all feasible steps have been taken will be the temperature criterion for the surface waters covered by the applicable management plan. The
determination that all feasible steps have been taken will be based on, but not limited to, a

site

- specific balance of the following criteria: protection of beneficial uses; appropriateness to local conditions; use of best treatment technologies or management practices or measures; and cost of compliance.”

As indicated, if the waters do not come into compliance with the standard after all feasible steps have been taken, the Department would develop a site

- specific criteria which would be submitted to EPA for approval pursuant to EPA p olicy.

1.0o F increase for new or increased discharge loads from point sources or hydro

power projects in temperature water quality limited basins: OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (F), (G), (H) state: “(F) In basins determined by the Department to be exceeding the nu meric temperature criteria, and which are required to develop surface water temperature management plans, new or increased discharge loads from point source sources which require an NPDES permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act or hydro

- power proje cts which require certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act are allowed a 1.0oF total cumulative increase in surface water temperatures as the surface water

temperature management plan is being developed and implemented for the water qualit y limited basin if: (i) in the best professional judgment of the Department, the new or increased discharge load, even with the resulting 1.0oF cumulative increase, will not conflict with or impair the ability of the surface water temperature management plan t o achieve the numeric temperature criteria; and (ii) A new or expanding source must demonstrate that it fits within the 1.0oF increase and that its activities will not result in a measurable impact on beneficial uses. This latter showing must be made by demons trating to the Department that the temperature change due to its activities will be less than or equal to 0.25oF under a conservative approach or by demonstrating the same to the EQC with appropriate modeling.

(G) Any source may petition the Department fo r an exception to paragraph (F) of this subsection, provided: (i) The discharge will result in less than 1.0oF increase at the edge of the mixing zone, and subparagraph (ii) or (iii) of this paragraph applies; (ii) The source provides the necessary scientific infor mation to describe how the designated beneficial uses would not be adversely impacted; or (iii) The source demonstrates that: (I) It is implementing all reasonable management practices; (II) Its activity will not significantly affect the beneficial uses; andPage 11 Appendix 2 (III) The environmental cost of treating the parameter to the level necessary to assure full protection would outweigh the risk to the resource.

OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (F) and (G) reflect an implementation policy for OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (C). They clarify under what conditions the Department could allow for an increase in load to a waterbody that is water quality limited for temperature as long as the load did not result in a measurable increase in temperature (less than or equal to 0.25oF) or a cumulative

increase o f 1.0oF under (F) but a source could petition for up to the cumulative increase of 1.0oF under (G). The cumulative increase typically addresses the situation where there may be multiple new or increased discharges. A TMDL would still be developed to bring the waterbody back into compliance with the temperature criteria. The WLA and the permit for the new or increased source would target the appropriate temperature criteria using a conservative approach as shown below (e.g. calculations would be made using 63oF so that the cumulative increase would not be above the standard of 64oF). 40

OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (H) states: “ Any source or DMA may petition the Commission for an exception to paragraph (F) of this subsection, provided: (i) The source or DMA provides the ne cessary scientific information to describe how the designated beneficial uses would not be adversely impacted; or (ii) The source or DMA demonstrates that: (I) It is implementing all reasonable management practices; (II) Its activity will not significantly affect the be neficial uses; and (III) The environmental cost of treating the parameter to the level necessary to assure full protection would outweigh the risk to the resource. “

This exemption is a variance policy in which a source can petition the Commission to allow

the temperature to increase by a specified amount for a limited period of time in order to allow for new or increased point source discharges to water quality limited waters until a TMDL is prepared. The variance would be submitted to EPA for review and appro val. These variances would be reviewed again during the development of a TMDL or at permit

renewal.

40 Examples of various of discharge scenarios using a conservative mass balance analysis. The odd numbered examples

show a scenario when the stream meets standards. The subsequent even numbered example shows the scenario when the

stream is above standard. Examples 1

- 4 would be addressed under OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (F); examples 5

- 8 would be

addressed under OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (G); and examples 9

- 10 would be addressed under OAR 340

- 41

- 026 (3) (H).

Example Upstream Effluent Downstream Change in

Flow Temp Flow Temp Flow Temp Temp

1 10 63 0.4 69.5 10.4 63.25 0.25

2 10 73 0.4 69.5 10.4 72.87

- 0.13

3 10 63 0.1 88 10.1 63.25 0.25

4 10 73 0.1 88 10.1 73.15 0.15

5 10 63 0.4 79.5 10.4 63.63 0.63

6 10 73 0.4 79.5 10.4 73.25 0.25

7 10 63 0.4 89 10.4 64.00 1.00

8 10 73 0.4 89 10.4 73.62 0.62

9 10 61.5 1 89 11 64.00 2.50

10 10 73 1 89 11 74.45 1.45Page 12 Appendix 2

Source Petition for an exception to temperature criteria: OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2)(b)(C) specifies that “Any source may petition the Commission for an exceptio n to subparagraph (A)...of this subsection for discharge above the identified criteria if: (i) The source provides the necessary scientific information to describe how the designated beneficial uses would not be adversely impacted; or (ii) a source is implem enting all reasonable management practices or measures; its activity will not significantly affect the beneficial uses; and the environmental cost of treating the parameter to the level necessary to assure full protection would outweigh the risk to the res ource.”

This will be, for most cases, a variance policy which allows the temperature to increase by a specified amount for a limited period of time in order to allow for an existing point source to discharge to water quality limited waters until a TMDL i s prepared. In the case where that source would be the major cause for the temperature criteria to be exceeded and a TMDL would not be developed for that waterbody to bring it back into compliance, a site specific criteria would be developed and submitted to EPA for approval.

pH Standard exception: OAR 340

- 41

- basin (2) (d) states “The following exception applies: Waters impounded by dams existing on January 1, 1996, which have pHs that exceed the criteria shall not be considered in violation of the standard if the Department determines that the exceedence would not occur without the impoundment and that all practic able measures have been taken to bring the pH in the impounded waters into compliance with the criteria.”

This language was intended to address the situation where a hydroproject would be applying for a 401 re

- certification and it was found that the acti on of impounding the waters caused algal growth which caused the reservoir to subsequently exceed the pH standard. This might set up the situation where the only way to re

- certify the project would be to destroy the dam which may not be the preferred optio n. In the cases where this exception would be applied, the Department would develop either a TMDL for nutrients in the upstream watershed, develop a site specific criteria for the waterbody or develop a use attainability analysis to modify the uses for por tions of the reservoir.

Final Note: ODFW has a great deal of knowledge regarding location and timing for presence, spawning, etc of fish in Oregon streams. Much of this information is either in the files contained in local field offices or is gained from the judgment of the local biologist. Until recently, it has not been mapped. A mapping effort is underway and is furthest along for Bull Trout and Anadromous fish species. There is a coordinated effort underway entitled “StreamNet” (www.streamnet.org). Th is work is focused on a species by species mapping which would need to be generalized to match cold, cool, warm

- water classification and spawning vs rearing groupings indicated in the standards. Issues such as mapping scales and coverage would still need t o be worked out. This effort, to better categorize aquatic life uses, could be addressed in subsequent triennial standards reviews but will need additional funding to complete.

There are quite a number of standards related issues that are candidates for c onsideration during the next triennial review. ODEQ and EPA should get together once ODEQ has hired a new standards coordinator to discuss priorities and approaches for conducting the next triennial review process.Page 13 Appendix 2

Please feel to contact Andy Schaedel (5 03

- 229

- 6121) or Lynne Kennedy (503

- 229

- 5371) if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Michael T. Llewelyn Administrator, Water Quality Division

cc: Water Quality ManagersAppendix 5 

## Appendix 3

February 4, 200 4

Mr. Randy Smith, Director

Office of Water U.S. EPA Region 10

1200 Sixth Ave n ue Seattle, WA 98101

Re: Oregon Responses to EPA Questions re the State’s water quality temperature

standards

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter is a follow up to our similar correspondence of December 19, 2003 , which described Oregon’s newly adopted antidegradation and temperature rules. There are three purposes for this letter. First, we are offering similar clarifications regarding the State’s intended methodology for identifying natural conditions for parameters other than

temperature. Second, we are commenting on several proposed conservation measures EPA is developing pursuant to consultation under the Endangered Species Act. Finally, we are providing your Agency with information on the application of the dissolved oxygen criteria to resident fish spawning.

Natural Conditions

As we indicated in our earlier letter, our revised rules make it clear that where ODEQ identifies a natural condition which is less stringent than the numeric criteria set out in the State’s water quality standards, the natural condition supercedes the numeric criteria. Very similar language appeared in our previous rules, which were previously approved by EPA.

By definition, “natural conditions” are those pollutants that are present in the State’s waters that are not attributable to anthropogenic activities. Rather, these conditions are caused by local geophysical, hydrological and meteorological processes and wildlife. ODEQ anticipates that site

- specific natural conditions mi ght be identified for the following parameters:

 Bacteria (attributed to wildlife)

 Metals (attributed to naturally eroding ore deposits)

 Nutrients (attributed to background soil, vegetation and/or wildlife conditions)

 Sediments and Turbidity (attributed to soil erosion and/or organic matter not accelerated by human activities) 

# O regon

Theodore Kulongoski, Governor Department of Environmental Quality

Headquarters

811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204

- 1390 (503) 229

- 5696

FAX (503)229

- 6124 TTY (503) 229

- 6993Appendix 3

 Other parameters attributed to similar natural processes.

Prior to a natural condition superceding otherwise applicable numeric criteria, ODEQ will make a finding as to the level at which the pollutant is present with no influence from anthropogenic activities. Similarly, ODEQ will document the natural process contributing to the presence of the pollutant. The specific methodology used to support a natural condition finding may vary in each local situation. However, in general the methodologies used will be similar to that described in our December 19, 2003 letter:

 Reference streams,

 Pollutant transport models,

 DNA testing,

 Historical data (where available) and/or

 Other sampling methods and studies.

The public will have specific notice of these natural conditions whenever they are relevant to one of the Clean Water Act regulatory programs. The public notices and documentation accompanying the biannual 303(d) listing process, draf t TMDLs, draft NPDES permits and 401 water quality certifications will indicate that the otherwise applicable numeric criteria have been superceded by a natural conditions finding. Moreover, since 303(d) listings and TMDLs are transmitted to EPA for appro val, the Agency will have an opportunity to review ODEQ ’s natural conditions conclusions. ODEQ is committed to work with EPA as natural condition methodologies are refined in the TMDL, NPDES and 303(d) listing contexts.

ODEQ expects that natural conditio ns will most commonly be identified through the TMDL process. In that circumstance, EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate any natural condition determination as part of its TMDL approval action. ODEQ

will list the water bodies where “natural conditions” findings have been made on our standards web page to ensure that the public is aware and notified of natural conditions,

It should be noted that it is possible, at some locations in the State, that the natural condition will not support, and never has supported a designated beneficial use. In such circumstances, ODEQ will modify the designated use to properly adjust the beneficial use to better reflect the existing use of the water segment.

Proposed Conservation Measures

ODEQ is aware tha t EPA is considering several conservation measures associated with its approval of the State water quality standards revisions. EPA has inquired whether ODEQ would participate in these conservation measures if they are pursued. To begin with, ODEQ notes th at most of these conservation measures pursue information on the

future implementation of the State’s standards. They are best categorized as efforts intended to identify additional information supporting the use of our standards once they are in place.Appendix 3

Since Oregon has a strong interest in these federal initiatives, ODEQ will, resources allowing, participate in the proposed conservation measures as described in EPA’s Biological Evaluation: Temperature Monitoring and Use Designations (2.5.1) and the

Two Y ear Review (2.5.2).

Dissolved Oxygen and Spawning

The revised Oregon rules clarified spawning locations and timing for anadromous fish

and Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. Due to a lack of site specific data for species other than these, and since temperature criteria for spawning were not established for other species, no similar clarification was made for resident trout (i.e., rainbow, redband, Westslope cutthroat and coastal cutthroat) or char (bull trout) spawning. However, the dissolved oxygen criteria con tain provisions that continue to apply to resident trout and char spawning areas. ODEQ will use the following dates to apply the dissolved oxygen spawning criteria (throughout the range where the Oregon maps indicate trout rearing,

redband trout and core c old water habitat uses are identified).

Resident Trout Spawning (Redband, Rainbow, Westslope and Coastal Cutthroat)

 For waters designated as trout rearing, or redband trout use, spawning is deemed to occur from January 1

– May 15 each year ;

 For waters designated as core cold water habitat

, or bull trout spawning and rearing use, resident trout spawning is deemed to occur from January 1

– June 15 each year ; and

 For trout rearing waters upstream from core cold water habitat, spawning is also deemed to occur from January 1

– June 15 each year

.

Char ( B ull T rout) Spawning

The following dates apply to all reaches designated as having “bull trout spawning and

rea ring use” within the specified basin or subbasin:

Basin Subbasin Spawning Period Source of Information

South Willamette Aug 15

– May 30 ODFW

John Day Sept 1

– April 30 ODFW

Umatilla Sept 1

– April 30 ODFWAppendix 3

Walla Walla Sept 1

– April 30 ODFW

Grand Ronde Upper G. R. Sept 1

– April 15 ODFW

Wallowa Sept 1

– May 15 ODFW

Wenaha Aug 15

– March 31 ODFW

Imnaha Aug 15

– May 31 ODFW

Hood Aug 15

– May 15 USFWS

Deschutes Aug 15

– May 15 USFWS

Powder Aug 15

– May 15 USFWS

Malheur Aug 15

– May 30 USFWS

Klamath Aug 15

- May 30 USFWS

This timing information will be circulated to ODEQ field staff responsible for implementing the dissolved oxygen criteria. ODEQ will continue to refine all of t hese designations as more information is developed on resident trout and char spawning

activities.

Oregon looks forward to EPA’s review and approval of our water quality standards. If you require any additional information or clarification of these rules , please contact me or have your staff call Mark Charles, water quality standards manager at (503) 229

- 5589.

Sincerely,

Michael T. Llewelyn, Administrator Water Quality Program

Cc: Stephanie Hallock

- ODEQ

Mark Charles

- ODEQ

Paula van Ha a gen

- EPA Mary Lou Soscia

- EPA