Indiana’s Draft 2010 303(d) List of

Impaired Waters

Jody ArthurIntegrated Report CoordinatorOffice of Water Quality, IDEM

Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)

• 305(b) requires states to make water quality assessments and provide water quality reports to U.S. EPA

• 303(d) requires states to submit a list of impaired waters to U.S. EPA

• Both now combined into one report submitted to U.S. EPA every two years

– Indiana Integrated Water Monitoring and Assessment Report

– Monitoring– 305(b)

Assessment– Integrated

Reporting– 303(d) Listing

IDEM’s Five-Year Basin Rotation

The Integrated Report• A comprehensive report of water quality conditions

throughout Indiana• Includes:

– Basin-scale assessments – Reach-specific assessments on streams– Lakes assessments

• Consolidated List contains reach-specific information for every lake and stream in IDEM’s Assessment Database

Assessments at Two ScalesComprehensive

AssessmentsReach-Specific Assessments

• Apply to an entire basin • Results derived from

statistical calculations• Data from sampling sites

selected randomly throughout Indiana (probabilistic monitoring)

• Aquatic Life Use and Recreational Use

• Apply only to the reach sampled

• Results compared to Water Quality Standards

• Data from randomly selected sampling sites (probabilistic) + sites selected for a specific reason (targeted)

• All designated uses

BASIN NAMEASSESSMENT

UNIT IDASSESSMENT UNIT

NAMECAUSE OF

IMPAIRMENT

WEST FORK WHITE

INW0384_00BIRCH CREEK-LITTLE BIRCH CREEK

ALUMINUM

WEST FORK WHITE

INW0384_00BIRCH CREEK-LITTLE BIRCH CREEK

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

WEST FORK WHITE

INW0384_00BIRCH CREEK-LITTLE BIRCH CREEK

IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

WEST FORK WHITE

INW0384_00BIRCH CREEK-LITTLE BIRCH CREEK

NUTRIENTS

WEST FORK WHITE

INW0394_T1016 EEL RIVER ALUMINUM

WEST FORK WHITE

INW0394_T1016 EEL RIVERIMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

WEST FORK WHITE

INW0395_T1019CONNELLY DITCH-HEADWATERS

ALUMINUM

WEST FORK WHITE

INW0395_T1019CONNELLY DITCH-HEADWATERS

IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

WEST FORK WHITE

INW039D_T1025 EEL RIVER LEAD

Example of Reach-Specific

Assessment Results for Aquatic Life Use Support

Provides assessment

information for specific

locations

BASIN ASSESSED

TARGET POPULATION

BASIN SIZE (MILES)

USE ASSESSED

% ATTAINING

% NOT ATTAINING

White River,

West Fork Basin

051202010512020205120203

4275Aquatic Life Use

71% 29%

Patoka River Basin

05120209 797Aquatic Life Use

46% 54%

Example of Comprehensive Assessment Results for

Aquatic Life Use Support

Comprehensive Assessment• Allows Indiana to meet the CWA Section 305(b) goal

of assessing “all waters of the state”• Overall trends in water quality• Also allows basin to basin comparison• Statistically robust with known level of confidence

– Can predict water quality conditions for the basin – Does not indicate where specific impairments are located or

the reasons for impairment• Probabilistic monitoring

– Data can also be used to make reach-specific assessments– Resource intensive leaving comparatively few resources for

follow-up

Reach-Specific Assessments• Allow Indiana to meet the CWA Section 303(d) goal

of identifying impairments that require Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

• Useful for watershed planning and restoration activities on local level

• Can be used to determine if improvements have occurred (measures of success)

• Applicable only to specific waters – Can’t extrapolate the results to other waters in the basin

unless sampling data are directly representative– Incomplete picture

IDEM’s Reach-Specific Water Quality Assessments

• Designated uses IDEM assesses– Recreational Use (RECR)– Aquatic Life Use (ALUS)– Drinking Water Use

• Other Assessments– Fish Tissue– Lake Trends and Trophic State

IR Categories in IDEM’s Consolidated List

• All waters in Assessment Database assigned an assessment unit (AU)

• Each AU placed in one category of the Consolidated List for each of its designated uses

• 303(d) list is a subset of the Consolidated List (Categories 5A+5B)

– AUs listed once for each impairment – Draft 303(d) list builds on the previously approved list – Finalized prior to submission to U.S. EPA

IR Categories in IDEM’s Consolidated List

Category 1 All designated uses have been assessed and are fully supported

Category 2 The use has been assessed is fully supported and no other uses are impaired

Category 3 Insufficient data and information to determine if the use is supported

Category 4 The use is impaired but no TMDL required

Category 5 The use is impaired and a TMDL is required

303(d) List Development1. Data are compiled and assessments made based

on IDEM’s Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM)

2. Assessment decisions entered into Assessment Database

3. Assessment database queried for all assessments to date

4. Each assessment unit placed in appropriate Integrated Report category for each designated use in accordance with IDEM’s CALM

5. 303(d) list Categories 5A and 5B (a subset of IDEM’s Consolidated List)

U.S. EPA Delisting Rules• New data indicates that Water Quality Standards

are now being met• Assessment and/or listing methodology changed

and AU no longer considered impaired• Original listing found to be in error • A program other than TMDL is better suited to

address the problem • The problem is not caused by a pollutant • TMDL is approved

The Assessment Part of IDEM’s CALM

• Describes IDEM’s water quality assessment criteria and how they are applied

• No major changes to methodology for 2010• Added clarification

– Resegmentation– Data minimums required for assessment– Use of Tier I and Tier II criteria in assessments– Use of site-specific criteria in assessments

Resegmentation• IDEM is Redefining AU in IDEM’s Reach Index, Assessment

Database• Originally developed in 2002 based on National

Hydrography Database (NHD)• Generally, all streams in a watershed assigned a single AU• Prevented accurate application of assessment data• IDEM is now revising its reach index

– Breaking large AUs into smaller, more representative units for assessment

– NHD now available in higher resolution, allows us to incorporate smaller reaches that didn’t show up on the map when original index was developed

Resegmentation• Resegmentation splits one AU into two or more

smaller AUs• Previous assessment information must be

reevaluated to determine applicability to each new AU

• Any impairments are carried over to all new AUs until reassessment can be completed

• Short term effect growth in number of listings• Eventually, many will likely be removed once the

data are reevaluated

Example Resegmentation

• RECR assessment applies to entire watershed

• ALUS assessment applies only to one tributary system

• Cannot correctly characterize extent of ALUS impairment in the Assessment Database

All streams in watershed assigned a single AUID

RECR ALUS

Example Resegmentation

• RECR assessment can still be applied to each new AU

• ALUS assessment can now be applied to the stream on which sample was collected

• Extent of impairment can now be correctly characterized

Original AU resegmented; data reevaluated for new AUs

RECR ALUS

Use of Tier I & Tier II Criteria in Assessments

• Numeric criteria developed in accordance with methods provided in Indiana’s Water Quality Standard

• Usually developed to facilitate permitting• Tier I meet all data requirements necessary to

be incorporated into Water Quality Standard• Tier II calculated with a smaller data set

typically more stringent • Both applicable for CWA assessments

Use of Site-Specific Criteria (SSC) in Assessments

• Usually developed to facilitate permitting• SSC supersede other criteria but only for the

specific substance in question• In most cases, SSC are applicable only to

reach(es) for which they were developed• Resegmentation is often required in order to

accurately apply SSC– Usually complex – Done on a case-by-case basis

Grand Calumet River Resegmentation

• Initiated to facilitate permitting• Necessary because AU originally defined in 2002

for the headwaters of the Grand Calumet River do not accurately reflect complexities of the system

– Several outfalls in downstream reaches significantly alter hydrology along the reach

– SSC for Cn applicable only to a one-mile reach within the original AU

Grand Calumet RiverResegmentation

• INC0122_00 (headwater reach) was the only AU resegmented

• Split into three more representative AUs• Remaining Grand Calumet River reaches

downstream assigned new AUIDs and AU names to ensure continuity along entire river

GCR Reassessment

Grand Calumet River Reassessment

• Reassessed only for cyanide and ammonia• All other previously identified impairments

carried over to new AUs• Reassessment based on original data and

more recent data collected by IDEM in 2009

2009 Sampling by IDEM • Known sources of Cn and NH3 upstream• Existing fixed stations not sufficient to accurately

characterize water quality conditions along newly defined AUs

• Monthly sampling from March – June, 2009 at two additional locations

• Additional data needed to determine if dilution from noncontact cooling water was indeed having a mitigating effect on upstream sources of Cn and NH3

Effect of Grand Calumet River resegmentation on 303(d) List

• Apparent increase in Grand Calumet River listings not a function of water quality degradation

• Increase is result of resegmentation – Impairments on original, single AU now applied

to three

AUID DELISTED AND RETIRED

ORIGINAL AU NAME

ORIGINAL AU SIZE

(MI)

IMPAIRMENTS ON 2008 303(d) LIST

NEW AUID

NEW AU

SIZE (MI)

NEW AU NAMEIMPAIRMENTS ON

DRAFT 2010 303(d) LIST

INC0122_00

GRAND CALUMET RIVER - HEADWATER

3.2

AMMONIACYANIDEIBCOIL & GREASEPCBs in Fish Tissue

INK0346_01 0.36

GRAND CALUMET RIVER - HEADWATER

AMMONIACYANIDEIBCOIL & GREASEPCBs in Fish Tissue

INK0346_02 1.0

GRAND CALUMET RIVER (327 IAC 2-1.5-16)

AMMONIAIBCOIL & GREASEPCBs in Fish Tissue

INK0346_03 1.84

GRAND CALUMET RIVER (GARY, IN)

AMMONIAIBCOIL & GREASEPCBs in Fish Tissue

INC0122_T1097

GRAND CALUMET RIVER - GARY TO INDIANA HARBOR CANAL

6.7

CYANIDEE. COLIIBCOIL & GREASEPCBs in Fish Tissue

INK0346_04 6.7

GRAND CALUMET RIVER (GARY, IN TO INDIANA HARBOR CANAL)

E. COLIIBCOIL & GREASEPCBs in Fish Tissue

INK0351_T1001

GRAND CALUMET RIVER - ILLINOIS TO INDIANA HARBOR CANAL

3.37

NUTRIENTS IBCE. COLIDISSOLVED OXYGEN CYANIDECHLORIDES AMMONIAPCBs in Fish Tissue

INK0347_01 3.37

GRAND CALUMET RIVER (INDIANA HARBOR CANAL TO ILLINOIS)

NUTRIENTSIBCE. COLIDISSOLVED OXYGEN CHLORIDESAMMONIAPCBs in Fish Tissue

Waterbodies added to

Category 4A for

completed TMDLs

Waterbodies removed

from Category 5 for one/more impairments

based on new

assessments and QAQC

Waterbodies added to

Category 5 for one/more

impairments based on new assessments and QAQC

ResegmentationsAdded BackRemoved

Indiana’s Draft 2010 303(d) List: Delistings

Impairments removed from Category 5: New assessments and QAQC 70

Impairments removed from Category 5:Changes in segmentation and pending reassessment 321

Impairments removed from Category 5: GCR Resegmentation and reassessment 18

Impairments moved from Category 5 to Category 4A:TMDL development

216

DELISTING TOTAL (625)

Impairments added to Category 5:New assessments and QAQC

446

Impairments added back to Category 5:Changes in segmentation and pending reassessment

355

Impairments added to back to Category 5:GCR resegmentation and reassessment

24

ADDITIONS TOTAL 825

Indiana’s Draft 2010 303(d) List: Additions

Indiana’s Draft 2010 303(d) List

IMPAIRMENTS ON 2008 303(d) LIST 2,682

DELISTINGS (625)

ADDITIONS 825

IMPAIRMENTS ON DRAFT 2010 303(d) LIST 2,882

Indiana’s Draft 2010 303(d) List

TOP CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT 2008 2010

E. coli 930 822

PCBs in Fish Tissue 653 640

Impaired Biotic Communities 421 505

Mercury in Fish Tissue 324 313

Public Comment Period

October 28, 2009 – January 26, 2010

IDEM welcomes your comments regarding the 2010 Draft 303(d) List of Impaired Waters

www.idem.IN.gov/4680.htm

Contact:Jody Arthur, Integrated Report Coordinator

Office of Water Quality, IDEM317-234-1424

jarthur@idem.IN.gov

Where to Find More Information